What are the legalities of a same-sex partnership? What are their rights under the law? And should they be legally recognised?
Any thoughts?

Their rights under the Law are fluid and can be changed. Morally and medically, they should never be allowed.

It's just unnatural. Once this is allowed, what next? Pressure groups lobbying to legalise bestiality? Pedophilia? Give an inch and they'll want a mile.

Mixed marriages (between blacks and whites) used to be illegal for the same sorts of reasons that same-sex marriages are illegal today. And same-sex marriages will become legal for the same sorts of reasons that mixed marriages became legal. Reactionaries cannot only protest against change for so long. Progressives always win in the end, usually once we have public opinion firmly on our side.

And Jack, the key is informed consent. Animals and children can't give adequately informed consent towards marriage.

However, my children may well live to see humans and robots allowed to marry, depending on what sort of AI breakthroughs occur.

The agreed marriage of a male to a female has always been natural and for that reason alone it is eternally legal. Nature demands such for procreation. Any other sexual arrangement is deviant and unnatural. Such deviant acts has with it social disfunction and poor health consequences. Hetrosexual marriage is based on natural science unlike same sex marriages based on the emotions of sexually disoriented minds.

Questions?
What does the law say now that prevents or impedes Homo's from what I read they want?
I don't see this as a moral debate, but a citizens right, to be treated in law the same as if he/she of other beliefs.
Bigots abound, lets stick to what is wanted?
fluff4

Actually Philo all the available evidence points to humans being naturally serial monogamists. There's an obvious benefit in forming stable relationships for the purposes of rearing children, but outside that, people choose to publicly honour their commitment to remain together for all sorts of reasons. A very significant percentage of heterosexuals marry with no intention of having children, and clearly nobody is going to deny them to right to a legal marriage.

And for crying out loud, what are the possible "poor health consequences" of a legally recognising the decision by a same-sex couple to commit their lives to each other?

In 10 years' time we will look back to 2007 and ask "can you believe same-sex couples weren't even allowed to get married back them?".
And marriage as an institution will all the more stronger for it.

Of course they should. There is absolutely no reason why homosexual people should not be able to form and formalise their relationships on exactly the same legal basis as anybody else.

"Marriage" is a social institution - there is absolutely nothing "natural" about it. The form it takes varies widely across cultures and societies.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is entirely "natural". People have no more say in their sexual orientation than do any other animals. As far as I'm aware, the natural world abounds with creatures of the same sex getting it on, but there's no such think as animal marriage. Some species tend to pair for life, but they are in the minority and there's no ceremony involved :)

It is only bigots, religious and otherwise, who argue against legal recognition of gay relationships.

CJ - actually, many birds have very intricate "marriage" ceremonies. Albatrosses, Bower birds, etc. etc.

To a large extent the legalities matter little. We already have this perverted lifestyle thrown in our faces and promoted in schools. What is really needed is the truth published as to the health of those practicing this lifestyle and then made public. The lie that people are born that way is no different from the lie that people are born with a liking for kids. No doubt peoples upbring and circumstances has affected peoples thinking but to claim someone is born that way is unscientific and deceitful. Labeling those who oppose their views as bigots is about the best defense for the homosexual industry. The porn industry use the same methods.

Hi wiz - while bird watchers sometimes refer to the often elaborate instinctive mating behaviours of birds as 'ceremonies', 'courtship' and 'rituals', this is a classic example of anthropomorphism. Interestingly, birds are often cited by proponents of monogamy as exemplifying that it is a 'natural' arrangement, but of course this conveneiently ignores the much more common occurrence in nature of rampant promiscuity.

Humans are nothing if not creative in their symbolic relations with the animal world :)

Of course, if marriage ceremonies were simply human versions of animal sexual behaviours, there wouldn't be much of a big deal about them, would there?

Foxy I don't have a detailed answer on the legal issues. From what I have read on the topic there are two main aspects
- The emotional issues associated with being denied the right to marry.
- The practical issues with not having legal recognition as a spouse. I gather that can be quite significant when dealing with serious health issues. Spouse's and next of kin have rights that others don't. I suspect that it would also complicate issues around time of death and at other times when the status of spouse is significant.

I guess you have seen my comments to Boazy on the freedom of religion thread which has been stated so well at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23258 by wizofaus.

R0bert

CJ - sure, for birds it's probably entirely innate and not learned/cultural, but that doesn't mean it's not serving much the same purpose: allowing both partners to "shape each other up", and, at least in some cases, ensuring that the outsiders are aware that the pair are off limits.

Foxy,

I think Robert has covered something reasonably well and that is a nutshell summary of the reasons put forward in favour of it.

- "The emotional issues associated with being denied the right to marry." Presumably this includes the feeling of missing out on something generally but also wanting to adopt children but not being in a union recognised as stable at law and thus appearing a less suitable candidate for adoption.

- "The practical issues with not having legal recognition as a spouse. I gather that can be quite significant when dealing with serious health issues. Spouse's and next of kin have rights that others don't. I suspect that it would also complicate issues around time of death and at other times when the status of spouse is significant." I'd suggest that practical would include financial. For example tax benefits and other financial benefits provided to those raising children.

Runner,

Granted but would you agree that both homosexuals and paedophiles usually have difficulty changing?

Wizo,

I didn't know interracial marriages were illegal. What year did they legalise interracial marriages in Australia?

All,

This discussion has been reasonably tame for a mix of homosexual activists (& CJ who might as well be for the current topic) and Christian fundamentalists and other extremists. Are people in here taming down. And where is Boazy?

Shouldn't the civil rights recognised by our law, be the same for all Australians? Not to do so creates a hateful legal caste system that breaches our commitment to United Nations conventions on Human Rights.

I cannot see how the sky will fall in if I married my gay partner of 5 years. Will the sight of our gold rings offend you?

Granted, homophobe bigots do see divine retribution in all manner of contraventions of 'the (official) word of God'. However, are we to let them bully lawmakers to prohibit gay partnerships?

Our secular laws has been too slow in catching up with the enlightened views of the majority of Australians and the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission.

A science based approach reveals that 'the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose'. (Evolutionary biologist, J.B. Haldane.)

It's therefore time to reject the rigid views from religious leaders with fundamentalist delusions. They have controlled secular law for too long with their veiled threats of 'consequences' for law reformers.

I think the reason why the thread isn't so white hot is that those of us with common sense know which way the wind is blowing, so the hysterical cries from the conservatives are rather hard to take seriously.
For all the 'it's perverted!' or 'it's unnatural' they can't come up with any decent reasons why gay people shouldn't be allowed the same rights.
I mean, the old 'it's perverted!' argument isn't exactly a concise argument now is it? As another poster pointed out, the same has been said of interracial marriages. Heck, I'd be pretty confident in saying it was the conservative christians who would have been most strenuous in opposing equal rights for women, but now all but the most hardcore fundamentalists realise that there's no good reason to deny women equal rights to men.

Sometimes they trot out the old 'but it's unhealthy!' chestnut, and to that I say, no, unprotected sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual is dangerous, though when partners are both healthy then where is the harm? At least there's no risk of accidental pregnancy, or the abortions so dreaded by some christians.
As for studies claiming psychological effects are harmful to them - I'd say that if this is your actual reason opposing same-sex civil unions then you've just shot yourself in the foot - because denying them that right can only be more psychologically damaging.
When you accept that people can't change their sexuality, then it's pretty clear this is the only logical answer here, though I suspect many of the old fashioned conservatives harbor a secret suspicion that gay people are just 'experimenting' or getting up to mischief as those wascally youth of today are apt to do.

As for the notion that it's all about procreation, well, unless you're denying marriage to barren couples and those that don't plan to have children, it just doesn't stack up.

There are no good reasons to deny homosexuals the right for a same-sex civil union.

Should gay partnerships be recognised legally?
Well why not the major Firms of Solicitors and other professionals enter into this form of contractual agreement and its legally done under the Qld Partnership Act and registered with the State.
There is nothing stopping any individuals for entering into this form of agreement and creating this type of entity for the purposes of making a profit or any other reason.
If there were not same sex couples a valid reason could also be for the purposes of having children and creating a family and the Marriage contract is another recognised way of doing the same but the Marriage contract does not apply to the same sex couples, our Commonwealth Parliament has not provided for that in the legislation.

Posted by Jack the Lad: "It's just unnatural. Once this is allowed, what next? Pressure groups lobbying to legalise bestiality? Pedophilia? Give an inch and they'll want a mile."

Just out of interest, give who an inch?

JACK...you are completely WRONG!

Now that I've got your attention :) you said this.

>>"It's just unnatural. Once this is allowed, what next? Pressure groups lobbying to legalise bestiality? Pedophilia? Give an inch and they'll want a mile."<<

The only thing incorrect in your post was the tense "they'LL" THEY WILL..... its not future..its NOW.. .they already want Men boy sex. (Nambla) watch for pressure on the age of consent, and all manner of educational novelty which tries to defend the indefensible, moralize on the immoral, and drag down those who stand for a true morality in society and seek to alienate and marginalize them.... finally it will be the gulag. "Mental disease of religious faith".. .

Morgan views religious faith that way, I guess if ur not a Christian, they will still findd some way to classify you as 'deviant/deluded/in error/troublemaker/bigoted/brain damaged etc etc.. any excuse to remove you from public involvement.

This is an interesting thread.

wizofaus: "...much the same purpose: allowing both partners to 'shape each other up', and, at least in some cases, ensuring that the outsiders are aware that the pair are off limits."

I'll grant that the latter part of of this assertion is arguable in functional terms, but I think that most people in our society have well and truly 'shaped each other up' somewhat prior to their marriage ceremony.

mjpb: "This discussion has been reasonably tame for a mix of homosexual activists (& CJ who might as well be for the current topic) and Christian fundamentalists and other extremists"

Er, how on earth did you conclude that anybody who had posted in this thread prior to your comment is a "homosexual activist"? To simply support equal rights for any minority group doesn't imply "activism" - rather, it's an expression of that good old Aussie value of a 'fair go' for everybody.

Speaking of which, as far as I can tell, the only homosexual contributor to the thread thus far is 'fair go', and their comment (posted subsequent to yours) is hardly "activist".

botheration: "Just out of interest, give who an inch?"

Too funny. Do you think Jack actually has inch to give? :)

Evidently evolution got it wrong to have developed male and female genitals according to new age science. Nature got it wrong to have grown male and female genitals according to curent educators. God got it wrong to have created male and female genitals according to homosexuals.

The fact homosexuals are fertile males capable of producing children, says that their physiology is OK it is their mind that is screwed up.

Godwin’s Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law has a gay-related corollary, http://www.nakedwriting.com/archives/2002/05/well_thats_one.html which states that “In any debate on the subject of homosexuality, the probability that discrimination against homosexuals will be justified by invoking a comparison to pedophilia will reach one is directly related to the degree to which the invoker is religiously or socially conservative.”

mjpb, was it malice or carelessness that made you directly associate the two?

“would you agree that both homosexuals and paedophiles usually have difficulty changing?”

Why do you think homosexuals should change? If you don’t think they should change, why are you lumping them together with criminals who definitely must be required to change?

And where’s the christianity in trying to sool “homosexual activists” against christian fundamentalists?

To my knowledge there have never been laws against mixed-race marriages in this country. However the relatively recent practice of removing mixed-race offspring from their mothers amounted to an official punishment for miscegenation.

We're well on the way to eradicating the prejudice underlying this practice. But as you and others show by associating homosexuals with criminals, there's still a long way to go before anti-gay prejudice is dealt with. Granting same-sex couples equal rights will help enormously.

Philo, this discussion is about civil rights, not about willies and front-botties. Get your head out of your pants, willya ... and grow up.

mjpb

'Granted but would you agree that both homosexuals and paedophiles usually have difficulty changing?'

I do believe anybody caught up in immoral behaviour have difficulty in changing. Whether it is addiction to porn (which can lead to child abuse) or adulterers or fornicators or paedophiles or homosexuality. That is even more of a reason not promote such an unnatural practice. You can no long call it abnormal because so many people have believed the lie that it is normal. It only becomes 'normal' where it is promoted as such. The so called science then follows.

jpw2040, I think that you have missed the context of mjpb's post.

The comment was I think a reference to runners invoking of the Goodwins corollary at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23271 "The lie that people are born that way is no different from the lie that people are born with a liking for kids"

R0bert

Possibly, Robert, though I did read the post you’re referring to. My question is a genuine one. I’m sure I read a post here on OLO where mjpb claimed to have some gay friends. If this is true, then it seems to me that continuing runner’s association of homosexuals with paedophiles is either surprisingly careless, or it calls into question the sincerity of the friendship. If I were one of those gay friends, I would have been shocked by this juxtaposition coming from a friend.

I realise I could have taken issue with runner’s initial posting, but really, there’s no point. runner worships at the altar of intolerance, and I don’t see any hope that this will ever change. He can go on ranting, and I will attempt to ignore him as best I can.

The much-quoted Galaxy poll http://beta.getup.org.au/files/media/equalityforsamesexcouples.pdf that showed 71% of Australians in support of equal rights for gays and lesbians also revealed that the younger you are, the less likely you are to be intolerant towards same-sex-attracted people. Dinosaurs like runner are simply dying out.

Still, I wish I could be consistent about these things. I should be just sitting back waiting for Philo to wilt and die too, but sometimes I just can't help myself ...

Good ol *educated* CJ... frothing at the mouth about "(Its just about) supporting minority groups"

well.. minority groups can have all manner of morality or lack thereof, and THAT...is the key issue. (I would have thought an 'educated' person would realize this :)

Failing to identify the negative long term social implications of particular sexual choices, (yes.. thats what I said -'choices') is shallow, and irresponsible.

-Neo Nazi's are a'minority group'
-Practicioners of Female Genital Mutilation are a 'minority group'.
-"The Family" formerly the children of God, David Moses and child molesting crowd are a 'minority group'....

The issue is..and always will be "morality". The attempt by gay activists like CJ (quacks like a... must be a) to de 'moralize' the issue is deceptive and dangerous.

The linking of Gay behavior to Paedophiles may not seem so obvious to those who feel comfortable about homosexual behavior, but the issue is not the LINK..... or lack of, but the METHOD used by the gay lobby and now being used by the child sex lobby (Nambla, and a Dutch Political Party) to advance their cause and make it socially acceptable.

We either 'have' limits to acceptable behavior..or we don't. If it just depends on the loudest voices welllllllll.... look out mama... I see the apocalypse heading our way fast.

jpw2040: " runner worships at the altar of intolerance"

Nice way of putting it - I would say that other Christian fundies like Philo and Boazy do as well. Mjpb too, although s/he's usually a bit cleverer at using weasel words to appear saner than their obviously loopy cohorts.

Boazy: "-Neo Nazi's are a'minority group'
-Practicioners of Female Genital Mutilation are a 'minority group'.
-"The Family" formerly the children of God, David Moses and child molesting crowd are a 'minority group'...."

Good ol *boofheaded* Boazy... frothing at the mouth about his homophobia yet again.

I didn't say I support all minority groups. For example, the Open Brethren and their Exclusive Brethren cohorts are secretive cults of very strange fundy hypocrites who seem very similar to "The Family" and other weirdo sects.

" I see the apocalypse heading our way fast"

I truly hope it reaches you soon.

Civil rights have long been protected in the constitutional democracies of Western Europe. These nations include France, Great Britain, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries. Personal liberties are also secure in such newer democracies as - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.

If these rights against discrimination are there to protect minority groups and ensure equal rights and opportunities for all people regardless of race, sex, religion, age or disability - then that surely must include the civil rights of gay partnerships?

This is not a moral or religious issue - but one that deals with the civil rights of people.

Just as one of the most bitter civil rights campaigns was that of Black Americans in the United States, who campaigned for equal rights from the 1800s. This campaign continued through the 1900s, and led to a major protest movement during the 1950s and 1960s which resulted in important civil rights legislation to end discrimination against black Americans. Isn't it time that legislation be passed, recognising the civil rights of gays - to end discrimination against them?

The United Nations General Assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It states that all people are born free and are equal in dignity and rights. Nowhere does it say that it excludes gays. And, many experts in international law believe that the declaration has high moral authority.

Hey.i've been married 3 times and the first 2 might have been better if i had married someone of the same sex.I'm damn sure they wouldn't have been worse.What does it matter if you are the same sex if you love and respect each other.Their is no law against living together so let gays marry.It won't affect our lives.

Foxy.... you said:

"This is not a moral or religious issue - but one that deals with the civil rights of people."

Lets follow that 'logic' though a few more steps.

1/ Homosexual behavior is not a moral issue.
2/ It used to be illegal, but due to political activism, it was legalized.
3/ Sex with children is illegal.
4/ Due to political activism, this could change in the same manner using the same methods.

Now this is where we need Pericles 'finger'.. the one which points to things 1 by 1.

But lets humor you and agree hypothetically "its not a moral issue"

Then..it is at least a 'cultural' issue. Hindsight is always 20/20 and we usually realize where we went wrong by seeing it down the track, where we say "Oh..perhaps if we did it differently this or that might not have happened"

I've used the Cape York illustration to the nth degree, but I don't mind using it again :) specially for those who may not have see it before.

http://books.google.com/books?id=13PoxT8kufEC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=steel+axes+for+stoneage+australians&source=web&ots=cM3qJzEApg&sig=6d4PelwGXtF_rRR_1-C1rk8Q1SU#PPA116,M1
that link sums it up pretty well (the point of the original article)

"small cultural changes can have HUGE HUGE detrimental ramifications to a society and culture"

We can learn from this, and use the experience as a tool for predicting other possible side effects of 'small changes' to our culture.

hi to all the forgotten australians well if a person is gay so be it their is nothing we can do about it yet i only hope they are not the gay --uckers that were raping and abusing us victims of the forgotten australians we were the victims of the most horriffic rapes and abuse and slavery endured upon us by employees who worked for the australian goverment in these institutions through out australia , i can only hope that mr rudd will not sweep this under the carpet as had mr howard , we are real vitims and still living and fight for justice for those who are no longer with us and those who are becoming new forgotten australians we are the forgotten australians and we will no longer be forgotten ,and to any of you out their who don't care what we suffered well i can only hope that you never have to go through life as we have or anything happens to any of your loved ones or friends as then you will know how we feel , 2 questions if gat couples have children are those children going to be gay when they get older no one will know until they reach their later years regards micheal

Boaz, sex with children is illegal because children don't have the same status as adults under the law - we accept that they generally do not have the life experience and maturity to make informed, consensual decisions. Even here, there are blurred lines - do you think it should be illegal for an 18-yo to have sex with a 17-yo, given that one is an adult and one not?

mjbp - no, I don't think interracial marriages were ever explicitly illegal in Australia, although there were cases in the 19th century of the police inventing spurious charges in order to prevent couples from engaging in such marriages. In the US and elsewhere, interracial marriages were quite definitely against the law.

Hi Michael,

Don't forget that those people who abused you were pedophiles, not gay. This is a hugely important point.

I have a friend who was sexually abused by an Australian government employee when he was a ward of the state at 12 years old, so I understand your anger and sorrow. I agree we need to put some pressure on the Rudd government now to do some basic things – a formal apology, and compensation, for a start.

If others want to lobby the new federal government about the Forgotten Australians, see http://www.clan.org.au/pages/template_pages.php?master_page_id=12&pageID=67

I always read your posts Michael and feel so sorry for what you have been through. I will try my best to help you fight for your most basic rights.

PS There's no evidence that says gay couples would have gay children. The vast majority of gay men and woman are born to a heterosexual couples. The biggest problem for the children of gay couples is societal prejudice.

Boaz, your syllogism needs a little work there buddy. You could substitute any illegal thing for "sex with children". Plus you missed Foxy's point about civil rights. Obviously sex with children pretty thoroughly violates their civil rights, so it's irrelevant to the gay marriage debate. Protecting children from sexual exploitation is codified in international and domestic law. Morally, it is something on which pretty much everyone in this country agrees on – atheists, believers – even Catholics. We need to worry about people who break the law, but we don't need to worry too much about losing the law itself – and if we ever do, i will join you in the streets for a fight to the death in defending it.

It has nothing to do with gay marriage. In this entire thread, people have claimed homosexuality is morally wrong, yet no one has mounted an argument in support of that, other than "I reckon" or "the bible says". There is no argument. Small cultural changes can have large ramifications? Of course – both positive and negative. Where's your argument?

Philo: "... homosexuals are fertile males capable of producing children.."

I meant to alert Philo earlier to the existence of homosexual females. They are commonly known as lesbians.

Interesting that Philo, as a creationist fundy, should also cite evolution.

While I'm aware that he was (unsuccessfully) trying to be clever, it's occurred to me before now that homosexuality could well be adaptive in evolutionary terms under certain circumstances - as in cases where the population of a species exceeds the carrying capacity of its habitat. It's one explanation for the universality of homosexuality in nature, and in the case of Homo sapiens homesexuality could very well be adaptive in today's overpopulated world.

jpw - interesting application of Godwin's Law. I've always found it kind of creepy that when topics like homosexuality or pornography are discussed in forums like this, it's only a matter of time before the fundies start talking about sex with children.

Are demands for 'legal equality' more to do with money than anything else? There is absolutely nothing to stop consenting adults living with one another and doing everything else together - so the only problem would appear to be a financial one.
I have a 'gay' cousin who has recently 'married' his partner of 28 years in the UK - they will remain there rather than return here purely for financial reasons.

I think gay people want to get married for the same spread of reasons that heterosexual people want to get married. To advertise their coupledom, to solidify their commitment, to express their love, to have kids, to be each other legal guardians in case of accident or death. Financial arrangements form one part, but not the only part, of the desire to marry.

The cultural imprimatur is vital – particularly in a culture that frequently prohibits gay people from expressing their love.

I have to say, the only problem left with gay marriage is purely a language one: "I now pronounce you husband and husband"? Who's the bride and who's the groom?

But one day we will have an Aboriginal lesbian president who will be able to proudly thank her wife for her support, and no-one will blink an eye. I hope I live to see it.

Thanks to everyone for their comments. Different strokes for different folks...

It's made me realize that sex can mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people. What I don't understand is how can anyone of us say to people, "You cannot receive legal recognition in our society because you have offended us or God seriously. You are not normal."

Any relationship is based on a decision that a person has to make for themselves. And usually that person is far harder on themself than an objective law could be. If given a chance, people will evaluate their relationship in terms of the person with whom they seek love.
They will center their attention on goals and meaning, not on any single action/actions, or a personal "state of grace."

This takes a great deal more reflection and sincerity than any effort to limit their legal acceptance into our society. We must believe in people and respect their rights to make personal decisions. Each of us will love another human being in a unique and personal way. Who is to say which act will bring love, and which will tear a person from the core of himself. In our society we do have rules - but perhaps ones that deny the legal rights of people - need to be looked at again.

I'm a little bit in love with you Foxy.

And I say that having no idea what gender you are.

Foxy

You need to distinguish between natural and normal. In some disease ridden clubs homosexuality is normal. No one could possibly argue that sodomy is natural. The diseases that go with it is enough proof.

And driving cars, typing at computers, or using mobile phones *is* natural?

Further, show me the slightest proof that homosexual couples in committed monogamist relationships are more prone to any sort of disease than heterosexual couples. Then prove to me that allowing couples in such relationships to have their unions legally recognised (the *only* point of this thread) would somehow increase their likelihood of spreading or catching diseases.

If only.... eh... if only we could ONLY look at the limited scope of the topic..and assess the situation on that basis.....alone.

But we can't.

Because the issue of homosexual couples does not end with them in the very well managed spin that a few posters have managed to present above.

Nope.. recognition of such unions would entail total capitulation by a large proportion of the community to values which they abhor.

The idea of a man...living in a sexual relationship with a man.. and then bringing children into the picture ? it boggles the mind that such a thing can even be contemplated let alone openly supported.

As soon as you bring children into it... you bring the REST of us into it... you are seeking to re-shape society in terms of behavior which many of us find disgusting.

You won't change 'us' who find it disgusting when that assessment is based on revealed truth, and many secular people just hate the idea anyway.

So the only likely outcome of advancing this agenda, will be to polarize the community, alienate a different (and much larger group), and marginalize them.
If anyone thinks there would not be an element of 'our turn/revenge is sweet' in that process, then I suggest a quick read of history.

No one is addressing the philosophical point either (except Bothersome who just denies it) that acceptance of THIS behavior, MUST mean acceptance of ANY behavior between consenting 'people'.. I won't say 'adults' because the definition of 'adult' is also subject to change.

So....sorry .. no deal.. no way.. door is shut 4eva to this one as far as I'm concerned.

runner - as I already pointed out the "diseases" argument is moot. Unprotected heterosexual sex will do the same thing. The only difference was that inititally diseases such as HIV were transmitted because they weren't wearing condoms because there wasn't a threat of pregnancy.

As far as philo's: "Evidently evolution got it wrong to have developed male and female genitals according to new age science. Nature got it wrong to have grown male and female genitals according to curent educators. God got it wrong to have created male and female genitals according to homosexuals."

I take it then he's in favour of banning marriage for barren people, seeing as they can't have children either, and that anyone who is attracted to a barren person must have a "screwed up mind" as clearly, they'll be unable to procreate.

"No one is addressing the philosophical point either (except Bothersome who just denies it) that acceptance of THIS behavior, MUST mean acceptance of ANY behavior between consenting 'people'.. I won't say 'adults' because the definition of 'adult' is also subject to change."

Boazy is ignoring the clearly spelt out concept of informed consent. Mostly the term "consenting adults" has been used to keep the language simple but the idea of informed consent covers it.

Just which behaviour between people giving informed consent is Boazy concerned about? Polygamy (or one of the other versions of multiple partner relationships)?

Boazy attempted to provide earlier in one of the current discussions a biblical basis for rejecting polygamy (Kings are not supposed to do it although the king described as being a man after gods own heart was rather into it and I provided a hint about church leaders from the new testament). Boazy failed miserably to demonstrate a biblical basis for his objections to one of the other favourites of those who are worried about giving an inch.

The informed consent thing pretty much wipes out being able to marry the family pet.

Boazy has gone on about the risks associated with change and as far as I've been able to tell completely failed to address the point that has been made on a number of occasions that his own mixed race marriage would have been the subject of strong social taboo's in this country in times past and against the law in some other western countries. Many of the arguments he uses are kissing cousins of the arguments used against interacial marriage.

Should his own happiness be destroyed for the sake of the distress it causes to racists or is it only homophobes feelings that should be considered?

