woulfe

So you really feel that there is *no* pressure within the mainstream media to suppress anti-SSM sentiment? I was not trying to say there was suppression of coverage of SSM. There's plenty of it. But it is all written a certain way that is ultimately beneficial for the SSM cause. I read the articles you referred to. e.g. "The archbishop says no" article on first glance appears a bit anti-gay. But as you read it, the author goes on to frame the issue in a way that marginalised the archbishop and ultimately present the SSM movement in a positive light.

"Critics of Benedict misheard the Pope" starts out with an anti-gay type theme but ultimately the author convinces us that the Pope wasn't talking about gays in the case in question, and if he was, "then any humane individual would have had good cause to be outraged."

Every article referenced is ultimately pro-gay. But there's another aspect to it. These types of articles, including the "novelty" ones, keep the issue in people's consciousness, and this familiarity with the topic also serves to break down barriers.

I don't see any evidence of a mainstream media article that is authored by someone who appears unsympathetic to the SSM cause, though I'm sure there's one out there somewhere. :) Control the media and you ultimately control the issue.

Sancho, you said, "Either there's a massive, well-organised homosexual conspiracy to silence your opinions and gay-ify our society, or you're simply being ignored because most Australians disagree with you. Which do you think is more likely?" Um, this is what is called a false dichotomy. Why are these the only two choices?
There doesn't have to be a massive, well-organised conspiracy to see bias in media coverage.

Oh, and though I thought it was obvious, this website could hardly be considered mainstream media in the same way as the nation's newspapers and TV stations.

Roy

Cornflower

Satire, mate, satire.

All this carry on about SS couples raising children as if it is somehow bad for children. I was simply trying to point out that homosexuals are born into heterosexual families, that homosexuals (and bisexuals) are born not 'made'. Therefore, I was challenging those who become so irate about homosexuality that if they were serious about eradicating it they should start with the heterosexual couples who give birth to gays in the first place. Or accept that homosexuality occurs naturally throughout the animal world and let them live in peace.

Really, Roy? If you're not arguing for a gay conspiracy, then why do you believe media coverage is biased?

What Roy says about the media coverage highlights the lack of intellectual integrity that even the mainstream media are guilty of in this case. There is no rigorous debate of the issues where logic and reason are explored.

Homosexual people want equal rights to heterosexual people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights. They have to show exactly how their behaviour is equal in all regards to heterosexual behaviour. They have to show that it is as logical and natural as heterosexual behaviour. If they want society to recognize their sexuality as equal to heterosexuality then they must show why it is. The media does not seem to make these demands on them in the same way they would with other groups who demand equal rights.

You cannot just say I indulge in homosexual behaviour and therefore I have the same rights as people who indulge in heterosexual behaviour and you have to give them to me or else you are discriminating against me. Everyone has to give reasons for their behaviour if they need to change society or else we would have to give everyone whatever they wanted without question.

There is irrefutable proof that heterosexual behaviour has, at least in five billion cases, been logical and reasonable. There is no such proof for homosexual behaviour and until there is it cannot be considered as equal.

The media should be asking these questions and not just responding to objections from church leaders or red-neck groups. Just because their objections are not reasonable does not necessarily mean that the claims of the homosexual lobby are reasonable. The media could show some leadership in promoting genuine debate on the topic based on the same criteria that they expect in other debates

Why equality? At first glance this looks like a very good question.

"Homosexual people want equal rights to heterosexual people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

What equal rights apply to is people: essentially, the question is, do people deserve equal rights? Do equal rights devolve on all who are people, by virtue of their people-ness? Or is there some test that certain people must pass in order to establish that they deserve equal rights? To illustrate the point, let's remove 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' from the statement, and try replacing them with a few other adjectives.

"Blue-eyed people want equal rights to brown-eyed people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

"Aboriginal people want equal rights to non-indigenous people and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

"Common people want equal rights to the nobility and they may well deserve them but they have to put forward a compelling argument for those rights."

For most of human history, these statements have in practice been true. But today we have embraced the Enlightenment principles of liberty, equality and fraternity: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," wrote Thomas Jefferson, in one of humanity's most important documents.

Adopting these principles requires of us that we actually treat people equally. It places the burden of proof on those removing or denying a right, rather than on those attempting to gain their rights. It requires you, phanto, to establish a compelling reason why homosexuals should have fewer rights than heterosexuals. We are, after all, people.

Accepting that blue-eyed, working class, left-handed or black people have equal rights because they are people, while arguing that homosexuals should have to prove that they deserve them, is at best disingenuous, and at worst ... well, I'll leave that up to others.

It's an example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Good one Fractelle ... lets only allow homosexual couples to reproduce. And Fractelle I have not seen anyone on this thread suggest Homosexual people shouldn't be let to live in peace.

Perhaps you might suggest they leave alone to live in peace all those practising hetrosexuals who have embraced the christian concept of marriage.