Jay of Melbourne wants us to adopt what Putin has done in Russia re his gay 'solution'.
Really? Putin is such a role-model dictator....

Then he goes on to talk about mental illness?
Do you mean all gays must have a mental illness because they weren't born the same as you?
Lol!

Maybe you would feel more comfortable living in Russia JoM?

//might I say that the only possibility of a child being born natually is between a man and a woman//

Nope, that's offensive to Christians. And we all know that not upsetting religious conservatives the most important goal of any society.

//It's not normal which ever way you look at it.//

normal: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

What is unusual, atypical or unexpected about gay relationships? The only way you can conclude that gay relationships are abnormal is that if they don't conform to some arbitrary standard like 'a relationship must be heterosexual to be considered normal'. This sounds like question-begging to me. Arguments that beg the question are not persuasive.

//I'm afraid there is much more at stake here than simply amending the act to accommodate these people.//

Such as?

//The fact is that society has been altered already to a point where personal dysfunction and sexual misconduct are glorified and celebrated//

What is 'sexual misconduct', Jay? I know what sexual offences are - they're covered in the Crimes Act - but what about 'sexual misconduct'? Is it just sexual acts that you wouldn't want to engage in, Jay?

It would seem that man and woman has been the desired and accepted form of marriage since the beginning of recorded history; why should we now change?

Jay of Melbourne, "The fact is that society has been altered already to a point where personal dysfunction and sexual misconduct are glorified and celebrated.."

Personally speaking, I would leave the majority of responsible homosexuals and responsible heterosexuals out of it, however you are right and it is of deep concern to health and welfare for obvious reasons.

I have challenged one poster (Suseonline) in a previous thread for seeming to normalise and promote anal sex for heterosexuals. Heterosexual anal sex is something she comments on rather often. Suseonline has posted many times the very foolish and risky advice that if a body orifice exists then it is fine, OK, for a penis to penetrate (and any other object, Suseonline?).

That would NOT be the recommendation of Community Health in her State, one would hope. I have drawn Suseonline's attention as a claimed community nurse (and that of others here) to the often reported pressure being placed on girls to service males in ways seen in movies and spruiked as somehow normal, everyday and even mundane(?!) on The Box in chat shows and forums.

Very, very few young women and adolescent girls would request and enjoy anal sex. It is risky for them for a number of reasons, not the least being that the person proposing it is a risk taker and possibly bisexual to boot, introducing other risks. However there are always those who are promoting and seeking to normalise this and other uncomfortable and risky sex practices.

Health authorities find themselves in the awkward situation that politicians are very sensitive to any embarrassment in the media from activists and lobbyists - who may be small in numbers, with secondary agendas and unrepresentative of public opinion - but are skillful media manipulators (and there is a growth of irresponsible, unprincipled, sensationalist, tabloid media).

tbc.

contd.

Regardless of straight or queer preference, there has always been a proportion who engage in sexual practices that no ethical medically trained person could do else but recommend against.

Health Ministers should have the guts and statesmanship to direct and support public health and education authorities in ensuring that students and youth are advised of sexual practices that are risky, should be avoided and where the best advice is to say 'NO' and 'No means NO'.

It would be very regrettable indeed if 'progressive' political correctness is forcing educators to restrict their advice to, 'Just make sure he wears a condom', where they should rightly be advising girls that where their health and future children are concerned, the only reasonable response in some cases because of the fearful consequences (of the inherent risks) can only be a firm 'NO', and do not be browbeaten into complying.

Fear of offending sensibilities should NOT result in girls NOT being supported in saying a firm 'NO' to a partner proposing sex they are not completely and advisedly happy with.

Further, there should be a formal requirement for males to declare any prior same sex experience when obtaining consent. The risks to women, especially young fertile women, are far too high and over-rule any sensitivity issues of the male concerned.

Jay of Melbourne,

Toni Lavis’s questions echo my next ones. So I’d be interested to see what you have to say in response to those.

But I don’t think you’ve really answered my question. I can only take your response to mean that you think homosexuality is an abnormality due to mental illness (there’s no evidence for that at all, by the way, and a lot to suggest that it’s not) and so gay people should be treated differently to others (presumably by not letting them marry).

I know where you’re coming from. I used to think exactly the same way when I was a Christian (although same-sex marriage wasn’t a hot topic back then). But when the Bible was no longer evidence for that belief, nor a reason to ignore any actual evidence, I was forced to change my mind. I’m not sure what your excuse is as an atheist, though.

Is Mise,

If you have to ask that question, then you haven’t been following the OLO discussions on this topic very closely.