R0bert

Boaz, there are already tens of thousands of families all around the world where children are brought up by two parents of the same sex. There is even a documentary "That's a family" that interviews children from some of these families, and those children are universally well-adjusted and comfortable with their family arrangements, though often all too aware of the prejudices they face in society. There isn't the slightest evidence that such children are deprived in any significant way, so despite your personal discomfort with it, it is reality, and will be eventually be legally recognised. Fortunately for you, given that Australian politics is so dominated by social conservatism, you will probably have a good 5 or 10 years to prepare yourself for it (the A.C.T. will go first, and unlike Howard, Rudd won't feel compelled to step in and prevent it).

Dear Botheration,

For once I don't know what to say...so I'll just say Thank-You!
(smile).

boaz: “ So the only likely outcome … will be to polarize the community, alienate a different (and much larger group)...”

You are wrong about the numbers. Surveys show the majority of the population support same sex unions. See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/13/1978275.htm and http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdf A minority of the population would be alienated – studies show they are the older, less educated and more religious people. It sucks for them; I appreciate that.

But that’s democracy.

Boaz: “you are seeking to re-shape society in terms of behavior which many of us find disgusting.”

Which is the same point I made about your teaching your son to discriminate against a child with two fathers. I know you cannot accept it, but I *truly* believe it’s disgusting to teach prejudice to an innocent child.

But that’s freedom.

Boaz: “No one is addressing the philosophical point either (except Bothersome who just denies it) that acceptance of THIS behavior, MUST mean acceptance of ANY behavior between consenting 'people'.. I won't say 'adults' because the definition of 'adult' is also subject to change.

Firstly, the argument *is* about adults. Australia – and the entire Western world – has an enduring definition of adult. No one’s trying to change it, Captain Paranoid.

Secondly, yes, I know this rankles, but grown up people, in their own homes, may do *anything they like*. Without asking your permission.

Thirdly, if your still trying to say that legalising homosexuality will open the door to bestiality and pediphilia, then prove it. You haven’t even tried to present a case. You can’t just *say* it. Where’s the evidence? Where’s the precedent? Where’s the connection between these things? As far as I’m concerned, you may as well say “of course, if we begin to sing Old McDonald Had a Farm, it will inevitably lead to the reversal of x and y in the Macquarie Dictionary!” In other words, your argument is a non sequiter.

Foxy, you’re quite welcome. Thanks for always bringing sense and compassion to these boards.

I must say from the outset that I am not comfortable with homosexuality, but I'm a pretty conservative type by nature.

With that declaration out of the way, there is a recent study (but cant remember the name - if I time will try and google it), that shows that homosexuality is not genetic (which was once thought was the case amongst gay men - probably goes towards arguing FOR gay marriage because they then wont procreate and prolong the gene!), but in fact is heavily related to how many boys within a family. The more boys, the higher the likelihood that then younger ones would be gay. This was thought to be a natural process of protection of the gene pool, whereby in a society with fewer females, the elder and usually dominant brother would procreate, but have non-competing younger brothers to help provide for and protect his offspring. The backing factor was that an uncle shares 25% of their genetic material with niece/nephew, and therefore has a reasonably strong genetic incentive to see the family gene pool survive, even where the child is not their own. Of course this would have become largely unneccesary now, but could be like a number of factors we have had influence our evolutionary survival, which have been hard to shake.

There is significant evidence that gay men in particular are born that way, and if this is the case then the arguement that its "unnatural" falls down straight away. Apparently the link isnt so strong with gay women (but that said, fewer seem to be as rabidly opposed to the idea of two women). And given that this is the case, then there is little arguement to backup the claim that children from gay relationships will be more likely to be gay themselves. They may however be more likely to experiment, which would no doubt be of concern to some

Thanks for the honesty, CountryGal, and the open-mindedness.

The effect you’re referring to is known as the fraternal birth order effect. There’s a relevant article in a recent Scientific American: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005A6D3-7ADC-14A0-B6C483414B7F4945

It’s worth pointing out that the researchers claim that in a large minority of cases homosexuality is associated with fraternal birth order. They do not claim to have found a cause for homosexuality in every case. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=14994314

However it is clear that in many instances homosexuality is biologically determined. As you point out, this completely discredits fundamentalist claims that homosexuality is a (lifestyle) choice.

Denying a couple the right to formalise their relationship because they are the same sex is just as wrong as excluding left-handed or redheaded people from the right to marry.

Foxy, I’d like to refer to your assertion that “this is not a moral or religious issue.” This is correct, in that there is no moral ground for discriminating against homosexuals. To this extent, yes, it’s not a moral issue.

However when one section of society is denied rights available to everyone else, it certainly is a moral issue. We’ve agreed that it’s morally wrong to disadvantage people on the basis of their skin colour, nationality or ethnicity. We’re yet to apply this standard to those who are attracted to the same sex. This is a grave moral lapse in our society.

Thanks, botheration, for putting the financial disadvantages in perspective. Same-sex relationship recognition is simply that – recognition. It becomes a bit wearing when you’ve spent decades in a relationship and people still argue that it has less worth than a day-old marriage. It doubles the imposition when the relationship is also disadvantaged in practical and financial terms.

Foxy, I was wondering about your motives in posting this question. Is is that Malcolm Turnbull, soon-to-be leader of the opposition, and member for Wentworth has promised his constituency that “he would always support gay marriage and all pro gay anti-discrimination including in the Church”, while the new Prime Minister of Australia, has said he will not support same-sex unions?

I’m wondering why you think it necessary to fly the flag on behalf of the very few gay men and women who seek to settle down together in a union resembling marriage. In the Netherlands where such unions have been legal since 2001, most choose not to marry. Of those that do, the average length of a relationship between two men is 1.5 years. In addition, a study (published in AIDS magazine) found that they have eight other ‘partners’ each year.

In Australia, approx. 1.6% of adult men and 0.8% of women consider themselves homosexual. Same sex couples make up 0.46% of all couples in Australia (19,594 couples, 2001 census), compared to over 8 million male/female relationships of which 12% were de facto.

The gay lobby is a powerful force here. Not a minority. It has representatives from every walk of life, right up to High Court judges. It appears that they are determined to have their way regardless of what you and I believe Foxy. I don’t agree that this is a question of civil liberties for minorities. In fact, given the statistics above, this power vested in the hands of a few, is a distortion of civil liberties, and an infringement on other’s beliefs....

....Why is it so hard for non-believers to accept that every gain for the gay lobby is a grievous loss for the Body of Christ, and in our opinion, for the whole of society which is built on the Judeo-Christian ethic? It is not fundamentalist of us to insist on getting back to the fundamentals, to the very building blocks of creation, to God’s purpose in creation as written in Genesis 1 & 2 and re-affirmed by Jesus Christ (Matthew 19: 4-6): the union of male and female in marriage. Any attempt to foil God’s purpose is described in the harshest terms: the words “abomination” and “detestable” are repeatedly used, and we are promised the total desolation of societies which allow these practices.

I don’t understand why Christians are expected to give moral approval of same-sex marriage. From our point of view, and in the light of Malcolm Turnbull’s agenda, it is the Church which is being discriminated against and our freedoms which are under threat. We will not revise scriptural doctrine to allow for the existence of same-sex marriage. It may be running counter to the cultural tidal wave to resist however we cannot legitimize disobedience and a direct rejection of God’s intention and command in creation. It doesn’t mean that homosexuals are unwelcome in the Church. There’s always room for one more sinner. Ask Justice Michael Kirby, a faithful *gay* Anglican Church goer, who has put on record that, quote

"it's interesting, isn't it, that the survey by the Australia Institute of attitudes to homosexuals in Australia has shown that the lowest rate of homophobia, the lowest amount of angst about all this is amongst Catholics and Anglicans" (Radio National, 7 June 2006)

Interesting indeed.

hi to all the forgotten australians and those who have passed on god bless you and to the new forgotten australians you have my surport ,thank you boteration for taking intrest in all my comments and yes im aware of clan as i am a member of that group as we are the forgotten australians , all i ask is that the new goverment give justice to us victims and of those who are no longer with us , and the story of gays its intereting as well because it was also known in these institutions that the officers their self some were in gay relations ,and this is true and i say just because a gay personis gay does not mean they are kiddy touching but their are no doubt some that do as in the normal streight life person ,as also for gay's having children well my feeling is that they the children may also turn gay that no one will know until they grow up, a thing is im a male rape victim of the seventies by 2 pedophiles that worked in the goverment run institutions of australia and even though i was made to do unforscenable acts upon them ,i am certianly not gay , as i hope and as all of the forgotten australians hope the new goverment of australia will act for us forgotten australians we will no longer be the forgotten australians and we will no longer stay silent regards micheal and hi to all those who surport me

Why am I flying the flag for gay rights? I thought that it was obvious... I believe in understanding, in mercy, in faith. I believe in love between human beings, be it in a man's love for a woman, and hers for him or a man for a man, or a woman for a woman.

I believe in friendship and its power to turn selfishness to love. I believe in lasting love and the painful growth that it requires. I believe in death and the mystery that it unveils. I believe in eternity and the hope that it affords.

I do not believe in arrogance or pride. I do not believe in the unerring judgement of people that ignores the conscience of the simple and sincere. And I believe in parents who teach their children the beauty that is life.

Therefore I believe in civil rights for all people, regardless of their gender preference. And because I prize the uniqueness that is mine, how can I forbid others to be themselves - just because they're different from me. How can I tell them that they must live and die as aliens.

I hope that answers the question. I assumed that this topic would be of interest to others. And from the reactions to date, I don't think I was wrong.

We all jumped at Foxy’s starting gun without actually answering her question:

“...same-sex partnership? What are their rights under the law?”

In all Australian states, same-sex relationships are recognised as de facto relationships with generally all of the same rights. With one major exception – adoption by same-sex couples is permitted only in WA and (I think) Tasmania. All states prohibit discrimination against those in same-sex relationships – except in WA, religious organisations have an exemption from these anti-discrimination provisions.

In contrast Commonwealth law pretends that same-sex couples don’t exist, with a few exceptions. Since 2004 the Marriage specifically denies same-sex couples the right to marry. An Act related to terrorism from 2005 refers to same-sex partners in relation to giving evidence about terrorist activities (can’t put my hands on the exact details now). The highly dubious construct of “interdependency” allows same-sex couples some consideration in immigration matters.

As a result, same-sex couples are greatly disadvantaged in Commonwealth matters, and unprotected from discrimination. The HREOC report http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/index.html detailed the 58 pieces of legislation which need to be changed to achieve the limited equality same-sex couples enjoy in the states, but did not address the issue of marriage, because it was outside the terms of reference for its inquiry. Graeme Innes’ article here on OLO http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5549 is an excellent summary of the issues.

In short, Foxy, there are rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples in state law, but essentially none in Commonwealth law. This is a cause of great disadvantage for these couples.

katieO has given us another one of her gems: “It is not fundamentalist of us to insist on getting back to the fundamentals.”

I think you should be concerned about what’s happened to your brain since you got god, Katie. Or were you always this ditzy?

Of particular concern is the claim that since there are only 19,000 couples identified in the 2001 census, discriminating against them is legitimate. At what level does your numbers-based sense of justice kick in, Katie

jpw2040, I'm trying to work out how if the numbers are really that low and the uptake of the opportunity to marry so low where it is allowed for gays why do fundies are so convinced that allowing same sex marriage is the end of australian civilisation. Perhaps their concerns that someone will want to marry the family horse but I suspect that the uptake on that would be far lower still (assuming that someone determines that a horse can give informed consent).

So on the one hand gays are few in number and not many want to get married and on the other hand allowing them to marry is a great impost on fundy's and the end of australian values as we know them.

I'll avoid looking in through the bedroom windows of other people and say what is done after informed consent is not my business.

R0bert

Very nicely put Foxy. I can endorse that.

"I don’t understand why Christians are expected to give moral approval of same-sex marriage." Katie O, no-one is asking you to give moral approval, just acceptance that not everyone has the same beliefs as you. There is a big difference. No-one is expecting the church to marry gays either (and nor should it be forced to against its beliefs) - we are talking civil marriage here. There are lots of male/female marriages that are civil unions and not conducted in church.

For those that see the end of our society from this practice, remember that we are not talking about whether homosexuality itself is acceptable (because it already is under the law), but whether gay marriage is acceptable. To provide for unions of lasting endurance rather than the promiscuity that most of as automatically associate with the gay "lifestyle", has got to be a stabilising influence. If there is evidence from other countries that shows that these marriages are short-lived, then that indicates that there is a requirement for mandatory pre-marriage counselling (which I think is a must for any marriage anyway).

As for all those men that are uncomfortable about the potential for gay men to be attracted to them (which I am sure is a huge reason behind homophobia), well I guess then you know how it feels pretty much everytime a woman walks past a construction site! :)

Jpw2040: I am distancing myself between the Fundamentalism that is viewed by most as extremism. Mine is a commitment to the very basic principles of the bible. This won’t result in me becoming a fiscal member of the Christian Democratic Party or picketing abortion clinics. But OK, I give in. I’m a fundy by your definition.

That ditziness has been present ever since my first pregnancy, 9.5 years ago. We are told that it is connected to the level of estrogen. 5.5 years of breast-feeding might do it to you. I could just sit and do Sudoku puzzles all day…the omega tablets don’t seem to be helping. I get the kids names mixed up sometimes too.

RObert: If marriage brings so many benefits, why do Australian couples opt out of it in increasing numbers, either through divorce, or by maintaining a de facto relationship (which has to exist for two years and be a live-in arrangement to be considered marriage)? CG touches on this – the idea of preparedness for marriage, a recognition that something is going wrong.

Foxy, that is a very poetic statement of thoughts. Sort of echoes the Nicene creed in the repetition of the “I believe” statements. Surprising that an atheist, that abandons God the Creator, can accept the notion of faith and eternity. Faith in one’s own statements of disbelief? An eternity filled with nothingness? Hope in enduring emptiness?

Many of your values are indeed a direct outpouring of God’s Holy character – understanding, mercy, love, (the expectation of) painful growth, sincerity, beauty, acceptance. God’s unique character is described in the Torah, as written thousands of years ago. He is eternal and unchangeable, above His creation (in time and place) and yet intimately connected to it. Therefore, the very values you hold dear to are the bedrock of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Can you believe or disbelieve in arrogance or pride? These are symptoms of the fall, undermining our best efforts. My bible study group recently discussed pride and all admitted that it was evident in our lives. . .

. . . C.S. Lewis, in “Mere Christianity”, in the chapter “The Great Sin”, writes:

“There is one vice of which no man in the world is free, which everyone else in the world knows when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people….ever imagine that they are guilt of themselves….The essential vice, the utmost evil is pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison; it was through pride that the devil became the devil; pride leads to every other vice; it is the complete anti-God state of mind”.

The evidence of physical death is overwhelming, except, of course if you cannot accept the fact of your own existence. Even the existentialists will marry, have children, mourn the passing of loved ones, smoke a cigar, get drunk. As they have discerned, the fact that you can see it, touch it, taste it does not prove it’s existence, and in fact, Christians are not concerned with physical death in that sense. It is spiritual death which occupies our thinking, death to God’s love and presence, death for all eternity.

Friendship is described in the bible too, the intimacy between David and Jonathon or Ruth & Naomi, which revisionists point to as evidence of homosexual relations. It is easy to get confused (if it is sex which drives all of your thinking) and trivialise all love experience.

The love relationship that Christians aspire to, is the one between the Creator and the Created. We are meant to imitate this in our lives by following God’s model, male/female marriage and raising the children of that marriage to love and worship the Creator. Atheists see that as instilling prejudice in our children from an early age, even seek to protect our children from being exposed to such teaching. Faced with eternal consequences, Christians are prepared to lay down their lives to protect their beliefs.

RObert, when you start down that slippery path of tweaking the bible here and there where it doesn’t suit a non-believer, where does it end?

Katie, where do you get your information that homosexual marriages in Netherlands last ~1.5 years on average?

From http://tglrg.org/more/80_0_1_0_M7/:

"Between April 2001, when same-sex marriage was legalised in the Netherlands, and December 2003, there were 5,751 same-sex marriages and 63 divorces.

In the same period, there were around 243,000 heterosexual marriages and 2,800 heterosexual divorces in the country of 16 million.

That means same-sex couples were slightly less likely than their different-sex counterparts to divorce.

Of all the couples married in the Netherlands since 2001, male couples were the least likely of all to end their marriages."

Further, in Scandinavian countries (such as Denmark, where same-sex unions have been legally recognised for *17* years - that's how far behind we are), heterosexual marriage rates have gone up, and divorce rates have gone down.

BTW, after checking out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage#1970 I have to revise my earlier prediction. Civil unions will be legally recognised in Australia within 3 years, tops.

TRTL I can understand why you want to believe that but it is impossible to support. The unnatural mob at least have Runner's design argument as unsophisticated as it might be. The pervert cry also is the same as psychiatrists said until the 70s. In the 70s they thought no harm resulted from the problem. Now we hear of heaps of suicide. Isn't suicide the worst possible harm from depression? The pre-70s psychiatrists were obviously right.

Contrast with the 'its unrelated to morals' red herring when it has always been a moral issue in our civilization so there has to be an explanation for considering it otherwise. And 'its a civil rights issue'. What a joke! On what basis is it a civil rights issue? No wonder they are scared to have other perverts talked about at the same time. All perverts could use the same arguments to the false claim it relates to civil rights.

Neither side shines in provinv their position but the pro-marriage side don't have a leg to stand on.

Historically some ugly things have popped up like witch burning, inequality to women, racial prejudice and almost institutionalised child molesting. We dealt with them. Now that mob want to get married and bring up kids in a perverted environment. We have something new and ugly to address.

Typically the pop culture will increasingly support the ugliness at first but we have a good historical track record of squashing ugliness eventually. You are right that the wind will probably blow toward increased ugliness for a while sure but then change direction and blow it away for good.

Once again - Thanks to everyone for your comments, and for answering the legal questions for me.

Katie O, for your information - I am a Catholic who follows her conscience, demands meaning and relevance from her church, and will not permit my God to be reduced to empty ritual and all-absorbing law. I shall be a Catholic until one day, perhaps sooner than I think, I shall return to ashes and to God. He will judge me as He must, but I can say to Him as honestly as I say to you: "I have tried to be a decent human being!"

Robert,

Thank you for the correction but as you can see Jw2040 was fully informed in spite of the comment.

There is a lot below the surface there.

TurnRightThenLeft

I’d be pretty confident to say that it was female conservative Christians who drove the push for equal rights for women (in Australia anyway) I was researching a historical figure who was involved in that and other reforms and that issue arose. My reading meandered into that history.

CJ,

”Speaking of which, as far as I can tell, the only homosexual contributor to the thread thus far is 'fair go', …”

Of course calling themselves ‘fair go’ must mean they are a fair minded Australian and that supports the idea they can’t be activists. If I thought that way I would pursue political correctness dogmatically.

“and their comment (posted subsequent to yours) is hardly "activist".”
I don’t know if a comment by itself can be ‘activist’. I consider an activist to be someone who gets involved in a campaign and I don’t know if this could be characterized as a ‘campaign’. However Jw2040 clearly believes in making changes to social conditions that are clearly controversial. Throw in the attempt to expunge any mention of homosexuals and paedophiles in the same sentence to avoid any political risk for their cause, rhetoric about higher authorities and a conclusion that sounds almost like a call to take up arms “They have controlled secular law for too long with their veiled threats of 'consequences' for law reformers” and I can’t see how they could sound more ‘activist’.

”… saner than their obviously loopy cohorts.”
Can you give an example of comments from the people you mentioned being obviously insane?

“Good ol *boofheaded* Boazy....”

So you don’t think his response was quite effective to pull you up for using the words “minority group” for it’s ‘aura’? Or is that why you resorted to name calling? I suspect that deep down you adopted that approach without thinking about it and you resent the fact that someone who you like to feel intellectually superior to identified the issue.

Jw2040,

Sorry for the delayed response. I tried to reply yesterday but didn't have time to fit the word limit.

"mjpb, was it malice or carelessness that made you directly associate the two?"

Neither. Indeed it was the absence of both and the comment under reply that made me continue the association. Homosexual activists sure have a phobia about that type of thing don’t they? Why?

“would you agree that both homosexuals and paedophiles usually have difficulty changing?”

"Why do you think homosexuals should change? If you don’t think they should change, why are you lumping them together with criminals who definitely must be required to change?"

Actually I think change is often moot in both cases and Philo already thinks homosexuals should change so why would I argue that? I think paedophile’s crime is atrocious but you need to realize that they don’t change easily. They just need to stop. It may mean never having sex again in some cases. Laws come and go but it is never morally correct to have sex with children. Other people might need to realize that homosexuality is hard to change also.

”And where’s the christianity in trying to sool “homosexual activists” against christian fundamentalists?”

I have just observed that examples of those two groups (& CJ) are identifiable in here and topics like this often fire things up between them.

”To my knowledge there have never been laws against mixed-race marriages in this country... “

I don’t know of any such laws either and would be surprised if that were true but it sure sounds good to do the comparison doesn’t it? It makes one side of a controversial issue very politically correct doesn’t it? Is that why you tried to make excuses for the comment?

” I were one of those gay friends, I would have been shocked by this juxtaposition coming from a friend.”

They were already juxtaposed. My friends are too level headed to be activists and being level headed they would have looked at the obvious context.

"Once again - Thanks to everyone for your comments, and for answering the legal questions for me."

If you are trying to wrap it up I don't think it will work. All the usual suspects are kicking in and there is 11 pages already. Good luck.

"Katie O, for your information - I am a Catholic who follows her conscience, demands meaning and relevance from her church, and will not permit my God to be reduced to empty ritual and all-absorbing law. I shall be a Catholic until one day, perhaps sooner than I think, I shall return to ashes and to God. He will judge me as He must, but I can say to Him as honestly as I say to you: "I have tried to be a decent human being!"

Your description sounds surprising so I'm really curious. Isn't that the definition of a protestant? Primacy of conscience compared with accepting the Pope as an authoritative teacher, choosing a Church on its merits rather than accepting it because it is supposed to be The Church. Considering Catholic services empty ritual etc. What is left in there that is Catholic?

In any case what would you think if KatieO had the same explanation (other than Catholic) but had the completely opposing viewpoint on the relevant issues? Would you think that that summation explained your viewpoint?

CJ,

"However Jw2040 clearly believes in making changes ..."

Should read:

However Fair Go clearly believes in making changes ...

mjpb: "If you are trying to wrap it up I don't think it will work. All the usual suspects are kicking in and there is 11 pages already"

Quite so. The rational and unbigoted forum members have had our say, which the homophobic Christians refuse to accept. Legal recognition of same sex relationships in Australia is inevitable, and I agree that it will occur within a few years.

Suck eggs, fundies. I for one have better things to do than play any more word games with homophobic frootloops on this thread.

I hope your children grow up to be gay :)

My, my, I go away for a couple of days and this thread has generated a few gems.

CJ, I certainly wouldn't give you an inch, no matter how much you would like it. This thread has been hijacked by homosexual activists who see anyone not of the same opinion as 'homophobe' or 'bigot'.
Being a heterosexual. I see these same people as 'heterophobic bigots'.

Philo, 'The fact homosexuals are fertile males capable of producing children, says that their physiology is OK it is their mind that is screwed up.' That is so right. Top of the class.

Runner, 'No one could possibly argue that sodomy is natural. The diseases that go with it is enough proof.' Also top of the class.

BD, 'As soon as you bring children into it... you bring the REST of us into it... you are seeking to re-shape society in terms of behavior which many of us find disgusting.'. Too true.

dnicholson, 'And driving cars, typing at computers, or using mobile phones *is* natural?', put on the dunce's hat. Also, 'there are already tens of thousands of families all around the world where children are brought up by two parents of the same sex. There is even a documentary "That's a family" that interviews children from some of these families, and those children are universally well-adjusted and comfortable with their family arrangements' proves nothing. Tarzan was brought up by apes and proceeded to swing through the tree and thump his chest. Who knows how these poor children will turn out?

A lot of posters here equate homosexuality to the 'why can't a man love a man or a woman love a woman?' mantra. There's a difference. There is the love of a man for a brother, which can also apply to close friends in a platonic, non-physical sense. Same goes for women and sisterly love.

Jack, who on this thread do you believe qualifies as a homosexual activist? I personally find the idea of having sex with another man offputting in the extreme. But I could say the same about eating at McDonald's, or taking botox injections, or getting a tattoo.
None of them infringe on the rights of the others, all involve informed consent, so there is no justification for making them illegal.

Demostrate to me that the institute of marriage in Denmark, where civil gay unions have been commonplace for 17 years, is any weaker than it is here, then I'll accept that perhaps there is room for caution.

JBennett - even if your homosexual depression statistics are true, my point remains that if those opposing homosexual civil unions are truly doing it for this reason (instead of just using this as something to support their dislike of homosexuals) then they have indeed shot themselves in the foot.

There's a simple question - do you believe homosexuality is wired in, or is it a choice?

Unless you believe the latter, which is dismissed by all but a few hardcore conservatives, then the only conclusion is that there is no choice - so it can't be changed.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn, is that denying these people the rights for same sex civil unions can only be more psychologically damaging.

You still haven't refuted that, so I can only conclude that genuine concern for the psychological welfare of homosexuals isn't your primary concern at all. The only alternative is to try and claim it is a choice, and you're on a losing wicket there.

Jack - I already refuted Runner and Philo's points. Your 'top of the class' comments don't actually address the issue.

Honestly. I really do wish conservatives weren't so hung up on telling people of legal age and who are capable of informed consent, who can and can't have sex.

Wizofaus as nailed it and I heartily endorse his last comment. I'd like to see the rebuttal for that one.

"RObert, when you start down that slippery path of tweaking the bible here and there where it doesn’t suit a non-believer, where does it end?"

Oh, probably something like we have today, where the church for 100's of years tweaked the bible to suit themselves. Digging up a few references for another thread show me how vast the differences between modern versions can be, with just the choice of the wording of a verse - ie the spin that the translator puts on it. Plus the bible is but the interpretation of man, so there is good arguement that it SHOULD be updated where man's understanding of a particular point or event has modernised.

The prime function of marriage is to forge a partnership to raise children. The secondary function is legitimise a relationship.

A news article on the ABC last week stated that in Tasmania for the first time more children were born out of wedlock than in. This would indicate that the prime function of wedlock is losing its relevance.

The secondary function would seem to have become more important recently. If this is the case, then gay marriage is becoming as legitimate as any other form.

“My friends are too level headed to be activists”

I think I’m beginning to understand. The pejorative part of the term “homosexual activist” is “activist,” which I guess means that homosexuals are acceptable if they don’t try to change anything.

