/cont

Still, had I been politically conscious at the time I'd probably have supported, in the main, King's positions. And if homosexuals were currently required to ride at the back of the bus, I'd support changing that as well. But you're seeking to draw comparisons between two very different things.

And in the same vein as you're silly question, what was your attitude to the Robespierre National Convention? :)

Marriage is a traditional institution which evolved as society's mechanism to better raise its next generation. Now as someone who can fall for the trope that it (the traditional family) only recently came to the fore, you will neither accept nor understand that. But anything that weakens the traditional family, that interferes with the aims of having children raised by a natural mother and natural father, is to be lamented and, where possible, opposed. Children do better in such families and as society has allowed easy divorce and single parenthood, the affects on the next generation become increasingly apparent.

Homosexuals have received enormous changes in status over the past decade or three. They can now have civil unions fully accepted by the state. They can have ceremonies to celebrate their union. They can openly raise children and indoctrinate them however they see fit. A bloke can can his male partner 'husband' and increasingly have that accepted as valid. They one and only thing they cannot have is to force society to declare their union to be identical to a traditional marriage. Ad until they can enforce that view, they continue to whine, continue to demand identical rights and continue to demand that we ignore that their 'marriage' isn't about the best way to raise the next generation.

A J,
Yep I think that once homosexuals are involved with marriage people generally will not have the same respect for the institution. In other words it will become tainted, just like homosexuals are because of their sexual practices.

I am referring to the dirty anal practices that homos reportedly practice.

The meanings of words do not simply evolve. A fire is still a fire and a wheel is still a wheel, a train is still a train and a person is still aa person.

Those that want to change the meaning of the word 'marriage' desire to do so to try and gain some respectability for their sexual practices which deserve no respect. They have already hyjacked the word 'gay' which we should refuse to use.

Why not use 'queers, poofters or sodomists'

Dear MHaze,

If you would do a Google search on "Critique AMA"
you would learn that they are not very reputable.
Their aims appear to be to
demonize the gay community. They bully people
because of their sexual orientation.

I also did Google searches on the authors
of the given studies concerning
children of same-sex parents in
the link that you cited. They were quite revealing:

Paul Sullins - Catholic University.
Whose study was predictable to say the least.

Douglas Allen - Whose study of Canadian children
was described as worthless.

The same went for Mark Regnerus - whose study lacked
total credibility.

I shall leave it there.

Dear ttbn,

You asked me a question on page 7 about homosexuality
being a medical issue. I referred you to the link
cited earlier because it would have answered your
question. There wasn't any ulterior motive.
You hadn't specified to me that only certain types
of material were acceptable to you.
You then called the Sydney Morning Herald a "Left-Wing"
publication. That was news to me because they endorsed
the conservative Coalition at the last election.

You then question the credibility of the AMA - despite
the fact that they are the most powerful doctor's
group in this country and speak from experience.
Anyway, be that as it may. You are correct - to continue
having this conversation with you would be a total waste
of time. Both yours and mine.

I shall leave with with one final thought though -

Why should Gay Australians - doctor's, police officers,
teachers, mothers, fathers, and many others - who
contribute to society not enjoy the same rights?

Cheers.

Gee ,Foxy. If you are surprised to hear the SMH called a Left wing paper that would make you the only person in Australia who is surprised. Even its dwindling readership knows that – it's why they read the thing.

I don't know who they endorsed at the last election, but they sure as hell did not “endorse the conservative Coalition”. There was no such thing at the last election. Turnbull was and is a Leftist. The Leftist Liberals kicked out the conservative Abbott; and while there might be a few conservatives left in the Nationals, the nincompoop Joyce has certainly joined Turnbull on the Left. The Coalition nearly lost the election because it is no longer conservative, and real conservatives (like me) deserted the idiots.

The Left of the Liberal party has taken to calling itself 'moderate' because they think that makes them look more acceptable to Liberal voters but, make no mistake, they are just as Left as most Labor party politicians – see the likes of Squeaky Pyne and others of his ilk.

Of course I question the credibility of of the doctors' union. Powerful? For doctors, maybe, but they have no influence on the rest of us; and, like other unions, they are losing members hand over fist. Doctors, like bank managers, are no longer the high poobahs of society that the used to be.

Yes, I'm sick of the homosexual conversation, but there are many other things to talk about – if you wish.

“Why should Gay Australians - doctor's, police officers,
teachers, mothers, fathers, and many others - who
contribute to society not enjoy the same rights?”

All I can say is that they do have all the rights the rest of us have, and marriage is not a right for people of the same sex. Now, this might change – but I will do nothing to help facilitate the change, and I remain disgusted by the whole thing.

The word ‘suborned’ has negative connotations, mhaze.

<<I didn't say it was a bad thing...>>

But I’ll accept that you were being derisive instead of some alleged sinister conspiracy.

<<Personally I avoid using 'gay' … preferring accuracy ...>>

That's less accurate now. The definition has changed. Words don’t have intrinsic meaning, they have usages and we apply meaning to them.

<<… I've noticed that you quite often misunderstand my - and other's - points, then demand that they justify this misunderstood position …>>

Oh, please, do give an example, won’t you? It sounds like it shouldn’t be hard to find one.

<<And if homosexuals were currently required to ride at the back of the bus ...>>

Interracial marriage was also illegal in some US states. Presumably you support interracial marriages. So, why the double-standard?

<<… what was your attitude to the Robespierre National Convention?>>

I’ll consider it more if you could tell me how it’s analogous.

<<Marriage is a traditional institution which evolved as society's mechanism to better raise its next generation.>>

Correct. So, going back to my last post, why are you against it for same-sex couples?

<<Now as someone who can fall for the trope that [the traditional family] only recently came to the fore …>>

At no point has anyone ever claimed that. This is the third time you’ve repeated this lie.

<<Children do better in such families …>>

The research suggests that children do best in families with two parents. The sex of the parents appears to make no difference.

<<... and as society has allowed easy divorce and single parenthood …>>

Again, what exactly are these effects you speak of, and how did you rule out other causal factors? Did you, at any point, consider the impact on children of parents stuck in unhappy marriages?

<<They can now have civil unions ...>>

That’s not equality. For starters, civil unions vary from state to state.

<<They one and only thing they cannot have is to force society to declare their union to be identical to a traditional marriage.>>

Lucky they don't have to then.