Login / Manage membership        Not receiving GetUp emails? Join now to receive updates There are currently 342589 members.

Same Same but Different

Posted on the campaign blog , June 22nd, 2007
GetUp has released the results of an explosive new poll finding the overwhelming majority of Australians support granting de facto legal status to same sex couples. The poll was timed to coincide with the release of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report into government discrimination against same sex couples.

The Prime Minister has said, in response to the poll findings and the report, that his government does not support discrimination, but his own government report lists official discrimination in almost 60 federal laws. He must now remain true to his word, listen to the wishes of the Australian people, and his own advice, and wipe this discrimination off the books.

The people have once again taken the lead on this issue, and have demonstrated how out of touch the government is with mainstream Australia. A comprehensive piece of legislation could remove the official discrimination that exists in these laws, and bring Australia into line with the rest of the developed world, every Australian State and Territory, and the wishes of over 70% of the population.

As the graph below shows, support for equal rights for gay couples is remarkably resilient across demographics, with majorities of every demographic agreeing that same sex partners should have the same rights as heterosexual de facto couples. Remarkably, equal rights for same sex couples are supported by greater than a 2-to-1 margin even among Coalition voters (63% agree, 31% disagree).

The figures show that we are far from the days when granting rights to same-sex couples was political suicide – instead, it is now electoral necessity. We’re looking to both major parties to recognise the realities of a modern Australia and making laws that reflect what mainstream Australians already endorse.


View the National Galaxy Survey


111 comments

Leave Your Comment

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Campaign Blogs
This blog post is from the Campaign Equal Before the Law.
Blog Tools

Featured Articles

Join us on COPtv
Francois Chemillier
From Canberra to Copenhagen
Mark Connelly
Paid parental leave: we can't afford to delay
Anna Saulwick
What does a Human Rights Consultation look like?
Christopher Brew
Latest Comments
Campaign Blogs

Join Getup

Whether it is signing a petition, engaging with the media, attending an event or helping to get a television ad on the air, you'll only ever asked to take targeted, coordinated and strategic action. Taking action is optional, convenient and proven to work!
Join Now.

Subscribe!


Brett Solomon
June 22nd, 2007

Implementing the recommendations of the report would be a great step forward.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 23rd, 2007

Its very hard to believe this is the first post to a situation that so many people are said to disagree with!!

I simply don't believe that the reported results of this survey of a mere n=1100 reflects the population. To start with, "n" is too small as anyone who watches the progression of election results will already know.

Second, HOW were the 1100 selected? Was it truly random? We're given both voting and age-group splits, but not the proportions of each selected for the survey. There are no margin or confidence figures, so the results cannot be extrapolated to the population. This is a very shoddy survey indeed.

A few decades ago we were all shocked by the Kinsey report which purported to demonstrate that a huge percentage of the male population enagage in homosexual behaviour. Today, people who are unaware that those surveys were conducted in men's gaols are still duped by the pronouncements.

Statistics are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate, and they sound so true - so final. Yet they can so easily be warped, even unintentionally. The statement, "Remarkably, equal rights for same sex couples are supported [...]" in the intro to this blogg is typical of how stats can be manipulated. It is not a true statement! The "equal rights" question in the survey was limited (by strong inference) to Medicare and superannuation. Few would deny homosexuals the right to health care or the proceeds of their superannuation policies! I certainly wouldn't. But there is no way in the world that I would agree to a broad-brush "Equal Rights for Homosexuals" approach. It makes no moral or logical sense to treat unnatural sexual behaviour in the same way as natural sexual behaviour, and thats what "equal rights" - carried to its logical conclusion does.

To the "Getup" team: please treat statistics with more caution, and the way you report them with more wisdom.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Ed Coper
June 23rd, 2007

In regards to the first blog post, the survey was conducted by the pollsters Galaxy, in line with industry standards.

It was a random national telephone survey conducted between the 16th and 17th of June 2007. The margin of error at the 95% confidence level is + or - 2.7%.

In plain language that means that pollster is 95% confident that for example with the 71% figure, that range is between 68.3 and 73.7%.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 23rd, 2007

Thank you ED. I do understand confidence and error margin, but that information wasn't given in the intro or on the graph itself at http://beta.getup.org.au/files/blogs/pollfindingsonsamesexequality.pdf - the link given above.
I have also worked with statistics enough in past careers that, while I admit to having forgotten the formula for calculating "n", I have a very strong feeling that on "n=1100", a margin of 2.5% on a confidence level of 95% is not just unrealistic, its ridiculous. And I'm sure that on the practical level those who have watched election results accrue on election day will have the same feeling.

The fact that it was a telephone survey doesn't necessarily mean that the sampling wasn't flawed. Neither does it mean it can't be deliberately manipulated by vested interests. Look at the flawed nature of the question. At best, this question was structured very unprofessionally. At worst its dishonestly structured to hide an agenda. The respondent is led to believe he is answering a question as the rights of homosexuals to proper medical treatment, and to receive the proceeds of a superannuation policy. However the question he/she is actually answering unwhittingly is "Do you agree or disagree that same sex partners should have the same legal rights as those in a heterosexual de facto relationship?

With statistical methods like this you can prove anything you want to.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
charlotte scarf
June 23rd, 2007

Congratulations on the great work you’re doing, putting pressure on the powers that be to do the right thing. While I wholseheartedly support the ideals driving your latest campaign - my sister is gay and I’m ever aware of the discrimination she faces in so many aspects of her life and how that will impact on her in future if/when she has children for example - I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that the system is also highly discriminatory towards defacto hetrosexual couples. Perhaps then, it’s fair to say that it is bias towards married couples. Allowing homosexual couples to tie the knot is undoubtedly an important way to alleviate some of the prejudice some people face, but what about people who simply don’t want to buy into that particular social institution??? How do we achieve equality from outside the system - Why must it come from conformity?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Jim Culbertson
June 23rd, 2007

Don't sweat the detail in the numbers too greatly. Surveys are only meaningful to reflect trends, not absolutes. And the trend in our nation is towards equality and fairness for everyone, despite the efforts of our current government. Give fully equality a chance Mr Howard. It won't hurt.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Al Smith
June 23rd, 2007

Good work

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Noreen Dilworth
June 23rd, 2007

Let's hope this campaign is successful. My brother is gay and has been with his partner over 20 years. He is as much a part of our family as any other brother or sister in law. It is about time their relationship and the relationship of all gay couples are recognised legally.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Dave Coops
June 23rd, 2007

I would have to say I strongly disagree with this one. You guys have taken it a little too far. Really, there are much more important issues than this one. Get up? No, I think Get Over It.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Matthew Costa
June 24th, 2007

Great work GetUp!

Just to respond to some criticisms of the Galaxy poll methodology. Someone objected that it is misleading to phrase the question about equal rights in terms of health care and superannuation rights. This is not misleading. Quite the opposite: it leads people to think about the two most significant legal consequences of giving gay couples de facto status. Failing to mention these issues would have rendered the survey inaccurate because many respondents wouldn't have understood practical effect of giving gay couples de facto legal status. They would have been answering an abstraction.

Secondly, I have worked in market research for years and can confirm that the survey sample size is standard for a national poll with acceptable confidence rating. Galaxy is a professional polling organization. They employ professional statisticians, they don't put their name to skewed / manipulated polls for the simple reason that they have a reputation to maintain and it's bad for business.

I also object to a previous blogger's tired old statement that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. Homosexual behavior has has been observed throughout the animal kingdom, humans are just one example. There is no basis whatsoever for calling it unnatural. Even if it was unnatural - that's got nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong, or whether it should be legal or illegal: wearing clothes is 'unnatural', curing cancer is 'unnatural'. If you want to do what's natural, walk around naked or die of cancer. How absurd! If you think homosexuality is bad, call it 'immoral' - you'll sound less ridiculous.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Darren Green
June 24th, 2007


*** I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PETITION !!!

Homosexual couples SHOULD NOT have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples !

They are quite simply not the same.

When it comes to marriage - it is legally and morally a union between a man and a woman.

When it comes to adoption and family rearing - the home of a homosexual couples is not a healthy environment to bring up healthy and well adjusted child.

These things can be said with certainty - without even going into the argument of how "good" the relationship is - it is still a perversion of God's design. Monogomous heterosexual marriage (till death do us part) is the foundation of a healthy and stable family - and families are the building block of healthy and stable communities ... etc... vis a vis healthy and stable society, healthy and stable nation, healthy and stable world.

Thank you for not bowing to the whims of a vocal and deceptive minority campaign.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
paul Ward
June 24th, 2007

Hi all, this is what I wrote to the Pollies via the Campaign petition. - I truly believe in equality for all Australians. I believe that people in long-term personal relationships, similar to marriage should have equal rights. For me this means that gender should not matter in financial and legal matters in our Australian society. If people choose to live as if married or de-facto and one partner is a man, the other a woman they should have the same rights as if both life-partners were of the same gender as each other, both women or both men. please make sure we have equality in all facets of such relationships.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Ghassan Kassisieh
June 24th, 2007

I suspect the REAL reasons for the previous comments by the statistical critic were exposed with this sentence s/he wrote:

"It makes no moral or logical sense to treat unnatural sexual behaviour in the same way as natural sexual behaviour, and thats what "equal rights" - carried to its logical conclusion does."

The fact of the matter is, the numbers don't matter to people like that when it doesn't support their homophobic attitudes.

I suspect what that our dear blogger friend is suffering from is a feeling of isolation borne from increasingly remaining "the last homophobe in the village."

This poll is a little piece justice for every young person who has felt isolated as a result of their same-sex attraction. I hope those young people can savour in the knowledge that homophobes across the country are feeling similar isolation now that they know they are the ones in the minority.

At the end of the day even, the numbers don't really matter all that much. Injustice is not quantifiable. The grossest injustice can be inflicted on one solitary person, with no consequences to anyone else. That does not make injustice more just. It offends the majority to know that injustice can continue against even one person. Our society cannot afford to say human rights are for some, but not for others. Seeing each other as less than 'human' is not the society Australia should aspire to become.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 24th, 2007

Charlotte commented, "I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that the system is also highly discriminatory towards defacto hetrosexual (sic) couples."

Once marriage was debased to the level of being nothing more than the equivalent of a man and woman living and sleeping together the flood gates were opened for it to be debased in every other way too.

Charlotte, marriage is not just "that particular social institution". For those who still understand it, it is the very foundation of the family. It is that means whereby a woman receives (and returns) a public, lifelong commitment from her man. It is a commitment that he won't just use her body and then cast her aside when the fireworks are gone, but that he'll be there to care and provide for her, and for the children that the relationship produce "until death do us part".

What a disservice women have done to themselves to allow this commitment to fall by the wayside. How short these women sell themselves to settle for living with a man who doesn't think she's worth such a commitment. And how the most recent generations of children have suffered from the loss of this protective institution! Just look around you. The twisted results of broken relationships are everywhere.

Of course there should be a "bias" (as you call it) extended to couples who are prepared to make such a commitment to be a firm foundation for the next generation.

Oh, and concerning the outworn 'excuse' touted that some people won't get married "on principle" because they "aren't religious" - that argument holds not one drop of water these days with the number of "non-religious" celebrants about, and the fact that you can get married without even a mention of God. Ladies, wake up. You're worth more than that.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Peter Wesley-Smith
June 24th, 2007

In 2002 the Canberra Gay & Lesbian Qwire released a CD of "True", which is a song cycle commissioned from composer Martin Wesley-Smith and lyricist Peter Wesley-Smith. It is an extended choral protest against homophobia and discrimination and would make a perfect musical accompaniment to the present GetUp! campaign. Disclaimer: I am the lyricist. It's still a bloody good CD, though ...

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Collin Dubery
June 25th, 2007

This is good work... one of the previous respondents has been questioning the sample size and statistical method.. I simply suggest that he/she calculates the sample required, there should be no more questions... besides "The Survey System ignores the population size when it is "large" or unknown. Population size is only likely to be a factor when you work with a relatively small and known group of people" samples in excess of 1000 are as relevant to small total populations (say 15 000)as it is for huge populations (in excess of 300 000 000) .