I’ve never considered myself an activist, mjpb, but in this context, I’ll wear the tag “homosexual activist” with pride. I even grant you permission to refer to me as the uppity n1gger – oh sorry, not n1gger, uppity fag.

“Homosexual activists sure have a phobia about that type of thing don’t they?”

There you go generalising about us again, mjpb. All the law-abiding human beings I know object to being arbitrarily associated with criminals. The claim “christians and psychopaths have irrational beliefs” would do the same sort of thing as you have done with homosexuals and paedophiles. People who are careful with their language, and who respect those they are referring to don’t make these kinds of claims.

In response to my earlier question (“was it malice or carelessness?”) you’ve pretty well ruled out carelessness, and given the above, I’m kinda running out of other conclusions I can draw.

You’re right, Robert. The opponents of equal rights for same-sex-attracted people are completely oblivious to the contradictions in the various positions they take.

The most recent figure for gay Australians that I have seen in a well-constructed study: “According to Roy Morgan Single Source, 2.4% of Australians aged 18 or over, or 370,000 people, consider themselves to be gay.” http://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/pdf/g&l_roymorganarticle-2006update.pdf The numbers aren’t that low at all, but some will blindly argue from any figure they happen to come across without bothering to check.

Even so, in a country which claims to value a fair go for all, the numbers are also irrelevant. Either we have equality for all, or we have no equality at all. It doesn’t come in half measures.

paedophile's linked to which group?

- http://www.toowoombapressreleases.com/?id=123450
- http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/bib/church.html
- http://www.deception.com.au/6_hypocrites_conclusion.htm
- http://www.armedia.net.au/archive/2003c/edit06.html
- http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/12/ch3.pdf

An interesting comment in the aic document was
"male victims of paedophiles outnumber female victims by a ratio of two to one. It is important to note, however, that while boys are more likely to be the victims of paedophiles, girls are more likely to be victims in reported child sexual abuse cases overall (Angus & Woodward 1995, p. 12);"

Some context for this comes a bit earlier "It is very important to understand that not all child sex offenders are paedophiles —
paedophiles are a sub-set of child sex offenders One of the most useful typologies of child sex offenders for law enforcement purposes (but not, perhaps, for other disciplines) is the division between preferential and situational child sex offenders. Preferential offenders are paedophiles and situational offenders are those who prefer adult sexual partners but who, at times of stress, convenience or curiosity, may engage in sexual activity with children. It can, however, be difficult to determine unequivocably whether a child sex offender is a paedophile unless their entire offending history and their true sexual preference is known."

R0bert

Well, here I am back again... When I first started this thread, I thought it was a simple one. Boy, was I wrong. Such a mix of emotions,
it has been (dare I say it) a 'revelation.'

I'll try to avoid controversial topics in future (whew). I even got called an 'atheist.' (Could have been worse - I suppose).

Anyway, I thought that my last words on the topic should 'lighten things up.' So here goes:

"Faggots, Poofters, Dykes and Queers,
These names have been around for years.
Just like Dagos, Micks and wogs,
The names do stick like frogs on logs.

Legal rights are all they seek,
Your condemnation's not unique.
"Don't give them rights!" is what you say.
But this is a problem that won't go away.

You quote the Bible, but you can't fudge...
Only God can be the judge.
"Do unto others..." was His Story,
And through it lies the path to glory.

Next time you pray, make sure you know,
It's the pure of heart, that will get to go.
So, when your turn comes, He'll exclude you, my dear,
Because God finds your outlook a bit queer!"

Wizofaus:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071405.html

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/90AE062D-13C5-4EC5-879E-A98FA76A1454/0/discussionpaper04006.pdf

A secular argument against same-sex marriage which covers some of the objections raised in this discussion:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/030714a.html

The negative impact same-sex marriage has on society:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm577.cfm

CJ: It doesn’t matter if children of Christians grow up to be gay. You heard it before: In March this year I watched my 4-yr old go under the wheel of a 4WD. Given the miracle that is his life, I’d love him gay, Buddhist, terrorist, ingrate. As long as he knows the power of Christ’s saving grace, I will always have hope.

Foxy: One of five Catholic children, Catholic primary and Catholic Girl’s HS, the usual sacraments (baptism, communion, confirmation) administered in childhood, married in a Catholic Church, 1st child baptized Catholic, close family member’s include a priest and missionary (father’s cousin), nun (aunt), Christian brother (uncle), Archbishop (mother’s cousin)... my Catholic credentials are all in order. Yet we are not singing from the same hymn book.

The key point of difference, is my reliance on the bible. If it doesn’t square with God’s word, then it has no place in what I believe. It is very easy to test what I am saying, just look up the bible references for yourself. When I stand before God, I will not be thinking of what I bring to the table. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus”. (Romans 3:23-24)

For gender-conflicted young adults, for all who struggle with their sexuality: change is possible. God can work in our lives. Be realistic, but be optimistic:

“we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit”. (2 Cor: 3:18)

Oh dear, more deceptive sites from the religious right. The first of your links, katieO, makes a claim about the length of all same-sex relationships extrapolated from a sample of sexually active homosexual men under 30 who live in the Amsterdam area. No doubt the author knew this was dodgy, and now you do too.

The other links are just as dodgy, though Margaret Somerville needs to be addressed in detail. She’s a compelling speaker, but her opposition to same-sex marriage is based on a single invalid premise:

“If we focus on adult individuals' commitment to each other and public recognition of that commitment (as the courts have done), we can conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex unions and having a separate but equal institution for same-sex unions would be discrimination. If, however, we focus on the inherently procreative nature of an opposite-sex union and the absence of that feature in a same-sex union, we can regard the two types of union as different but equal.”

Opposite-sex unions may have been “inherently procreative” at the time when humans swung down from the trees, but they sure aren’t now. Humans are reproducing later, and living long fruitful lives well after the kids have flown the nest. How many seventy-year old couples are still together for the sake of the kids? None.

The ABS estimates that almost a quarter of Australian women bear no children http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/1e8c8e4887c33955ca2570ec000a9fe5!OpenDocument Where these women marry, the relationship is not “inherently procreative” either.

In fact, in today’s Australia, procreation has very little to do with marriage. In 2005, 32.2% of Australian births were ex-nuptial http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/4fb2487dc751e0f4ca25728e0014d184!OpenDocument , up from 10.2% in 1975.

Somerville’s arguments imply a return to the times when men controlled women’s fertility, and children were acceptable within only one relationship model. Unfortunately the world has moved on, and no amount of wishing or praying will turn back the clock to those times.

It’s quite interesting that many people claim that “homosexual activists” are seeking change, when in fact the changes have already taken place. All we’re asking is that the law recognise today’s reality.

TRTL
>>of legal age.... who can and can't have sex.<<

KEY WORD "legal"..... The concept of 'legal' is fluid..subject to change by activists, and politically astute lobby groups.

A better word is 'moral'......

JPW seems to describe his position by describing it as 'same sex attracted' then seeks to justify it, on the grounds of "a change of reality in the community"....but how did that reality change ?

ANSWER: Political, Social.. ACTIVISIM and lobbying! Combined with a rejection of moral principles which served as an anchor for our community.

JPW.. may I ask.. IF....you happened to be attracted to 'little' boys... and you were persuaded in your own mind (like the members of Nambla are) that 'sexual experiences between adult males and children are not neccessarily negative'....

Would you try to convince us that your 'inclination' was both moral, and acceptable, and that we simply have to catch up with your enlightened stance on such things ?

If, due to societies rejection of such behavior they experience alienation, depression, marginalization...would you seek to advance their cause?

If NOT...then you just discovered why many of us reject the idea that homosexual behavior should have the same legitimization that heterosexual behavior does. It is 'one step removed' from the moral equilibrium we believe is acceptable to a healthy society.

Would you expect such people..(Adult Child attracted) (many of whom absolutely believe they were 'born' this way, to express...OR.. to avoid the expression of such behavior ?

Don't bother going down the 'adult informed-consentual' track, because the definitions of 'adult' can change tomorrow. Muslims believe a girl is an 'adult' at the onset of puberty. In Aisha's case that was 9.

My view is that just as we expect Adult-Child sexual attraction to be avoided, repented of, supressed... we also have the absolute right to expect adult-adult same sex attraction to be limited to ATTRACTION, but not behavior, and that conformance to the reproductive pattern of male/female is the ONLY acceptable form of human sexual relationship.

Love someone of the same sex ? sure.. go4it.. just dont try to have SEX with them.

I've responded to this crap before: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4598#45568

If there's one thing that's annoys me, it's those darn activists managing to convince the government to change the age of consent every term!

It's been getting on my goat since federation!

Wizofaus: My assertions are drawn from impartial, original Dutch sources. The study quoted (p.10), far from being discredited, has been used in US senate hearings.

Data extrapolation is a common social science tool. Even allowing for a standard deviation, the 1.5% is a very strong indicator of something running amuck (multiple sexual partners outside of the union!!).

The link you posted from the Tasmanian gay lobby, does not show it's source other than a link to a report on contemporary families which does not exist.

The link I posted from the Heritage Org shows very clearly, that including “flash annulments” and “lightning divorces” in the divorce count, makes the Netherlands model a complete failure.

Your link to the ABS report titled “Trends in Childlessness” should give you a clue that this is not a good thing.

*Your* link highlights several worrying trends, but don’t forget the significant, personal tragedies that lie behind those statistics. Look at the link between voluntary and involuntary childlessness. Try to put a face to a number. Think of family members and friends, struggling with this or battling the odds with IVF (almost 2% of all births in 1999, but the high failure rate of assisted pregnancy doesn’t accurately reflect the numbers of couples who go through this torment).

You can’t have missed the big chunk of data showing that:

“Different belief systems place different emphases on the place of marriage, the importance of family, the role of women in society and the acceptability of controlling fertility, all of which can affect levels of childlessness….”

The nail in the coffin:

“Buddhist women and women with no religion had the highest levels of childlessness (17% and 16% respectively)”.

Read it, and weep.

For children born outside of marriage, “the absence of marriage is a threat to children and thus a treat to the future of a nation”. How many of those single mothers are under 25? How many are indigenous Australians? What sort of future do those children face?

The barometer shows a society under duress. Let's address this before same-sex marriage.

"There's a simple question - do you believe homosexuality is wired in, or is it a choice?"

TRTL there is a simple answer. Neither. Maybe a hard wired weakness that makes them more vulnerable to this or other mental problems or they might be the neglected younger son in some family breeding like rabbits but obviously either way they aren't hard wired to be perverts. Nor a choice, did you choose your preference? Would you choose to be a homosexual? How about a hated paedophile?

Now that is tough for homos and tougher for paedophiles that they are as they are but you are really mixed up there. Noone is talking about making the homo perversion illegal. This is about protecting kids pure and simple. Get it straight.

"hardcore conservatives"

It has nothing to do with conservative if more conservatives oppose it that is coincidence. People can be conservative and easily led and people can be progressive and easily led. It just happens that easily led conservatives, and I bet there is more because so many are so stupid, tend to led to religion. If so, the christian god tells them it is all bad. Easily led progressives don't have that so they get led by the nose by the activists. I can think of other divisions that would coincidentally affect support for perverts at the expense of kids.

"psychologically damaging."

What are you talking about? I suppose you think we should also let paedophiles have kids to keep them happy? We wouldn't want them to be damaged would we?

"genuine concern for the psychological welfare of homosexuals isn't your primary concern at all."

Of course not I am concerned for kids. It might be tough being a pervert but the line needs to be drawn when it affects others particularly kids. No marriage or even adoption by itself please.

"Honestly. I really do wish conservatives weren't so hung up on telling people of legal age and who are capable of informed consent, who can and can't have sex."

Can I do a nomination for bottom of the class?

KatieO, if that's the best secular argument anyone can come up with ("Marriage symbolizes the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman") then it's no wonder that there are fewer and fewer states trying to hang on to the idea that it makes sense to ban homosexual marriages. To reiterate, Denmark has had legal gay unions for *17* years - since 1989, and in that time has since heterosexual marriage rates increase, and divorce rates drop.

There is zero evidence that homosexual marriage is somehow responsible for the breakdown of traditional families or for any negative affect on children. If there were, I would happily change my mind on the matter.

Anyway, there are far better things to argue about. Gay marriage will be legal in at least some parts of Australia within 3 years, and almost certainly everywhere within 10. And 99.9% of the population will be perfectly OK with that.

“...The pejorative part of the term “homosexual activist” is “activist,” which I guess means that homosexuals are acceptable if they don’t try to change anything. “

Actually to me the perjorative part is ‘homosexual activist’ as I have some real negative stereotypes concerning that group. However if the activist part is chopped off I am open to friendship. There is a difference. What it means is that homosexuals are decent if they aren’t bullies who make a sport of Christian bashing. The quote you took however was just a flippant observation of particular people with nothing intended between the lines.

”...I’ll wear the tag “homosexual activist” with pride...”

Do what you like but I won’t buy into straw men. I’m not sure you are an activist but you seem to continually embrace the label generally so I do wonder about you.

“Homosexual activists sure have a phobia about that type of thing don’t they?”

”There you go generalising about us again, mjpb. All the law-abiding human beings I know object to being arbitrarily associated with criminals. The claim “christians and psychopaths have irrational beliefs” would do the same sort of thing as you have done with homosexuals and paedophiles. People who are careful with their language, and who respect those they are referring to don’t make these kinds of claims.”

I note that the comment about Christians and psychopaths doesn’t just bring them together but adds an antagonistic extra bit by referring to irrational beliefs. Nevertheless if someone responded to the comment and said neither can change I’d hardly fly off the handle at the respondent and I am a Christian.

As regards the respect issue I believe that is incorrect as regards merely referring to any two groups together. If I or anyone else said that Christians and psychopaths both encounter undue bigotry in our society I wouldn’t consider them to disrespect either group. Feel free to read between the lines on that one.

CONT

In response to my earlier question (“was it malice or carelessness?”) you’ve pretty well ruled out carelessness, and given the above, I’m kinda running out of other conclusions I can draw.

It was a direct response to Runner stating that the lie they are born that way is no more true than paedophiles being born that way. I took responded directly to that comment highlighting the difficulty in changing. You gave a very strong reaction to that even though I was just responding to Runner’s comment. I can imagine that you are running out of conclusions. You have certainly stretched the available ones going way beyond anything reasonably intended.

CJ,

I hope your kids grow up happy, healthy, straight, right handed, and unbigotted. Becoming a Christian would be fantastic but probably unlikely.

“so I do wonder about you”

That’s very obvious: “There is a lot below the surface there.”

If you have an assertion to make, mjpb, make it. If not, keep your dark musings to yourself.

“I have some real negative stereotypes concerning that group. However if the activist part is chopped off I am open to friendship.”

You’ll need to explain to me how this is different to my assertion that in your world view, “the pejorative part of the term “homosexual activist” is “activist,” which I guess means that homosexuals are acceptable if they don’t try to change anything.”

Your formulation reads like a clear confirmation to me.

Which musing do you want me to explain. They relate to different posts and different issues even though you think they need bringing together?

I thought this part of the formulation explained it: "What it means is that homosexuals are decent if they aren’t bullies who make a sport of Christian bashing." Tell me you aren't missing the context to see what you want to see by explaining how that is true in that context.

mjpb, just which posters do you think are "homosexual activists"?

I've had some history with many of the other posters and most are as far as I'm aware heterosexual. Fair go and perhaps one other poster have made posts that appear to indicate that they are homosexual.

My impression is that most of us are not in this debate out of self interest but rather concern over a remnant of intolerance that deserves no place in modern Australia.

Concern about the harm done to the lives of not only homosexuals but the lives of those around them by the continuing villification and attempts to limit their freedom coming from some christains and others living in the grip of ancient hatreds. People who all to often ignore a teaching about specks and planks.

R0bert

J Bennett, where is it written that gay marriage is harmful to children. You do realise dont you that gay marriage by definition excludes children. Yes, no doubt they will be able to use IVF or adopt, but they can now - you dont have to be married to do so. Legitimising gay marriage is not going to make an ounce of difference to the effect on children.

Added to that you seem to come to the conclusion that gay partners engage in sexual acts in the lounge room, where all the kids can sit around and watch. Get a grip - I have no doubt that if kids were introduced into the equation, then the mere pressures of time and managing a family will have most gays acting as conservatively as any other parents.

I know of only one gay relationship that includes kids. Neither woman would be picked as a lesbian if you didnt know better. The kids belong to one from her former marriage. They are balanced normal kids, who participate in a wide range of school activities, have lots of friends etc. It has not been a negative impact on them (although I am sure they had to shoulder a bit of school bullying for a while, until the bullies found something more interesting).

You didn't answer specifically whether you believe homosexuality is a choice, saying neither, but that at least indicates that you accept there is some difficulty in 'choosing' to be heterosexual.

In which case, you're in favour of denying these people a civil union. You haven't answered me as to how either treating these people as second class citizens or demanding they remain alone and celibate for life will improve their psychological well being.

You're the one who brought up suicide and depression - tell me how denying these people civil unions helps.

As for the children side of things, other posters have outlined studies refuting that point. Given how many crappy heterosexual parents there are out there, perhaps the people opposing same-sex unions should direct their efforts to combating bad parents full stop.

As for paedophiles - irrelevant. Nobody's arguing that, nor will anyone. It's about informed consent.

The link of paedophilia and homosexuality is demonstratede in the fact that the majority of boys sexually abused were involved in homosexual acts. The sexual act was with men - the same sex.

In some countries where women are considered as second class citizens hetrosexual men indulge in homosexual behaviour for pleasure. They prefer same sex intercourse. It is the peverted sex act that is discusting not the friendship relationship.

Marriage is the act of the two becoming one flesh - completing a unit. Two persons of the same sex will always be two persons of the same sex.

Philo - that's causal. You haven't proved a link at all - males are responsible for more sex crime across the board.

As for 'two becoming one flesh, one unit' while this biblically sourced rhetoric sounds all very nice, in practicality, siamese twins have an awfully difficult time and most decide to undergo surgery for separation ;)

"mjpb, just which posters do you think are "homosexual activists"?

I've had some history with many of the other posters and most are as far as I'm aware heterosexual. Fair go and perhaps one other poster have made posts that appear to indicate that they are homosexual."

Possibly Jpw2040 and Fair Go. Some maybes but CJ, you, CountryGal, TurnRightThenLeft and Foxy I'd say are safe bets as heterosexual. I am sure you are generally correct as I notice in here that there is a high level of support for homosexuals by heterosexuals. It is a real haven so I'd be surprised if there weren't more around then those that let on but why witchhunt?

"My impression is that most of us ... concern over a remnant of intolerance ...

...continuing villification ... People who all to often ignore a teaching about specks and planks."

Hopefully it is as altruistic as you say not just an excuse to Fundy bash. As you can see from CJ Morgan a forum on a homosexual topic where a couple of fundys say it is sinful is a great excuse to start saying the most vile things about Christians. Ironically I believe CJ is one of the most ardent pro-gay people in here so it isn't just an excuse for him.

With respect if that is really how you feel is there any chance that you could kick in to support Christians when they meet with vilification? That seems to be approached more aggressively, is an increasing source of intolerance, and the mass media would never oppose it.

mjpb wrote: "With respect if that is really how you feel is there any chance that you could kick in to support Christians when they meet with vilification?"

The Christians in this thread (bar Foxy, of course) are vilifying homosexuals. It's classic vilification – using blatant logical fallacies to link homosexuality to pedeophilia and bestiality, and ad hominem arguments when those failed. The atheists initially defended the right of gay people to, you know, be gay, but then ended up barnying with the Christians. So far, so boring – I think we can all cope with a little name calling.

But the Christians here are not just vilifying gays, they're mounting an argument for gay people be discriminated against. To change their behaviour. To deny their identity. For no better reason than, well, you'd just prefer it, is all. That crosses a line. Homosexuals aren't campaigning to tear down St Mary's. They're not demanding you refrain from adopting the missionary position.

When that happens, I'll stick up for you.

I must say, it just saddens me that the Christian response on this board is always a bit meanspirited and unforgiving and judgmental. And it's full of bible quotes – not even the pretty, lyrical bits, but the boring bits. I miss the old Christians – the ones who used to give out those "smile" stickers.

*Harumphs off to watch GodSpell.*

My absolute favourite quote from this thread is from KatieO:

"Surprising that an atheist, that abandons God the Creator, can accept the notion of faith and eternity. Faith in one’s own statements of disbelief? An eternity filled with nothingness? Hope in enduring emptiness?"

It's the eleventh commandment. "Thou shalt feel superior, and be smug."

Thanks botheration. No-one here is attacking christians as a group, but avowed christians here showing no restraint in slinging the vilest generalisations and most hideous lies at homosexuals.

Jack:
“It's just unnatural. Once this is allowed, what next? Pressure groups lobbying to legalise bestiality? Pedophilia?”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23256

Philo:
“Any other sexual arrangement is deviant and unnatural.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23263
“it is their mind that is screwed up”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23308

runner:
“We already have this perverted lifestyle thrown in our faces.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23271
“No one could possibly argue that sodomy is natural. The diseases that go with it is enough proof.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23374

mjpb:
“would you agree that both homosexuals and paedophiles usually have difficulty changing?” (followed by an incitement for the religious and non-religious to get stuck into each other).
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23290

boaz:
“they already want Men boy sex.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23302
“The linking of Gay behavior to Paedophiles may not seem so obvious to those who feel comfortable about homosexual behavior, but the issue is not the LINK..... or lack of, but the METHOD”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23327

katieO:
“every gain for the gay lobby is a grievous loss for the Body of Christ,”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23397

mjpb, having wished for a good stoush, it’s extremely disingenuous of you to be playing the victim because some have actually risen to your challenge.

Yes, there are people here taking robust issue with the claims of individual posters. However contrary to your assertion, “a couple of fundys say it is sinful is a great excuse to start saying the most vile things about Christians,” vilification of christians in this discussion is non-existent.

No-one here is saying that christians are unnatural, criminal, diseased or destructive. Yet we are being bombarded with people who claim to be christian vilifying homosexuals in exactly these terms.

No-one here is using lies, outdated statistics and completely false claims to vilify christians. However there are many in this discussion who think that their system of belief relieves them of any obligation to check their facts before posting.

Finally, there are no “homosexual activists” here - just a lot of people who know that equality is a higher value than belief.

mjpb, I'll be more than happy to defend christains when I see them being unfairly attacked. I have even spoken in Boazy's defense on a couple of occasions (sorry CJ).

I'm not refering to an response to a christain poster in the habit of living by the sword but if I see what I consider an unreasonable attack I try to bring balance. I don't always get that right nor always have the energy to intervene but I do try.

I've not seen any attempts to have the christain faith banned dispite the clear link between christain belief and extreme christain fundamentalism.

I've seen no attempts to brand christains as paedophiles despite the clear link between sections of the church and child sexual abuse even in the face of the attempts by a number of christains to claim a particular link between homosexuals and paedophiles. As with Boazy attacking acceptance of gay marriage on the basis of the risks of social change while pointedly ignoring the history of villification of mixed race marriages the christain church is living in a glass house when it comes to attacking homosexuals over child abuse. Most are innocent but your own house is not in order.

We have a some christains on the site who understand something of Jesus character and teaching and do credit to their faith. We have the capital J christains determined to bash everybody else with their faith who do a great disservice to the christain message.

R0bert

Couldnt have said it better R0bert. As usual you do bring a balanced and sensible voice to the debate. Now, if only others would pick up on the "do unto others" bit, we might be able to advance the discussion without the usual nastiness, but I wont be holding my breath.

wizofaus what do you mean 'demonstrate'? Anal sex is filthy and unnatural. I'm certainly not going to demonstrate it. How about you?

turnrightthenleft, for a reBUTTal, see above.

Too many heterophobes on this forum. Because some of us see their perversions as disgusting, they howl in protest at us 'homophobes' (I'm not - houses don't scare me). Or the other favourite is that we're all Christian fundies. So why do I, an athiest, see bum-boys as being revolting?

Funny you should mention heterophobes, Jack.

You can read all about the insidious Heterosexual Agenda here:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.htm

Dear Jack The Lad,

It's your right to see whoever you want as - 'revolting.' But, it's people's rights that we're talking about here - not judgements.
You are entitled to think what you want - but you're not entitled to deny others their legal rights. That's all!

Jack the Lad, I posted a bunch of links to material on the causes of homophobia recently http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6644#99444

Quick summary of main causes for homophobia
- Religiously inspired
- Fighting an attraction for gay sex (homophobes are much more likely to be sexually aroused by gay porn than tollerant hetrosexual's)
- Personal issues which let something you don't like play too much of a part in your life. Anal sex is not in my list of things to do either but nobody is asking me to do it so it's not my problem. There are probably women around who would find the idea of sex with you disgusting - should you be banned from having sex at all because somebody else finds the idea repulsive?

If you really do think it's revolting (rather than being in denial about an attraction to gay sex) then stop thinking about it. Leave it to those who want to do it.

As for hetrophobes - are you incapable of liking something yourself without trying to deny others the opportunity to follow different preferences?

R0bert

Robert,

Before replying to the comments you directed at me I'll just comment on the homophobia thing. Are you absolutely sure that someone like Jack the Lad is Christian, insecure or struggling with personal issues? I suspect not. If you take such rhetorical argument too seriously the Jack the Lads of the world will only have their views affirmed.

You do tend to sound pretty middle of the road and attempting to be fair that is why I made the comment. Certainly if a Christian poster lives by the sword they will get obvious consequences. But being human you might not always get the balance right.

I've seen attempts to have prayer banned in parliament in a country with Christian heritage. I've heard and read comments that Christian leaders shouldn't comment on moral issues in public even in a political arena.

In here (and out of here) I've seen many attempts to link Christians with paedophiles. Indeed any Christian pastor who even has sex with a 17 year old boy gets labelled a paedophile and gets huge publicity. Paedophiles go through courts every day of the week but you would think from the media that only the Christians that get done once a year were prosecuted paedophiles. There hasn't been any of that in this particular thread but give it time.

"Most are innocent but your own house is not in order."

True but as far as houses any disorder of this kind is not good but the house has done better than most.

"We have a some christains on the site who understand something of Jesus character and teaching and do credit to their faith. We have the capital J christains determined to bash everybody else with their faith who do a great disservice to the christain message."

I won't rule out this possibility but don't fall into the human trap of viewing everything through your expectation. People have a habit of looking for evidence of their beliefs rather than viewing things objectively.

Breathtaking hypocrisy: how can you possibly object to "attempts to link Christians with paedophiles" when you are doing this same thing yourself to homosexuals?

Does it strike you as a little arrogant to expect standards of others that you don't bother to apply to yourself? Obviously not.

