Put away social and religion.Don't you think homosexual couples are highly discriminated by the federal law compared to de facto heherosexual couples in terms of:

1) Marriage

2) Superannuation

3) Inheritance

4) Assisted reproductive technologies

5) Other financial matters

Australia,like the US is a democratic country.However,homosexuals are allowed to get hitched in US but not Australia.So comparatively,Dont u think that their rights are not as protected?Besides,seem like they're very much discriminated because of their sexuality.Dont u think the Commonwealth government should put an end to it?

Bazz,
what's unclean about homosexuality; there are condoms for protection and there is the shower for washing.
Anyway, what does it matter to YOU what they do in their bedroom. Are you saying that homosexuals should be discriminated against just because some people do not like what they are doing in their own bedrooms?
There may be heterosexual couples who have anal sex also; isn't that their business?

Chelle,
good points but I just want you to clarify something for me.
You said "homosexuals are allowed to get hitched in US but not Australia...."
I thought that only certain states in the US allowed same sex marriage. Am I misinformed about that?

And do homosexual couples have the same adoption rights as heterosexual couples in the US?

As far as I know, The Netherlands is the only country where homosexual couples have the exact same rights as heterosexual couples on all levels.
Not sure if Spain also has recently granted homosexuals the same adoption rights, I know they were making changes- not sure.

Belgium and Canada, although they allow same sex marriage, still have some restrictions about adoption, unless I'm not updated about changes.

No matter how you spin it, UNCLEAN is the way it is.

If you were a public sevant would you approve two homosexuals adopting
a young boy ?

If you did you would want some good insurance, because in 20 years it
could come back and bight you.

Don't look to the government, they would run a mile.

Bazz

If you are suggesting that homosexuals can cease being gay, then I must ask you: "Can you cease being heterosexual?"

I continue to believe that homosexuality is innate - genetic, and they can no more change than can a heterosexual.

Homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals - they do not prey on little children and as mentioned in an early post, there are many heterosexual males who insist on sodomising their female partners. Will you discriminate against them too?

Now to the subject of paedophiles where I confess, I do discriminate.

I don't believe paedophiles can change either and it is here, that I recommend chemical castration simply due to the heinous crimes against children and the long-term psychological effects on the victims.

Then you have the bi-sexuals. Now that's another subject. This type is a real worry since their female partners are usually unaware that they have been cheated on, which can place the female at significant risk.

chelle89, these questions have been answered in 2 other threads you've created at least.

The answer is, yes! No matter what your position is on the matter that is a fact.

Demos comment is accurate and insightful into our broken political system. If there were true individual rights, then this matter would be settled already in a final judgement.

Bazz,
Even if it is unclean, what does it matter to YOU?

If you were a public sevant would you approve two homosexuals adopting a young boy? Yes, why not? Do you think that homosexuals are, by definition, pedophiles? Are you suggesting that child sex abuse does not happen inside heterosexual families? I’m sure the public servant checks out police records and suitability of all prospective adoptive parents.
I agree with dickie; homosexuality is innate. It’s also a natural phenomenon amongst animals.
With paedophiles, I’d say chemical or surgical castration is a must.

Dickie,
I am not sure whether the female partners of bi-sexual males are more at risk than the partners of heterosexual males; if one partner strays and does not use protection, isn’t there always a risk involved?