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Yarrow Andrew
June 25th, 2007

Whatever people think about this campaign, can we at least move on from the idea of heterosexual sex as 'natural'. An incredible variety of sexuality is found in the non-human animal world, as documented extensively in Bruce Bagemihl's scholarly work "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity". Reading this book is both confronting and liberating, because it becomes clear that there is nothing right or wrong about sexuality, except what we decide. At least animals don't spend their time blogging about it, they just do it. My particular favourites are the Galahs (yes, those crazy pink and grey birds) - 44% form same-sex couples, 44% form opposite-sex couples, and the remaining 12% form trios, or occasionally quartets.
Believe what you like about sexuality, but don't confuse any particular acts with being 'normal' or 'natural'. It is all stuff that feels good, or not, makes babies, or doesn't, etc.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 25th, 2007

Hi Matthewe, I have no problems with the survey asking the question about Medicare and Super. My objection was that the question was not a single issue question. The respondent was made to give one answer to 2 questions - a very basic flaw that in itelf denies the professionalism you assert.

The only really objective and unbiased way to put these questions is as three separate questions:

Currently, same-sex partners do not have the same legal rights as heterosexual de facto partners.

1) Do you agree or disagree that same sex partners
should have the same legal rights as those in a heterosexual de facto relationship concerning Medicare benefits and the proceeds of superannuation policies?

2) Do you agree or disagree that same sex partners
should have the same legal rights in some other areas as those in a heterosexual de facto relationship?

3) Do you agree or disagree that same sex partners
should have the same legal rights in some other areas as those in a heterosexual de facto relationship?

A second set of questions should also be asked concerning the homosexual marriage question:

If same sex partners are given the right to marry:

1) do you agree or disagree that they should have the same right to adopt children as do couples as in a heterosexual marriage?

2) do you agree or disagree that they should have the same legal rights in some other areas as those in a heterosexual marriage?

3) do you agree or disagree that they should have the same legal rights in all other areas as those in a heterosexual marriage?

By separating these questions into three it enables people to answer truthfully who feel that rights should be extended but not necessarily on every level. It allows for the fact that some rights mostly affect the individuals concerned, whereas others may have a profound effect on others. For example children who could be subjected to an upbringing in which they see, at close hand only the homosexual distortion of a parental relationship (and no amount of psycho babble and philosophic rationalisation can adequately mask it for what it is.)

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 25th, 2007

Gassan commented, "The fact of the matter is, the numbers don't matter to people like that when it doesn't support their homophobic attitudes."

Gassan, to some extent thats true, and it was certainly true of the homosexual lobby itself when they were a very small minority yet still flaunting their sexuality (and their bodies) publicly.

When it comes to law-making though, numbers are surely at the centre of the democratic process. However, in recent years we have learned to protect monorities. However, we've taken it to a ridiculous level where minority interests often rule (and suppress)the majority.

Lets understand, and admit that the homosexual question(s) affect society as a whole, in part because the homo-sexual lobby wants to be very public in its image, and very pervasive in its influence.

Lets suppose those survey are accurate. Let's suppose that only one third of Australians are saying that they don't want to live in a society shaped by homosexuality and where homosexuality hits them in the face every day of their lives; in the workplace, in the street, in the loungeroom as they watch TV with their children, and ultimately in their music.

Are the rights of this minority - one third of Australians, to live in a normal society worth defending?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 25th, 2007

It is sad indeed that so many are happy to take their sexual lead from the animal kingdom.

Where on earth do you get your basic assumption that because animals do it its natural? Behaviour in the animal kingdom has become as corrupted from the natural as human behaviour has, but humans are supposed to be more intelligent than animals. We think we are coming into "enlightenment" (golly gosh) and many even think we are evolving into gods. And we justify aberrations by looking at the animal kingdom "red in tooth and claw"?? Come on people! Will the same people who justify abberant sex because parrots do it also justify adultery because sparrows do it, orgies because galahs do it, and murder because dogs, cats, tigers, chimpanzees and just about every other animal does it? How about genocide? After all thats what the bumble bee is doing to the honey bee.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 25th, 2007

The propagandic term, "homophobia" is carelessly flung at anyone who speaks out against homosexual practices. It is a sign both of unintelligence (or deliberate manipulation) and unwillingness to discuss the facts objectively. Its easier to resort to name-calling.

The term was invented by the homosexual lobby to further its own cause. It is used continuously by that lobby and occasionally by a few who have been duped by it, and like the word, "gay" which that lobby has hijacked is used to create an impression rather than to honestly describe reality.

I don't for a moment condone the violence that a small number of people have exhibited towards homosexuals (or any other person or group), but there are many of us who oppose homo-sexual behaviour (repeat, "behaviour"), not because we have an irrational fear (which is what a "phobia" is) or because we detest the individuals who pratice homosexuality. It is because we recognise the unnatural nature of it and how it threatens to both destroy and reshape society. Irrational? Not at all. One only has to read the statistics on the dangerous and unbelievably promiscuous behaviours (unmatched in heterosexual promiscuity) and the life-expectancy of homosexuals to see the rationality in opposing the spread of homosexual behaviour in society. I have read these statistics quite extensively - not from a commercial marketing source, or a "religious" source, but from the United States Government (which has demonstrated its anti-christian agenda for decades and so would certainly not want - or dare lose the homosexual vote - to paint a pessimistic picture).

I'm at a disadvantage because I can't describe those behviours in a public forum such as this and most wouldn't even imagine much of it.

Many will at this point bring up the homosexual couples who have stayed together x number of years. That's true, but statistically speaking they are "outliers", and faithfullness (ie intimacy with just the one) is even rarer among homosexual couples than heterosexual couples.

Finally, I have read on occasion of homosexuals who find hetero-sexually oriented displays of affection distasteful. Are these people "heterophobes"? What about a viewer who complains of the sexual exploitation of women in adverts? Is he a sexophobe? I find it annoying on those occasions when every TV channel is showing sport, and I always turn the football off. I guess I'm just an ignorant footyphobe.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 25th, 2007

" I simply suggest that he/she calculates the sample required"

As I recall Colin, one would have to know the standard deviation, which requires access to all the data. However, the confidence and error margins were only one part of my skepticism, the survey structure being very obviously flawed.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Ben Cooper
June 25th, 2007

To those who have posted opposition to the equality of their country men I say to you.

Homosexual men and women, Bi-sexual and Bi-gendered people and transgender men and women have the support of health, family and legal organisation around the world. These same organisations consider sexual and gender minorities to be normal and totally acceptable categories to be apart of but what they don't consider normal is this 1930's style of opposition to equality nor do they consider it logical to act like that sexual and gender minorities don't have the support of health, family and legal organisations when they clearly do.

I understand that for many over the age of 40 sexual and gender minorities and the normality of these people are to far beyond your time to comprehend just like accepting the normality of those who are left handed was a bit to far forward for those over the age of 80. But what I don't understand is that these people have proven their normality and their capacity to be good parents decades ago and yet their are still many bigots who actually believe that they know more about sexual and gender minorities then those who are the leading experts in the health, family and legal circles worldwide. Helloooooooo how arrogant of you to think that your me thinks so and conversations with Doza and little old Glatise actually have support from those who research the issue? How naïve can some be to think that their childish and unfounded comments on an issue that they clearly know they have no idea about would actually be acceptable in a court of law or in a University lecture?

I would just like to say I think that its great that Get Up has extended the Australian Fair dinkum to the Australian sexual and gender minority communities and by doing so recognised that anti gay religious folk don't have a right to bully people in a multicultural democracy.

Why do these bigots spend more time and have more commitment to posting blogs and winging about equality then they do to make sexual and gender minorities youth feel safe in schools? And yes sexual and gender minority youth are 8 times more likely to commit suicide, 1 in 6 are physically assaulted and that 80% of all homophobic violence occurs in primary and secondary schools (The writing themselves in again report, 2005, by Deakin University of Melbourne)

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Rhiannon Browne
June 25th, 2007

As a young gay woman in a long-term relationship, this campaign and the findings of this poll mean a great deal to me.

Yesterday, I decided to be honest with my employers about my sexuality - I'm going to lose my job. I work(ed) for a church, therefore they are exempt from anti-discrimination legislation. They thought I was the best thing since sliced bread and told me every week how much they appreciated the wonderful job i was doing as the church's only musician...but now I'm gay. Homosexuality trumps integrity it seems, and honesty doesn't pay in churches.

Although the exemption from anti-discrimination will live on, hopefully in the very near future it will be simply NOT OK to treat people differently on the basis of a sexual orientation they DID NOT CHOOSE. I'm still the same person, with all the same qualities they appreciated every week till now...it just so happens that I'm too committed to my partner to pretend that she doesn't exist.

The findings of the survey are so incredibly encouraging for me. My mother still tells me that only a small number of crazy Leftists in Surry Hills actually believe that anything other than heterosexual attraction is normal...I did suspect that she was wrong, but now I know for sure.

My Dad tells me that I should stop being gay (like, how?) because I will struggle to gain acceptance for my whole life and everything will be harder and I won't have a family of my own...hopefully a time is coming soon when no parent will be able to make such lame excuses for not accepting their children exactly as they are.

Removal of baseless prejudices will make a REAL REAL difference for me now and in future...

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Rhiannon Browne
June 25th, 2007

Whoa, those are some pretty harsh words there Notbornyesterday...

It sounds to me like you're deeply suspicious of some kind of queer conspiracy to take over all of western society using music as a vehicle to enter homes and corrupt children! We're not asking for that much really - just the right to be treated as a normal human beings. There is no all powerful gay lobby tugging the strings of the nation - as far as most government institutions are concerned, we don't EXIST! Even the census won't count me, cos I honestly answered that I was the partner of person 1...

When was the last time you saw a depiction of homosexual lovin' in any kind of media?? When did you last see a depiction of hetero lovin'?? Films, advertising, music, Tv shows - there is hetero sex, kissing, marriage, relationship dramas EVERYWHERE!!

Don't you see that straights wave their sexuality in people's faces too?? Probably alot more than queers, cos there's less chance of being bashed, losing your job or being kicked out of home for it... Through most of history queers have been shamed or terrified into invisibility.

We're not an insidious cult, we're ordinary humans in loving relationships, trying to do normal human things like get jobs, have kids, make some meaningful contribution to our community. Whether or not we get access to superannuation equality (which is money that we've worked hard for and want our families to benefit from) probably won't make a huge difference to your life, by the sounds of it.

Will the recognition of same-sex couples (as in, recognising that we actually DO exist) really be that bad for the 1/3 of people who believe that we should stay in hiding?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 26th, 2007

Hello Rhiannon, :-)

You have made some interesting comments, and I'll admit I'm impressed by the restrained tone of your second post, because I know this is a highly emotive issue, and I do understand that you are in a difficult and anguishing position.

I have been feeling that I've had more than "my share" of say within this thread and it was my intention to "butt out" and let others have their go. However, you are engaging me over my post and you deserve not to be ignored. With both these aspects in mind I'll take a little time to try and put together a post thats concise and meaningful as possible.

Before I do though, I'd like to (1) make a point and (2) ask you a personal question:

1) I do believe that in many practical aspects there is a huge difference between the male and female homosexual groups, in terms of behaviour* and agenda (*although I was very surprised to read this morning that the grossly shortened average life expectancy (39-early 40's)** of female homosexuals (as a group) is very similar to that of male homosexuals (as a group). **Figures taken from over 5,000 obituaries in homosexual publications.

2) I'm puzzled: This isn't central to the discussion, but your terminology and reference to anti-discrimation exemptions for the church implies that you are being terminated from a *paid* position. Is this the case? Sorry, but I’m just trying to piece together in my mind this unusual situation where a church, small enough to need only one musician employs that musician. What does the only musician do when not preparing for or playing during Sunday services (you said "appreciated every week")? From what I've seen, musical talents are generally offered freely as a ministry in any but very large churches, just as others might offer their accounting skills, make soup & sandwiches, mow lawns, man op shops or give their services as lay preachers etc, etc.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Ben Cooper
June 26th, 2007

To those of you who question the parenting ability of gender and sexual minorities I say grow up and do some research, sorry to break it to the heterosexual supremist bigots but sexual and gender minorities are just as likely or as unlikely to be good or bad parent/s as sexual and gender majorities are.

And do you know who agrees? health, family and legal organisations world wide and if your so deluded by your own heterosexual supremism to think that you know better or more then they do, then why don't you write an essay stating your case send it off to the most respected health, family and legal organisations around the world and ask them to comment.