As you admit, the associations you object to haven't even taken place in this discussion. As I and others have pointed out, the most despicable things have been said in this discussion about homosexuals, and you're prepared to defend this on the grounds that at some time in the future similar things may be said about christians here: "There hasn't been any of that in this particular thread but give it time."

If you truly object to smearing one group of people by associating them with criminals then you need to condemn the behaviour vigorously and cease doing it yourself. Otherwise you're nothing less than a base hypocrite, using your beliefs the same way a drunk uses a lamp-post (to borrow a line from Mark Twain).

In fact, your beliefs don't even belong in this discussion. The topic here is the civil rights of a group of law-abiding human beings. Instead you and others are trying to derail it with references to belief. You're even attempting to widen it now by introducing other faith-based issues. If you want a discussion about prayer in parliament, start one somewhere else. It's not relevant here.

If you have a contribution to make to this discussion, mjpb, then please do so. Take a position and argue for it - make a relevant point FFS. So far all you have done here is attempt to divert the discussion with loaded rhetorical questions and irrelevant distractions.

Apparently it's the fundies and other homophobes who are out of step with both sides of politics on this issue:

"New Liberal Party leader Brendan Nelson has declared his support for more equitable legal arrangements for gay and lesbian couples."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/02/2107227.htm?section=justin

mjpb: "Are you absolutely sure that someone like Jack the Lad is Christian, insecure or struggling with personal issues?"

Well, he says he's not Christian, but on the basis of his comments in this and other threads I think the latter descriptions apply. He also seems to be unaware that anal sex is engaged in by heterosexuals too. I think he's a classic homophobe with limited sexual experience.

jpw2040: "So far all you have done here is attempt to divert the discussion with loaded rhetorical questions and irrelevant distractions".

That seems to be mjpb's standard approach to debating. Probably works quite well at church fellowship but it doesn't wash here. Mjpb's homophobia is quite cleverly disguised, but ultimately it's still knuckle-dragging bigotry. I don't believe mjpb's claims to have gay friends - if s/he did, they certainly wouldn't need enemies.

The use of the term "homophobia" is an attempt to vilify those who oppose these unnatural sex acts.

Normal philial same gender relationships are encouraged in society and the Church; however if they are jumping into bed with each other then it has crossed the boundary of decency and morality. The supporters of these acts feel by the constant use of this term they will gain some moral high-ground. The term "phobia" means to have some unnatural fear.

By their constant use of phobia they are hoping that the term sticks. The truth of the fact is homosexual males have developed some infantile fear of having a long term relationship and normal sex with a woman. Similarly two woman in a long term sexual relationship have some unatural fear of men, that probably stems from a poor relationship with their father, or the man in the home during their pubity.

When shari'ah laws are introduced to Australia in 2040 then we will see this practise almost eradicated.

mjpb, Jack the Lad has already declared himself to be athiest.

I listed what I found in the material I've seen to be the main causes of homophobia. I don't know which if any applies to Jack.

R0bert

The only objections to gay marriages are based on either bigotry or religion.

The issue of age of consent "which is sure to follow" as a result of the approval of gay marriage is a separate issue which needs to be resolved outside of the marriage issue.

With the way relationships are progressing, I see little relevance in marriage recently. The real debate is that the church wishes to retain it as its preserve. The claim of "holy" is more a copyright issue than one of morality.

I can see no negative effects of gay marriage, other than ruffling feathers, and can therefore see no reason to deny it to anyone capable of consent.

CountryGal it stands to reason it is harmful to children. Experimenting on them to prove it to those without the brains to see it is a very ugly thing. No difference? How could there be anything less than full adoption rights if there was gay marriage? That wouldn’t make sense. Do you seriously think they have to have sex in the lounge room for the kids to know that there are 2 daddies and no mommy?

Mjpb if I was sad enough to be a christian I’d have the balls to say Robert is obviously being a hypocrite for your pathetic cult. Since christians do more damage than gays and you are all hypocrites it probably isn’t such a bad thing.

TRTL my led by the nose was an understatement. Seems to me you heteros who support pervert marriage have their propaganda churning around in your head so much you can’t think straight.

No matter how many wrongs they come up with doesn’t make it a new civil right. Doesn’t some alarm bell ring deep down when kids are put at risk for somethng you are rationalising as a civil right but if you stop and think noone had even thought of 40 years ago? Isn’t something kicking around in your head when people like you chant about christians when non-christians are in here trying to reason with you and when you chant about conservatives when progressives are in here trying to protect kids from perverts?

How long can you keep living a lie when the truth is in your face? How long can you be okay with kids being put at risk? How long can you keep telling yourself it about peoples private bedroom when we aren’t talking about making the perversion ilegal just arguing to protect kids?

Doesn’t you get suspicious when gays try to scare people out of thinking for themselves by claiming that any different opinion must be homophobia? Don’t you wonder if they are hiding the fact that it is plainly wrong? Wake up Australia!

J Bennet,

Your assumption of full adoption rights to gay couples assumes that adoptions are made without rigourous assesment of the applicants. The fact that a couple are too old i.e. > 40 often precludes them from adoption means that a non standard union would also be negative factor. Lesbian couples presently raise children, with apparently no detriment to the children involved.

The fact that most child abuse comes not from homosexual men, but heterosexual men, ought to finally put sword to this thread bare argument.

I abhor having sanctimonious idiots dictating how I will live based on their personal preferences, so while I find the thought of the homosexual act distasteful, I will not impose my values on someone else without real cause.

J Bennett, I dont support experimenting on kids of any description, but I dont see how having no mummy around is a problem (or no daddy). Look at the numbers of single-parent families around today. I was raised by a single father, and dont think I have suffered too many long term consequences (may be a bit bold to say so, but that's my perogative). Men are quite capable of being great and caring parents. As for adopting children, have you any idea about the hurdles you have to jump through to adopt in this country? If there is ANY tiny suspicion about the parents, then its called off. Its a process that takes years. Adopted children are probably safer with their parents than natural children on average.

As I said in my first post, I am not that comfortable with the idea of homosexuality myself (I find it a bit gross), but I dont think that this is enough of a basis for denying two people the ability to emotionally and financially invest in a long-term relationship. One of the biggest problems I see is the lack of financial security for the partners in a gay relationship - the normal defacto rules do not apply, and if one partner is the main income-earner, the other can suffer very badly financially in the long run as a result. Or wills can be contested if one partner dies, leaving the other with nothing if other family members want a share of the pie first. This is the sort of thing that I think is most inequitable and deserves to be addressed.

Serious research has been done into the effectiveness of same-sex parenting, J Bennett. None of it reinforces your poisonous sentiments about gay and lesbian parents.

Same-sex parenting is not an experiment. As others have pointed out here, being homosexual doesn't make you sterile - gays and lesbians are able to reproduce, and they have been doing so for all of human history. The fact that they are now choosing to do it with each other rather than with unsuspecting heterosexual spouses should be of great relief to all who "find the thought of the homosexual act distasteful."

The APA (American Psychological Association) estimates that in the United States 22% of male same-sex households include a child, and 33% of female same-sex households http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html In Australia the estimates are somewhat lower. Based on the 2001 census, the ABS put the figure 20% of female couples and 5% of male couples caring for children: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article82005?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2005&num=&view= Current estimates are around 20-25%: http://www.workingitout.org.au/Homophobia_Families.html

The same APA link finds that based on rigorous studies, there are no grounds for discriminating against same-sex parents. Further investigations continue to reinforce these findings - see http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/533580/?sc=lwhn

If you think you can stop same-sex couples from raising children, forget it. You're too late. Society's obligation is to make sure that the children of same-sex couples have equal protections, and equal access to resources as the children of opposite-sex families. The best way to ensure equality for the children of same-sex couples is to give equal recognition to the parents’ relationship. Indeed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has recommended that in addition to giving equal defacto recognition to same-sex couples the Commonwealth “Enact laws recognising the relationship between a child and both same-sex parents.” http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/Ch_18.html

I appreciate that many people don't like thinking about sex. However I think you need to remind yourself that when you look at an opposite-sex couple, you don't wonder who was on top when they last had sex. If you're bothered by thinking about homosexual sex, apply the same process as you do with straight couples - don't think about it at all.

”vilification of christians in this discussion is non-existent. “

I guess if you think that anything can be said about Christians without Christians having the right to be offended that would be true. For those of us who don’t subscribe to such a deep south mentality comments like the following might not be seen as flattering:

“It's therefore time to reject the rigid views from religious leaders with fundamentalist delusions.”

"...runner worships at the altar of intolerance"

“I think you should be concerned about what’s happened to your brain since you got god, Katie. Or were you always this ditzy?”

“...the homophobic Christians...”

I consider them insulting.

”No-one here is saying that christians are unnatural, criminal, diseased or destructive. Yet we are being bombarded with people who claim to be christian vilifying homosexuals in exactly these terms. “

Noone is linking homosexuality with brains, citing intolerance in spite of your concluding comments, or claiming you are deluded. More particularly, I would have thought a claim of delusion would suggest disease? Likewise I'm sure I'm getting the message in here that Christians are destructive. As regards the other two, I concede for what it is worth that noone has considered Christianity as unnatural and I don’t believe that anyone has claimed that homosexuals are criminals either.

“...how can you possibly object to "attempts to link Christians with paedophiles" when you are doing this same thing yourself to homosexuals?”

I believe you have kept them linked a lot longer than my comment that you are obsessed with. I just cited a mutual inoffensive quality in response to a previous poster who had juxtaposed them. The purpose of my comment that you are currently replying to was a response to Robert typing:

“I've seen no attempts to brand christains as paedophiles despite the clear link between sections of the church and child sexual...”

CONT

I pointed out to Robert that I have seen attempts in olo to brand Christians as paedophiles.

”Does it strike you as a little arrogant to expect standards of others that you don't bother to apply to yourself? Obviously not.”

Whether or not you care to admit it there is a difference between claiming Christians are paedophiles and responding to Runner that both are hard to change.

”… the most despicable things have been said in this discussion about homosexuals, and you're prepared to defend this on the grounds that at some time in the future similar things may be said …”

Christians have been insulted and worse things are frequently said about Christians in olo. Just as I earlier expressed an expectation that Boazy would contribute (which proved correct) I considered it a matter of time before it happens here if the thread continues. I’m not defending anything despicable I was expressing an expectation in the context of Robert's comment.

”If you truly object to smearing one group of people by associating them with criminals then you need to condemn the behaviour vigorously and cease doing it yourself…”

I would have made one diplomatic comment had you not perpetuated it. I’m happy to cease if you want to stop discussing it.

”In fact, your beliefs don't even belong in this discussion. The topic here is the civil rights of a group of law-abiding human beings. Instead you and others are trying to derail it with references to belief. You're even attempting to widen it now by introducing other faith-based issues. If you want a discussion about prayer in parliament, start one somewhere else. It's not relevant here.”

Stop trying to be such a bully. I'll type what I please. I didn’t introduce religous belief to the topic not that you probably care.

CJ,

”Mjpb's homophobia is quite cleverly disguised, but ultimately it's still knuckle-dragging bigotry.”

One minute I’m clever and disingenuous the next a knuckle dragger. Whatever works at the time?

J Bennett. You can claim your opponents are being 'led by the nose' all you like, but everything backing your claims has either been proven false by posters, or is a kneejerk reaction on what you find 'gross.'

That's fine and dandy, but not when it comes to denying people rights. You've also failed quite comprehensively to tell me how this concern that homosexual people will feel depression (which YOU brought up) will be helped by demanding they be celibate or refusing to recognise their union.

You've directed the debate to other places like gay adoption or whatever else, but my point - that any person who tries to claim that they're denying homosexuals the right for a civil union because it has been proven to be a psychologically damaging way of life - isn't acting out of concern for these people at all, because if they were they'd accept the obvious truth that denying these people a union is only going to be more psychologically damaging.

As I said, you've jumped all over the shop, but can't seem to quite deal with this point. It's the point I put forward but you can't answer, so no, I'm not being 'led by the nose.'

But because I happen to disagree with you I'm being led? Funny, because that's what people say about conservatives who think they have the right to dictate to consenting adults what their sex lives should look like.

I won't resort to the puerile debate games of saying 'no you're the one being led!' because the fact there are so many divergent opinions shows that there's plenty of schools of thought. Quite frankly, without knowing the people in question, I'd say anyone who has the temerity to claim posts from people they don't know aren't representative of their true opinion, is the height of presumptuousness.

You have a very odd notion of what a bully is. Forthright? Yep, that’s me. Disagreeable? Often. Bully? I don’t think so. Use a dictionary: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bully

Sticks and stones, mjpb, especially coming from someone with standards as elastic as yours. Call me whatever you like. Just don’t use name-calling to avoid dealing with the issues. Like I said, belief doesn’t belong in this discussion. Whether you introduced it or not, you’re the one claiming that if it’s OK to criticise christians anywhere on OLO, it’s OK to vilify homosexuals here.

What you’re conveniently disregarding is the fact that all of the vilification above http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23550 is about homosexuals in general. Every quote which you are objecting to is directed at individuals, not attacking them because they’re christians, but rebutting silly or offensive claims.

“I consider them insulting.” You have no justification for considering them insulting, because they weren’t directed at you - at least, the ones I wrote weren’t directed at you. Even CJ’s comment about “the homophobic Christians" was not about christians in general. It was addressing a particular subset of the declared christians in this discussion who are repeating prejudice and lies.

You’ll notice, if you bother to set aside your own hyper-developed sense of personal injury for a while, that I don’t criticise christians generally. However when a person who claims to be christian writes something offensive, then I am most definitely prepared to point out to that person that their claims are at odd with their beliefs.

Conversely, I’ve acknowledged the heartfelt words of contributors like Foxy and Country Gal

You claim to be a christian. You’ve also claimed to have gay friends. You’ve taken exception to generalised criticism of christians outside this discussion, but you are prepared to defend generalised vilification of homosexuals within this discussion. You are clearly unable to see the inconsistency in this, which concerns me greatly.

Get over the notion that mild equals inoffensive, mjpb. Sure, you’re not one of the most offensive ranters around here, but that doesn’t make your sentiments valid or even tolerable.

RObert wrote, 'If you really do think it's revolting (rather than being in denial about an attraction to gay sex) then stop thinking about it. Leave it to those who want to do it.'. I didn't start this thread. Many posters are very heterophobic here so, being an opinion forum, I put in my two bobs' worth. As for thinking about it, it's rammed down our throats by the media etc. What about 'gay pride' marches and various 'festivals'?

CJ wrote, 'I think he's a classic homophobe with limited sexual experience.' It's certainly limited in comparison to CJ's. ie, I have only ever had heterosexual relationships, so you're one up on me there, CJ. Also, 'He also seems to be unaware that anal sex is engaged in by heterosexuals too'. Duh! I know that some guys like anal with women. I just don't see why. Not long ago, CJ came out as a Green. Now he's emulating his leader.

Countrygal the whole thing is an experiment until the kid grow up and show the harm. Your dad probably did a good job but your missing mum still seems to be on your mind. Hopefully you got through it fine apart from thinking about it. Anyway, homos are male and female. Being a homo harms the kids. They don't have normal parents. They have no choice if they are comfortable with perverts. Their mums or dads are like that. They don't know any better and think perverted is normal.

The normal defacto rules do apply. Same thing with wills. Look at the link Jw2040 provided.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article82005?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2005&num=&view=

"Currently, NSW, Victoria, QLD, WA, Tasmania & ACT legally recognise same sex couples in matters of superannuation, hospital and coronial rights, property settlement, taxation, compensation payments and wills and estates. While SA & NT do not, legislation is being considered by parliament in both jurisdictions"

That is a red herring. Anyhow stop trying to rationalize it with excuses like that. It is just wrong. Think about the poor kids.

TRTL no way. You are obviously being led by the nose thinking of things that aren't relevant instead of the ugly things you are supporting. I find paedophilia and gay adoption gross and wrong for kids but I think that is common sense not a knee jerk reaction.

I am not denying anyone rights. I am denying wrongs that they are pretending are some type of new right. I'll clap when you get that. Their problem isn't depression although I think mental illnesses often go together. Their problem is their perversion and pretending that harming other people with a perversion is a civil right won't cure it. I am not asking them to be celibate. I don't care what they do in their bedroom. I just don't want kids harmed.

They already have civil unions just not marriage and kids. Disappointing them about not getting kids can't be more damaging. Their perversion causes them to kill themselves.

I don't care who else says it I'll call a spade a spade.

Jw2040 according to the census datea the 20% is 20% of a tiny fractin of Australians. It is 20% of 19, 500 same sex couples in Australia.

Mate that is a tiny proportion of the potential victims and as Shadow Minister said a non-standard union would be a negative factor in adoption so those couples are the best of the best of the worst. In all other ways they have to better than hetero couples so harm is minimized. But this would probably be the tip of the iceberg if marriages were allowed. Obviously with marriage it couldn't be considered a non-standard union. How many kids would be at risk if there were as high a proportion of marriae as with heteros with most wanting kids?

Even now homos can't be stopped from harming any kids whatsoever but the damage can be minimized by not making things worse.

"The same APA link finds that based on rigorous studies, there are no grounds for discriminating against same-sex parents."

Come on. Having psychologists research same sex parents is like having hair dressers research how well homos dress. Have you heard of a thing called bias? If demolition workers were qualified to do the research I bet they'd get the opposite result but you couldn't trust their research either. On that link they admit:

"APA has a long-established policy to deplore "all public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians" and urges "the repeal of all discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men""

"Further investigations continue to reinforce these findings"

Based on only 100 lesbian couples with kids who are only 4 to 8? At that age they wouldn't know a thing. Do you think maybe the experimenters want that result and so they chose real young kids to make sure?

I guess it's sort of gratifying that the last few posts have demonstrated that homophobia is a more generalised psychological affliction than its expression by a few Christian fundies would suggest. It makes sense that those who also suffer from the 'God delusion' would express their homophobia in biblical terms, but Jack the Lad and J Bennett demonstrate that you don't have to refer to myths and legends in order to exhibit sexual repression and bigotry.

Jack the Lad: "I have only ever had heterosexual relationships, so you're one up on me there, CJ."

As it happens, I'm an enthusiastic heterosexual, but Jack's puerile attempt to suggest that I'm gay (or bi?) says more about his sexual repression than it does about me. After all, it was Jack who said "Anal sex is filthy and unnatural" without actually providing a shred of evidence why. If Jack had any sexual knowledge at all, he'd be aware that the kinds of sexual activities in which homosexuals engage are all also practised by heterosexuals. Is oral sex "filthy and unnatural" too?

Similarly, J Bennett refers to homosexuals as "perverts", without providing any evidence whatsoever that homosexuality in itself constitutes "perversion". Indeed, under any authoritative criteria (e.g. DSM-IV) it most definitely is not.

What interests me is that, if it's not religious hocus pocus or scientific manuals that are the basis for these claims of "perversion", "filth" and being "unnatural", what is? They can't even claim community standards in this century, since on any measure the homophobes are very much in the minority.

A lot of effort seems to be being expended on claiming children are at risk if same sex marriage is allowed.

I'll conceed the possibility that two paedophiles might decide to fake it to get overcome one of the hurdles of access to children but from what I've read paedophiles like access to lots of kids and the screening process is very rigerous so that should be a very low risk.

I don't get the bit where an attraction for gay sex is supposed to imply an attraction for child sex. An attraction to adult women does not imply an attraction to young girls. If the stats are to be believed the majority of children who are sexually abused are abused by adults of the opposite gender, mostly girls by hetrosexual men but few would seriously consider banning hetrosexual marriage on that basis.

Is there any evidence which suggests that gay adults are more likely to be attracted to children (and act on that attraction) than hetrosexual adults? I'm not talking about the thinking that says gays are perverts and therefore capable of any evil that someone wants to imagine they do but rather a solid body of evidence.

If there is not substantial evidence proving that then the claims about protecting children are a ruse.

As for children growing up in an unusual home situation, plenty do for a variety of reasons. I'm a single dad with almost full care of my son. That is not a very common situation either.

R0bert

J Bennet,

Your bigotry is no longer covered by your threadbare arguments. Even your "think about the children" (which is generally the last resort of the desperate) is without substance.

Just come out and say you hate homos and they should not have any rights then maybe we would believe you. Justifying prejudice might make you feel better, but it does nothing for your credibility.

CJ, homophobia is no more a psychological affliction than racism, love for one's country (the sort of things you are phobic about) etc. It is a genuine disgust at those gay practices nothing more, nothing less. In fact, it's not even a phobia as that would imply fear which would lead to one hiding from the phenomena, not speaking out against it.

For a supposedly 'enthusiastic heterosexual', you sure go to some lengths to defend poofs etc. Maybe you're in denial. Come on out of the closet, CJ.

As for my 'peurile attempt' to suggest you're gay, you were first to comment on your limited view of my sexuality. I must have struck a nerve to get a reaction out of you. So, if anal sex is not filthy and unnatural, where's your evidence?

Homophobes, as you persist in calling them, are not in the minority. Most straight people are repelled by gays but, because of media bias and the like, feel that they would be accused of that heinious thought/hate crime of vilification if they spoke out.

If you are really in a hetero relationship yet believe anal sex to be a normal hetero practise, I pity your woman. Maybe she needs someone to show her how a man does it. I'm not busy this weekend.

J Bennett: now your ignorance is well and truly on display:

"They already have civil unions just not marriage and kids. Disappointing them about not getting kids can't be more damaging. Their perversion causes them to kill themselves."

Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

You haven't the faintest idea what the situation is like here in Australia. Have you been living in a bubble? Haven't you been watching the news?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Nelson-backs-gay-reforms/2007/12/02/1196530462124.html

"New Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson has backed equality of economic treatment for homosexual couples, ramping up pressure on Labor to carry through on promises to remove discrimination."

"However Dr Nelson ruled out supporting gay marriage, adoption or access to fertility services."

Two separate issues here J Bennett, but your ignorance in thinking civil unions are accepted astounds me. What is it you think Nelson's arguing for in the first paragraph?

Jack the Lad what a witty attack attack on CJ - offering to show his wife how a real man does it. Never seen such a clever attack before.

Of course the chances of CJ's wife not finding that idea disgusting and repulsive are fairly low so you might have to get used to yet another weekend with nothing to do. Your homophobia and your need to proclaim yourself to be a real man suggests that you may be the one in denial about something.

My impression is that CJ is comfortable enough in his own skin that he does not need to try and repress in others all that is different. That he has enough of a life of his own that he does not need to offer to give other peoples partners a little something to prove what a man he is.

R0bert

Jack the Lad,

Are you so unsure of your manhood that you feel you have something to prove?
How a person has sex varies - you know that. It's a personal choice and as I said earlier - sex means a thousand different things to a thousand different people.

J Bennett,

They say fools rush in where angels fear to tread… I’m no angel but…

CJ,

I’m with Jack on the anal sex thing. If that is what makes you less sexually repressed you can have it. In a new post Jack all but nicknames you The Chocolate Express.

”...under any authoritative criteria (e.g. DSM-IV) it most definitely is not.”

Yes. That Diagnostic and Statistical Manual only provides a diagnosis of Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified if there is "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation". Nevertheless it does seem to be heel dragging and I'm surprised homosexuals haven't objected.

However the DSM was changed much earlier. This was the result of a vote by the Board of Trustees of the APA when the issue had become acutely salient. Since the 1970 San Francisco meeting protesters had attended their meetings holding that it was not an illness. The 1973 version of the DSM removed it.

Jw2040,

I concede that my expectations are being violated and homosexuals are getting a worse time then Christians for a change in olo. I don’t know what is happening. Perhaps the regulars who Christian bashed have retired.

“… Bully? I don’t think so. Use a dictionary: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bully”

How about this one: “be bossy towards”? Telling me not to contribute if I don’t meet your criterion should fit the term “bossy” shouldn’t it? I guess the term "bully" is name calling but I have never thought of it that way before.

”Every quote which you are objecting to is directed at individuals, not attacking them because they’re christians... “etc.

You won't countenance a potentially insulting association resulting from a response to someone else's post for a legitimate purpose but when you insult individuals or subgroups or whatever you expect me to ignore the ramifications for the overall group? If you hold me to extreme standards why should you get such leeway? You may choose your words carefully but your delusion quote,whether or not you insert fundamentalist, clearly conjures up an association with a book that attacks Christianity generally for people who haven't been on Mars.

Jack the Lad,

I was surprised at how that spiced things up. I thought only CJ would hate the comment - perhaps replying 'touche' or getting angry. Instead, that reaction exploded from left field to my amazement

You struck a raw nerve for some bystanders with what appeared to be a machoish witty comment in the context of a verbal spar with CJ. It didn't seem to invite more than a laugh from bystanders. Unlike the people who reacted, that was my take on it. I didn't really think you were planning on visiting CJ's wife to prove something. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

Robert and Foxy,

Why you got so uptight about that is anyone's guess. Not that it is any of my business but... just so my imagination doesn't run wild regarding what you do in your spare time to be so sensitive about CJ being teased about his predilection for anal sex ... I don't suppose you would take a deep breath and set the record straight? Thanks.

For that matter there would be a tactical advantage in doing so. I'll explain. How do you think it looks to your adversaries? You use the term "homophobe" for people who don't support gay partnerships implying an irrational fear or other problem. However, until you clarify, you might appear to have some thing about anal sex. Remember, Jack the Lad also speculated on the reasons that people might be partial to anal sex. Seinfeld would add "not that there is anything wrong with that!". However wouldn't you expect it to undermine credibility for someone with your adversaries perspective? Can you imagine the knowing nods as they assume that a sizeable proportion of the heterosexuals most ardently supporting gay partnerships have that appearance? Jack the Lad specifically did it to undermine CJ's credibility. Just a thought.

The posthoc justifications don’t wash, mjpb. I've been dipping into your posts, and discovered that you’ve got form – well-established form at that.

In a discussion about prayer in parliament your first comment introduced homosexuality and paedophilia together: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=43#897
Completely irrelevant, of course, but it got the various parties out of their corners, swinging furiously.

Later in that discussion, after things got heated, you denied that you thought they were associated: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=43#942
Detecting a pattern already?

In a discussion about a school assignment on what it’s like to be gay, your first post included the line, "Now: who’s going to be the first to mention paedophilia, and who’s going to post the first link to the NARTH website? Or for that matter, mention Hitler, the Nazis or Fred Phelps?" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5067#59388
Naturally, it was you who was the first to mention these, but once again, not the last.

In this particular discussion Jack and Philo beat you in the race to associate paedophilia and homosexuality. However that didn’t stop you from using the fallback strategy: "This discussion has been reasonably tame for a mix of homosexual activists (& CJ who might as well be for the current topic) and Christian fundamentalists and other extremists. Are people in here taming down."

