By way of response to J Bennett, can I just say that I share TRTL's agenda. Since I belong to the particular minority under fire here, I'm very grateful to those whose sense of justice compels them to seek equality for others.

"You, presumably inadvertently, fell prey to the ambiguity in my comment." I prostrate myself before your superior deviousness, mjpb. You keep reminding us that I referred to you as neanderthal, and this post facto cleverness confirms for us the full quote: "both devious and neanderthal." Funnily enough, I can't see the snare, even in retrospect. Still, it's very clever of you to try and retrofit a trap onto one of your armchair diagnoses. Keep trying.

Indeed, I've got a suggestion for you: there are still a few psychiatric disorders you haven’t diagnosed me with: http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15.html Maybe you could try to get them all into one post, and then you won’t need to expose us to this crap any more.

I do mind you feeling smugly superior to me, mjpb - it's been clear from the start that you do (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23525), and now you've confirmed it. Nevertheless, far be it from me to lecture you on the morality of feeling superior to other human beings ...

(now there's a dark musing for you).

I've provided lots of references to your habit of sooling the homophobes onto homosexuals, most recently http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#24220 It's your smoke and mirrors trick. Like a 70-year-old who’s bought herself an outfit that makes her look 35, you’ve found a way of inserting the ugliest sentiments into a discussion while continuing to seem mild and reasonable. There's a saying in German that goes something like, 'you can put as much makeup as you like on an arse, you'll never turn it into a face.'

"what is your basis for believing that “simple-minded homophobes” are keeping abreast of legislative developments relating to same sex attracted persons?" Heavens! Why would anyone want to participate in this discussion if they weren’t interested? I don't expect anyone to keep abreast of legislative developments, though it would be nice if people actually read what's already been stated in this discussion, rather than repeating the same vilification over and over and over again.

Definition of homophobia: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homophobia)

J Bennett " I don't want to waste time if you are too young or stupid or naive or brainwashed to work out that it harms kids will anything I say make a difference?"

As you mature if you keep a questioning mind you may find that some of the mantra's you believe are hollow mantra's. Once I would have agreed with you on this issue but I've taken the effort to ask what evidence backs that claim and many others. Often the answer is none or if evidence exists it is seriously compromised evidence.

You have admitted that your have no evidence for your claims, I've put forward a reason why statistically kids may actually be better looked after by homosexual couples than in families where they can arrive unwanted.

Nothing you say that is derived from ignorance and an unwillingness to ask for evidence will change my mind. If that's all you have to offer then please save your time.

Independant proof that kids are substantially more at risk in one living arrangement than in another would sway my thinking about the child related issues but you don't have that. There are many risk factors for kids, I've seen no evidence that having homosexual "parents" is one of them.

R0bert

Robert,
The way you talk about children you consider them a comodity to be passed around without thought to what is a balanced family. Children deserve their own loving mother and father who treat them as sacred people.

jpw2040, said "I'm very grateful to those whose sense of justice compels them to seek equality for others". Homosexual marriage is not a matter of seeking personal equality. You are endeavouring to make something dissimilar [marriage of same sex couples] equal to the social contract of marriage between two individuals of complementary sex.

Our society considers homosexuals acts are not the same as hetrosexual acts and are not matters for equal justice but of social immorality

Philo
The way you talk about homosexuals you consider them an aberrance to be passed around without a thought to what is a balanced family.
Children deserve loving parents who treat them as sacred people, regardless of gender or sex issues.

jpw2040, said "I'm very grateful to those whose sense of justice compels them to seek equality for others".
Opposing homosexual discrimination is a matter of seeking justice. You are endeavouring to make [marriage of same sex couples] unequal to the social contract of marriage between two individuals of opposites sexes.

Our society is starting to realise that while homosexuals acts are not the same as heterosexual acts, raising children isn't about sex. Something conservative people will someday hopefully understand. Discrimination is a matter of unequal justice and social immorality.

Jack, I'm curious how the humanist http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1341#24565 and the serial vilifier http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23256 can occupy the same head. Doesn't it get a bit adversarial in there? Do the voices keep you awake? When you come home at night, how does the dog know whether it's moral humanist Jack or angry vilifier Jack?

(As you can see, I've learnt a lot from mjpb's "Armchair Psychoanalysis for Dummies" course.)