And when they send your little essay back, pissing themselves laughing and attach the scientific reports/studies that lead them to draw the conclusion that they did, then you for the first time in your life read their finding have the light bulb moment that go like,

wow my grandparents/parents and the self anointed real Australians homophobia and minority winging does hold up in labatory or a court of law and to act like it does or that my own personal ingrained stigmas and me think so would. Make me look ridicules, so does thinking that health, family and legal organisations must of got it wrong because I'm to arrogant and naive to understand why these organisation would support them.

History will condemn all those who oppose this bill and when those in school are taught early 21st century history they will come to the conclusion that people of this time were very unevolved and bigoted.

Lastly if you oppose this bill I say as a young gay man you intimidate young sexual and gender minorities with your homophobic opposition and you have NO right to be left in a room on your own with sexual and gender minority who knows what someone like you would do to there self esteem.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Ben Cooper
June 26th, 2007

Exuse me some one this blog said that only a minority of people are homophobic INCORRECT when I was a kid I would often rave homophobic humor and guess what everyone would laugh with me at those people that thought I was wasn't apart of. I new I gay at age 10 I came out at age 17 I lost 7 years of my childhood because the rednecks in this country were to busy winging about gay marriage to make me and my kind feel welcome, embraced and safe both in society and at school. So Sorry But the majority are clearly homophobic, ignorant and completly out of their deapth and my childhood is my proof. Any one out their care do disagree?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 27th, 2007

"I lost 7 years of my childhood". Wow, that's a really dramatic statement (sorry the names are not showing up for some reason). Are you really saying you had no happy times, no proper family relationships, no happy holidays, none of the good things experienced by other children for 7 whole years, and all because of political debates over homosexuality and teasing from school kids? Sorry - no - not because of teasing (you "came out" after that 7 years.).

The (here's that "word" again) "homophobia" you refer to is the rational belief of many that homosexuality is unhealthy for the individual and damaging to society as a whole and the belief of conscience of some that it is morally wrong. Your "lost childhood" doesn't prove any of these things one way or the other. The treatment that you say you have both dished out and received does prove the dark side of human nature and how people (regardless of their sexual practices) will pick on the weak and villify them. It proves how easily people are led into activities that they wouldn't do of themselves. The more intelligent people won't resort to villification, name-calling and violence towards any person or people group, whether it involes political or religious beliefs, sexual behaviour age or any other thing that people can disagree over.

Interestingly, there is far more of this kind of personal villification these days. For example, when I was at school - just a few decades ago, in those days of grandparents, ignorance and religious bigotry :-) - I had a friend who was clearly *very* effeminate. You would probably be surprised to know that never once - not once - did I ever witness him being teased over it. He was no more nor less popular than most others in the class. I wonder why, in these supposed times of increased tolerance this kind of personal villification has increased on such a scale. Give it some thought and come back to me will you? Sorry I can't use your name - I don't know why that 'hover over the graphic' function doesn't work at the moment.

Kind regards, "Notborn Yesterday"

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Ben Cooper
June 27th, 2007

To not born Yesterday or were you?

Let me put you in your place.

Firstly I did loose 7 years of my childhood and I will explain why.

When I grow up in a small country town where
I grew up in complete invisibility, abandonment, isolation and ingrained with homophobia, miss information, stigmas and down right bullshit about gays and lesbians.

At age 12 I start to pray to god on a daily bases to change my sexuality this lead to depression and attempts at suicide.

I the fast majority of gays and lesbians don't have happy memories of playing catch and kiss at school nor do they have stories about bring their partner to a school dance, attending anywhere that had gay and lesbian young people were their in their numbers.

Gay and lesbian youth are denied gay and lesbian roles models, the teaching of their history, applicable sex and gender education and the science behind their gay or lesbian status; the right to express their sexuality with out people altering or censoring what they really think about gays and lesbian expressing their sexuality or how they act/socialise with them. I was also denied the right of having any positive representation of gays and lesbian at school but yet I was taught by my religious education teacher that I should be imprisoned for sodomy I also had to content with the youth culture of referring to everything they don't like as "that so gay".

Homophobia is the irrational belief and or fear of those who are same sex attract and what I experience or didn't experience was clearly motivated by fear and ignorance so I'm not out of line actually and go read the dictionary if you want to continue to stamp your feet and disagree.

What I described to you up above is a very insidious form of child abuse and I have the support of countless child protection agency in calling what I experience Child abuse.
Why don't you Google the words gay youth homophobia reports and try and tell me what I experience is rare and only experienced by a minority of my kind.

And if you can't show your fellow man a little bit of empathy then don't bother writing back, I am 19 years old and I now just coming to terms with what happen and I’m still receiving counselling for it.

I think you should be posting me apology don't you think and think twice before you accuse me of being dramatic.

And finally Helloooooooooooooooooooo I was talking about homophobia not sexism and I was also talking about my experience not your friends experience so what is your point? Should I be so stupid to 1 confuse the 2 issues or concluded that hetrophobia is a rare occurrence just because my heterosexual family LIVED with me and didn’t experience discrimination from me? Should I now concluded that talk about the diverse personal experiences of a hold community in the same context that you would talk about an individual experience of homophobia makes any sense? Do you now plan to have a wake up call that goes something like, winging about same sex equality is ridicules especially when I live in a society that directly and indirectly bullies gay and lesbian children via homophobia, heterosexual sanctioned supremism and the assumption culture that every child is heterosexual, into a life of complete personal and communal invisibility, under the radar and ingrained with a curriculum that is not availed and inclusive of ALL students gender and gender attraction?

Ps society has no right to breach the law on equality but it has an obligation to implement the scientific findings in to legislation and if Europe, NZ, South Africa and Canada can do it then so can Johnny Howard and Australia.

Pps I understand that heterosexuals and homosexuals were raised with a simplistic belief that girls wear pink, boys wear blue, they grow get married have babies and live happily ever after and the reason that they do this is to keep the human race alive etc and also because gays and lesbians PROUDLY contradict this assumption.

But isn’t it about time people evolved out of such a sexist, homophobic and child like understanding of gender and sexuality and recognise that scientist concluded several decades ago that the development of a person’s gender and their gender attraction is 2 SEPARATE developments not 1 as the average Australian concluded. And isn’t also time that people like you had a light bulb moment to the fact that this is a multicultural democracy and as such people don’t have right to bully people into invisibility and inequality nor do they have the right to berry their head in the sand to the every going amount of evidence that supports the legislating and the communal accepting of my kinds equality but at the same time have stupid debates (that ended decades ago) about the normality of homosexual people.

Think about it.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Kathryn
June 27th, 2007

To the person (I presume its "Notborn yesterday") who states that they would rather "discuss the facts objectively" than resort to name calling - thats fine as long as YOU stick to discussing the facts objectively. Let us have a look at your posts then:

1. "I was very surprised to read this morning that the grossly shortened average life expectancy (39-early 40's)** of female homosexuals (as a group) is very similar to that of male homosexuals (as a group). **Figures taken from over 5,000 obituaries in homosexual publications. "

That is the most statistically ludicrous way to come up with an average. You are only getting the ages of those that die, therefore homosexuals who live to ripe old ages won't count in that average. There are numerous other reasons why that it not a valid average age, such as the skewed nature of the sample. Its a sample of convenience used to generalise across a whole population. It would not include those gays not involved in the gay community, not "out", those whose families/friends don't put an obituary in a paper... Enough said? If you want to have a reasonable, objective discussion, then don't use bogus science to support your arguments.

2. "It is because we recognise the unnatural nature of it and how it threatens to both destroy and reshape society. " There is nothing objective about this statement. Where is your evidence, apart from your irrational (i.e is based on emotion, not reason) beliefs? Homosexuality has been around for ever, and society hasn't been destroyed, as far as I can tell.

3. "I have read these statistics quite extensively - not from a commercial marketing source, or a "religious" source, but from the United States Government (which has demonstrated its anti-christian agenda for decades and so would certainly not want - or dare lose the homosexual vote - to paint a pessimistic picture)."

Are you serious? The US government has an anti-christian agenda? I don't even know where to begin. GW Bush has said "My relationship with God through Christ gives me meaning and direction." He is the most openly religious President in living memory. Where do you draw your statement that the US government is anti-christian???

Finally, I have a question for you. Why do you care what people do in their bedroom? What difference does it make to your life? Because if you don't care about what other people do in their private lives, then it won't make a difference to your life.

I really don't care (or want to know) what anybody else does in their personal life, straight or gay. Let me make an assumption here - its the actual sexual acts that you consider immoral or unnatural. How often do you think those immoral or unnatural acts occur - I have no idea here, maybe best case 2-3% of a person's life? Is that really something that should then determine a person's position in society - whether they are considered equal in the eyes of the law, and the eyes of society?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 27th, 2007

To the lad who "lost 7 years". (apologiea again but I still can't read your screen name).

It was once well-known and recognised that most young boys go through a stage of their child-hood where they develop feelings for other boys and even engage in some types of homosexually oriented behaviour. In the past (before your time), the behaviour was not reinforced as a legitimate and equal alternative as it is now. Instead parents were encouraged not to be alarmed, that it was only a development stage and most grew through it and developed normal sexual desires and relationships. I strongly suspect that the trend, which, led by a very vocal, very persistent homosexual lobby is to encourage lads to be "proud" of those behaviours is very largely responsible for cementing such an "orientation" in place. If homosexuals actually raise children through their impressionable young years the effect is bound to be even greater. Of course, those who are proud of their homosexuality will obviously hold that that is good, not bad. That much I understand.

You reassert your "lost years" statement by giving more of the same evidence, but you don't actually answer my questions. You did say, "abandonment" so perhaps you are actually saying you had no family or they abandoned you. In the town where I live, there are many "street kids". They live in railway carriages and say they have been kicked out or abandoned. Its not only the lot of homosexuals. I've just had a re-read of your post and I see that you did live with your family so I'm not really sure of what you're saying. In fact I've tried to be patient in reading and understanding your post but your flow of thoughts is just too broken. You really do nheed to slow down, think whjat it is you want to say and get someone to proof-read it before you post it.

Another posster -- a supporter of homosexuality - has made the point as ro why I'm interested in what people do in their bedroom (and I'll answer that comment in another post). However it does demonstrate the question, "why do homosexuals *think* people want to know, or be confronted by what they do in the bedroom.?" For as many years as you care to name, people have shared accommodation without the community drawing a conclusion that because two of the same gender live under one roof they must be homosexuals. Even effeminacy, in itself is not necessarily an indication that that man engages in sodomy, and no-one has the right to draw that inference.

I found your reference to "sexism" puzzling, but I'll have to leave that one.

"Catch and kiss" was a game occasionally played at primary school, I think more to annoy the girls than anything. Its played at the age that boys despise "girl germs" :-) and long before any sexual desires begin to mature. I never saw it played at secondary school. One of the tragedies of todays society is that young children are introduced to sexuality before they are ready, and their innocense is stolen from them. Perhaps therein lies the answer as to why the individual aggression and vilification of children like my friend was so much less in my school days. Incidentally, why were you so offended that I asked you that question? I was genuinely exploiring what I thought was an intersting observation and inviting you to contribute your thoughts, but it seems to have touched a nerve. I'm sorry I can't address each of your issues, but I think that replies I will make to others will cover them.

Best wishes,
Notborn

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Robert Charles Crombie
June 28th, 2007

Well it's now official; Census 2006 (where the sample and the population are one and the same thing, and that, as all must agree, removes any bias ) tells us that married adults are now the minority in Australia. Since, by law, these folk must be heterosexual, it tells us something about how estimable the state of marriage is to heterosexuals as an imaginary homogenous group.

The rising incidence of domestic violence and child abuse in families informs us of the irrationality of such homogenous imaginings; and indeed of the foolishness attached to any notion that marriage is some sort of sacred institution. In the 21st century, it is more about protecting property rights in the event of dissolution, and, as a poor secondary consideration, providing some basis of decision-making on post-separation care of offspring.

In a host of celebrity splits over recent months, days even, very short-serving spouses - and some longer-serving - have done very well for themselves, thankyou very much Greg, Paul, etc. At the other end of the socio-economic spectrum, the myriad splits produce limitless new dependencies on welfare, simply because two households cannot exist on the money that would not provide independence for one. For richer or poorer, divorce would seem to be the common answer; not the solution, mind, just the answer. The question, for which it is the answer, is more elusive.