When I joined this discussion I thought your debating style annoying and your sentiments uncompassionate. However in a classic case of familiarity breeding contempt, I now see that you are here for the sole purpose of peddling your ill will towards selected minorities, using your catholic faith as a platform. Worse, you don't do it yourself, you plant intolerance into the discussion and then let others say the extremely offensive things for you.

I’ll leave others to judge which is the greater evil, outright vilification (in the manner of Boaz, Philo, runner and Jack), or manipulating third parties into expressing one’s own ugly thoughts. Either way, I'll follow your example just once and let someone else do the talking for me: "Mjpb's homophobia is quite cleverly disguised, but ultimately it's still knuckle-dragging bigotry."

Yes, both devious and neanderthal indeed.

Dear Mjpb,

You are naughty! You know perfectly well what Jack offered to CJ'S wife was not a gentlemanly thing to do... If you get down to personal insults in academic discussions - well, you've lost the argument.
So stop stirring.

Ready for another "explosion" from left field?

Jack, do bear in mind that stuff like this: "I pity your woman. Maybe she needs someone to show her how a man does it. I'm not busy this weekend" does make you - strapping and heterosexual though you undoubtedly are - fairly repulsive to a goodly proportion of the female population. (Ladies, am I right or am I right?) Despite that, you are allowed to get it where you can. Feel free to marry. You may procreate. (And I've got a feeling you're saying "Oh my word missy, you can bet your bottom dollar I do indeedy" with a knowing, slightly slobbery leer right now.) In other words, I don't care whether it's disgust, or latent homophobia (for what it's worth, I'm not convinced by the latent homophobia argument - I believe Jack finds gay sex is totally icky and wrong - but then again every year there's some US "family values" politician arrested in a toilet cubicle, so who knows) or whatever - I just don't want the law to be based on your sense of disgust. Or anyone else's. As long as gay men get a room while you're around, men like you get a room while I'm around, and two hot lesbians get a camera out when most of the male population is around, then everyone's happy.

I've asked it before on this thread, but does anyone have a reason that gay marriage should be outlawed *other than* "it makes me feel yucky"?

Homophobes most certainly ARE in the minority, but even if they weren't, who cares? If most people found redheads disgusting, would you happily ban their cohabitation or marriage? You are free to find them disgusting, you are free to say it's disgusting (though I reserve the right to shout over the top of you), but you do not have the right to make it illegal.

And mjpb, before you out me with your uncanny, bordering-on-psychic insight, yes, I am a gay man trapped in a woman's body gagging for some backdoor action. You got me!

"Come on ... Have you heard of a thing called bias?"

Eh? Did you read what I wrote, in particular the word rigorous? Among other things, experimental rigour involves removing all possible bias from a study. Bias is what we're getting from you, J Bennett - bias which is impervious to rigorous research, logic and arguments about human equality.

I would be very interested to see rigorous studies that refute the claim that same-sex parents are just as good as opposite-sex parents, but there aren't any. None of the arguments against equal rights for same-sex attracted people have a logical basis - they're all grounded in visceral suspicion and intolerance of difference.

Rise above your irrational animal reactions, J Bennett. You're a human being, capable of logic, and endowed with the ability to put yourself in the position of others before you judge them. Try it.

"So, if anal sex is not filthy and unnatural, where's your evidence?"

If you think anal sex is filthy and unnatural, Jack, then maybe you should wash the dog first.

Hilarious. I nearly spilled my beer when I read the last couple of posts :D

jpw - I think we both know where mjpb's coming from. Mild and moderately clever, but ultimately a bigoted troll: "Yes, both devious and neanderthal indeed."

botheration: "And mjpb, before you out me with your uncanny, bordering-on-psychic insight, yes, I am a gay man trapped in a woman's body gagging for some backdoor action. You got me!"

Too funny! That's the one that nearly spilled the beer.

I think I might be a lesbian trapped in a man's body :)

I wasn't going to dignify Jack's drivel with a response, but while I'm here I'll just say that my impression of Jack the Lad is that he is somewhat short of stature in all respects. Also, I'm unsurprised that he's available this weekend.

Well, I actually laughed out loud... Dear Botheration, what a wonderful response yours was.

CJ is absolutely right... great, and funny - A classic! Bringing just the right amount of light relief that was so badly needed.

What else can you do but laugh when you ... well never mind, you know what I mean.

Jack mate this is priceless. Just when I was starting to think that the homos cheer squad was thick as two planks for getting sucked in they turn out to like some backdoor action.

If we disagree with homos we are closet queers and they are " enthusiastic heteros" they claim. But wait theres more! There is an obvious reason they call us closet queers. They want us to think it is us not them.

This discussion is going from bad to ridiculous but I still have tears in my eyes after reading your post.

Good onya TRTL I was quoting an Australian government website and you think that a few comments from a liberal politician in a newspaper is the last word.

Nah S&M mate I don't hate them I believe in brotherly love just not in the same way as you mob. LOL I do look down on perverts and I do think kids should be protected from them even if the backdoor crowd don't. Is that a problem?

I love the "enthusiastic hetero" comment. Got something to prove have we CE Morgan? Rightio then out you come. The closet here is getting to crowded. Pretending to think its funny in your last post was a waste. You sound desperate.

mjpb you are a sad case you've been outed by a homo. Anyway, stop being so modest about your own house. We all know your priests like a little Greek love.

As funny as this is lets not forget the serious need to protect kids. So Jw2040 you take psychology studies seriously and think they are rigorous. Just about only psychologists take themselves seriously and talk about bias for this topic how rigorous could it be. Does that mean you are a psychologist? If so that figures.

Oh please JBennett, you can't backtrack now. It's in black and white.

I quoted you saying that gay people have civil unions and that all they really are pushing for is adoption rights.

Clearly, that's crap. There's a huge amount of debate at all levels of society in relation to equalising rights for same sex couples, and that's outside of the adoption issue.

Both sides of politics acknowledge this, as does the general populace and pretty much everybody except you. Are you even living in Australia?

Answer me this JBennett - you claim that your only concern is for the kids raised by gay couples.

If indeed you believe that it isn't the government's business to dictate to gay people who they live their lives (outside this adoption issue) then I take it you support rights for same sex civil unions as well as removing economic and social discrimination against gay couples.

If not, I can only conclude that you're just opposed to gay people in general, and your concern for the kids is just one reason that you're using to drive this agenda.

Certainly Jw2040. Like yourself the neanderthal is detecting all manner of patterns.

"In a discussion about prayer in parliament your first comment introduced homosexuality and paedophilia together: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=43#897
Completely irrelevant, of course, but it got the various parties out of their corners, swinging furiously."

Can I take it that the comment you refer to was the reply to ygirp rather than my first comment (which mentioned neither)? Are you implying that paedophilia and homosexuality hadn't been mentioned in the preceding posts? The background was ygirp's claim that Christians opposed social reform citing two false allegations and opposition to the same sex movement. The following comment of Boazy was also being discussed:

"What is a society based on 'tolerance and secularism' likely to look like ?
...They now have a political party which is campaigning for child sex to be legal..."

I had said:

"Sure Christians have opposed the same sex movement but they generally promote social justice."

ygirp said:

"why is equality for same-sex-oriented people not a social issue? Are they not human, deserving of humane treatment? is their love not as good as other people's? Your ill-founded prejudices are tripping you up.
As for that apocryphal tale from Boaz about a minor oddball political party in The Netherlands proposing child abuse..."

Then we get to my comment which I believe you had in mind:

"The last thing I would do is suggest that that is not an “other social issue” and of course they are human.

As regards the merits or otherwise of homosexuality and what is or isn’t humane etc. you realize that many atheists debate such things also. You as an atheist might argue with someone from the paedophile party who used those types of arguments.

I was simply taking issue with the way it was lumped with other social issues as if the religion stands for racial prejudice etc. Gentiles are accepted but homosexuality as a behaviour is rejected. You may consider rejection of homosexual behaviour negative and Christians must take responsibility for the belief. However comments that add misrepresentions of Christian belief slanders Christians."

CONT

AJD responded with the claim:

"mjpb uses the old christian lie of trying to equate homosexuality to pedophilia..."

Then we get to my denial:

"AJD I don’t equate homosexuals to paedophiles. I was pointing out that certain types of arguments could be applied to each group..."

Did I really bring homosexuality and paedophilia together out of the blue irrelevantly in a discussion of prayer in parliament in my first comment? You must have been mistaken.

As regards the cynical comment:

"Now: who’s going to be the first to mention paedophilia, and who’s going to post the first link to the NARTH website? Or for that matter, mention Hitler, the Nazis or Fred Phelps"

(Translation: Here we go again.)

Yes that is directly comparable to:

"This discussion has been reasonably tame for a mix of homosexual activists (& CJ who might as well be for the current topic) and Christian fundamentalists and other extremists. Are people in here taming down."

They are both a dispassionate metaanalysis of a thread based on cynicism and past experience. I would be surprised if I was the only person who had ever done that particularly on topics as predictable as these normally are.

If you look at a few more threads you will see that I was right and there is a pattern. If observing that is manipulating third parties into expressing my own ugly thoughts pigs fly backward. That is drawing an absurdly long bow.

True if your straw man was correct and making such observations sent everyone into fits of hatred then I would be peddling ill will etc. As it is I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

This subject has had its day well and truly. Why don't we all just agree to disagree and leave it at that...

Name calling is about as effective as a fart in a blizzard

RObert, I see that you also bit at my comment. Obviously, you believed that I would somehow seek out CJ's partner and make her a proposition. Come on, get real.
Does your impression of CJ's comfort stem from his declaration of being an 'enthusiastic heterosexual'? Does that mean he is trying really hard to be hetero? If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again.
Another catch was Foxy. I cast a line and get so many bites. I should join the North Sea Fishing Fleet. Also, Foxy wrote 'If you get down to personal insults in academic discussions - well, you've lost the argument'. Hasn't she read CJ's posts which were the first (as always) to hurl insults?

jpw2040, your comment regarding dogs just points to my conviction that to give concessions to you and your kind just leaves you wanting freedom to follow further perversions. BTW, no-one has yet answered to "So, if anal sex is not filthy and unnatural, where's your evidence?". I suppose no-one can.

I think that Foxy's recent post says it all. Most posters here ( the heterophobes) are unable to conduct a debate without spitting the dummy. It's a bad day when we have to 'agree to disagree ' on such a controversial subject. I can only hope that a backlash against this perversion will occur here as has already started in Africa.

Jack the Lad,

Robert is normally really respectful and friendly. Basically the opposite of CJ. (CJ by the way is probably using the word bigot alot partly because I either directly called him one or strongly implied it in a recent thread so some of his recent behaviour is exagerated to the extent of adding that word) Robert also tries to be fair so your highly effectual revenge on CJ wouldn't seem to be grounds for an attack (cf. if CJ was like him and you just attacked him). Look at his other posts. Something obviously set him off but being like that is out of character. I'm not trying to imply anything about Foxy etc. I just don't know one way or another for others.

Jw2040's comment about the dog was so unique it went over my head at first but it might confirm Foxy's belief that it is time to agree to disagree. We wouldn't want too much more like that.

jpw2040,

I'm happy to call it a day if you are finished with me...

Quite so, Foxy. A fair bit of blizzard farting since you posted that, I see. Yawn.

I think I'll leave the smut-obsessed lads to it, but could somebody please tell Jack that it's impossible to prove a negative? The onus is on the maker of an assertion to support it, not the other way around. Logic's another of his small-statured areas, I'm afraid.

As for mjpb's folksy analysis - leave it for church fellowship. While your fantasies about others are sort of creepily interesting, you really are a precious and impertinent twerp, aren't you? Your presumption to know what I think is ludicrous.

mjpb, thanks for the comments. I found Jack the Lad's choice to involve CJ's partner in his attack on CJ particularly disgusting. As far as I'm aware CJ's partner has not been a part of this thread and there was no justifiable reason to bring her into the discussion in that manner.

I'll stop there. Foxy has made a good point about this discussion, those of who remain are unlikely to change our views and we've had the opportunity to make whatever points we wish to make.

R0bert

You’re right, mjpb. I’ve misread your contribution to the prayer in parliament thread. You did not introduce the subject of homosexuality to that discussion. My apologies to you and to everyone else here for this misrepresentation.

However, a wider reading of your posts on OLO only confirms that you are a serial provocateur, an apologist for those who vilify homosexuals, and, yes, a peddler of ill will.

For example, if you had meant to say “Here we go again,” then you would have. Your mild-mannered camouflage slips every time you choose inflammatory over neutral language. Claims like "We wouldn't want too much more like that" sound very hollow, after your quip about what Jack _nearly_ called CJ.

"happy to call it a day"? I'd be delighted. Don't hold out much hope, though.

"Why don't we all just agree to disagree" Foxy, I've always felt that agreeing to disagree is permission for horrid people to go on being horrid. I appreciate when the air is thick with excrement, some of it lands on unintended targets. However as the intended target for most of it, I promise you I won't quietly allow the knuckle-draggers to go on vilifying me. Neither directly, nor indirectly.

So, if you don't mind, I'll pass on your suggestion. As a law-abiding adult member of this society, I have a right to equality, and protection from those who inhabit the stinky gutters of prejudice and hate. I will continue to insist on that right.

TRTL who’s backtracking? Countrygal was trying to rationalise being wrong about homos and I gave a quote that proved her wrong. When you hit 25 you’ll start using the right head and you’ll realize how silly it is to be conned by perverts. Maybe some day you’ll have kids and start wanting to protect kids.

No I don’t follow all the little details homos go on about and didn’t know of anything left that didn’t harm kids but I wasn’t asking for change so it obviously doesn’t bother me does it. I can’t wait till you hit puberty.

CE Morgan aka No1 Blizfart the most smut obsessed is your homo mate and his poor dog.

“ As for mjpb's folksy analysis - leave it for church fellowship. While your fantasies about others are sort of creepily interesting, you really are a precious and impertinent twerp, aren't you? Your presumption to know what I think is ludicrous.”

At least you got something right but you are wasting your breath because we know all Christians are like that. The only problem with your comment is your typo using what instead of that and only you would find the fantasies interesting. You probably find Jw2040s fantasies about his dog interesting sorry if you think I’m being repressed.

Jw2040 when you said

“You’re right, mjpb. I’ve misread your contribution to the prayer in parliament thread. You did not introduce the subject of homosexuality to that discussion.” you also wasted your breath because if you can’t get your orientation right how can you be expected to get anything right.

You dish out the thickest excretement and you so have the most hate. You get really nasty when you don’t get your own way aren’t you? Why don’t you and CJ go off and do what you do best? Or would you prefer mjpb the crush is obvious.

J Bennett, you've been proven to be wrong.

Your irrelevant snide comments about puberty reveal the weakness of your argument.

You said in black and white that homosexuals already have civil unions, and that all they want is the ability to adopt.

I've challenged this. I've said that that comment is absolute rot, and I've provided comments from the leader of the opposition party who is pushing for same sex rights, well apart from adoption.

You've implied that he must be wrong, but quite frankly, it's a copout. You say that I'm saying the politicians comment is the final word.

No, I'm just saying that if you think same sex couples already have equal civil unions you're wrong, and I've proven it pretty conclusively. If Nelson's wrong, then prove it.

I know however, that you can't. There's nothing to back your assertion. It's just wrong.

You also can't answer me question, so you've proven me right insofar as you do think it's okay for the government to interfere in the sex lives of consenting adults.

Try harder J Bennett. Maybe if you actually focus on debate instead of puerile commentary you'll get somewhere, but as it stands, holes are appearing all throughout your already tottering argument.

J Bennett,

You didnt prove me wrong at all. Your link simply highlighted that some states give some level of recognition of same-sex couples. Others dont. Civil union (marriage) itself is not recognised in any state in this country.

Further, you would have found some interesting stats if you had continued reading the link you provided. 51% of gay couples with children were either divorced or still registered as married. That shows that all children of gay couples are their own children. I would suspect that these kids predominantly live with their mothers (some of whom would be custodial gay parents). There is no evidence to show that there is anything wrong with these kids. If there is, show us!

As for my parents, yes of course I miss my mother - she played a large role in my life up until her untimely death (as most mothers do). My main angst? Not having the chance to get to know her as a person (rather than just as a mother). Since growing-up, I've gotten to know my dad as a person and not just a parent, and its sad that I wont have that chance with my mother. If I'd had another dad instead, the same would apply - sad to not really get to know a parent for who they are as a person.

Thinking about gay couples with kids though, and in particular men, there are possibly a few practicalities that could prove difficult issues, mostly where the children are girls. For example, its generally accepted that mothers can take their young sons into the ladies toilets with them. Do dads really want to take their young girls into the mens (arguably much dirtier, or so I am told by cleaners)? If not, can such men enter the ladies to take their girls? This is obviously a wider issue in that men take their daughters out in public more often these days anyway, straight or gay. But its a point. Another one is when said girl reaches puberty (first period!!) or needs to go shopping for first bra. Again, there are single dad's that deal with these issues everyday anyway (mine's approach to the first problem was to borrow a book from the library for me, then I got the job of telling my sister all about it).

Another thing though, if gay couples were to go out and seek to have children, I am sure that most will give long hard thought to the impacts on those children long-term. Most gay people after all have had to deal with a great degree of discrimination and stigma, and I would suggest that most would consider how their status might reflect on their children.

Robert,

Thanks. I suspect that if CJ’s wife read his posts she wouldn’t be his wife so I doubt that you needed to be concerned. Obviously I am a Christian and therefore attract CJ’s venom (hence biased) but I nevertheless believe that the only embarrassment was to CJ and it wasn’t fair to intervene in that way without also standing up to CJ.

Jpw2040,

The neanderthal wishes you had left it at this:

“You’re right, mjpb. I’ve misread your contribution to the prayer in parliament thread. You did not introduce the subject of homosexuality to that discussion. My apologies to you and to everyone else here for this misrepresentation.”

At least for a split second until I saw the “However” I thought it was a nice gesture.

You do seem to carry an unfortunate amount of hate even if you don’t recognize it in yourself but I figure that there is a lot of hurt behind it. Hopefully circumstances will change to avoid the causes of the hurt. This might need to start with your own understanding and acceptance of yourself. I would like to propose the Christian religion where you can know genuine love but I don’t think such a suggestion would be well received. If you ever develop tendencies in that direction I’d be happy to discuss it with you. Indeed I am still open to any friendly conversation on this or any other topic.

If you really do want to find a pattern in my posts I think you’ll find that I am happy to be aggressive if I need to defend myself. Just ask CJ. I feel perfectly capable of being offensive on my own behalf. I simply consider it inappropriate normally to be aggressive.

I am happy to call it a day and will refrain from correcting your latest barbs if that is what it takes and you don’t feel insulted.

Yes, mjpb
You’re absolutely right, mjpb
Apologies are always intended as a nice gesture, rather than to set the record straight, mjpb
Being a christian is never a source of bias, mjpb
Everyone welcomes proselytising in discussions about civil rights, mjpb
“Correcting” others is absolutely the best way to honour their humanity, mjpb
Everyone is grateful for a bit of loopy armchair psychoanalysis, mjpb
From you aggression is always justified, mjpb
Of course you know best what’s happening in my head, mjpb
Naturally, what happens in my bed is also your business, mjpb
Only people who are completely deranged could dislike you, mjpb
People hate you because you’re a christian, not for any other reason, mjpb
The moral high ground is commanded by the soft voices, mjpb
Women condemn their spouses’ strong opinions as a matter of course, mjpb
We’re all pathetically grateful for the tonnes of wisdom you cram into your posts, mjpb
The best pathway through life is to agree with everything you say, mjpb
Thank you, mjpb

Not

jpw2040, for the record I dont think you sound hateful in any of your posts. Annoyed perhaps, but I think that is reasonably understandable. You construct your arguments logically, and express yourself well - much better than some of your opponents. I've taken to skipping posts from some people as they lack too much structure to read easily.

Jpw2040,

Feeling good too! Like I said in the last post I sincerely wish you had stopped there.

I did say that you wouldn’t welcome proseltyising so there is no need to affirm that. But if it were otherwise I am rather positive about Christianity for promoting love.

We all have our problems but we don’t have to take them out on others. Indeed the nicer you treat others generally the less problems you encounter. Since you don't like the armchair analysis I note that the same applies even if you are feeling good and being nasty.

Refraining from making false allegations about someone that need to be corrected is a much better way to honour humanity then to feign attack with comments like that when you are the attacker. You don’t have to and won’t agree with everything I say but there is no need to spread falsehoods. For that matter incessantly drawing bizarre derogatory conclusions from my comments isn’t something I relish either.

An aggressive response is definitely effective when someone launches a nasty attack on me because I’m a Christian. Whether I can justify it is a difficult question. If however I was aggressive to someone who approached a discussion from a different perspective in the way that Robert normally does then it would be definitely unjustified and inappropriate. Further, it is absurd to say that only people who are completely deranged couldn’t like me. The same word fits the host of straw men you flung at me.

Are you going to keep going in the direction you are going or have you got it out of your system?

“Are you going to keep going in the direction you are going or have you got it out of your system?”

Am I _going_ to keep _going_ in the direction I am _going_?

Actually, I think I might – I think I’ll stay on my equality-seeking way until it is finally attained.

The dominos are continuing to fall: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22881002-5005961,00.html

Stand by for lots of bleating from the christian right that Rudd has reneged on an undertaking: http://www.acl.org.au/pdfs/load_pdf_public.pdf?pdf_id=999

It turns out that the christian right’s much-vaunted political clout was just like Shakespeare’s walking shadow, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6731 At the same time, preferences from the dreaded Greens have got Labor over the line in dozens of seats, including the prize catch: Bennelong.

“I can’t wait to see confetti thrown on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin,” says Rodney Croome http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=2583_0_1_0_C

So, going back to Foxy’s original questions (remember them? “What are the legalities of a same-sex partnership? What are their rights under the law?”), the answer is WATCH THIS SPACE

Jpw2040,

As you well know that isn't exactly what I meant by the way you were going. You sound like a politician. Countrygal doesn't think you sound hateful in any of your posts. If that is even remotely correct or in any case if that is the perception then I'd be wasting my time revisiting that so I'll leave it there.

Admittedly, I will go off thinking that if that is the perception then this is like the deep South and Christians are the African Americans who were considered impossible to be hateful toward. Don't bother dismissing that as neanderthal as it would be expected and the sub-human thing would affirm my perception for obvious reasons.

Your understanding of contemporary politics and predictions are pretty reasonable. Both sides might need to accept it. Having said that who would have thought how things would go when Christians were being fed to the lions?

If the conversation doesn't flare up again and if you can resist any further er annoyance best wishes for the future.

One final thought ...

If Michelangelo were a heterosexual, the Sistine Chapel would have been painted basic white and with a roller ...

Nice point Foxy! Much of renaissance art and learning would have never happened, so perhaps we should all be a bit more open-minded. Obviously even the church was happy to tolerate the practice at that point!

Another point, same-sex couples are not entitled to the marriage breakdown CGT rollover relief on the division of assets (even though hetero defacto couples are). Another area of inconsistency, that I cant see has any basis behind it.

Actually, if you look back through history, there's a very amusing period that evolved from the renaissance, wherein the church was incredibly liberal.

Heck, pope Pius II fathered two illegitimate children.

What's more, you had plenty of senior church figures indulging in illicit relationships - not only heterosexual ones either. The old greek and roman habits of having boy lovers made a bit of a comeback for a while there.

I do get amused when I see people pointing to homosexuality as some kind of sign of a deteriorating society, when in truth it's existed among most world civilisations, it was just the puritan hangups on sex that came as baggage with church orthodoxy which repressed it in western civilisations.

I guess they can argue that it was a sign that the previous empires were in decay, but the truth of the matter was it was peppered right throughout them from the beginning - the greek empire, which essentially was the foundation for western civilisation before even rome, which existed long before christians made an appearance, never had issues with homosexuality. It was a part of their culture from the beginning and they saw it as pretty harmless - in fact, many men had wives purely for procreation and young men for other pursuits...

No doubt this kind of behaviour is seen today as decadent and insulting, but after an appraisal of history, these attitudes seem much more like an offshoot of the sexual hangups brought about with the spread of christianity.

I think we have many things to thank christianity for, but this ain't one of em.

Turn Right Then Left,

"Heck, pope Pius II fathered two illegitimate children."

He did have the two illegitimate children before he was ordained at age 40. Have you read about St Augustine?

TRTL aha so now we see why you don't care about the children. You have a hidden agenda. This is all about being a right wing sexist who thinks perverts can help you oppress women because in ancient Greece when women and kids were oppressed they happened to do perverted things to the kids. I was wondering why you didn't worry about kids and kept trying to play trivial pursuit. I am fully happy for homos to have any civil rights their creative minds come up with but only genuine ones. Children get protected so marriage is out. You want a society like ancient Greece where women are uneducated and stuck in the house being good little housewives and men can do whatever they like. In ancient Greece this included exploiting boys. You think ancient Greece's organised exploitation is something to look up to. You make me sick!

Also Christians have done nothing good with their pretend person in the sky and the only thing you got right is that they have made people sexually repressed.

Countrygal Jw2040 spews out hatred all the time and you write it off as generally nothing with some annoyanc. That is just amazing. Just so you know here in the city anal sex with dogs is also seen as a perversion and accusing Jack of it was about as hateful as it gets. But seriously you idolise his facist approach. Your wasting your time with this one he is a homo.

J Bennett where is the evidence that children are more at risk in the care of homosexuals than in the care of hetrosexuals?

You keep harping back to protecting children but I've not seen any evidence which suggests that homosexual parents pose a greater risk to children than hetrosexual parents. Unless that point is established the rest of what you say is meaningless.

It's my understanding that a sexual attraction to children is a different thing to same sex attraction, sometime the two may coincide but that they are different attractions.

R0bert

My prediction: by the time this thread has finally dies, same sex couples will already be getting married in the A.C.T.

Honestly, get over it.

My prediction is that the average social intelligence of homosexuals will decrease in the near future till this nation wakes up in shari'ah heaven and the unhygenic practise of anal sex then becomes a criminal offense.

One advantage of a forum like OLO, with visitors like Philo and J Bennett, is that the rest of the world gets exposed to gay people’s daily reality.

We deal with this kind of hate, spite and even violence every day. Most importantly, the homo-haters do it in secret, with no witnesses except their victims. Here, behind the cover of anonymity, they feel emboldened to give voice to their poison.

Some of them, of course, are simply trolls, but still they are expressing sentiments which are too widely held, and too often hurled at same-sex-attracted people.

