//Are you trying to tell everyone that lesbians do not engage in anal sex//

Some of them might, but it's more common amongst heterosexuals than lesbians.

So remind me why they shouldn't be allowed to get married?

Sorry, Banjo, I just can't believe that lesbians engage in anal sex any more than heterosexual women. Why should they, really ? They have even more reason for face-to-face sex then homosexual men, and surely less need, and fewer natural means, i.e. none, than homosexual or heterosexual men.

You may be on soft ground here: if your argument turns on sexual practices rather than (or as well as) on tradition or, say, marriage as a form of security for women in a heterosexual relationship, then you may be opening the door to lesbian marriage but maybe not homosexual male marriage. Do you really want to keep going down that path ?

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

So the Human Rights Commission says that same sex couples are being 'discriminated' against because they may not get getting their claws into financial and work-related entitlements that attach to marrieds? And there is a heap of other benefits out there that attaining married status can given them a leg into as well?

However the REAL truth is that SOMEONE has to pay. And it is SINGLES, many of them on low incomes and young or aged, who are being required to indirectly subsidise those married benefits and Gay couples just add to the burden.

Why should singles, who are also penalised through dearer rent, dearer holidays and other imposts be forced to carry the extra load and subsidise Gay love choices, or anyone's love choices for that matter?

Hewre are some of the extra benefits that the Human Rights Commission say Gays should be getting. But the AHRC says nothing about singles who miss out but have to pay.

-Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner.

-Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets.

-Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples.

-The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner.
(and the AHRC list goes on...)

I too find Banjo’s claim, that lesbians engage in anal play more than heterosexual women, rather strange. It suggests an assumption, on Banjo’s behalf, that gay people are generally just filthy people.

Speaking of unsupported assertions, I can’t believe I missed this doozy from mhaze:

<<It ought to be noted that if it wasn't for the efforts and historically unprecedented successes of western medicine over the past few decades, HIV/AIDS would have already wiped out most of the homosexual community and left that lifestyle choice as something few would choose.>>

Yeah, right, “choose”: because if we can convince ourselves that it’s merely a choice, we don’t have to feel bad about our prejudices.

Or perhaps those who claim that sexuality is a choice are bisexual, because I certainly don’t have a choice in the matter. It would make sense, after all, and on more than one level too:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lester_Wright_Jr/publication/14430824_Is_Homophobia_Associated_with_Homosexual_Arousal/links/54d4e9840cf25013d02a25fa.pdf

Foxy,
Thanks for the Post which states:
"The Government's same-sex law reform package passed through Parliament in November 2008.
The reform removed  discrimination against same-sex de facto couples and their families in areas such as taxation, superannuation, social security and family assistance, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net and the Medicare Safety Net, aged care, veterans' entitlements, immigration, citizenship and child support and family law."

The Government has sought to remove discrimination of SS relationships, but the SS lobbyists influenced by Marxist doctrine are not satisfied. Their endeavour is to destroy religious belief and discriminate against biological scientific reality, social norms and the rights of parents to children. Persons like Roz Ward knows better than parents what education children need.

Those not satisfied with natural biological science are now experimenting in placing a woman's ovaries, womb and genitals into a healthy person born male. This with the intent claim that men can fall pregnant. However the child would be the woman's who contributed the ovaries. Science gone mad!


However This does not remove discrimination for religious and conscience grounds under SSM legislation, for upholding Marriage in its traditional form of between a man and a woman. A Fail!

Dear Josephus,

This postal survey has nothing to do with your religious
beliefs or how you live your life. It is simply asking
if same-sex couples should be given the legal right to marry -
which the rest of us have. It is not about anything else.
Obviously you feel strongly on the subject - so therefore
vote NO. How people have sex, whether they have children
(and whether they can or not) is none of our business. Same sex
couples work, pay taxes, and contribute to society, like most
of us. They therefore are entitled in a secular country like
ours to the same legal rights as the rest of the society in
which they live, and to which they contribute financially with
their taxes (like most of us do).