Western democratic societies are constituted on the twin pillars of protection of property rights and the rule of law, and Australia is (said to be?) one of these societies. The rule of law is supposedly more objective and fair than a human despot, and the separation of powers guarantees (hopefully) that no human despot will sieze control and monkey with fairness and objectivity (hmmm). Now these are called twin pillars because the law supports the protection of property rights - they work together in supporting the society. Property rights are said to provide the basis of freedom within the society, and the law protects that freedom and attempts to ensure that there are no victims in the process.

So our twin pillars provide protection, ensure freedom, and avoid or legislate against situations that produce victims. And, the pluralist nature of our society, flowing from the separation of powers, removes the provision for laws where there are no victims. Indeed, there is implied a need to avoid the situation whereby the law itself produces victims.

Here we are, in the 21st century, with a raft (perhaps the Titanic or the Pasha Bulker?) of legislation riven with passages that discriminate difference where there is none that determines legal harm. I've been on this planet for close to three score and am yet to see a victim of homosexuality. I've seen plenty of crimes but none that could be pinned at the door of homosexuality per se, other than that where homosexual acts between consenting adults (isn't that a pearler? Heterosexual acts between non-consenting adults is a crime!) is criminalised. But why would the law in a pluralist democracy of the 21st century retain such meaningless drivel? There are no victims but those that occur because there is a body of law that discriminates.

To work with kids, I need a blue card - but I don't have to wear a tag that says 'heterosexual', and I don't see that anyone should deem this as good, bad or indifferent. But paedophilia is a crime and is very nasty indeed; so legislation is needed because there are victims. Genocide, naively linked to homosexuality (or was it unnatural acts?) by one previous arguer/persuader is definitely a crime against humanity with loads of victims, which will get you a seat at the International Court (unless you're a US military person). But homosexual acts will not raise an eyebrow in the international community unless we are talking about discrimination - kind of upside-down...ya know?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Robert Charles Crombie
June 28th, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/stories/55254/
Try this for the latest US support for gay marriage.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Not born again
June 28th, 2007

Finally a person who understands reason.... thank you for your sane arguments that are TRUELY based on facts.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
June 28th, 2007

"That is the most statistically ludicrous way to come up with an average. You are only getting the ages of those that die, therefore homosexuals who live to ripe old ages won't count in that average."

But they still die! You need to think that one through a little longer. Why would the obituaries omit homosexuals who die at a ripe old age? (possible answers below)

There is another way of saying, "the average life-expectancy", and that is "the average year of death expectancy". It is clumsier and a bit negative, but means exactly the same. The only way to project it is to look at the ages of people who have actually died. How do you predict when a living person will die to include him or her as part of a sample?
If you include all the ripe old age individuals, you would also need to include all the youngsters, like our 19 year old I have been corresponding with, people even younger and all the in-betweens. The result would be nothing more than a synthetic and unusable function of (the average current age of homosexuals + the average age at which homosexuals have died).
Our government has put in place a number of changes to pensions, super etc because of the fact that the average age of the population in general is increasing to the point where their are, or will soon be insufficient wage-earners to bear the burden. There may be some political manipulation here to further secret agendas. Nevertheless, what we are seeing in this study of over 5,000 obituaries should ring some pretty loud alarm bells.

I don't deny, incidentally that there is room for a statistical skew, arising from social differences between the age groups. I think though that such a skew would be less than may be expected due to the fact that:
1) the homosexual community has a reasonably high degree of homogeneity, so that
2) even although elderly homosexuals may not read the often very militant homosexual publications, others within their community would be very likely to place obituaries to show their respect and perhaps to show the world that homosexuals can live long lives too.

Interestingly, you rarely see elderly homosexuals cruising public toilets. There are two, no 3 possible hypothesis as I see it:
1) This age-group within the homosexual community doesn't, in general engage in the extreme promiscuity that the younger ones do,
2) There are much fewer of them
3) By this age they have lost their sex-drives.
Given that a huge proportion of homosexuals use chemicals to heighten the "sexual" pleasure because homosexual acts in themselves don't satisfy, this third hypothesis seems a likely scenario, which of course would, to some extent speak against the findings of the obituary study. However, I'd suggest that all three contribute, and that even if skewed the findings of the study are still sufficiently alarming to warrant a very serious response from both government and the homosexual community.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Fabienne Virago
June 28th, 2007

It continues to amaze me that there are people out there who are so terribly sure that they know what is "right" and "wrong" what is "natural" and "unnatural". How unspeakably arrogant and completely self-deluded they are.

Although I know I should be neither surprised nor offended by the ignorance and injustice behind the thinking of some of these people, I can't help it. I'm a lesbian and I'm a mother. So imagine how it turns my stomach to read that I'm apparently destined to die approximately 30 years earlier than my heterosexual sisters, that my sexual behaviour is "unnatural" and will "destroy and reshape society" and that my home is "not a healthy environment to bring up healthy and well adjusted child". How moronic. How bigoted.
In my healthy and stable family home I'm raising a gorgeous, happy, intelligent, well-adjusted, and healthy 4 year old. It breaks my heart that she will go out into the world very soon and meet people like some of those who have shared their opinions with us here and be exposed to such blatant discrimination and stupidity.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Kathryn
June 28th, 2007

Please, again, Notborn Yesterday - support your statements with facts.

1. "But they still die! You need to think that one through a little longer. Why would the obituaries omit homosexuals who die at a ripe old age? (possible answers below)"

Ok - I take it that you are quoting the statistics generated by Paul Cameron in his study "The lifespan of homosexuals", presented in 1993. Those statistics have been repeated most famously by William Bennett (former US Secretary of Education), a prominent anti-gay rights campaigner. Some of the issues with this study (there are numerous) and are well documented in many articles:
a. Firstly, Paul Cameron himself was expelled from the American Psychological Association and censured by the Nebraska Psychological Association, the
American Sociological Association, and the Midwest Sociological Society for not only misrepresented other psychologists' findings, but that his own studies employed unsound methodologies.
b. He reviewed general circulation newspaper obituaries to create his straight average age sample, however he provides no details of the sample size, or how he determined whether those in the general newspaper were straight or gay.
c. Obituaries do not track all deaths that take place
d. Obituaries of closeted but active homosexuals would not have appeared in the gay press.
e. Elderly gays and lesbians are more likely to be closeted. This shown by a study conducted by D’Augell et al in Aging and Mental Health (2001) - see that for more details.
f. The “gay community” is not a unified one. And it is certainly does not have the reasonably high degree of homogeneity that you claim. In Dr. Cameron’s Omega article, he makes a brash assumption that the gay community is fully unified along generational lines - however, similar to aging feminists who fought for equality during the 60s, the aging generation of gays and lesbians is just as lost when it comes to understanding the younger generation as with any other generational divide.
g. Gay newspapers mainly target a youthful audience - thus obituaries will reflect that audience.
h. Gay newspapers are concentrated in urban areas.
f. Not all gay newspapers accept obituaries for everyone. Dr. Cameron noted that most of the gay newspapers he reviewed only listed obituaries for gays who were prominent in their communities. They didn’t accept obituaries from just anyone. This can further bias the notices toward those who were active in the community or those whose deaths were untimely.
g. Obituaries and other death reports may reflect journalistic bias. Dr. Cameron also noted that many of the gay newspapers reported more violent deaths than others, saying, “we suspect that the journalistic attention that violent death attracts accounts for some elevation of the violent death rate.” To make matters worse, Dr. Cameron decided to increase his tally of gay men and women by including those whose deaths were mentioned in news stories or letters to the editor. He didn’t do this for his “straight” statistics from general circulation newspapers.

Anyway, don't believe me, believe Nick Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute who is quoted as saying that the method “is just ridiculous.” And when John Karon of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was asked about it, he pointed out the obvious: “you’re only getting the ages of those who die.” Gay men or women of the generation targeted by the youth-oriented gay press who live to a ripe old age simply won’t turn up in the sample.

Or even believe William Bennett, who when challenged by Andrew Sullivan in the New Republic on the use of such dubious statistics was forced to acknowledge by responding in a letter to the editor, saying, “Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron’s study. One cannot extrapolate from his methodology and say that the average male homosexual lifespan is 43 years.”

2. "Given that a huge proportion of homosexuals use chemicals to heighten the "sexual" pleasure because homosexual acts in themselves don't satisfy."

Wow - awesome generalisation there - again completely unobjective and not supported by research. For example, Ford and Jasinski published in the journal Addictive Behaviours found NO difference in substance use between straights and gays. McKirnan and Peterson in the same journal identify that more gays use substances but indicate that tension-reduction and stress-vunerability were the main causes, certainly not to heighten sexual pleasure.

3. "Interestingly, you rarely see elderly homosexuals cruising public toilets." I can't even be bothered to start with the ridiculousness of this statement. I don't even understand the point you are trying to make? Or are you just reinforcing your emotive (not rational) view that homosexuals are deviants?

I'm all for you having your opinion, you are completely entitled to it. I just would prefer that you admit that its not objective, its not rational, and its based on your emotional response to homosexuality. Stop hiding behind phony maths to try and justify your point of view.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Aram Hosie
June 28th, 2007

Wow. I'm astounded.. and kinda saddened to see that on a website, a website of a loose organisation with so many people who view themselves as being progressive there are so many ill informed, rigid and unpleasant opinions about gay and lesbian australians.
what happened to a fair go for all aussies?

some of the sentiment on here - about the supposed behaviours of gays and lesbians, about their 'unnaturalness' and 'inherent threat to society' - have made me feel downright sick.

the HREOC report isn't calling for gay marriage. it isn't calling for gay curriculum in schools. it isn't really proposing anything radical. just that the law be applied equally to all regardless of sexuality or gender.


seems fair enough to me.
well done get up for picking this up.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Robert Charles Crombie
June 28th, 2007

"But they still die"?? I thought about it a bit longer and discovered it happens to us all - and was amazed at my powers of perception. Aboriginal people get to go early because of some historical neglect by policy makers, and policy also prohibits publication of suicides (though we are transfixed by the significantly smaller numbers of car-accident victims). And Hugh Heffner used an awful lot of that chemical enhancer. But truly, what does it mean??? Perhaps Hugh didn't really enjoy sex after all?? Now, wouldn't that be a scream? Another myth busted... But all communities should be wary of policy-makers, with or without alarm bells, who treat any groups as homogenous!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Jeannine Farrell
June 28th, 2007

I support this petition so that ALL people come under the same laws and legislations. Having said that, to those that disagree,please consider the following scenarios...

With regard to government payments (Centrelink) a homosexual/lesbian couple can live together as a married couple yet one can receive the dole, the other can be a millionaire. This could not occur with a heterosexual couple, they would not be eligible for Government payments.

For example, a homosexual/lesbian couple with 1 child each could each collect the single parent pension and associated payments as well as collect child support from the fathers of their children. Your taxes at work..

Additionally, the person receiving the dole can also effectively reduce his/her income to minimise Child Support payments. For example, a homosexual/lesbian couple living together as a married couple, one pulling in a $70,000 income, the other, with child support commitments, could be getting the dole and therefore minimising child support payments so that the tax payers of Australia support his children. Again, your taxes at work.

Think outside the square before you decide.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Robert Charles Crombie
June 29th, 2007

Let's be clear about the implications of bad law. Apart from the obvious fact that laws that create victims have no justification, their very existence in what is meant to be the constituted body of rule weakens that body - victims of the law are likely to fear the law, but fear is not the same thing as respect; fear is not the stuff of freedom, and freedom, after all, is what is intended in something called a Liberal Democracy - well, isn't it?

Eva Cox, some years ago, pointed out that a democracy would be by its very nature a noisy place. David Marr, in the recent Quarterly Essay, has explained the policy-driven process occurring over the last decade to make Australia so quiet as to challenge the belief that it is a democracy. Representatives of that silencing agenda are to be heard on this blog, but that is a good thing because they can be seen here to be challenged, and people can see that the orthodoxy, artificially maintained in public space, is not what the majority support.