So long as equality is withheld from sexual minorities simple-minded bigots will continue to vilify, threaten and assault us (following the motto that the government doesn't treat gays equally, so why should I?). Our government has the power to rob these people of the phoney justification for their hate.

Equality needs to be granted completely, and soon.

By the way, thank you Country Gal for your encouragement. I think you’re on quite a journey, and it’s been a pleasure to accompany you part of the way.

Philo,

I read a book review of a book authored by a man claiming a same sex attraction. From memory I believe that the author was arguing that people with same sex attractions should back off a little with respect to Christians. This is on the basis of a trend for Islam to move in where Christianity dies out.

I believe his position turned on his claim that, although Christians don’t advocate acting out a same sex attraction, they don’t make death penalties for people who act on them. Accordingly, he considered us the better option.

I don’t know if the author was just trying to make money from the book or if that really is the trend and penalty. I never got around to checking.

I've been called many things by the more aggressive posters in this forum, but 'right wing pervert' is a first. It's tempting to resort to lowering myself to your level, but then I'd be guilty of the same weak arguments.

I outlined some history, nothing more or less.

Your so called concern for 'the children' is merely a trojan horse for you to push a discriminatory agenda.

I've been arguing primarily for the recognition of same sex couples to avoid discrimination - be it tax, insurance or other issues.
I haven't really touched on the issue of children, though I don't see that stopping you from constructing a point of view for me.

What's so stupid about your posts J Bennett is that you honestly seem to think homosexuals already have equal rights aside from the adoption issue.

Putting the adoption issue aside - if you think this is the case, you're so incredibly wrong, it's beyond a joke. I can't comprehend this level of naivete.

-Didn't you notice the title of this thread?
-Haven't you been paying attention to the debate in the wider media?
-Aren't you aware that in the last few days, there's been a commentary about passing this responsibility to the states?

We do NOT already have same sex civil unions as you casually slipped into a sentence earlier.

You later claimed that you were just concerned for the children, but until I see you accept how wrong you are on this first count, and either declare neutrality or support for at least ending the cycle of discrimination against gay couples (outside of the adoption issue) then it's a clear indication that this concern for the children of yours is bulldust.

Your ignorance on the state of civil unions proves you're nothing more than an uninformed troll.

No I'm not arguing for discrimination against women. Learn a little history and get some perspective.
Arguing for rights for some people is not a condemnation of others.

Philo,

I know what social intelligence is but I am not clear on what you mean or at least why you said that you expect the social intelligence to decrease. Jpw2040 has apparently put you in the same category as J Bennett as a result of your full comment. As you can see he said:

“One advantage of a forum like OLO, with visitors like Philo and J Bennett, is that the rest of the world gets exposed to gay people’s daily reality.”

Since your view on sharia law seems to be similar to that of a same sex attracted author I presume that either your speculation about social intelligence or making a negative comment about anal sex causes him undue hardship. He apparently found it extremely upsetting. Indeed his statement above seems to suggest feelings akin to oppression. Obviously to complain that gay people have to suffer that type of thing daily he doesn’t view it as a positive thing. He goes on to say that:

“We deal with this kind of hate, spite and even violence every day...”

The quote is just the beginning of such comments.

Since Jpw2040 found the comment so upsetting and I am now very curious I’d appreciate it if you could fully explain what you have in mind. Perhaps if Jpw2040’s upset doesn’t relate to you saying that anal sex is unhygenic it may turn out he misunderstood you and it might clear the air. I'm sure you'd like to remove his hurt if you could.

Further, it might be worthwhile explaining where your view that acting out a same sex attraction is not ideal is sourced. Jpw2040 apparently believes that it is the result of the present state of government legislation. I know from personal experiences that he doesn't always get mind reading right so I'd like to check with you before assuming he is on the money.

There you go again, mjpb, cheering on the homophobes, while no doubt you will try to claim that you're not one yourself.

You've just invited Philo to provide more of his irrational bigotry. This is a discussion about civil rights, not the application of islamic law, or people's sexual practices.

As I've said before, if you want a discussion about these things, start one somewhere else.

Sorry Jpw2040 I guess as a neanderthal it takes me a while to catch on. "Cheering on" seems a rather dramatic way of describing my request to Philo to clarify. Are you sure it is the best way to describe my request to Philo and how do you know whether or not his explanation will be rational until you hear it?

You distinguish between civil rights and Islamic law in the context of the rights of people actioning a same sex attraction. However, googling seems to indicate that actioning a same sex attraction in most Islamic countries is illegal and doing so in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen carries a death penalty. Don't you consider that a civil rights issue? What do you think is involved - a brutally harsh sanction of a moral issue?

I know how sensitive you are about name calling so I won't call you a bully again but I am not going to leave just because you say so.

Finally, I thought you didn't like armchair analysis so why are you diagnosing Philo as having homophobia and being irrational?

Thanks

As I've said before, if you want a discussion about these things, start one somewhere else (refer rule number 1: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp).

When a society wishes to maintain a set of values for the benifit of that whole society it will outlaw certain unnaceptable behaviours. Anal sex is one of those unnaceptable behaviours because of its unhygenic practises. In gay men that practise is exclusive.

The anus and its region is the breeding ground of high levels of bacteria, viruses etc, because it excretes the body garbage. The anus is prone to high incidents of tearing and rupture from such practices which allows bacteria to enter the blood stream. That viruses like AIDS be present in body excreta has dire social effects as we learned in Sydney in the 1980's, when over 400 homosexuals died. The virus then spread into the sex workers as men involved in homosexual acts carried the disease into the hetrosexual community.

There again this represents adultry and unfaithfulness in relationships - a moral and social disease. A society wishing to keep free of expensive health costs will want to maintain social purity. How much has Aids treatment cost NSW? Gay marriage must always be outlawed as anti-social because of the nature of its practices.

Two men cannot produce a child of their union. For them to believe a child in their relationship would be well adjusted to the norms of a hetrosexual society is unlikley.

Marriage is for the procreation and protection of children. The very continuation of that society. The best practise for child rearing is for Children to have their natural loving parents. Marriage only exists between a male and a female any other practise is not a marriage, it is a perversion of the human design. While a male or female are fertile human design demonstrates what is the purpose of their design.

Off topic, Philo. Take it somewhere else.

Jpw2040,

Again excuse my neanderthal slowness but there are three things I need explained:

1. Why respond like that when I have submitted reasons why it is relevant? Don't you consider Christians worthy of getting an explanation? I know less neanderthal participants consider you completely authoritative. You could even fling an insult about anal sex with dogs without being hateful if you tell them you aren't. Unfortunately I don't understand why something is a fact just because you say so. I'd appreciate an explanation.

2. Why should rule number 1 be pursued pedantically but not rule number 2? Examples:

If you think anal sex is filthy and unnatural, Jack, then maybe you should wash the dog first.
Dinosaurs like runner are simply dying out.
runner worships at the altar of intolerance, and I don’t see any hope that this will ever change. He can go on ranting, and I will attempt to ignore him as best I can
were you always this ditzy?
neanderthal indeed
your irrational animal reactions
knuckle-draggers
trolls
homophobes

Quotes are easier. But isn't it insulting to associate Philo with people who do violence to homosexuals? Doesn't it make him sound like a thug in an alley?

Philo disagrees with you but is it necessary for you use your unfortunately effective tactic of denigrating him in order to discredit him?

When people with a same sex attraction and people who interfere with children were juxtaposed in the analogy that neither are born that way you went to town on me. I believe it was for dialoging instead of condemning when people with a same sex attraction are lumped together with criminals. In that example the analogy emphasised the argument.

If you think that is wrong why are you lumping Philo with criminals? Your lumping wasn't even in the course of an analogy. You simply grouped him in there without any justificiation whatsoever.

3. If an off topic post can include a discussion of marriage does that mean you'll surprise me with the belief that you don't think marriage relates to civil rights and partnerships?

I believe what I have stated is very relavent to the social acceptance of what is a marriage. If homosexuals want marriage then let them prove they of themselevs can procreate and nurture their own children - the primary purpose of marriage. Our society tolerates homosexual activities but that does not mean we accept it as a normal sexual relationship. Our society already allows for property agreements etc of non-married relationships. What is the purpose of a same sex marriage - it will always be abnormal if the two are engageing exclusively in anal sex. Legalising same sex mariage will not make it normal. You may find a percentage of the population who wish to accomodate such behaviour at the moment. But such acts will never be normal social behaviour.

If you are expecting me to accept anal sex as normal behaviour - I'm sorry it will never happen. When men can procreate naturally from the anus then perhaps I might have to reconsider.

"If homosexuals want marriage then let them prove they of themselves can procreate and nurture their own children" - I've got friends in hetrosexual marriages who have not had children and who appear unlikely to have them, how many would support the removal of their legal protections as a couple because they have not had children?

"it will always be abnormal if the two are engageing exclusively in anal sex" - at a guess most would want more to their marriages than anal sex, they probably want companionship, support, various expressions of love and the legal protections that come with marriage. Philo there is much more to a relationship than the sex act.

R0bert

Then Robert let them totally abstain from anal sex. This is the anti-social behaviour that makes them abnormal. I have no objection for two persons of the same sex living in a shared dwelling. You see the objection is dependent upon their abnormal sexual acts.

I grew up in a family of seven [four brothers] and we did not all have seperate bedrooms. We were a very close emotional family. But we certainly did not think of, or engage in the disgusting practice of anal sex.

Here you go, mjpb, Philo:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/new-thread.asp

jpw2040, sorry but I disagree with you about Philo being off topic. While I strongly disagree with his views they do seem to be relevant. If I understand Philo's viewpoint correctly he is in part concerned about the difference between allowing something and appearing to endorse it. That while society may have decriminalised homosexual activity (I think over Philo's objections) that does not mean that we should give it a valid legal status. As a parallel, if we decriminalise certain drug usage would we then be OK to have those same drugs advertised on TV and sold at your local supermarket?

Philo has already stated that "Our society tolerates homosexual activities" and that "I have no objection for two persons of the same sex living in a shared dwelling." so it seems to me that his approach is to make it as difficult to be homosexual as possible in the hope of disuading some from living as homosexuals.

I think that Philo's approach increases the harm done to all concerned. Not only to homosexual people but also to straight partners who find themselves married to someone who has given in to the pressure to be straight but who don't cope with it.

R0bert

Perhaps this can be resolved to mutual satisfaction without any more subtle hints from Jpw2040.

Philo,

You are focussing heavily on anal sex. Given the CJs of the world for example I hope you can understand my uncertainty about its relevance. I'm not saying it isn't but I'd like to ask questions to work it out in my mind.

Rather than upsetting Jpw2040 by doing that here perhaps I can seek clarification from you by email. Any chance you can email me at watashi@live.com.au ?

That might be the best way for me to satisfy my curiosity without dragging out the discussion here. What do you think?

Socially persons who value themselves and their potential offspring so poorly by pushimg them all into sewer pipes instead of a glorious life will almost never uphold the social values of life appreciated by a normal intelligent futuristic society. Our children are our future so give them normal social relationships of their own loving parents. Marriage is for the procreation and protection of our children the values into the future of who we are as a society.

That currently Mum's and Dad'd have so poor relationships is just as concerning as other social breakdowns, including homosexuality.

Of course it’s off topic, Robert.

This discussion is about rights, not behaviours: “What are the legalities of a same-sex partnership? What are their rights under the law?”

Lawful behaviour is not a ground for discrimination. We do not discriminate against smokers; we do not discriminate against obese people, regardless of how repulsive we find their smoking and eating behaviours.

Those who wish to maintain discrimination against same-sex-attracted people continually try to divert the rights discussion to focus on behaviours (or encourage others to divert the discussion). Where the behaviours are criminal they have no bearing on the civil rights of the law-abiding. The other behaviours often named are legitimate and private.

In any case, the behaviours have no place in a discussion of the civil rights of same-sex couples.

We should let jpw2040 rave on with his vitriol such as,

'If you think anal sex is filthy and unnatural, Jack, then maybe you should wash the dog first.
Dinosaurs like runner are simply dying out.
runner worships at the altar of intolerance, and I don’t see any hope that this will ever change. He can go on ranting, and I will attempt to ignore him as best I can
were you always this ditzy?
neanderthal indeed
your irrational animal reactions
knuckle-draggers
trolls
homophobes'

As long as he posts in this manner, he paints a true picture of the twisted views of himself and his ilk.

jpw2040: "One advantage of a forum like OLO, with visitors like Philo and J Bennett, is that the rest of the world gets exposed to gay people’s daily reality.

We deal with this kind of hate, spite and even violence every day. Most importantly, the homo-haters do it in secret, with no witnesses except their victims. Here, behind the cover of anonymity, they feel emboldened to give voice to their poison."

I was thinking much the same thing when I read that. Most of us, including those like me who have no problem with gay people, really don't have much idea how much of the kind of dumb, snide and offensively homophobic attitudes that we've seen expressed here still persists in our society.

Rest assured jpw that the knuckledraggers and religious nutters are in the minority. As you suggest, we are only exposed to them here because they think they're anonymous. I suspect that these are very insignificant people in their daily lives.

Fortunately, you'd be aware that most people are more like R0bert, CG, TRTL and me - supportive of equal rights for everybody, and willing to speak up if we witness flagrant attacks on them. Cheers :)

To the homophobes: jpw's correct - this thread's about civil rights, not about the legal sexual practices with which you seem obsessed.

See what happens when you teach chimpanzees to cut and paste?

Just in case anyone was thinking my post was referring to CJ, it wasn't.

I was simply providing Jack with a few more words to parrot somewhere else.

jpw, that's a completely unfair and unjustified attack on chimpanzees, who are generally very comfortable with homosexual activity, and engage in it frequently.

Good one Robert I'm not stupid. Obviously I can't get evidence until kids grow up. Don't pull something like that on me. Are you happy to risk harming kids?

"I've been called many things"

TRTL what are you on about? Do you know how much it bugs me that you get that mixed up, you get mixed up about civil rights, yu get mixed up about what has been said in black and white, you get mixed up when I say homos should have civil rights but you can rub in my face the stuff that is now all through the news because I hadn't kept up to date and believed Jw2040s link.

"Arguing for rights for some people is not a condemnation of others."
" I outlined some history, nothing more or less."

It was more. You made out ancient Greece was good.

"they saw it as pretty harmless - in fact, many men had wives purely for procreation and young men for other pursuits...

No doubt this kind of behaviour is seen today as decadent and insulting, but after an appraisal of history these attitudes seem much more like an offshoot of the sexual hang-ups"

Hung by your own words.

"Your so called concern for 'the children' is merely a trojan horse"

The hell it is. What is that anyway a freudian slip? Your caught with your Greek horse and you say trojan horse.

"either declare neutrality or support for at least ending the cycle of discrimination"

Again I am fully happy for homos to have any civil rights but only genuine ones that don't interfere with kids rights. I'll clap when you get that.

Jw2040 by journey you mean taking her for a ride.

"We deal with this kind of hate, spite and even violence every day."

I guess people you deal with would get a little cranky with your nastiness. You give worse then you get but your probably worse off cause the truth hurts.

Jack true picture but people without the brains to realize will keep getting led by the nose by his fancy talk.

JBennett, you were wrong about civil rights of gay couples, and there's plenty more that you're just plain wrong about.

"It was more. You made out ancient Greece was good"

Where did I do that? I said it was the foundation for the west.
Are you familiar with the concept of hellenism? How the cultural ideals transferred to rome and then to western culture? I never said it was good or bad, just that it's history, like it or lump it.

That was the case with the comment about wives and young men - it's just the way things were. As far as the decadence goes in today's society, it's about letting people be and allowing them their civil rights.

I've already made the point that the pedophile argument is a furphy, because of the consent issue, which is central to the idea of choice and civil rights - something you've belatedly agreed to, so I don't see where you can argue on that score.

You've made a baseless accusation that I either support either sexism or sexual acts against children, when neither is the case.

I've been pursuing you on your foolhardy claim that same sex couples have equal rights aside from adoption. That's false. What I've wanted is you to see that, largely because it's people who are living under this impression that are allowing this discrimination to continue, regardless of the adoption issues which are another matter.

You appear to have belatedly come to this conclusion, though I see it pains you to admit that.

It's not a matter of following the news, it's about being aware of the actual state of play in a debate such as this, before throwing in such strong opinions which are shown conclusively to be false.

I see you also back away from pursuing this side of the debate any further, so in response to your repeated "I'll clap when you get that" comments, you can start clapping away.

Have a red sticker. Now that you accept much of this is separate from the adoption debate, I'll clap for you too.

CJ,

I'll try to just bite my tongue.

jpw2040, I considered the disussion to be more about where we would like the law to go than where it is now. Should gay partnerships be recognised legally? The that case against (such as it is) is relevant.

Society routinely limits freedoms in regard to behaviours which it allows but does not encourage - the ever tightning restrictions on smokers being a case. It's legal for adults to smoke but society makes it more and more unpalatable to continue.

Philo (and others) consider male homosexual intercourse to be a practice that harms those involved and harms society. Pointing to what they consider to be the harm is valid in a discussion about extending the legal protections available to homosexuals.

I happen to disagree with Philo and others on this issue but don't agree that their views are irrelevant. I will do my best to refute their views where I disagree and put the other side of the argument when I'm equipped to do so but don't see how their views are off topic in a discussion entitled "Should gay partnerships be recognised legally?"

R0bert

J Bennett, so you don't have any evidence that gay parenting is harmfull to kids. You assume so and on that basis wish to not let them have the legal protections available to hetrosexual couples.

We allow pretty much anybody else to have the care of children if they happen to have the biological equipment to MYO or happen to live with someone who has it unless they have been guilty of some pretty serious breaches in the care of children already. If protection of children was to be managed by risk categories rather than on a case by case basis there are plenty of other groupings where our efforts would be better placed.

I don't wish to place children unecessarily at risk but nothing I've seen so far has given me any reason to believe that is the case. If anything it may be the reverse.

I suspect that homosexual couples would come out statistically better than hetrosexual couples in regard to the effort put into the care of children because very few will find themselves with unplanned children. The children they have in their care will be for the most part wanted and planned for.

As others have pointed out the children issue is somewhat off topic other than it is a possible flow on from legal recognition of homosexual relationships.

R0bert

mjpb, it's spelled "p-i-l-l-o-w" actually.

“Society routinely limits freedoms in regard to behaviours”

Robert, in the case of same-sex couples society doesn’t limit the behaviours. Sexual behaviour in private between consenting adults is completely legitimate, and is not restricted by the state. In contrast, smoking behaviour is restricted because non-consenting individuals are adversely affected by it.

Smokers do not enjoy fewer civil rights than non-smokers. They pay the same taxes, they are permitted to form the same relationships, and they have access to all the same state benefits as non-smokers. Smokers’ children are not disadvantaged because the state denies their parents access to family benefits.

Smokers have the same civil rights as non-smokers. Same-sex couples have fewer civil rights than opposite-sex couples.

As I’ve said, this discussion is not about behaviour, it’s about civil rights. The opinions of certain misguided individuals about sexual behaviour have no relevance here.

jpw2040,
You have not grasped what marriage is about. It is about the bonding of two persons of the opposite sex to engage in legitimate sexual behaviours. Otherwise the relationship is for convenience and they abstain from sex for various reasons. The State recognises their marriage and their sexual union. With that sexual union are responsibilities if children are involved, and benifits from the State for children. Marriage is totally about behaviour, that is what the term means. To join two into one sanctioned union.

To quote jpw2040, "this discussion is not about behaviour, it’s about civil rights. The opinions of certain misguided individuals about sexual behaviour have no relevance here."

You constantly talk about civil rights - but civil rights also carries with it socially accepted responsibilities. The marriage vows identify some of those primary responsibilities. It is not your civil right to be married to another of the same sex. Engageing sexually with one of the same sex is not and never has been approved of by the State as marriage.

Agreements between to persons on shared property and wills etc does not need a marriage contract. It seems to me the only purpose you have is to be socially accepted for your sexual behaviours.

wizofaus, said, "chimpanzees, .. are generally very comfortable with homosexual activity, and engage in it frequently".

Yes they also lick bums, eat excreta, and throw it around with gay abandon.

jpw2040, I'm undecided if I've failed to make my point adequately or if we just see the world differently on this issue. I'd rather spend my efforts here discussing the main issue of legal recognition for homosexual relationships than stuck in a debate with someone I mostly agree with so having said what I can I'll leave this alone unless I have a change of thinking about it (or find something else particularly comment worthy).

R0bert

jpw2040, are you saying that if CJ cuts and pastes, that's OK but if I do, I'm a chimp? How one-sided. I thought your lot believed in equality. Or are heteros not included in your agenda? I was giving examples. Don't you get that?

Nice one Philo, 'Yes they also lick bums, eat excreta, and throw it around with gay abandon'. (More cut and paste for jpw2040's dismay)

Robert it is obviously harmful don’t make mistakes by mixing too much together. It is impossible to regulate breeding but adoption is carefully regulated and adopted children should be protected. The problems we have now in not a reason to make more.

The children issue is important as it has to happen with gay marriage. Can you seriously suggest that if marriage was changed to include homos that it would be legal to say that the benefits of a mother and father are better then a homo couple?

It is great to see you thinking for yourself for the relevance of Philos comments. You should have done that originally. Now you have to rationalise your mistakes but it is a good start.

Obviously what Philo said is relevant amd Jw2040 knows it but he wants to win the argument by having the argument keeping it to things he can win. He is in the wrong so most relevant arguments he will lose and the more he stops people pointing out the truth the more his wrong sounds right.

Philo and Jack I don’t want to turn your stomach but you won’t do as well with your chimp argument as you should because homos lick each others anus so it doesn’t sound so bad to them.

Philo, obviously what chimpanzees do has little if any relevance to what should be considered acceptable behaviour among humans.
However chimpanzees would have every right to feel offended at being compared to Jack the Lad, especially in the context of tolerance of the consensual, private behaviour of others.

J Bennett, thanks mate, I was just eating lunch :), but you do have a point there.

wizofaus thinks 'chimpanzees would have every right to feel offended at being compared to Jack the Lad' yet he also stated 'my children may well live to see humans and robots allowed to marry'.
Talk about simian intelligence eh.

Jack, you go argue with some of the most intelligent minds on the planet who work in the field of AI and robotics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21271545/

Even I hope to be around by 2050, but my 2yo son standards a moderate chance of surviving to the end of the century - if human-like robots aren't commmonplace by then it could pretty much only be because industrial civilisation has largely collapsed.

Wizofaus,

"Jack, you go argue with some of the most intelligent minds on the planet who work in the field of AI and robotics."

You opened possibilities that Jack hadn't considered namely that the curious comment wasn't your idea. Nevertheless, isn't the above quoted comment rather generous to the creative student at a University in the Netherlands who did that as a Phd topic? You have multiplied him to plural and decided he is one of the most intelligent minds in the planet without knowing that for sure.

Clearly there is no reason to think that the standard expectation among people working in robotics is impending robot human marriage. In the same article the roboticist commented that he didn't think it was going to happen albeit qualifying with an "anything's possible". Indeed you would have to wonder if the student was having a bit of fun with his extravagant predictions and getting a PhD in the process. He couldn't be blamed for that.

Further, aren't you in favour of marriage between people with same sex attractions? Could not the idea that it will pave the way to people marrying inanimate objects scare people off?

You just can't help yourself, can you mjpb?

"Further, aren't you in favour of marriage between people with same sex attractions? Could not the idea that it will pave the way to people marrying inanimate objects scare people off?"

I would bet that you know perfectly well that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and that there could not possibly be a connection between same-sex relationships and the types of unions you are referring to.

Rather than make a direct claim about these things, you're at it again - planting an idea in an indirect question.

If you have something to say, say it (and maybe you could keep it on topic too). Just spare us the dark irrelevant musings.

Well... this thread's certainly got pretty haywire. To bring things back to the central points:

It seems to me, there are two core arguments here.

The first is that same sex couples should be able to have equal financial rights when it comes to issues such as dealing with government departments, next of kin entitlements, superannuation, insurance and so forth.

As it stands, there is a huge disparity between heterosexual and homosexual couples, and same sex civil unions aren't accepted throughout the country.

I've yet to see any convincing arguments against this first half, nor have I really seen anyone speaking against them. It seems to me that it's the adoption issue that is the more contentious subject.

So before I get to the adoption issue, if there are any posters here still strenuously arguing against civil unions for these purposes, can they articulate their reasons? If we can at least put this half to bed, we can focus on the second issue of adoption.

On the adoption issue, I see plenty of people saying how bad it must be for same sex couples to adopt kids, but given that adopting couples have to jump through far more hoops and get scrutised by child services, I don't quite believe it.

In order for those who wish to deny same sex couples these rights to put forward a genuine argument, I'd like to see some kind of corroborating evidence that shows children of same sex couples have more difficulties.
As it stands, I've seen many posters pointing out there isn't anything to back this point and until I see evidence to the contrary, I believe them.

Where are the studies. Where are the examples. Where are the case studies, news reports and lobby groups who aren't affiliated with religious organisations or a conservative agenda. If you want to persuade me, give me something.

mjbp, I didn't mean to imply that article was a summary of the thoughts of the most "intelligent minds on the planet who work in the field of AI and robotics", just an example of the sort of thinking that's already out there.

And the whole point is that for humans to want to marry robots, they would no longer be "inanimate".

wizofaus, truly your best ever when you reply 'you go argue with some of the most intelligent minds on the planet who work in the field of AI and robotics' to my questioning your conviction that humans and robots will be allowed to marry.

How will you cope if the robots don't have an anus?

Some robots are really quite attractive. C3PO, for example. So posh and shiny!

J Bennett, "It is great to see you thinking for yourself for the relevance of Philos comments. You should have done that originally."

I believe that I have thought for myself all the way through this discussion and previous ones.

Just where have I suggested that Philo's comments are irrelevant?
Seriously wrong, yes and possibly some parts are irrelevant but if any of you were able to present a viable case that allowing homosexual activity was more harmfull to society than the approach of trying to force homosexuals into being straight or celibate then I'd be very concerned about moves to expand legal acceptance.

I'd rather have you doing you best to put your case in a forum such as this so we can thrash it out and you can show how little you really have. Mostly a distaste for anal sex (I share that) and a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and or religious objections.

If considering the idea of someone elses sexual activity distasteful was grounds for not recognising a relationship legally then not many people would be married.

Support for allowing the opposing viewpoint to be put does not mean that the opposing viewpoint is a good one.

None of you have managed to present a case with any real merit to oppose legal recognition and protections being available to gay couples.

You have not managed to substantiate claims of a risk to society or children by allowing legal recognition of homosexuals relationships.

