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?