Take heart those who are offended by the rantings of the ignorant. Debate is the oldest and most practical form of education. The words are scarcely uttered before the utterer knows himself a fool. But conviction is most effectively established in this manner - it's not what someone else says but what one does to one's self that makes lessons stick.

The rantings of those who rely on the myopic interpretations of something called God's design are easily dismissed by their own scripture: Forgive them for they know not what they do. They just need to try a little harder on the knowing stuff as opposed to trivial and misinformed opinion. As for the researcher of homosexual age groups at public toilets, I'm curious - what were you doing there? How did you distinguish between sexualities? It must have been riveting stuff but didn't other people get offended with your inquiry? How did you handle objections? How did you handle cross-gender data collection?Did you seek ethical clearance for your research? What was the population; how was it established; and what size was the sample? I'm fascinated by your dedication to knowing about your topic. The hurdles you would have needed to overcome are monumental.

After reading your statistical analysis, I couldn't help but get this mental picture of someone perched on one of those three-legged fold-up chairs outside the loo with a block of questionnaires, stopping each would-be patron and asking for five-minutes of their time. Maybe that's why old folk avoid public toilets - the Woolies bladder couldn't stand the delay! Thanks for the humour.

Here's to you single mother with your 4year-old. Let Costello worry about whether the child is Mum's, Dad's or the country's. Life is for living; Death comes to us all. Statistics are still just lies, lies and damned lies. Mother Theresa lived a long life without getting any at all, and fought all the way for the underdog! It's the worry that'll kill you so stop worrying and live long.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Robert Charles Crombie
June 29th, 2007

So thinking outside the square...how do these cases live as married couples? I thought that was what we were arguing should be available, not what is already available? And a homosexual father avoiding child support payments...? Wow, there must be lots of them, surely!?! Yep! We should be worried about taxes when difference is at issue. I can clearly see why you support the petition. If we can get everyone treated as equals, this wave of aberrant baby-producing homosexuals would just have to toe the line like the rest of us. Then we can all sleep easy again.

Just for clarity, do two heterosexual single mothers sharing digs get penalised by Centrelink? Do two heterosexual people of either gender, both unemployed, who have no fiscal relationship, get penalised for sharing digs? Just a thought...taxes make me nervous; the hip-pocket twitch ya know?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Ben Cooper
June 29th, 2007

Not born yesterday I wil reply to you on monday from the 19 year old

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
John
July 3rd, 2007

The GetUp Web Site is a FRONT FOR THE LABOR PARTY.
They are telling you how to vote.
They want you to normalise sam sex couples when marriage provides the safest nurturing environment for children.
They want you to believe that gender doesn't matter to children when it does matter - the research is conclusive on this and I mean real research not the feminist advocacy research which feminists, pro-feminists and his site promote.
Wake up Australia to the internet marketing techniques used by GetUp which emmulate the USA Howard Dean campaign and early use of the internet in politics.
Don't let these communists under cover as liberal socialists fool middle Australia for one minute...not even for 1 minute!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 3rd, 2007

Mm. Interesting comparison here. The Courier Mail.com poll at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21942896-952,00.html of over 27,000 votes to this minute don't appear to give much support to Galaxy's mere 1100 sample poll on equal rights.

27% for homosexual marriage, 72% against. Thats more what I would have expected.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
July 3rd, 2007

When does marraieg ever GARUNTEE a safe, nurturing environment for children?

Gender does not matter when it comes to parenting. Unconditional love along with a happy and safe home life is not a communistic practice of child rearing ... I reckon U need to stop folliong yourslef!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Collin
July 4th, 2007

Regarding the obviously naive and sorely misguided comment that this site "IS A FRONT FOR THE LABOR PARTY". Don't for one minute believe that Howard’s mates in Big Business (AKA Channel 10, 9, 7 and Fox/Sky) don't tell you every day how to vote.. It is in their interest that you vote "conservative pro big business". Do a little thinking for yourself mate.. Very rarely do you find, in this country, an unbiased report on things political from the main stream media.. News is not reported in Australia it is commented on. I hear you shout “conspiracy theorist” but that is just the kind of comment that one expects from narrow minded, easily led, non thinkers. When one does find an unbiased forum it is so uncommon and foreign that you feel you have to attack it.. Perhaps next you will claim it is a terrorist threat, as you have already painted it communist… Goodness, no wonder Howard has been returned so many times, it is time we became a nation of thinkers.
So if you spend any time thinking about the issue of equality before the law, unfettered by the influence of political agenda, religious bigotry, and learnt behavior, you will realize that the only position for a civilized society to take is to treat everyone equally.
Perhaps you want to go back to the time when the earth was flat, because the church said it was so, to a time when the earth was the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around it, because the church said so, to the time when woman were not permitted to vote and were unfit to work because they were inferior. To a time when lefthanders were put to death because they were evil, yea guess who said that. To a time when other races were inferior and denied the vote because the church said that they were savages and a threat to God (yes there are references in the bible- passages that ratified genocide in “ancient” times). THIS IN NOT ANTI GOD – but the church has no business to talk on God’s behalf. After all God didn’t create it the Romans did, in order to organize the many sects into a controllable mass, they made no bones about that, it is recorded history, have a read sometime. Have doubts?.. Ask yourself what the Romans did in Egypt and you will answer the question yourself. There are irreconcilable differences between God and the Church. One simple example.. Do you honestly think that God sees women as inferior, so why does the church. AUSTRALIA PLEASE START TO THINK FOR YOURSELVES.

Regarding the comment that “marriage provides the safest nurturing environment for children” So safe in fact that the highest incidence per capita of sexual, emotional and physical abuse comes from those “married” family units (and no it’s not the norm it is the unfortunate exception) – safety has more to do with the loving nurturing nature of those people in the family unit than the demographic, check with the family court if you have any doubts. I assume that you are also advocating that the government removes all those children from single parent families and place them in foster care because they are no longer or not in a “married” unit. The dual parent family is only one of the functioning family units that produce well adjusted valued members of society. Children aren’t born with prejudice they learn it from us. Be careful what you teach our future leaders. Be careful what legacy you are going to lump them with.
If your child was a girl would you want her to be treated as a second class citizen or would you want her to be treated equally and given every protection and opportunity that anyone else is entitled to? Conservatives fought against this for hundreds of years.
If your child was left-handed would you want him or her to be persecuted and put to death or treated equal in law and given every protection and opportunity that anyone else is entitled to? Religious leaders fought against this for hundreds of years in the not too distant past.
If your child was gay would you want him or her to be treated as a second class citizen or would you want them to be treated equally and given every protection and opportunity that anyone else is entitled to? Conservatives and religious leaders still fight against this now.
I guess that some people believe that they are more equal than others.
Prejudice says more about your inadequacies than those you are prejudiced against.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Helen Wood
July 4th, 2007

Such hoo haa,maybe you should all agree to disagree.I am not ashamed to be a lesbian,I am not ashamed to be a lesbian mother.I really don't care what the hetrosexual world thinks of me.What I do care about is my basic human rights,exclusion,margenalisation and discrimination based on MY sexual preference.I hope that I am a good mother,that my children are well adjusted individuals,that can make their own informed choice of their own sexuality when they are ready.I am not saying that homosexuals are better parents,I am sure that there is the same family problems of neglect and abuse that occures throughout society in general.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 4th, 2007

I was rather hurried and a little vague in my last post concerning the courier-mail poll. I was opf course comparing that result to Q2 of the Galaxy survey, not Q1.

Re: the contributor who commented on the survey of obituaries from homosexual publications; yes, I do see that there is much controversy surrounding that survey and that methodology. While I still stand by my previous comment that you can only arrive at an "average age of death" by considering only those who have already died (it is a nonsense to include those "ripe old agers" still alive) I concede that my previous comments allowing for "skew due to social reasons" would not have adequately allowed for skew, if those publications were not targeting all age groups. I also concede that my "homogenous community" comment was probably inaccurate, although of course a community may be homogenous in some ways and entirely heterogenous in others, and that can blurr the impressions.

Someone posted, "Take heart those who are offended by the rantings of the ignorant." Cast your eyes down this page and you will see ..."rantings"... from both sides of the debate. The word has its roots in the Dutch word meaning "nonsense" and of course this is the flavour conveyed by those who use words and name-calling to denigrate the opponent, rather than sound argument to defeat an unsound argument.

The humour of the survey conducted from a 3-legged stool didnt go unappreciated. However, my post to which this humour responded made no mention of any statistical analysis and was intended, not as an absolute and quantifiable statement of fact, but as a casual and personal observation. I have been propositioned on a few occasions from the age of about 10 to my 40's by homosexuals probably in the 30 - 50 age group, but never by older men. Anyone is free to support or contend this observation from their own experience. Or ignore it entirely. Or even "rant". :-)

"Australia so quiet as to challenge the belief that it is a democracy. Representatives of that silencing agenda are to be heard on this blog". A strange comment indeed. You appear, after having expounded the virtues of debate (and quite eloquently so, I might add) to go on to accuse those who are on the opposite debate 'team' of having a "silencing agenda". Not really very consistent. There is a world of difference between engaging in healthy debate over laws that have the potential to reshape society, and advocating the "silencing" of the opposing voice. It ceratinly appears however, in here at least that the homosexual lobby and possibly some of its supporters would like to "silence" the voice of its opponents in the debates by ridicule, blame, name-calling, outright villification and misrepresentation.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 4th, 2007

"Well it's now official; [...] married adults are now the minority in Australia. Since, by law, these folk must be heterosexual..."

Actually NO. There are many married males who engage in sodomy with men and then go home and have sex with their wives.

"...it tells us something about how estimable the state of marriage is to heterosexuals as an imaginary homogenous group."

No-one in this blog has claimed that heterosexuals are an homogenous group, or that society in general, or even all married couples esteem (I think "esteem" was what you intended) marriage or regard it as a sacred institution. Nevertheless, thats what it is and always has been, not just in Christendom but in virtually every religious system too. Common law (based on the Ten Commandments) recognised it as such until, in recent years when the deterioration of society’s regard for marriage, and statute law which reflected that deterioration corrupted it into an arrangement of convenience, easily broken even without both spouses consenting to its dissolution. It is therefore not the institution of marriage that has failed, but the weak counterfeit that society has exchanged for the genuine article.

HOWEVER, even in the light of this, the next comment by the same contributor is quite erroneous. He or she said, “The rising incidence of domestic violence and child abuse in families informs us of the irrationality of such homogenous imaginings; and indeed of the foolishness attached to any notion that marriage is some sort of sacred institution”.

First, the word “family” has had its definition changed so that all manner of "domestic" arrangements are now to be regarded as a “family”, and there is a huge body of research that demonstrates that the overwhelmingly greatest danger of both domestic violence and child abuse centre around arrangements of cohabitation, NOT the traditional family with a husband and wife at its head.

For those who would like to follow this up, you could start with the following free Ebook, downloadable at:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs31.pdf

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Kathryn
July 6th, 2007

"I have been propositioned on a few occasions from the age of about 10 to my 40's by homosexuals probably in the 30 - 50 age group, but never by older men. Anyone is free to support or contend this observation from their own experience. Or ignore it entirely. Or even "rant". :-)"

Well, you've just experienced part of the joy that it is being a woman sometimes ! As a female, I have lost count of the number of times that I, or my friends have been propositioned by men. Whether it be a bar, walking down the street, the subject of subtle comments at work, whereever. So does that mean that all straight men are deviants who should be segregated by the law? No, of course not. That would be punishing the majority based on the behaviour of a few. So why take the same argument against gays?

By the way, I have never had an offensive proposition from another woman...

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Matthew Costa
July 6th, 2007

What's going to stop homophobia? Ultimately, nothing. It will never stop, just as people will never stop being racist, sexist and so on. This is humanity. But when women, gays, coloured people, are no longer ashamed to speak, when they have the courage to look others in the eye, and say, 'I am your brother, your sister, a human being like you'. Most people cannot deny them. This, mercifully, is the other side of humanity. Gradually and inevitably, the majority of people find that someone they know and respect is gay. They will realize that this is not a contradiction. The majority will then begin to see the denial of gay rights, not as a political issue, but as an injustice against someone they know and respect. Those the deny gay rights will become an embarrassment, their mutterings and grumblings will be heard from the corner of the room. Homophobia will not be silenced, but the occasion for 'debate' will be over. Because knowing and respecting someone who is gay, knowing that they don't need to be changed, seeing for yourself that they are a human being like you, is an experience of humanity impervious to 'arguments' and 'statistics'. So for anyone disturbed by the mutterings and grumblings' on this blog, just remember: nothing is at stake in these arguments. A tide of humanity is coming in, and whatever sandcastles are built on this blog are going to be washed away...