In my view, give it your best and make it abundantly clear to all how little you really have to back your case.

The case for ongoing harm to homosexuals while they don't have the same legal protections in relationships has been well put and in my view the harm to others when we try and force homosexuals to be straight is also quite clear.

It's well past time that we removed discriminations such as this from our legal system.

R0bert

“But we certainly did not think of, or engage in the disgusting practice of anal sex.” - Philo

No, Philo not at all. You have me absolutely convinced. Just browsing your comments it seems anal sex has NEVER once entered your hole -- er -- I meant, mind in any of its minute detail. Uh-uh. Oh no! Not one eeny-weeny-teeny-tight little hole –- er -- bit.

Sorry. I did not mean to write hole. Not at all. How did that did that SLIP in!?

Othello Cat,
On any reputable medical and clinical advise on pre-marriage counselling - we are advised to avoid areas surrounding the anus because of high levels of bacteria that can infect a woman's vagina and womb. Thus increasing risks of cervical cancer, infertility, excreated diseases and common thrush etc.

Love making means also being sensitive to the health of your partner. That is why persons who knowingly carry aids who engage in sex with a unsuspecting partner are charged in our society as criminals.

Marriage is a social contract within a society to maintain the health and future of that society. Anal sex and childlessness of that marriage challenges both those principles. Most couples who are childless is because of some physical or health problem and not because of choice. The purpose of marriage is for mutual support, for the procreation of children and their protection.

A good society places these at the height of its values. Homosexuals cannot fulfil such a social contract under any high ideal. Children have to be taken or produced from outside the marriage. A child deserves secure loving contact with both their natural mother and father. Any lesser set up is lesser than good.

Jack sorry mate I hope you didn’t lose your lunch and I hope I haven’t given ideas to "enthusiastically heterosexual" bum boys. Either simian or crazy enough to be a sexual pervert himself so maybe he defends them because he relates to them.

Your right Jw2040 about robots but it is perfectly logical that if marriage changes from man and woman to something else just because of a sexual perversion why not change it to something else just as inappropriate like maybe your human and dog thing.

Robert I know but maybe too little too late. Your problem is you are so sucked in by homos you can’t see the obvious. What you are saying is like saying that their is no reason to think that throwing a kid off a cliff will hurt it unless we do a study where we throw three thousand kids off a cliff and see what happens because someone has convinced you that it is safe. Sorry the opinion of hairdressers or psychologists won’t slice it for me on this. I’ll listen to them on other things but they are too biased on this one. On the general situation TRTL has finally got a better idea then you.

But now that you mention it it does stand to reason that a society that say it is okay to be a sexual pervert will make more people with tendencies head in the wrong direction and the high suicide rate shows that the way things are now isn’t helping the current perverts much. I generally have thought they should be left alone unless for marriage and kids because they don't hurt kids like other sexual perverts but maybe we have to do more. The problem is they say psychiatric problem are hard to treat and obviously harder when some people tell them it is normal and they shouldn’t try to change. There should be at least as much done to help them as searching for every bit of discrimination. Sticking your head up your bum and convincing yourself they are normal obvously isn’t the solution.

Jpw2040,

Sorry but can you please type more slowly. I don't know how chimpanzees are coping but you are making it hard for neanderthals to keep up. Thanks.

I have some more questions...

Have you heard about the saying about glass houses? Are my dark musings about robots as dark as your anal sex with a dog musing and can you explain why anal sex with dogs is more relevant as I can't work that out on my own?

Further, is there anyone who would not have had repeated exposure to the argument that if people with a same sex attraction are able to get married then it opens the floodgates to a variety of couplings? So if everyone has heard that ad nauseum doesn't that mean it has well and truly been planted? If so don't you mean re-planting? How much difference do you think the re-planting would really make? How about you highlighting that? Wouldn't doubling it up be much more effective than a solitary musing?

By contrast, I really don't believe robot marriages are likely and really don't believe putting forward things like that helps Wizofaus's arguments. Thus a literal interpretation seems to carry weight. What do you think?

Thanks.

So, people. Leaving aside the barely relevant issues of chimpanzees or sex with robots and dogs or licking anuses, I take it we can at least agree that if two homosexuals want to have a civil union (outside adoption) that's their business, and it's not up to the government to discriminate against them?

Seeing as no posters have raised objections to this, I'm going to declare that half of the debate closed and say that we're at least agreed on this score.

Good. Even that would be a vast step forward for this country.

On the second issue - if you can stop hurling chimp-related abuse and talking about robots for a minute, can I ask if anyone's actually come up with anything that supports the idea that same sex couples are worse parents?

Similarly, can anyone explain to me why it is that a homosexual couple is different to say, two sisters raising a child?

I know the old 'eww, it's gross, they're having sex' argument gets rolled out, but really, the same can be said for ugly people having sex. We don't particularly want to think about it, but I'm pretty confident in saying most of us acknowledge that it's not our business and they don't have sex in front of children.

This argument is hardly very compelling, if you've got two people with a supportive environment devoted to raising a child I don't see how you can justify banning them.

Like I said, I'd like to see something to back claims against this, because I certainly haven't seen any remotely compelling evidence thus far.

Botheration wrote 'Some robots are really quite attractive. C3PO, for example. So posh and shiny!'
Funnily enough, in Mel Brooks' 'Spaceballs', the C3PO lookalike is gay. Kind of brings two topics of this thread together.

TRTL,
You asked:
"Similarly, can anyone explain to me why it is that a homosexual couple is different to say, two sisters raising a child?"

Obviously the father has little input into the child's life and the child is hardly the child of at least one sister. It is not the most socially ideal environment for a child. The child has not witnessed the loving relationship of his father toward his mother, and if so it would not be socially ideal. Otherwise he would spend time raising the child with more input than the other sister.

Philo, do you think I should be able to choose the "most socially ideal environment" for your kids? As it is, I'm quite concerned about them growing up among attitudes such as those you have displayed. Indeed, it would be far more beneficial to ban bigots from raising children than same-sex couples.

We have laws in place that permit governments to remove children from home environments that are unsuitable for children. I'm willing to bet that in percentage terms, more children are removed from homes based around heterosexual couples than same-sex couples (anyone got any numbers?). Same-sex unions (where they are legal) are also generally far less likely to end in divorce.

Oh, and in the US, ~250,000 children are being raised by same-sex couples. You'd think if there was a serious problem, we'd know about it by now.

Philo, you speak of social ideals, but would you deny the two sisters the right to raise the child, in the same manner you would for a homosexual couple?

Philo wrote: "The child has not witnessed the loving relationship of his father toward his mother, and if so it would not be socially ideal."

Surely, by this logic, loving same-sex parents are better than divorced heterosexuals?

I honestly can't see why anyone would be hung up on this. My ex-boyfriend's mum was a lesbian. I remember his sister telling me that she had quite a lot of cred at school because of it. Loving parents trump divorce and disharmony any day.

Anyway, back to the Robot Porn for me.

They weren’t musings about the dog, mjpb. I made an (admittedly lame) off-colour joke. After all the off-colour remarks about gay sex, I believe I was entitled to respond. At least in my case it was clear that the remark wasn’t intended to be taken seriously.

“What do you think?” I’ve made it abundantly clear what I think of your rhetorical tactics. I don’t see any need to repeat myself.

wizofaus, If your statistics are correct is it any wonder the USA is in dire social problems.

You said "Oh, and in the US, ~250,000 children are being raised by same-sex couples. You'd think if there was a serious problem, we'd know about it by now."

TRTL,
Two sisters have often raised children. In my first year at school I lived with my two unmarried aunts who lived near the school I attended. It was rather sad really because my brothers and sisters lived with my parents and I missed them. My parents sold the farm and moved so I could live at home and attend school. I being six missed most of all helping my dad on the farm.

"I’ve made it abundantly clear what I think of your rhetorical tactics. I don’t see any need to repeat myself."

Often when you do so it is quite obscure and extreme. Taken at face value you sometimes sound paranoid. Ironically therefore it has made me wonder if arguing that is your own rhetorical tactic.

OK, since you insist.

There's no doubt what I meant by: "Breathtaking hypocrisy."

There's nothing the slightest bit obscure about:

"you plant intolerance into the discussion and then let others say the extremely offensive things for you. I’ll leave others to judge which is the greater evil, outright vilification (in the manner of Boaz, Philo, runner and Jack), or manipulating third parties into expressing one’s own ugly thoughts."

Is it extreme to point out that your apparently mild comments typically have an ugly barb to them? I don't think so.

Is it paranoid? I'm not a psychoanalyst, and you've made it very plain with your armchair diagnoses that you're not either. The existence of homophobia in our society demeans us all, and has devastating effects on its targets. I don't think it's paranoid to point out when someone is encouraging others to spread homophobia, as you do.

Neither is it bullying, as you claimed earlier, “Stop trying to be such a bully. I'll type what I please.” You’re free to write what you like. I’m free to point out to others here if it’s off topic, or what rhetorical tactics you are using. You’re welcome to label this my rhetorical tactic, though doing so would tend to confirm that you are missing the point.

Just to bring this back to the rights issue, legal inequality provides simple-minded homophobes with a justification for their hate. As a matter of urgency, our federal government needs to grant full equality to same-sex attracted people.

As Robert said above, "It's well past time that we removed discriminations such as this from our legal system."

Actually Philo, that seems to have been an underestimate, this article says 1 million (and makes a point that they're doing just fine): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/health/webmd/main938234.shtml

Yes, the US has dire social problems, but no evidence that I can see that it is anything to do with the number of children raised by same-sex couples. I suspect the number is similar for Europe, although I can't find any statistics.

FWIW, if there was good evidence that being raised by same-sex couples was consistently causing problems for children (other than any bigotry they may face from others), and especially if there was strong evidence that the children themselves were unhappy about the environment in which they were being raised, I would be fully in support of restricting adoption rights. However there is no such evidence, despite no shortage of studies done to look for it.

Robert I don't want to waste time if you are too young or stupid or naive or brainwashed to work out that it harms kids will anything I say make a difference? I don't believe that you have figured out yet that being a homosexual brand of sexual pervert is not normal yet so how do you expect to understand why you are wrong about kids? TRTL I know your agenda.

No Jw2040 your a smart man and deep down you know you are wrong so you want to win the argument by keeping it to things you can win. If you can stop people from pointing out the truth your wrong sounds right. Mate you are so full of it. That is where the homophobic thing comes from isn't it. It isn't that people who disagree with you are scared of homos like you pretend it is just that you want them to be scared to disagree by calling them nonsense names and if it works you win.

"They weren’t musings about the dog, mjpb. I made an (admittedly lame) off-colour joke. After all the off-colour remarks about gay sex, I believe I was entitled to respond. At least in my case it was clear that the remark wasn’t intended to be taken seriously."

That's okay then just an off colour joke eh? Hells bells you are trying to claim the high moral ground with this comment even when talking about your sickening hateful dog comment. LIke I said you are so full of it.

J Bennett: "TRTL I know your agenda"

Well I certainly hope so. I'm against discriminating against people, be they homosexual or of a minority.

I didn't think it was much of a secret.

I dunno whether by using the word 'agenda' you can make it sound more sinister or not, though I note that throughout this entire thread, you haven't actually been rebutting my arguments except with inaccuracies.

Guess what? I know your agenda too.

And you still haven't provided any backing whatsoever to your claims that children of same sex couples are worse off.
None at all.

“OK, since you insist…”

You don’t want a Neanderthal feeling smugly superior do you? You, presumably inadvertently, fell prey to the ambiguity in my comment.

I said “obscure” in the context of proceeding to say you sound paranoid. Nevertheless, you thought I meant your accusations were poorly expressed and it was difficult to understand what you were asserting. You didn’t realize I meant your arguments were not reasonably supported by my comments. I mean those “apparently mild comments”.

When I said “extreme” you thought I took for granted that I fulfilled your accusations but it would be extreme to express the accusations. You didn’t realize that I meant that the accusations themselves were unreasonable.

Contrarily, when you made the ambiguous comment that could have referred to CJ I immediately knew that you didn't intend to refer to him.

Can you see why I might feel clever as a result of working out your ambiguous comment from context ? Can you see that I might relate your mistake to my, (evolutionarily out of place), reasoning and feel even more clever? I do feel guilty though. I know us Neanderthals should know our place.

I still think you sound like a politician. Nevertheless I admire your modesty about the circumstances surrounding my bullying allegation.

Excuse my incessant lack of understanding but what is your basis for believing that “simple-minded homophobes” are keeping abreast of legislative developments relating to same sex attracted persons? That is the basis for the urgency in getting legislative change isn’t it? Further, do you believe that J Bennett kept abreast? If they didn’t then are you saying that they aren’t a “simple minded homophobe”?

Finally, what exactly do you consider a homophobe to be?

jpw2040 wrote 'which is the greater evil, outright vilification (in the manner of Boaz, Philo, runner and Jack), or manipulating third parties into expressing one’s own ugly thoughts'. Why is it that 'vilification' is trotted out when some people (actually the silent majority) disagree with certain views and practises? Also, we are accused of hate. I'm sure that 'thought crimes' will be next. The classic tag is 'homophobe' where he hopes to discourage the opposition by some supposed fear of being 'outed' as a homophobe. I don't care if anyone calls me a homophobe - houses don't scare me.

By way of response to J Bennett, can I just say that I share TRTL's agenda. Since I belong to the particular minority under fire here, I'm very grateful to those whose sense of justice compels them to seek equality for others.

"You, presumably inadvertently, fell prey to the ambiguity in my comment." I prostrate myself before your superior deviousness, mjpb. You keep reminding us that I referred to you as neanderthal, and this post facto cleverness confirms for us the full quote: "both devious and neanderthal." Funnily enough, I can't see the snare, even in retrospect. Still, it's very clever of you to try and retrofit a trap onto one of your armchair diagnoses. Keep trying.

Indeed, I've got a suggestion for you: there are still a few psychiatric disorders you haven’t diagnosed me with: http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15.html Maybe you could try to get them all into one post, and then you won’t need to expose us to this crap any more.

I do mind you feeling smugly superior to me, mjpb - it's been clear from the start that you do (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23525), and now you've confirmed it. Nevertheless, far be it from me to lecture you on the morality of feeling superior to other human beings ...

(now there's a dark musing for you).

I've provided lots of references to your habit of sooling the homophobes onto homosexuals, most recently http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#24220 It's your smoke and mirrors trick. Like a 70-year-old who’s bought herself an outfit that makes her look 35, you’ve found a way of inserting the ugliest sentiments into a discussion while continuing to seem mild and reasonable. There's a saying in German that goes something like, 'you can put as much makeup as you like on an arse, you'll never turn it into a face.'

"what is your basis for believing that “simple-minded homophobes” are keeping abreast of legislative developments relating to same sex attracted persons?" Heavens! Why would anyone want to participate in this discussion if they weren’t interested? I don't expect anyone to keep abreast of legislative developments, though it would be nice if people actually read what's already been stated in this discussion, rather than repeating the same vilification over and over and over again.

Definition of homophobia: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homophobia)

J Bennett " I don't want to waste time if you are too young or stupid or naive or brainwashed to work out that it harms kids will anything I say make a difference?"

As you mature if you keep a questioning mind you may find that some of the mantra's you believe are hollow mantra's. Once I would have agreed with you on this issue but I've taken the effort to ask what evidence backs that claim and many others. Often the answer is none or if evidence exists it is seriously compromised evidence.

You have admitted that your have no evidence for your claims, I've put forward a reason why statistically kids may actually be better looked after by homosexual couples than in families where they can arrive unwanted.

Nothing you say that is derived from ignorance and an unwillingness to ask for evidence will change my mind. If that's all you have to offer then please save your time.

Independant proof that kids are substantially more at risk in one living arrangement than in another would sway my thinking about the child related issues but you don't have that. There are many risk factors for kids, I've seen no evidence that having homosexual "parents" is one of them.

R0bert

Robert,
The way you talk about children you consider them a comodity to be passed around without thought to what is a balanced family. Children deserve their own loving mother and father who treat them as sacred people.

jpw2040, said "I'm very grateful to those whose sense of justice compels them to seek equality for others". Homosexual marriage is not a matter of seeking personal equality. You are endeavouring to make something dissimilar [marriage of same sex couples] equal to the social contract of marriage between two individuals of complementary sex.

Our society considers homosexuals acts are not the same as hetrosexual acts and are not matters for equal justice but of social immorality

Philo
The way you talk about homosexuals you consider them an aberrance to be passed around without a thought to what is a balanced family.
Children deserve loving parents who treat them as sacred people, regardless of gender or sex issues.

jpw2040, said "I'm very grateful to those whose sense of justice compels them to seek equality for others".
Opposing homosexual discrimination is a matter of seeking justice. You are endeavouring to make [marriage of same sex couples] unequal to the social contract of marriage between two individuals of opposites sexes.

Our society is starting to realise that while homosexuals acts are not the same as heterosexual acts, raising children isn't about sex. Something conservative people will someday hopefully understand. Discrimination is a matter of unequal justice and social immorality.

Jack, I'm curious how the humanist http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1341#24565 and the serial vilifier http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23256 can occupy the same head. Doesn't it get a bit adversarial in there? Do the voices keep you awake? When you come home at night, how does the dog know whether it's moral humanist Jack or angry vilifier Jack?

(As you can see, I've learnt a lot from mjpb's "Armchair Psychoanalysis for Dummies" course.)

Jpw2040,

"...You keep reminding us that I referred to you as neanderthal..."

Now now ambiguity is inherently a trap and it wasn't deliberate. There still seems to be confusion. Can I retrospectively substitute "took it the wrong way" in place of "fell prey to the ambiguity" to eliminate it ... or would you construe that as further deviousness?

"Indeed, I've got a suggestion for you:..."

No thanks boss. I'm already a neanderthal. If I copied and pasted that you would call me a chimp.

Is all that just because I noted that your over the top interpretations of my comments "sound paranoid"? Presumably you somehow consider that an actual challenge to your sanity? Dare I observe that that overreaction also sounds paranoid?

"...it's been clear from the start that you do..."

Sorry boss but how does answering when you attack me for something I didn't do, sound smugly superior?

"Nevertheless, far be it from me to lecture you on the morality of feeling superior to other human beings ... "

Is that because you yourself call them neanderthals and chimpanzees and would feel like a hypocrite?

"I've provided lots of references to your habit of sooling the homophobes onto homosexuals,"

Don't forget the ones you used to support that curious interpretation of that comment were wrong. Does the German expression apply to your comments or mine?

"...I don't expect anyone to keep abreast of legislative developments..."

But you implied that changing discriminatory legislation would stop small minded homophobics because they base their actions on current legislation didn't you? Perhaps even you don't take that wild claim seriously?

"Definition of homophobia: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality ..."

That includes "or dislike". Then do you consider it a misleading term? The whole point of the name calling is to rely upon people's assumption that they have been diagnosed as fearing homosexuals or fearing they are a homosexual isn't it? Otherwise should I accuse people of being Christophobic if they don't like Christianity? Where would it end?

jpw2040, what a clever little chap, You've been viewing another thread (1341) and using a statement from it to try and discredit a statement on this thread. I see that you never made any contribution to 1341, maybe because there was no anal sex discussions there (apart from one slip-up from Philo).
WTF did you mean by 'serial vilifier'? If it is that I am opposed to your perversions and always will be, then so be it. I'd rather be a 'moral humanist' than an 'immoral sodomist'.
I see you're giving it to the dog again. Poor mutt.

“If I copied and pasted that you would call me a chimp.” And quite deservedly so. I’m mightily relieved that we headed off that particular little contretemps.

If you want to know more about the etymology of the word homophobia, go look. You asked for a definition and I’ve referred you to one. As in the word xenophobia, both fear and dislike are included in the meaning. I didn’t make it that way, so your proposition that it's a misleading term is pretty pointless.

“Don't forget the ones you used to support that curious interpretation of that comment were wrong.” You’re welcome to take issue with anything I’ve said, but please do so accurately. One, and only one of the references was wrong. I acknowledged this and apologised.

Your posting behaviour encourages others to post homophobic comments. I’ve supported this view extensively, so the denials are a little hollow.

“Can I retrospectively substitute "took it the wrong way" in place of ...” If it’s up to me, no. You fabricated a story about laying a trap for me to make yourself look clever, but now you're admitting there was no trap. What's the quote about logs in eyes?

"or would you construe that as further deviousness?" No, I wouldn't. I would construe it as another failure http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23668 to apply the standards to yourself that you expect of others.

You departed from your normal quoting behaviour to paraphrase me in this case: “you implied that changing discriminatory legislation would stop small minded homophobics.” Now I understand. This ‘paraphrase’ was simply another attempt to derail the discussion. I implied nothing at all, though I did state something completely different to what you’ve written: go back and read it. If you’ve got some arguments to support the view that the current inequalities for same-sex-attracted people are unrelated to the homophobia we face every day, let’s hear them.

In the meantime, if you’re going to paraphrase what I say, do it accurately.

"I'd rather be a 'moral humanist' than an 'immoral sodomist'." I have no doubt you would, Jack, but so far neither your claims to be one, nor your denials of the other are very convincing http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

(wow, mjpb, this amateur psychoanalysis has a certain cheap appeal. Lowering the standards sometimes is kinda fun, rather like when a drunken opposition leader visits a strip club. Could this be a slippery slope? Will I wind up making generalisations about Tasmanians or Volvo drivers next?)

Great link, jpw2040. Kind of like saying that Leftism is a consequence of closet Fascist tendencies.

"like saying that Leftism is a consequence of closet Fascist tendencies"

I've not seen that particular piece of research. The parallel which came to mind is that most bullies are deeply insecure themselves and try to cover it up by "being tough". In the same vein is the old saying about those who protest too much.

I posted links earlier in the discussion regarding causes of homophobia. My impression is that the extreme homophobes are mostly people who have been socialised to believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong, disgusting etc then find themselves unable to just say "not for me" and leave it at that.

They have to emphasis just how "un-homosexual" they are. They protest so much because they are uncertain.

They are like the kid who has been brought up to believe that you must be tough and confident and they find insecurity and doubt within themselves. Instead of facing the doubt and learning what it means they beat up someone else to show that they are tough and confident.

R0bert

RObert, this thread was opened on whether or not gay partnerships should be recognised legally. I responded with my views as did many others. If I should just say 'not for me, same goes for the homos who should just say 'I like it that way'. If they can push their views, why do you not think that I should push mine?

Jpw2040,

I thank you for the definition and now I’d like to dispute its merit. You didn’t have to invent the word for it to be misleading. I don’t follow that logic. The psychologist George Weinburg coined the term in 1972. It was just as nonsensical then as it is now. It was nonsensical to apply a word meaning “fear of same” to people typically labeled homophobic and surprising at a time when same sex attraction was still in the DSM as a mental illness.

“Don't forget the ones you used to support that curious interpretation of that comment were wrong.” You’re welcome to take issue with anything I’ve said, but please do so accurately. One, and only one of the references was wrong. I acknowledged this and apologised.”

I disagree. The key one, that was the fruit of hunting through my comment history and was meant to be the smoking gun that confirmed a bizarre interpretation of comments in this forum, was wrong. Okay maybe it shouldn’t have used "ones" plural but you started it.

”Your posting behaviour encourages others to post homophobic comments. I’ve supported this view extensively, so the denials are a little hollow.”

Your arguments were incorrect but homophobic is a nonsense word…

”… I would construe it as another failure …to apply the standards to yourself that you expect of others.”

You seem to be quoting something I believe I have already debated. Am I missing something?

Paraphrase: “you implied that changing discriminatory legislation would stop small minded homophobics.”

Quote: So long as equality is withheld from sexual minorities simple-minded bigots will continue to vilify, threaten and assault us (following the motto that the government doesn't treat gays equally, so why should I?). Our government has the power to rob these people of the phoney justification for their hate.

Assertion: “… I did state something completely different to what you’ve written…”

Can you explain further?

Robert,

Jack’s quote: “Great link, jpw2040. Kind of like saying that Leftism is a consequence of closet Fascist tendencies.”
http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

“… In the same vein is the old saying about those who protest too much.”

People labeled homophobic aren’t normally labeled as a result of some protest about their sexuality. Indeed the person who claimed to be “enthusiastically heterosexual” was never labeled as homophobic notwithstanding his predilection for some fairly non-standard practices and the extensive use of the term “homophobic” in this thread. It is a nonsense term.

Jack has already given a reasonable response to the issue of that study. However some issues raised should be noted. Would it be fair to say that it would take a special kind of man (who claims negativity toward same sex attractions but) who volunteers to have experimenters strap a device to his penis to measure his sexual arousal while he views pornography involving people acting out same sex attractions? Do you seriously think that would be a representative sample of people who are labeled “homophobic”?

Jack,

“ If they can push their views, why do you not think that I should push mine?”

Because if you express your view you are a homophobe so shut your mouth!

But seriously, to the extent that that is the way the term homophobe is being used, here here! It is a nonsense term.

"Am I missing something?" Yes, quite deliberately, I suspect.

"Can you explain further?" I don't believe there's any point. If you refuse to accept the recognised meaning of the word "homophobia" then we don't have a common language with which we can communicate on this issue.

I've come to the conclusion that all I'm doing here is providing you with oxygen for your ill will.

I've got bigger fish to fry. Ciao

"The Victorian Labor government announced it would legislate to give single women and homosexuals access to IVF and Surrogacy in 2008. They may well push the 'Relationship Register Bill' through in the first sitting of State Parliament in Feb. 2008. IVF and Surrogacy for same-sex and single people will indeed create a STOLEN generation."

"Children will be born without the ability to have a proper relationship with their father or their mother. Children born with 3 mums and a dad, like Senator Steven Conroy's daughter, or any other combination that surrogacy and/or infertility treatment social engineers can dream up!"

A 'Sixty Minutes' program some years ago, presented a very immature homosexual who "desperately wanted a baby". He was to 'provide the sperm', a lesbian friend was to 'provide an egg' and his mother, the child's eventual grandmother, was to be the surrogate womb. The child would not have a mother, just a father and grandmother - the lesbian donor was not going to be involved. There was also some doubt that there would be a granddad!"

"As BILL MUEHLENBERG stated in his very good article in Monday's Herald Sun" The overwhelming weight of 35 years of social science makes it quite clear that children are best served when raised by both their own biological parents. He also states that there over 10,000 international studies weighing into this question and the data is irrefutable: children raised in any other structure than that of a mother and a father family suffer considerable disadvantages."

"Since when has this Victorian Labor government, or the Victorian Law Reform Commission, listened to the people rather than the homosexual lobby - unless the people are telling them what they want to hear? Even the Herald Sun Editorial of Tuesday 18 said as much.

