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