This is an interesting thread.

wizofaus: "...much the same purpose: allowing both partners to 'shape each other up', and, at least in some cases, ensuring that the outsiders are aware that the pair are off limits."

I'll grant that the latter part of of this assertion is arguable in functional terms, but I think that most people in our society have well and truly 'shaped each other up' somewhat prior to their marriage ceremony.

mjpb: "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"

Er, how on earth did you conclude that anybody who had posted in this thread prior to your comment is a "homosexual activist"? To simply support equal rights for any minority group doesn't imply "activism" - rather, it's an expression of that good old Aussie value of a 'fair go' for everybody.

Speaking of which, as far as I can tell, the only homosexual contributor to the thread thus far is 'fair go', and their comment (posted subsequent to yours) is hardly "activist".

botheration: "Just out of interest, give who an inch?"

Too funny. Do you think Jack actually has inch to give? :)

Evidently evolution got it wrong to have developed male and female genitals according to new age science. Nature got it wrong to have grown male and female genitals according to curent educators. God got it wrong to have created male and female genitals according to homosexuals.

The fact homosexuals are fertile males capable of producing children, says that their physiology is OK it is their mind that is screwed up.

Godwin’s Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law has a gay-related corollary, http://www.nakedwriting.com/archives/2002/05/well_thats_one.html which states that “In any debate on the subject of homosexuality, the probability that discrimination against homosexuals will be justified by invoking a comparison to pedophilia will reach one is directly related to the degree to which the invoker is religiously or socially conservative.”

mjpb, was it malice or carelessness that made you directly associate the two?

“would you agree that both homosexuals and paedophiles usually have difficulty changing?”

Why do you think homosexuals should change? If you don’t think they should change, why are you lumping them together with criminals who definitely must be required to change?

And where’s the christianity in trying to sool “homosexual activists” against christian fundamentalists?

To my knowledge there have never been laws against mixed-race marriages in this country. However the relatively recent practice of removing mixed-race offspring from their mothers amounted to an official punishment for miscegenation.

We're well on the way to eradicating the prejudice underlying this practice. But as you and others show by associating homosexuals with criminals, there's still a long way to go before anti-gay prejudice is dealt with. Granting same-sex couples equal rights will help enormously.

Philo, this discussion is about civil rights, not about willies and front-botties. Get your head out of your pants, willya ... and grow up.

mjpb

'Granted but would you agree that both homosexuals and paedophiles usually have difficulty changing?'

I do believe anybody caught up in immoral behaviour have difficulty in changing. Whether it is addiction to porn (which can lead to child abuse) or adulterers or fornicators or paedophiles or homosexuality. That is even more of a reason not promote such an unnatural practice. You can no long call it abnormal because so many people have believed the lie that it is normal. It only becomes 'normal' where it is promoted as such. The so called science then follows.

jpw2040, I think that you have missed the context of mjpb's post.

The comment was I think a reference to runners invoking of the Goodwins corollary at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1308#23271 "The lie that people are born that way is no different from the lie that people are born with a liking for kids"

R0bert

Possibly, Robert, though I did read the post you’re referring to. My question is a genuine one. I’m sure I read a post here on OLO where mjpb claimed to have some gay friends. If this is true, then it seems to me that continuing runner’s association of homosexuals with paedophiles is either surprisingly careless, or it calls into question the sincerity of the friendship. If I were one of those gay friends, I would have been shocked by this juxtaposition coming from a friend.

I realise I could have taken issue with runner’s initial posting, but really, there’s no point. runner worships at the altar of intolerance, and I don’t see any hope that this will ever change. He can go on ranting, and I will attempt to ignore him as best I can.

The much-quoted Galaxy poll http://beta.getup.org.au/files/media/equalityforsamesexcouples.pdf that showed 71% of Australians in support of equal rights for gays and lesbians also revealed that the younger you are, the less likely you are to be intolerant towards same-sex-attracted people. Dinosaurs like runner are simply dying out.

Still, I wish I could be consistent about these things. I should be just sitting back waiting for Philo to wilt and die too, but sometimes I just can't help myself ...