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 ...