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
ifca dragicevic
July 6th, 2007

I am a mother of twin daughters and my partner is female. We are a loving, happy family who live in a society where laws prohibit and prevent us from legally binding situations, but i can assure you the law does not prevent us from being a family. We live breathe and love, just like every other young family in this country and the world. We are excellent parents, our daughters are smart, funny and caring.....because that is who we are....

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
James Horan
July 6th, 2007

It's amazing how many people respond to the blatent trolling by some users of this site. Please don't feed the trolls, it only encourages them.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and they deserve the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us. The pro-hetrosexual "family values" arguments are nothing more than a front for unsubstantiated prejudice.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 6th, 2007

"Well, you've just experienced part of the joy that it is being a woman sometimes ! As a female, I have lost count of the number of times that I, or my friends have been propositioned by men. Whether it be a bar, walking down the street, the subject of subtle comments at work, whereever. " Or at the entrance to a public toilet?? That was the context of the passage you quoted from my post.

"...the subject of subtle comments at work, whereever." These days my dear, that's called 'sexual harrassement' and frequently ends up in court proceedings.

You actually missed the point when you used my quote. It was a discussion on age groups & homogeneity, on which points I have since conceded. It was not a suggestion that the law should be structured on the basis that all homosexuals cruise public toilets. Of course they don't.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
July 6th, 2007

Apologies to all,
I have never posted a comment on any site ever, but stumbled across this, and felt the need to join you discussion.

I read about 50% of the posts, and some made me very sad!

I am a 50 year old woman, mother to three great kids. Two sons
and a 13 Yr daughter.
My younger son is gay......so what??? He is a beautiful,caring,humanitarian young man.
What I truly don't understand is how people can JUDGE HIM ON WHAT GOES ON IN THE BEDROOM?? That is such a small part of who he is ( Nobody knows what i get up to LOL) He is lucky that he has a loving supportive family, but I worry about the abuse he may be exposed to from ignorant red necks?
Any feed back would be most appreciated!

Thanks

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 6th, 2007

"But when women, gays, coloured people,..."

Hang on a minute. It may sound very politically correct to include homosexuals in a mixed list in this way, but its a flawed approach to combine terms that denote race and gender with one that denotes behavioural choice, in order to afford credibility to a behaviour.

No-one can choose their gender or race, but whether or not to indulge in homosexual behaviour IS a choice. The tired argument that there is a homosexual gene has long since been discredited which is unsurprising as it was only an argument of convenience for the day. Previously, homosexuals were very vocal in their declarations that their lifestyle was a choice and not biologically determined. That was even before the word "gay" was corrupted by the homosexual community to mean something entirely different (I'll bet few young people even know that its correct meaning is "bright, cheerful, happy"). It was even before they coined the non-word "homophobia" to denigrate those who disagree with them.

Concerning the alleged genetic nature of homosexuality, here's a challenge to the homosexual community: Most of you would no doubt be evolutionists. I am not, but I'll bet few of you wouldn't be. Can you explain to me how the theory of genetically based homosexuality fits in with the evolutionary building block of "survival of the fittest", given that homosexual genes would obviously be very quickly bred out of the gene pool? Talk to me.

Concerning "homophobia" let me make it quite clear: I am not afraid of homosexuals, and neither do I hate them (the meaning of "phobia"). "Phobic" does NOT describe a person who is conscientiously against the active proliferation of the lifestyle and normalising it into society as an alternative choice of equal validity to the traditional family structure and normal sexual behaviour.

Not once in any of my posts have I resorted to name-calling or personal attack. I haven't used such non-words as "heterophobia", although there are some (albeit a minority) of homosexuals who actually do display a hatred for heterosexual, and I haven't knowingly insulted the intelligence of homosexuals as a group, denied their love for their children or the contributions that homosexuals can and have made for their communities. So... can we all be grown-ups, stop the vitriole and simply discuss the issues?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 6th, 2007

"blatent trolling "

Tell me, what crietria do YOU use to define "blatant trolling"?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Bryan Phelps
July 7th, 2007

This GetUp Web Site is nothing but a FRONT FOR THE LABOR PARTY and the UNIONS PROPOGANDA.

It is just another poorly camouflaged way of attacking the Howard Government. Go on vote Mr Rudd in and see where you are again in 5 years time, back to the Banana Republic with a leader controlled by the short sighted union thugs back to having a Prime Minister doing their dirty work and business taking their jobs off shore where they can try to make a profit without being demonised for it.

Then all vote back in the Liberal Party to clean up the mess, it is they way things work we reach a level where life is going well and then you think “Hey this is not good we need a change” so vote in the Left Wing Socialists and then realise what you have let yourselves in for.

Unemployment will be up, home loan interest rates up and a leader with the backbone of a Jellyfish! That’s what you will have and that’s what you deserve if you believe the bulldust this site feeds you.

In relation to same sex marriage why do the gay community wish to conform with us the heterosexual community in our values and beliefs when what you believe in is so vastly different from us and our ideals? Go off and come up with your own concept and stop trying to justify your way of life by trying to fit in with the grater community and get our approval.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Deearne
July 8th, 2007

There have always been homosexual people and also will.
I do not support the belittling of marriage by saying that 1)marriage and 2)people living in sexual unions that are not between a man and a woman are the same thing.
I do not wish to see homosexual people discriminated against, but I draw the line at saying that marriage, and homosexual unions are the same thing. They cannot be, because they are not a committment between man and woman. So, call them a union, but please do not call their union a marriage

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 9th, 2007

The general argument of pro-homosexual posts in here is that homosexual marriage (an oxymoron to begin with) is as valid and useful as real marriage.

In order to establish the rightness or wrongness of such a viewpoint we first have to establish that marriage itself is a useful, worth-while institution. If not, the whole argument is a waste of time from a sociological point of view.

A number of posts casting doubt on the value of the institution we call marriage, whereby a couple make a solid life commitment to each other. It is hard to imagine how such a notion could issue from the intelligent mind, and yet we have:

“…the highest incidence per capita of sexual, emotional and physical abuse comes from those “married” family units”.

This statement is so blatantly false as to be amusing if it weren’t such a tragic misunderstanding. We know that society has done much to sabotage the marriage institution by removing the idea of “for life”. For example, many deliberately choose to change the meaningful vow “till death do us part” to sham versions such as “for so long as our love shall last”. Couples intent on giving each other notice of the shallowness of their commitment with such meaningful drivel shouldn’t be surprised when the inevitable divorce arrives!

Nevertheless, attempts to reduce marriage to the level of nothing more than a public splurge haven’t yet succeeded in destroying its value, although it is certainly being eroded. Lets see the figures:

“Married couples with children are the most common type of family, making up 31 per cent of all households and 43 per cent of all families, but these proportions are declining.” – Australian Bureau of Statistics (publications 2002 & 2003).

According to findings cited in the 1998 Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into aspects of family services, cohabitation is:

4-5 times more unstable than marriage, and possibly as much as 10 times unstable where very young children are involved. This report shows that cohabiting couples are almost ten times more likely to break up 18 months after the birth of a child than married couples. At the eighteen month mark, 19 per cent of cohabiting couples have broken up, compared to 2 per cent of married couples.

Think about the children in that last paragraph, and tell me whether you’d prefer to be born to a couple who had made a life commitment, or to a mother who had a guy move in with her. I have said it before: Freedom of choice only makes sense if it is exercised with an equal does of responsibility. Otherwise hurt, suffering and chaos result. We see it all around us.

Other research from a number of sources (reported at http://www.civitas.org.uk/) shows that the benefits of marriage flow on to reduce the risks of teen pregnancy, domestic violence for both men and women, child abuse and murder.

Turning then to homosexual “marriage”, a 2003 study of health records by the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and published in the May 2003 AIDS magazine found that

1) homosexual partnerships last, on average, only one-and-a-half years.
2) men in homosexual relationships have an average of eight partners a year outside their main partnership.

Which takes us to the health aspect.

Studies of the prevalence of 3 STDs conducted by the Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica, Quernavaca, CONASIDA Mexico City in 1992 compared the incidence of STD antibodies between female prostitutes, heterosexual males and homosexual males, finding in a sampling total of 4,746 people:

Syphillis (T. pallidum) in 6.5% of Prostitutes. 4.2% of heterosexual men, 10.1% of homosexual men.

Hepatitis B (HBc) was detected in 9% of Prostitutes, 5.9% of heterosexual men, 37% of homosexual men

HIV antibodies were found in 0.2% of Prostitutes, 8.8% of heterosexual men, 42.7% of homosexual men.

*Note, the 0.2% of prostitutes is NOT a typo.

In all 3 STDs, homosexual males were carrying significantly more disease than female prostitutes!

Check it for yourself at http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102206375.html

Unfortunately, "...WHAT GOES ON IN THE BEDROOM" is largely a euphamism that sanitizes the behaviour and health aspects of the homosexual lifestyle.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 9th, 2007

Lets stay on topic people. Purely political comment doesn't add anything to either side of the topics in question. :-)

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 10th, 2007

A caring mother said,

“What I truly don't understand is how people can JUDGE HIM ON WHAT GOES ON IN THE BEDROOM??”

G'day there!

This thought has been expressed in here a number of times, and you have to understand that this is not about judging your son (or anyone else) as a person. In fact I really believe you that your son is as caring and delightful person as you say - and this is not said in a patronising way at all. It is no more a judgment on your son as a person to say that homosexual lifestyles should not be encouraged and propagated within the community than it would be, if he was a marijhuana user, to say that marijhuana use should not be be encouraged as a harmless recreational drug.

Having said that, I acknowledge that there is cruelty in the way that human beings treat each other. Eliminating that requires a change of heart in the way that human beings treat each other on the individual level; not in 'normalising' a lifestyle that is unnatural, pathologically dangerous to the community and destabilising to the family and ultimately to society.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Ian McMillan
July 20th, 2007

I am a gay man in a committed relationship, which is approaching its 14th year. Having experienced other forms of partnership, I can say quite categorically that this is the most stable and nourishing relationship I've ever been in. As my 60th birthday draw closer I am continually grateful that I made the right decision and that my partner loves me as much as I love him.

We know we are lucky. We have each other. Despite the opinions of the prejudiced and the bigots, our relationship and our love for each other is strong enough to stand firm and enable us to rise above such destructive, undermining criticism.

We don't consider ourselves better than other couples, or more deserving of special status; yet we are denied equality before the law.

Other than religious prejudice there seems top be no valid reason for denying homosexual couples their rights. Surely these medieval mindsets have no place in our 21st century government?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Naomi Cartledge
July 20th, 2007

The GetUp Web Site is a FRONT FOR THE LABOR PARTY.
They are telling you how to vote.
They want you to normalise sam sex couples when marriage provides the safest nurturing environment for children.

Are you really serios? Here's a news flash!

I'm 62 years old, and I really don't give a fig about people's sexuality or sexual preference, that's everyone's personal business. However, I do take issue with all forms of discrimination, because it's unfair, unjust, hurtful, demeaning and unnecessary. As a hetrosexual woman people don't judge me on my sexual preference, nor do I feel the need to inform people, but then, in the capitalist society we live in, with all money making concerns aimed at the 'traditional family' I'm part of the 'norm'. It's stupid and illogical and should not be allowed to happen. 1 in 4 women in Australia aren't safe in their own home, let alone on the streets. How many perpetrators are gay men? Child abuse is also at an alarming level; think about it and stop the hateful rubbish, it's damned stupid and destructive! I don't believe that gay people just woke up one day and decided to be gay. Like my hetrosexual reality, they too just are, and like me, they just want to BE! To all of you, I extend my hand of acceptance and friendship - never tolerance - I'm tolerating a head cold, I hope I accept people!

I've always believed, that those who are homophobic, unchristian, discriminatory and just plain hateful, are the ones with the problems. They're so insecure about their own sexuality, that anything else is too confronting. I believe, that all people have the right to establish their own relationships, to live a loving and full life, and no door should be closed to one group over another. Same sex marriage or some other name is not an issue for me at all. It should be introduced, with the same rights, privileges, uncertainties and complications to all people.

