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.