Just in case anyone was thinking my post was referring to CJ, it wasn't.

I was simply providing Jack with a few more words to parrot somewhere else.

jpw, that's a completely unfair and unjustified attack on chimpanzees, who are generally very comfortable with homosexual activity, and engage in it frequently.

Good one Robert I'm not stupid. Obviously I can't get evidence until kids grow up. Don't pull something like that on me. Are you happy to risk harming kids?

"I've been called many things"

TRTL what are you on about? Do you know how much it bugs me that you get that mixed up, you get mixed up about civil rights, yu get mixed up about what has been said in black and white, you get mixed up when I say homos should have civil rights but you can rub in my face the stuff that is now all through the news because I hadn't kept up to date and believed Jw2040s link.

"Arguing for rights for some people is not a condemnation of others."
" I outlined some history, nothing more or less."

It was more. You made out ancient Greece was good.

"they saw it as pretty harmless - in fact, many men had wives purely for procreation and young men for other pursuits...

No doubt this kind of behaviour is seen today as decadent and insulting, but after an appraisal of history these attitudes seem much more like an offshoot of the sexual hang-ups"

Hung by your own words.

"Your so called concern for 'the children' is merely a trojan horse"

The hell it is. What is that anyway a freudian slip? Your caught with your Greek horse and you say trojan horse.

"either declare neutrality or support for at least ending the cycle of discrimination"

Again I am fully happy for homos to have any civil rights but only genuine ones that don't interfere with kids rights. I'll clap when you get that.

Jw2040 by journey you mean taking her for a ride.

"We deal with this kind of hate, spite and even violence every day."

I guess people you deal with would get a little cranky with your nastiness. You give worse then you get but your probably worse off cause the truth hurts.

Jack true picture but people without the brains to realize will keep getting led by the nose by his fancy talk.

JBennett, you were wrong about civil rights of gay couples, and there's plenty more that you're just plain wrong about.

"It was more. You made out ancient Greece was good"

Where did I do that? I said it was the foundation for the west.
Are you familiar with the concept of hellenism? How the cultural ideals transferred to rome and then to western culture? I never said it was good or bad, just that it's history, like it or lump it.

That was the case with the comment about wives and young men - it's just the way things were. As far as the decadence goes in today's society, it's about letting people be and allowing them their civil rights.

I've already made the point that the pedophile argument is a furphy, because of the consent issue, which is central to the idea of choice and civil rights - something you've belatedly agreed to, so I don't see where you can argue on that score.

You've made a baseless accusation that I either support either sexism or sexual acts against children, when neither is the case.

I've been pursuing you on your foolhardy claim that same sex couples have equal rights aside from adoption. That's false. What I've wanted is you to see that, largely because it's people who are living under this impression that are allowing this discrimination to continue, regardless of the adoption issues which are another matter.

You appear to have belatedly come to this conclusion, though I see it pains you to admit that.

It's not a matter of following the news, it's about being aware of the actual state of play in a debate such as this, before throwing in such strong opinions which are shown conclusively to be false.

I see you also back away from pursuing this side of the debate any further, so in response to your repeated "I'll clap when you get that" comments, you can start clapping away.

Have a red sticker. Now that you accept much of this is separate from the adoption debate, I'll clap for you too.

CJ,

I'll try to just bite my tongue.

jpw2040, I considered the disussion to be more about where we would like the law to go than where it is now. Should gay partnerships be recognised legally? The that case against (such as it is) is relevant.

Society routinely limits freedoms in regard to behaviours which it allows but does not encourage - the ever tightning restrictions on smokers being a case. It's legal for adults to smoke but society makes it more and more unpalatable to continue.

Philo (and others) consider male homosexual intercourse to be a practice that harms those involved and harms society. Pointing to what they consider to be the harm is valid in a discussion about extending the legal protections available to homosexuals.

I happen to disagree with Philo and others on this issue but don't agree that their views are irrelevant. I will do my best to refute their views where I disagree and put the other side of the argument when I'm equipped to do so but don't see how their views are off topic in a discussion entitled "Should gay partnerships be recognised legally?"

R0bert