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.