Incidently, while there are incidents of domestic violence and sexual abuse among homosexual people, I know from personal experience, that I have less to fear from a violent attack of either kind from a gay man than a so-called 'straight' one. What's the stats on pornography, wars, killing machines, money making money grabbing occupations? Think about it!

George W, Tony Blair and John Howard are all church going, christian principled? hetrosexual men? After at least 655,000 dead Iraqis, thousands maimed and injured or diseased, 4 million displaced, destruction and misery all over the country, and they expect the Iraqi people to pay for most of the repairs via what's left from the oil revenue that the US and Britain haven't stolen for the next 35 years?????Right!!!!
I rest my case!!!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Fritz Endowich
July 20th, 2007

Im still working out what I think on this equality business although I lean towards keeping marriage just for the heteros. Ive read quiet a lot of posts for good gay arguments but its hard to find any in this blog. Same old same old is a really good name for it becuz all the gays seem to just repeat each other beefing about discrimination and religious prejudice and homophobs. The last guy (or gay) said there seems to be no valid reason for denying homosexual couples their rights. He must of ignored the last few posts before him that I think gave some very good reasons as long as you dont confuse equality with justice of coarse. Theres no reason why a gay or anyone else shouldnt leave there super to anyone they please. Marriage doesnt have to come into it.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Mr. G H Schorel-Hlavka
July 22nd, 2007

As a “constitutionalist” (See also my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website as http://www.schorel-hlavka.com) my issue is that at the time of Federation the Framers of the Constitution provided for the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate as to marriages. Their perception and intentions were not a marriage between “Man & Beast” “Beast & Beast” “Man & Man” or “Woman & woman” but of a heterosexual couple of “A Man and a Woman”.
As much as the High Court of Australia in regard of “adult” age regarding voting made clear that this has to be interpreted as to what was applicable at the time of the Constitution being created as to what the framers of the Constitution intended, likewise the same must apply to the marriage powers. Subsection 51(xxii) of the Constitution deals with “parental rights” and they referred to a mother having left the colony and the Father having to pursue new orders in the colony the mother had moved to regardless already having orders of a Colonial court where they had been living.
As such, parental rights were those of the parents of the child of a marriage.
While the States in 1986 purportedly “referred” legislative powers regarding custody of children not being of a marriage to the Commonwealth of Australia, it is not constitutionally valid as any legislative “limits” of a State cannot be altered without a Section 123 of the Constitution State Referendum.

Basically Gay couples are in a so called “BLACK HOLE” in that the States/Territories (as they are deemed quasi States) have no marriage legislative powers and neither can allow for marriage like rights and the Commonwealth of Australia neither has such powers.

Gay people for a long time were arguing that they should be left alone for what they do in their bedrooms is up to them. Well, these days it is shoved down our throats, so to say, and even children in kinder are forced to read about gay couples. So, from being, so to say, repressed they are now becoming the oppressors.
They are demanding the same rights as a heterosexual couple but not the same commitments.
A heterosexual relationship is the basis of the existence of the human race. Sure, when my wife and I became married she was well past her child bearing age but that is not relevant as biologically a man and a woman are deemed to be able to continue the human race, regardless if they do or do not.
No woman could be forced to become pregnant merely because of becoming married. But the issue is that when gay couples get together they are well aware that medically it is impossible for them to create a child between themselves. Hence, the very institution of marriage cannot be accomplished.
The fact that at times in a heterosexual couple one of both partners might be unable to cause a pregnancy is not the general rule and as such is not altering the fact that basically in the overall a man and a woman are the concept of human continued existence.

Why should any child be forced to live in a gay couples environment as this is to rob the child of its rights to be living in a heterosexual relationship it was created in.
Many gay couples are in my view selfish as to what they demand and could not care less about the rights and wellbeing of the child. Sure, they pretend otherwise but reality is that many children suffer because of living in a gay relationship.
I recall a case where a sister and a brother were ordered to live with their lesbian mother. The boy repeatedly run away. In the end the father was placed in imprisonment as the Court claimed he had kidnapped the child. I then published a book (on CD) and on the CD was a voice recording where the boy had left a message on his fathers answering service that he had climbed through the bathroom window and had run away!
When the mothers lawyers called me as a witness I filed this book as evidence.
In the end the boy was allowed to move back to live with his father, and his sister already had run away and was living with the father.
The boy in particular expressed his disgust about finding all kinds of implements in the house used by the mother and her lesbian partner and was forced to kiss the lesbian partner, etc.
Gay people should realise that for them it might be all right how they have their living environment but to force any child to live in those condition is in my view unacceptable. Sure, not all gay couples may be the same, but every gay person basically had a biological father and biological mother and we take it that IVF children are deemed to be of the couple, and the children therefore has a right to live with their biological parents. The issue that the husband might not be the biological father is not debated now as my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series canvasses this extensively.

Gay people demanded their privacy in their bedrooms and got it. Now from there on they should leave others alone.
In “Ugly Betty” a male designer pretended to be gay as he made known he had a better chance then to have his designs accepted. While this was merely a show, reality is much to this also.
To me a nonsense.

If people desire a gay relationship then they have the privacy of their bedrooms as much as they like but they must accept that to demand otherwise to pursue rights that are beyond their constitutional reach only indicates they are not at all to pursue JUSTICE but are just selfish to demand something for nothing.
In basic terms, a person driving a pushbike to avoid huge running cost of driving a motor vehicle cannot demand the same service of staying dry in wet weather as like in a car.
Gay people who do not want the heterosexual commitments are entitled not to do so but then cannot demand to get heterosexual rights. Neither would any State government have any legislative powers to provide for gay couples to have heterosexual rights, such as in superannuation, IVF, etc, as this would be in breach of constitutional provisions, as this would provide for a de facto type of marriage, the States have no legislative powers for. Any laws as such would be unconstitutional in that regard.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Mr. G H Schorel-Hlavka
July 22nd, 2007

Coming from a large family, one brother was a seaman and always telling how he snared women around the world. Then coming home he and the eldest brother always were snaring my girlfriend (I had at the time). So, I decided to get each of them their own. They both got married. However the seaman brother also was having sexual relationships with men. Well, he had both covered, so to say. Having fathered three children in the marriage, he had a work accident and then somehow decided to have a sex change to become a woman. Got itself married and became a widow (natural causes) and then later married again.
The three children pondering having no father left, but he isn’t dead.
Now, it might be all right for a gay person to claim that their sexuality is inherited but moment is that meaning that being a heterosexual as well as a homosexual as well as then changing sexuality is all part of the system?
Some homosexual make known that as a child they dressed up in women clothing and so indicated that they were gay already from childhood.
OK, I admit my family has a photo where I too was dressed up in women clothing, and also one (many years later) where I was as black as a negro, is that meaning that such a dress up makes me a female negro, or simply as children one does do dress ups and it should not be seen as anything but just a dress up for fun?


My wife (not allowed to reveal her age but she is long retired) totally dislikes anything to do with gay people and she makes this clear, and while she is not a frequent church goer she does make clear what the bible is about. She also oppose the death penalty, well that is only for those she likes as anyone else she has no problem with being executed. On the other hand I am not a follower of any religion and have no issue with anyone to follow their kind of religion or non-religion and oppose totally any capital punishment. As to gay people, well if they do not bother my lifestyle then I leave them to have theirs. Just, that lately they are bothering me in various ways even demanding certain rights that will likely cause me having to pay more tax. Now, excuse me, whatever you like to do make sure it isn’t going to cost me more on taxation, because you demand rights that cost us taxpayers.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Everthe Optimist
July 24th, 2007

Why do couples have different rights from individuals?

However noble the sentiment behind this campaign it seems to be fighting the wrong battle.

I have always believed that "rights" were something that civilization (ie the law) granted to individuals. Whenever the law starts granting rights to groups we seem to get into trouble -- different rights based on skin colour, sexual preference, religion etc all seem to be fraught with danger.

It seems to me that a couple is just a small group which would be much better treated as two separate people.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Paul Wagner
July 24th, 2007

To the "constitutionalist". There were many assumptions made by the authors of our constitution which have changed over the years. The citizenship of indiginous people springs immediately to mind.

I also have a problem with the constant depiction of gay people in the media. It's painfully stereotyped and assumes that all gay people behave the same way. It would seem that people's acceptance depends on gay people conforming to these stereotypes. I, quite frankly, refuse to do that.

You say you are happy to keep out of our bedrooms as long as we don't shove it down your throats. I have no intention of having sex in public, but I don't think that's what you mean. Preparing children for the reality of the world should include telling them about gay couples, don't you think? Or do you think it should only be in terms of a warning?

In my experience, selfish gay couples do not have children. You say that by being raised by a same sex couple, a child is being denied the opportunity to grow up within the relationship they were created in. Do you suggest that children growing up in single parent families are similarly disadvantaged, or is it just about your prejudice?

At the end of the day, all that is being asked for here is equal recognition under the law for same sex couples as is extended to de facto couples. Let's not get too bogged down in prejudice...

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Betty Ablett
July 25th, 2007

M Fraser is still the same as thirty yrs etc etc he hasnt changed his photo

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 26th, 2007

"[...] whatever you like to do make sure it isn’t going to cost me more on taxation, because you demand rights that cost us taxpayers."

Given that the rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men is nine times that of women and heterosexual men, and that each year governments spend billions (U.S. govt $10bn in 2000 alone - $l,359 per month per HIV/AIDS patient), it is an undeniable fact that the moral choices of a section of the community have placed an astronomical burden on the health care systems of nations and their taxpayers. But AIDS is only one of many, many venereal diseases that are proliferated at far greater rates within the homosexual community, and the dollar cost is only a single aspect of the overall cost to society.

I will gladly pay tax in order to extend justice to those who don’t have access to it, but so-called "gay rights" doesn't constitute such a cause. Born with the same reproductive equipment as the rest of us, homosexuals are a people-group classified not by race, gender or genetic make-up, but by their behavioural choices. They have all the same rights as the rest of the community. They may have friends, marry (and WORK at a successful marriage as everyone who wants a successful marriage must), have sex and have children.

Legalisation of sodomy was a legislative faux pas, having nothing to do with "discrimination" because it is a perverted act commited in both homosexual and heterosexual behaviour. The forcing of of the male organ into another’s rectum is as perverted when performed between a man and woman as it is between two men. It is as physically dangerous, often resulting in tears to the fragile intestinal wall and subsequent infection and illness. In a monogamous act of sodomy the inevitable contact with faecal matter is just as unhygienic, male or female, but in the context of the extreme promiscuity - being the predominant progression of behaviour in the world of homosexuality - the results of oral/faecal contact and communication become devastating .

Legalisation was a mistake, because although it was probably never an enforcable law, legalising sodomy did two things: First it falsely sent the message that sodomy is healthy and legitimate, and second it opened the flood-gates to all kinds of legal manipulations by a very powerful lobby. Sodomy “came out” of the bedroom and into our children’s classrooms and a blue-print was provided for other activist lobbies. The kind of drive towards sexual deviance that results is akin to a driverless locomotive on a downhill grade. For example, even back in 1992, according to the Washington Times the University of Massachusettes had removed the “persons whose sexual orientations included minors” exclusion from its Non-Discrimination Policy. The pedophilia lobby has been working for decades (refer the pedophilia “normalisation” propaganda in the Kinsey studies of the 40’s and 50’s) and is gaining ground in their move to have pedophilia recognised as an orientation rather than a deviation. Society isn’t ready to accept it yet, but neither did it accept homosexuality as “legitimate” without unrelentant lobbying. The change is in the air people, so be prepared (if you care) to be called a “bigotted pedophobe” before too much longer.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 26th, 2007

"Do you suggest that children growing up in single parent families are similarly disadvantaged [...]"

"Disadvantaged" - Yes. That much is obvious. "Similarly"? No way. The child of a single parent is not, per se exposed to the influence - whether subtle or explicit - that forcing the male organ into the rectum is just another equally valid way of expressing the joys of love.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Fritz Endowich
July 26th, 2007

"It's painfully stereotyped and assumes that all gay people behave the same way."

