Proxy,

<<What's the difference between that and the ick factor hard-wired into our brains from thousands of years of recognising homosexuality as being abnormal and unnatural?>>

I know of several gay people who view heterosexuality as a bit icky. One particular gay guy I know of is repulsed by the mere thought of female genitalia.

‘Unnatural” means not in accordance with nature and yet we see homosexuality in nature all the time.
If by “abnormal” you mean deviating from the typical then sure, left-handedness is abnormal too. In fact left-handed people used to be subjected to prejudice too and were forced to write with their right hand like most other people; just as I’m sure you’d force homosexual people to be straight if you had your way.

If you mean “abnormal” in a harmful way, then you’d need to demonstrate why. The argument that homosexual sex between men being more likely to spread diseases than heterosexual sex (of heterosexual couples who don’t practice anal sex too, by the way) is weak and inconsistent. Using that logic, lesbians aren’t as abnormal as gay men. It would also mean that heterosexual sex is a little abnormal too since diseases can be transferred through vaginal intercourse as well.

<<How do the pros of SSM (making homosexuals feel good about themselves)
<<out-weight the cons>>
of depriving innocent children of their natural birthright of a mother and a father?>>

Firstly, your question assumes that all gay couples are going to rush to start a family just because they can get married, and that gay adoption (or lesbian couples falling pregnant) can only happen if gay marriage is legalised.

Secondly, you’ve deliberately worded your question in an emotive way to make it appear as though gay couples are selfishly pursuing something for their own gratification, at the expense of innocent children, when there is no evidence to suggest that there are any adverse effects on children brought up by same sex couples, or that they are any worse off.

Continued...

...Continued

Speaking of birthrights though, I would think that the most fundamentally important birthright, above all others, was a safe and loving home. If you’re so concerned about the welfare of children, then why are you wasting time hyper-focussing on one tiny perceived ill that the evidence suggests isn’t even a problem anyway?

I’ll tell you why: It’s because you couldn’t give a froggy’s about the children or their birthrights; you just don’t like gay people that’s all it really amounts to.

<<Your points, if one could decipher them, don't have a leg to stand on.>>

Your arguments have been reduced to mere insults of my arguments. I know logic can be baffling for some, but please do try and keep up.

Anyway, if you can’t decipher my points, then how do you know they don’t have a leg to stand on?

Either way, my points still stand.

Was it decided if Christians are fit to foster children?

I think so. Just get the big money making private companies away from government.

Proxy homosexuals are already parenting here, raising children; government has already decided that bit and for a long time been giving them children.

Christian organizations have no problem with homosexuals as foster parents, they recruit them.

Dear ALGOREisRICH,

Sometimes I can't help but think you are perpetrating a long running Colbert number on us but just in case you are not here goes.

What warped and twisted view of Christianity allows you to compare discriminatory employment practices with gay teenage suicide?

How does the subjective emotiveness of a night club owner or a Bishop being fined for disobeying the hiring laws equate to kids blowing their brains out because of homophobic bullying that your attitude helps fuel? Only, I would venture, in a mind terribly tainted by the nastiness of right-wing, religious fundamentalism.

I agree that bullying needs addressing, do you agree that legislation that addresses the issue should, as Focus on the Family want, specifically exclude sexual orientation and gender identity?

If you do then I accuse you of having a hollow, desiccated, hateful law based take on the scriptures. Worse than the Pharisees he condemned.

Also if you do you should refrain from ever evoking the name of Christ as you inflict on his memory and teachings a grave disservice.

The homosexual youth suicide canard is just another tactic in the wide-ranging and relentless propaganda strategy implemented by homosexual activists to leverage sympathy for their agenda.

According to -
US Dept of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Youth suicide risk factors are:

History of previous suicide attempts
Family history of suicide
History of depression or other mental illness
Alcohol or drug abuse
Stressful life event or loss
Easy access to lethal methods
Exposure to the suicidal behavior of others
Incarceration

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/suicide/youthsuicide.htm

Go to homosexual activists for "gay" propaganda.
Go to legitimate sources for the truth.

"Your statement presupposes paedophilic incest.
Where is the harm in consenting adult incest between, say, homosexual brothers?"

Proxy,

Now you are grasping at straws. How many cases of incest between homosexual brothers have you ever heard of? You cannot write laws to cover every single nuance, and for the 1 in a 100 million exception, judges have leeway.

Secondly the specious argument "Think of all the children who will be deliberately, forever denied their natural birthright of a mother and a father if homosexual "marriage" is legalised."

Forgets that thousands of children are brought up in Australia in Lesbian households in de facto relationships. Legalising their marriage is unlikely to generate any more or less children whose "rights" could be infringed.

If you were interested in these "rights" you would be asking to criminalise divorce and single parents.