Very few homosexuals want children, so a small percentage are able to destroy normality to suit their own personal unnatural lifestyle choices. - According to a La Trobe University study 2% of the population are homosexual. What we oppose is a political agenda to normalise unnatural homosexual relationships and undermine the natural FAMILY."

What can you do?
We need you to increase your efforts to combat this social engineering taking place in Victoria.
Make an appointment to see your local State MP (Lower House) and your 5 Upper House members.
Take a friend and talk about the benefits of marriage and the damage that extending benefits to all couples will do to society.

We know some Lib/Nat MPs are supportive of our position to uphold the natural family. Please write politely to persuade all the Lib/Nat opposition to oppose both 'Relationship Registers' and the new IVF/surrogacy laws. Please encourage them to support the children, not the selfish agenda of homosexuals by opposing this legislation.

Write to Party leaders and MPs:
PLEASE write to ALL YOUR political representatives (one Lower House and 5 Upper House) as well as the Premier Mr Brumby, the Deputy Premier Mr Hulls, the Leader of the opposition Mr Baillieu.
Vic. Premier John Brumby - john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au
Vic. Attorney General Rob Hulls - rob.hulls@parliament.vic.gov.au
Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu - ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
Nationals Leader Peter Ryan - peter.ryan@parliament.vic.gov.au
Shadow Vic. Attorney General Robert Clark robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au

Your own MPs - one in the Legislative Assembly, five in the Legislative Council.
See http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/handbook/menupage.cfm?menuId=1

philo, strangely enough I've not noticed your contributions on the issue of children being removed from their biological fathers via the family law system.

A much larger problem where actual children are removed from the care of a parent who does love them to suit the lifestyle, financial or vengence preferences of the other parent. A real issue as opposed to the small number of homosexual couples who may succeed in addopting a child (where the option of access to biological parents is already unavailable anyway) or who may use medical intervention to secure a child.

There may be odd situations such as the one you describe, if so they are at the extreme and still nothing has been said that indicates a specific risk to a child. Children are far more at risk in families where they are unwanted than when being raised by a parent or parents who really want them.

If you are really concerned for the wellbeing of children focus your efforts where the risks are rather than on relationship types which you disapprove of. If homosexual parents present an unacceptable risk to children show us the independant research which backs up that claim.

R0bert

Philo of course he thinks of kids as a commodity because thats how homos think of kids and he follows them normally.

Jack and mj you are spot on homos know they are wrong so they use words like that. They know numbsculls won't tolerate disagreement if its called homophobic and they think a wrong is okay if homos call it a civil right and they think they have to give full assistance to every whim of perverts if they call themselves a minority group. Homos lead them by the nose.

For those of you who can't see damage to kids beyond molesting how do you know homos don't intend to but keep it quiet because numbsculls aren't ready for that yet? How is it that when people resisting homo rights demands said that homos agenda was to redefine marriage homo activists acted offended and called it hysterical bigotry yet now they ask for gay marriage? How is it that homo activists inisted their sexual perversion was a lifestyle choice but now swear blindly they are born that way? Wjhats the story morning glory? Right now most of these perverts say the important thing is consenting adults and claim it is hysterical bigotry to associate them with child molestors but it sounds too familiar why don't I trust them?

Jw2040 you are a clever little chap. "By way of response to J Bennett, can I just say that I share TRTL's agenda." "I'm very grateful to those whose sense of justice compels them to seek equality for others."

Fancy twisting of things aside your probably half right. Your disrespect for women was obvious with the ditzy comment but you pretend to respect women you think you can use. You are also clever to talk about other peoples ill will after all your hatred and name calling. Your followers will think you are a nice guy and anyone who politely disagrees is the one with ill will.

Ciao Jpw2040. None of my business but I wonder who you are frying and where. I suspect you will fry them quite vigorously.

Well things have got quieter in here. Has Jw2040 run out of hateful comments and names to call people or is it just hard to argue much of the pro-homo nonsense.

Rboert you don't solve a problem by making more problems not all kids are in ideal circumstances but that doesn't mean adopted kids should be worse off. Anyone who wants to adopt obviously wants the kid so bad things in other situations that don't apply aren't important to this argument and there is no argument that kids shouldn't be removed from other types of abuse environments. I bet you are just parroting that diversion from somethng some homo tried to con you with. Fine other problems should be dealt with but why create more? You said having 3 mums and a dad is extreme but most won't have either a mum or a dad if homos get their hands on them. How is that less extreme? Also, don't people with one type of mental illness often have others so what if they want to interfere with the kids?

"Once I would have agreed with you on this issue but I've taken the effort to ask what evidence backs that claim and many others. Often the answer is none or if evidence exists it is seriously compromised evidence."

That is sad that you didn't support this ugly thing but somehow you changed your mind. What evidence did you find that kids living with homos is a good thing? What evidence did you find that there is no benefit having a father and mother in SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. I'm not shouting just don't know how else to highlight because you normally compare chalk and cheese which isn't an argument. Also, admit that you think homos are normal because I think that is your main problem.

J Bennett
Here here- Well said

Thanks I appreciate it.

JBennett, Well, speaking for myself, the reason why I left this thread was because it became incredibly childish. I stopped back in to see if it had gotten anywhere, but it hasn't. Dunno if this is why the others left.

Call that a victory if you will. I suppose it's easy to win arguments when the others have left in disgust.

I note you indicate those on your side of the argument 'politely disagreed'

You were among the first with the 'bottom of the class comments' to which I admit I foolishly rose to challenge.
Clearly, you didn't understand the point I was making in that post until I clarified it later and called your rank errors.
Since then, you've gone with terms like homos, numbskulls, and indulged in a fair bit of the childish nonsense in this thread.

As for names, I'll just stick with hypocrite and leave it at that.

TurnRightThenLeft, I've not left in disgust but rather it seems that we are back to arguing in circles. No new substance just the same old claims with no evidence. It seems kind of pointless to keep making the same points over and over.

Those opposed to allowing gay partnerships to be recognised legally have made a variety of claims about why it would be harmful which have been rebutted. They have failed to produce any substantial evidence to back their claims.

For those genuinely concerned with child welfare there are real risks to children which should be addressed.

The biggest factors which we need to work on if we want to better protect children are in my view
- Substance abuse by parents
- Poverty
- Social alienation/loss of purpose

I've seen no evidence that the sexual orientation of parents (unless it's towards children) is any kind of risk factor.

R0bert

Robert,
One other factor that should be included in your list is:

Work constructively to maintain the quality relationships of natural parents so children grow up in optimum in loving conditions. There is no better conditions for a child than a full healthy relationship with both mother and father; anything else is merely a substitute.

TRTL mate you would need to rise to address even the bottom of the class comments. Your Greek comments were lower then low. You can call it childish to call a spade a spade if that makes you feel better but those if favour of kids falling prey to a homo union upbringing don’t have an argument.

Robert where are the circles. You won’t admit that you think sexual perverts are normal. You think that an obvious risk is somehow defended with a try it and see what happens because obviously we have to risk kids for many years before anyone can prove with research that the end result will be harmful. We’ll just experiment with kids in the meantime. Sorry but that expresses a poor attitude toward kids not an argument or a rebuttal. You shy away totally when I raise the issue of other potential risks.

I asked how do you know many homos don't intend to molest but keep it quiet because numbsculls aren't ready for that yet? When people resisting homo rights demands said that homos agenda was to redefine marriage homo activists acted offended and called it hysterical bigotry yet now they ask for gay marriage. Obviously they wanted to all along but the fools needed more time. When homo activists inisted their sexual perversion was a healthy lifestyle choice they didn’t swear blindly they are born that way. Right now most of them say the important thing is consenting adults and claim it is hysterical bigotry to associate them with child molestors but it sounds too familiar why don't I trust them? You can’t answer that can you?

You are right with the biggest current factors but again you are sidetracking. Those factors need to be addressed and it will take time but that is no excuse to increase the number of kids at risk by changing things for the worse.

"I asked how do you know many homos don't intend to molest."

What the hell?

How many men don't intend to rape?
How many soldiers don't intend to commit genocide?
How many motorists don't intend to commit vehicular manslaughter?
How many footballers don't intend to commit assault?

Don't know?

Well, clearly, the world must be jam packed full of genocidal rapists intending to commit assault and manslaughter.

Your assumption of guilt is not only poor debating and a glaring example of why it's important to learn basic critical reasoning, it reveals the thought process behind your posts.

And give the bloody greek thing a rest. I told you, it was informing you about history, nothing more, nothing less. So it's not the least bit low. It's just adding historical perspective, something you're lacking.
Believe what you want, but I'm telling you right now what I meant and guess what? I'm in a far better position to judge what I'm saying.

Though I see why you focus on your own misinterpretations. It's all you've got to go by, seeing as how I proved how stupid and ill informed your comments on civil unions really are, which largely formed the basis of your argument, especially as you can't provide any backing. No studies. No statistics. No nothing. It's all empty opinion.

This is going round in circles. I'll bid your trolling adieu, feeling soiled that I even dignified your hateful rhetoric with a response.

TRTL,

JB is not going to allow facts or reason to get in the way of his prejudice. The vitreol that he spews cannot be from deductive reasoning and must stem from some life experience.

Without this background, debate is meaningless.

JB no one is asking you to like gays, but this level of hatred is poisonous. Get help.

JB wrote: "Right now most of them say the important thing is consenting adults and claim it is hysterical bigotry to associate them with child molestors but it sounds too familiar why don't I trust them?"

The answer is transparent - you have a hysterical dislike for them.

I posted a response to a similar assertion from JB in another thread, which was: Australia is united in believing children cannot consent to sex - it's one of our most stable laws. And the worldwide trend tracks the other way - countries where the age of consent was once what we in the west consider too young are increasingly raising that age. In Australian, no lobby group is attempting to change the age of consent. I have never met nor heard of a gay person who is in the least bit interested in changing the age of consent.

Gay people aren't attracted to children. They're attracted to people of their own sex. Pedeophiles are attracted to children.

If you're suggesting that adults want to lower the age of consent in order to abuse children, *statistically* this call is most likely to come from heterosexual men. (Not that I believe that it will.) Children who are abused are most likely to be abused by a heterosexual relative or friend of the family. More girls than boys are abused, but even adult male sexual abusers of boys often do not identify as gay. You can google for stats, or I'll provide them.

If you have some proof for your assertion, let's have a look at it. If not, it seems to me paranoid and not really worth debating.

Also, what I would love to hear more about is this period in history when "homo activists" (one cohesive pod, apparently) "acted offended and called it hysterical bigotry" when confronted with the charge that they wanted to redefine marriage. I missed that.

Also, just out of some peverse interest, what does this <<When homo activists inisted their sexual perversion was a healthy lifestyle choice they didn’t swear blindly they are born that way>> even mean?

Botheration,

This thread still going...

”If you're suggesting that adults want to lower the age of consent in order to abuse children, *statistically* this call is most likely to come from heterosexual men. (Not that I believe that it will.) Children who are abused are most likely to be abused by a heterosexual relative or friend of the family. More girls than boys are abused, but even adult male sexual abusers of boys often do not identify as gay. You can google for stats, or I'll provide them.”

Are child molestors more overrepresented in the opposite sex attracted camp or the same sex attracted camp? You say “heterosexual”. To be honest I’ve encountered confident assertions in both directions.

Some argue that most molested children are girls and the molestors of boys tend to be married. The inherent assumption is that noone would get married to molest children.

Others argue that molested boys often get molested by men who marry late and due to the tiny proportion of same sex attracted males in the population it indicates paedophile tendencies are overrepresented in same sex attracted males. The inherent assumption is that a man having sex with a boy is what you call gay.

That has left me suspecting that both camps are making sweeping assumptions and not only hasn’t it been properly researched but I can’t imagine a connection between same sex attraction and paedophilia getting researched. I don’t believe researchers would touch it.

Can you really provide stats that genuinely address the issue? It would be nice if my above assumption is incorrect and researchers have taken the plunge. It would be nice to lay the issue to rest.

mjpb, you're right that this argument has become one of competing assertions. Well done for calling me on it.

Statistics are notoriously difficult to obtain. I have several friends who were abused as children, but not one who reported it.

From the ABS, 2006:
* Women were more likely to have been sexually abused than men. Before the age of 15, 12% ( 956,600) of women had been sexually abused compared to 4.5% (337,400) of men

For stats, see:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyTopic/0556FBD355B2719BCA2571C50074ABF2?OpenDocument
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C41F8B2864D42333CA256F070079CBD4/$File/45230_2004.pdf

Information on perps here: http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues5/issues5.html

This was an excellent site: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
although it's a gay site, so some may not trust it.

I'd also add, "lies, damn lies, and statistics". What do we learn about the perpetrators from these stats? I still think we should define child abusers as child abusers - not straight or gay. Say researched discovered that, hypothetically, 1% of heterosexual men abuse children and 2% of homosexual men abuse children. What would the community do with this information?

It's also important to remember that not all child molestors are pedeophiles - that is, not all of them are generally sexually attracted to children. There can be other motives for abusing children. Also, some pedeophiles are attracted to both sexes. It's the child that's the thing.

And child abuse is separate from the issue of gay partnership, now matter how hysterically some suggest otherwise.

TRTL "I asked how do you know many homos don't intend to molest."

“How many men don't intend to rape?” Most
“How many soldiers don't intend to commit genocide?” Most
“How many motorists don't intend to commit vehicular manslaughter?” Most
“How many footballers don't intend to commit assault?” Don’t know but might get suspicions there if recent performance is anything to go by.

“Well, clearly, the world must be jam packed full of genocidal rapists intending to commit assault and manslaughter.” No we know otherwise so it isn't the same.

“I'm in a far better position to judge what I'm saying.” Sounds good but your words were clear.

“It's all empty opinion.” Whatever I assumed some official comments were correct and meant what they said because until recently I had no reason to take an interest in homos and it I realized soon afterwood the problem before it was the basis of anything.

"JB no one is asking you to like gays, but this level of hatred is poisonous. Get help." SM I hate ugly things happening to kids, I hate racism, I hate exploitation of women, I hate environment abuse, I hate people ramming a God delusion down my throat, I hate stupidity and I hate nasty people but none of this means I hate gays just because they are gays as I hate heteros if they fit the bill and homos seem to be the clever ones so the stupidity and God delusion don’t apply.

“you have a hysterical dislike for them.” Botheration no I’m just not gullible.

“it's one of our most stable laws.” What like illegal homosexuality was one of our most stable laws until it changed in the 80s? Didn’t psychologists speak in favour then? Think about it.

“And the worldwide trend” Holland lowered the age and Australia lowered the age for homo consent so that’s interesting trivia but just trivia because if trends didn’t change they woldn’t be trends.

“In Australian, no lobby group”

As opposed to America with the North American Man Boy Love Association.

http://www.nambla.org/select.htm

Are you getting your arguments from homos as I can’t believe a gay marriage supporting hetero would think of that trick themself? They must love you in the same way that white racist scum in South Africa loved Africans they convinced to beat up other Africans.

“ I have never met nor heard of a gay person who is in the least bit interested in changing the age of consent.”

Even if none admitted it it doesn’t mean they aren’t out there and I remember reading a gay barrister arguing somewhere to lower the homo age of consent when it was higher than hetero.

“If you have some proof for your assertion, let's have a look at it. If not, it seems to me paranoid and not really worth debating.”

What if no gays were admitting it. Homos have a sexual perversion similar to paedophiles and a history of changing their story so we can’t ask them so these things should be considered when gay adoption is being considered.

“I missed that.” I suppose you also missed the time when psychologists got in strife for saying the research proved that children aren’t harmed by molestation and we all know the orientation of psychologists like hairdressers don’t we?

“what does this even mean?” It means that they said they made a healthy lifestyle choice when it got the right results and they say they are born that way when they think that will help theml Fools believe them even when they keep changing stories.

So you continue to misrepresent me. Evidently I am in a far better position to judge them.

My words were clear eh J Bennett? Lets revisit them, then dissect the false view you're constructing for me.

Funny how my words were clear when you pin some damning false intepretation on them, yet when I repeatedly point out your ignorance in claiming that there are already civil unions in Australia and homosexuals receive more or less equal treatment aside from adoption, you don't seem so eager to repeat them.

I was going to let this thread be, but damned if I'm going to stand by and allow you to misrepresent what I'm saying.

Hokay, first you accused me of saying the sexual habits of ancient greece were 'good.'

This is an outright lie. I've told you it's a lie, and asked you to clarify, and point to where I said that.

You won't.

It's an outright lie, which really angers me, because I've not said that.

But that's your only means of debate. Misrepresenting people. Quite frankly, I find that even more disgusting than your other views.

What I did say, was: "I do get amused when I see people pointing to homosexuality as some kind of sign of a deteriorating society, when in truth it's existed among most world civilisations, it was just the puritan hangups on sex that came as baggage with church orthodoxy which repressed it in western civilisations."

The key points:
1. Societies throughout history have had homosexuality peppered through their history, thus it's not a sign of a decay in society.
2. Puritanism and church orthodoxy created a ripple effect of sexual repression in western society.

Which part of this is wrong?

Cont'd.

The other comment, you'd like to hang me on, was "the greek empire, which essentially was the foundation for western civilisation before even rome, which existed long before christians made an appearance, never had issues with homosexuality. It was a part of their culture from the beginning and they saw it as pretty harmless - in fact, many men had wives purely for procreation and young men for other pursuits."

Where did I say it was good? I said it was a fact. I did say all this sexual repression was unfortunate, though on that score, you concurred.

LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY! I don't want to have to explain this again, and I don't want you to continue misrepresenting me.

The point I was making thoughout the post was that homosexuality is not an indication of a society in decay - the greek empire began from that basis, and was the first democracy - it was a powerful empire to which we owe the foundations of western thought.

I never said anything about keeping wives solely for procreation as being good. I said it happened in Greece as it was a rising power, so you can't assume homosexuality means western society is in decay.

You then took this and blew it all out of proportion, twisting my words and pretending they're indicative of something they're not.

I can only assume you did this because it's all you've got to debate me with.
It's a weak, reprehensible debate tactic.
You never addressed the fact that you were completely wrong on the state of civil unions, so why the hell should anyone think you've got the slightest clue on anything else related to this.

JB,

To wear the mantle of rational concern, you need to show that your fears are based on fact and not prejudice. I have yet to see any study or documentation that indicates that gay marriage will lead to an increase in child abuse.

Provide even an inkling of proof and you will not be judged so harshly.

JB "Botheration no I’m just not gullible."

Actually, you're one of the most gullible posters I've ever come across. You really think that Nambla have any kind of lobbying power in that great god-fearing nation the USA? That's Nambla, the group that apparently has no members now and effectively doesn't exist. You really think that gay people want to change the age of consent even though they never mention it? I never mention that I want a robotic barbershop quartet to rule Earth from a secret satellite located directly above your house. Does that mean I secretly *do* want that? Do you really think that all psychologists are gay? Do you really think these large, amorphous groups - gays, psychologists - work as one homogeneous entity? Think they have secret meetings? "Yes, Cyril, we seem to have them fooled." *Leans back in chair and studies fingernails. "All those homo-lovin' heteros now believe we gays are set on this earth to dress amusingly in women's clothes while singing 'Locomotion' and making cocktails and redecorating their kitchens. Now that they trust us, it's time to steal their children and make them ours!" *breaks into maniacal laughter*

So, either someone's fed you this rubbish, and you're gullible, or you're inventing this stuff, which is more than a touch paranoid.

Of course, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I suggest you lobby your local state and federal members if you want to promote your views.

But your views are a bit daft.

Botheration,

“Well done for calling me on it. “

You are welcome and I’m impressed that you complimented me for doing so. It hasn’t been the typical reaction in here when I pull people up on ‘methodological’ issues.

”Statistics are notoriously difficult to obtain.”

But there has been more of an effort to research it than I expected.

“ I have several friends who were abused as children, but not one who reported it.”

Obviously obtaining representative data (and methodology) are overwhelmingly challenging. I expected reluctance to research. Instead the problem seems to be conducting a study which achieves transparently accurate results.

Both the homosexual link and the link flagged relating to perpetrators considered the issue. The homosexual one took a fairly definite stance. The other one concurred in a qualified way:

“Overall, what little evidence there is, although flawed, appears to indicate that sexual orientation does not play a part in child sexual assault typologies, and that the assumption that paedophiles who engage in same-sex sexual abuse are homosexuals is more a societal myth than a reality.”

I note (although it is unrelated to the current topic) that the homosexual one’s Roman Catholic abuse cases discussion was unimpressive. Irrespective of overall incidence and correlation for same sex attracted people in general society, abuse cases in the Church typically involved same sex attraction. It is unfair to make the types of comments that were made in the article about the Church without acknowledging that.

”Say … hypothetically, 1% of heterosexual men abuse children and 2% of homosexual men abuse children. What would the community do with this information?”

Currently nothing but in a different political climate… You could get something like the going 5k above doubles the crash risk. In this case a homosexual with a child doubles the risk of molestation. Clearly such a small (1%) difference in your hypothetical example might not count for much in reality but what was done with it would depend on the motives, power and influence of the people who used the statistic.

All in all it was interesting and useful. Thanks.

mjpb,

Thank you for thanking me! I'm sure it drives us all bonkers when OLO debates become all O and no plainhardtruth. Having said that, I'm know that if I had believed the opposite of what I actually believe (i.e. the nonsensical view that gay men are more likely to abuse children than heterosexual men), I could have found four websites to back up *that* view. Sure, not official or ABS sites, but semi-serious-sounding references nonetheless. We all need to be wary.

I entirely agree with you that "conducting a study which achieves transparently accurate results" is difficult. But, to me, what's interesting is *why* people might believe poofs (not dykes) abuse children in greater numbers than straight men. Why are there so many out there fervently willing this particular, gruesome outcome? Why are some people so *desperate* to find gay men perverts?

I'm not afraid of revealing my politics. My parents are scientists and growed me up without prejudice. I have many close gay and lesbian friends. My partner and I were introduced by a mutual gay friend. I have found that solid heterosexual men who are friends with gay men are generally cleverer and sexier and higher-achieving than men who find gay men icky. In short, I'm a faghag, and I'm married to a faghag.

So when people start saying that gay men want to adopt children to abuse them, or lower the age of consent, I know enough to know that's unlikely, so people must have some other incentive to denounce gay adoption than the protection of children. If the people on this thread truly-ruly cared about protecting children, they wouldn't be banging on about gay adoption, they'd be working with low-income, broken families to support step-fathers and disaffected dads, and they'd be trying to reduce the number of wards of the state, who are abused at an alarming rate. In truth, they don't give a sh!t about the kids, they want to talk about how perverse fags are.

Somewhere, tonight, a child is being abused. What are we doing?

I've been away for a while and hope I've caught up on recent posts.

J Bennet accepts that there are other risks and issues but asks me why we should risk the possibility of abuse when we just don't know?

- I've seen no real evidence to suggest that appropriately vetted gays adopting children pose any greater risk to kids than currently exists and can see a serious case for believing that in other regards a gay couple seeking to adopt a child may be a better risk of providing appropriate care for the child than many who currently have the care of children.

- I have serious objections to limiting peoples freedoms and the government being involved in active discrimination on the basis of unfounded fears and stereotypes. As I've mentioned previously I'm a single dad, I've seen enough discrimination on the basis of my gender to make me very concerned when I see that similar discrimination elsewhere.
- Kids are much more likely to be assaulted or neglected than sexually abused and I suspect that the demographics of most gay couples seeking to adopt children would put them outside the prime risk categories for most abuse types.

Other parts of the discussion have been around the issue of the likelyhood of abuse. The point has been made elsewhere that for child abusers the issue is about children rather than gender. Serial male offenders are more likely to have access to boys than girls. I've posted links previously to material which discusses some of these issues.

R0bert

food for more thought on child sexual abuse.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/female_sexual_predators_awareness.aspx

86% of the victims of female sexual predators aren't believed, so the crimes go unreported and don't get prosecuted.

Considering these facts, arrest statistics for child sexual offenders by gender are meaningless.

From "The Sexual Abuse by Women of Children and Teenagers"

UK TV programme - Panorama - BBC1 - 10 pm Monday, October 6th, 1997

When girls do it: an examination of female sexual predators
The Canadian Children's Rights Council recommends this video documentary to all law makers, police, child protection workers, educators, school teachers and organizations concerned about recognizing female sexual predators.

This documentary originally aired on CTV in August, 2001

Reporter comments about a female sexual predator:
"In September 1997, she was making her first court appearance and I remember the first time I saw her I was immediately flabbergasted because she looked so innocent. She was so slight, small in her build, and so young, and I thought, 'she can't be a sex offender, it's impossible.'"

- Reporter Cheryl Jahn, speaking about convicted sexual offender Crystal Henricks

From the website of "When Girls Do It" ( website deleted Oct. /04)

"When Girls Do It" is a 45-minute video examining the motivations of female sexual predators, the destructive effects of their actions on their victims, and the reluctance of victims to come forward.

"When Girls Do It" features compelling testimony and powerful interviews with survivors of abuse by female sexual offenders, therapists, and psychologists. The documentary delves into related issues including the long-held misconception that sexual abuse of children is exclusively a male crime.

Be clear that I am not trying to completely get away from the issue of perverts bringing up children as being a problem by itself but am just raising an additional concern with the molestation. While I'm at it I notice that people who support homos seem to have a chip on their shoulder about their parents or parenting or like the rear action like Mr Morgan or were brainwashed by parents. That is why they can't think for themselves.

"Why are some people so *desperate* to find gay men perverts?" Botheration funny you should put it like that but I know what you mean.

"they'd be working with low-income, broken families to support step-fathers and disaffected dads, and they'd be trying to reduce the number of wards of the state, who are abused at an alarming rate. In truth, they don't give a sh!t about the kids, they want to talk about how perverse fags are."

In truth those things are no excuse to add more ugliness and it is too late to stop them and they won't change overnight or by not talking about homos getting their hands on kids. In your January 11 post you sound like John Cleese's character in Faulty Towers. The difference between the robotic barber shop and homos molesting is there is good grounds for suspicion and no chances should be taken with kids safety. Homos are already perverts with a similar condition to paedophiles, people often have more than one mental illness so why not similar ones, and the only people who know for sure are homos and they don't have a good history of being honest about their agenda.

Of course something always leaks out (although lucky I checked it today as it wasn't working and I needed to get it from archive). Here is a link from an honest homo in America who names a bunch of politicians with similar views and it is obvious from his writing that he knows others of his persuasion agree with him. If they all disagreed why would he bother with the website?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070710185136/http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/ophocounton.html