I think your wrong. I've seen homos shown in movies and other shows that behave just like ordinary people. And Ive seen them looking feminate too.You said let's not get too bogged down in prejudice. Why do gays always think its about prejudice? Forget about prejudice and just look at the numbers. How many of you have to dye of AIDS before you stop squeeling prejudice and homeophobe?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Helen Murray
July 27th, 2007

I think your claim about the overwhelming majority of Australians being in favour of granting legal status to same sex couples is way up the creek. I don't know whom you consulted to get this result but it wasn't the majority of ethnic subcultures within Australia and it certainly wasn't the growing numbers of faith based people. I think the only people who actually want to see this happen are gays, and they are a minority group. I'm right against on a basis of children's rights. Adoptive children have a right to a parent of each sex because that is natural and appropriate, being the way they were conceived. On this basis I do not want to see gay relationships given any equality with normal marriage. I also do not like the current attempts by the gay lobby to promote the gay lifestyle in schools through so-called sex education programs. Leave children alone.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Andrea Ellis
July 31st, 2007

To Constitutionalist - your argument is so flawed it is beyond belief! do you really think we, as a country, should remain in a time warp because of things that were written many, many years ago? Lots of issues in the constitution have had to be changed due to the progressive nature of time; Aboriginals were stolen from their families, and had no voting rights as part of the constitution, this has now been found to be wrong and has been changed; why can't we chnage with the times in realtion to same sex couples. I find it incredibly sad to read such outlandishly prejudiced comments in this day and age. What happened to tolerance? And yes I do agree that we should educate our children about gays, ignorance is not bliss people it only breeds intolerance and contempt. Wake up to 2007 and allow ALL citizens to have the same rights irrelevant of sex, race, colour, religion or sexual preference.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
July 31st, 2007

The "constitionalist" may have posted a rather rambling discourse, but while I don't necessarily agree with them all he made a number of points. Too many, in fact to simply sweep it all away with a simple "your argument is so flawed it is beyond belief!". Which argument(s)? Come on...take the time and effort to debate specifics!

You say, "do you really think we, as a country, should remain in a time warp because of things that were written many, many years ago?"

It matters not when it was written. It matters whether it is right, or wrong. The laws against theft and murder are thousands of years old. Yet they are absolutes. They were, are and always will be...right, and recognising them doesn't constitute a "time-warp"!

You also said, "I find it incredibly sad to read such outlandishly prejudiced comments in this day and age. What happened to tolerance?". I can only give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your message was posted simultaneously with my previous message concerning the cost of homosexuality to the community in terms of disease and cost. I presume also that you didn't go further back in this thread and read the damning results of studies on the risks of homosexual behaviour (and I'm not referring to the Cameron studies here). No intelligent, non-homosexual person could possess such information and, ignoring it simply continue to spout "prejudiuce", "intolerance" and all the rest of the same old same old invectives that homosexuals direct at those who expose the truth.

"allow ALL citizens to have the same rights". As has previously been pointed out, although there are groups that are denied their human rights, people who commit homosexual acts, all else being equal have the same rights as those who don't.

"we should educate our children about gays". Thats a very simplistic way of describing what is happening in schools. What we are allowing is not simply giving them information but indoctrinating them with the value-judgment that anal intercourse (sodomy) is just as moral and valid to the human race as sexual intercourse. We teach them that those who expose the dangers of homosexual behaviour are "intolerant", whole those who vocally criticise and censure them are "tolerant". On one hand we teach them evolution and natural selection, and on the other we try to tell them that homosexual behaviour is natural and of equal value.

Incidentally, no-one has yet answered my challenge of a number of posts back as to how, if it is deemed to be a genetic trait (as it is by some less knowledgeable of the facts) homosexuality can possibly be squeesed into the framework of the "theory" of evolution and the reality of natural selection.



Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
August 1st, 2007

It's a difficult situation to understand unless you've been there. Following the sudden death of my partner after an 18 year relationship, I have been shown the reality of how mainstream Australia really think. It's fun to have gay friends who are generous but beyond being good at shopping, partying and helping out, we don't/can't have the same worries straight people have. I have watched our assets diminish considerably and friends turn away ( because I was percieved as disinheriting the REAL family). Also, being outed at work resulted in a whispering campaign which has forced me to leave after 13 years of employment. It is now 5 years since my partner's death and I still have difficulty taking people at face value. This sort of callous treatment would not be tolerated if it was directed at a heterosexual couple. From someone who was out there in the community doing a range of volunteer work, I no longer am interested in supporting this country because it no longer supports me. Scratch beneath the surface and many "gay-friendly" people are really homophobes being politically conscious.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
August 1st, 2007

You're not talking about a species of aliens, these are other humans just like you who are naturally attracted to the same sex, but grow up amongst hateful governments and religions, and there's nothing else to it. Like other humans they can love and be loved and if they find somebody they want to marry then they should be able to.
It's only the people who are uncomfortable with accepting that some boys like boys and some girls like girls that even bother looking to find supposedly inherent 'evil' qualities in homosexual people to suit their own discriminatory agendas. Pretending that there are any other reasons against gay marriage is incredibly transparent and people see you for what you are - bigots clutching at straws.
If you think two gay people can't raise a healthy kid - you're crazy! Don't kid yourself any longer because it's already happening all around you in the world and - surprise surprise - no apocalypse just yet.
Since when does anybody believe that the only people having children are perfectly nuclear families? The divorce rate is higher than ever, single parents are everywhere and some of them are gay. The world is far more complicated than these outdated ideas and those of you that have posted on here objecting to this proposal really, REALLY need to wake up.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
xltommyub
August 3rd, 2007

Very nice point of view! Respect!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Susey
August 3rd, 2007

I have known and worked with many people of many cultures, gay or not, male,female and enjoyed the differences and similiarities to a great degree.
I have never asked " Who do you sleep with" "So you live with "him" "her" does that mean you...... No! No! No!
To each his own. Your Privacy is just that, Privacy. MYOB.
However, having lived on my own for some years I find the expence is much much more and some things are beyond the budget singly but with 2 to share much more can be done, owned, achieved, enjoyed etc.
So to be recognised as a "couple" by the Govt. etc can be a big step forward.
But it is up to YOU, isn't it? I discovered among all the Gay people I knew there 3 kinds. The ones who found that Eternal Mate and "Married" Shared their lives completely, just as Herteros do, then there was the one or two who wanted have as many notches on their gun/belt as possible and notched up hundreds if not thousands, and then there was the one who went for children, a Pedophile no less. But as I always said aren't these types among the herteros TOO. All kinds Good and Bad exist in all groups, colour, sex orientation, religions whatever. So who are we really?
We are human, and if we are not perfect or as good as we might be then lets strive to help ourselves and be a better civilisation. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ( I do not hurt others in any way, so please do not hurt me.
Thanks, and Good Luck All,
Susey

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
August 4th, 2007

"okay. hetrosexuality and marriage in our society were all driven by 'religion'"

Wow. That'll be news to an awful lot of people who think evolution gave rise to heterosexuality! Think about it: Either evolution gave rise to reproduction through heterosexuality and "religion" is irrelevant, or reproduction through heterosexuality was designed, in which case we'd better start thinking about the designer and religion becomes relevant. The question becomes, "which one is right?"

No-one in here to my recollection has so far "used" "religion" to oppose homosexual behaviour. Several homosexuals and/or supporters have villified "religion", the Bible, "christians" and "God" however, so perhaps it is time these are put in context.

You have a vary serious chip on your shoulder against "religion", and it has handicapped your ability to think logically. Otherwise you would be running uncontrollably on auto-pilot blaming "religion" for everything from losing the right to choose who delivers our babies, through genetic heal-pricks, air transport of food etc etc to "allowing other tribes to die of starvation". On that last point let me point out that in the case of every natural or man-caused disaster, it is the Christian "religion" that is first in with food, blankets and whatever aid is needed, responding often while authorities are launching into blame mode. You wont hear about that in the secular press, but you'd be surprised at what you'd learn from a Christian newsletter, such as the one at www.crosswalk.com. I wonder if you are aware too, that Muslims generally refer to atheists, hindus and any other non-muslims as "christians"? Now they don't point that out in the secular news when they gleefully report "muslims and christians fighting each other". So friend, you need to develop the ability to think discerningly. Don't just believe an imposter who claims to be a "christian".
If you want to know what Christianity is about, look at Christ.

You continue on with thoughts about "pornography", "commercial TV" and "degradation of women" and their bodies", and othe sexual deviations. ALL of these things are areas that Christianity speaks into, exposing their evils but with the message that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. Remember, it was Jesus who said to the adulteress, when the religious leaders of the day wanted to stone her, "Neither do I condemn you, [but] go and sin no more".

Your inclusion of pornography is somewhat of an irony. The homosexual community in general (and I'm not saying all homosexuals) is a huge consumer of pornography and has even spawned its own "gay" pornography" industry.

You comment on education is interesting too. Today, it is very much the New Age elements that are "dumbing down" education, not the Christian roots that were so instrumental in the establishment of education programs in literacy, numeracy and culture.

In the spirit of Christian belief, there is no such thing as hatred of homosexuals as has so often been claimed or implied. The message is that God hates ALL sin (including, but not limited to homosexual behaviour), but loves ALL sinners (including, but not limited to homosexuals) to the point where Jesus died, and rose again so that they may be freed from the condemnation of their sin.

Consequently, the argument of Christians being "homophobes" is a straw man argument. Christians do not "hate" homosexuals. Many, many homosexuals who have come into a relationship with Jesus Christ have found the power to be released from their hmosexual addictions and gone on to live victorious lives, having happy, fulfilled marriages and raising families. You see... it is not a genetic imperative - an unavidable compulsion - to perform homosexual acts. It is an addiction that can begin when childhood feelings for others of the same sex - quite normal during stages of development - are dealt with inappropriately by adults. It is at that time that a child must be reassured about his sexuality and that as he grows to maturity, his sexuality will mature. It is NOT a time for homosexuals to interfere, through the education system to reinforce those feelings into a fait accompli "legitimately alternative" sexuality. THATS why it is SO important to remove the homosexual propaganda that has infiltrated the education curriculum.

In this post, I have discussed mostly the spiritual aspect that has been ignored within this blogg so far. The spiritual aspect is a very personal one, and yes, if that was all that existed, there would be virtually no public issue about what people do in their bedrooms. However, Christians, as well as everyone else have a duty to preserve health in the community at large, and I have covered, in other posts the disastrous consequences of the homosexual lifestyle to the community in general: the explosion of disease - not just AIDs, but dozens of STDs; the burden on the health system and the social consequences in family breakdown, stability of relationships and childhoods, and it goes on. Its all out there folks - you only have to do a little research and you'll find the facts and figures. "What people do in their bedrooms" then DOES affect everyone, and is therefore the business of the community at large.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
August 4th, 2007

"- surprise surprise - no apocalypse just yet."

Where have you been the last few decades? Read the post immediately after yours from a contributor on your own side of the debate.

"Pretending that there are any other reasons against gay marriage is incredibly transparent and people see you for what you are - bigots clutching at straws."

Whether they are "pretence" or fact to you and what you choose to make "transparent" depends upon which side of the debate you are on and how willing you are to have an open mind to the facts. If you want to know the facts, go research them for yourself, but do so discerning the vested interests.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Lyn
August 6th, 2007

Just read some the comments. Seems some people are rather caught up with what gay guys do with their bums. Or what is perceived that gay guys do.

Wake up. Hetersexual males love woman's backsides too and have sex the same way. So if it amounts to how someone has sex, there is no agruement. You should be putting cameras in everyone's bedroom to check they are having sex the right way and if they are not, let's take away their children or just not allow them to have any children or give them any equal rights.

Shame on people having sex incorrectly. Better check that the heteros aren't using toys for pleasure either. Of which I know many married hetero couples who quite openly talk of such things and boast about it and THEY have kids too. Quick ban them from bringing up children and having equal rights.

Oh thats right, at least one parent is a man and one is a woman, so its all ok.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Bronzed Aussie
August 7th, 2007

Can you believe this guy said, " Yeah maybe they swapped their women, maybe they brutally killed members from other tribes who tried to take their women. But lets think about what we've lost by adopting too many of societies'religiously based ideals"?
It seems he thinks that brutal killing is just a downside of some kind of freedom from religion, and then laments the loss of tribal gatherings blaming religion (which is also responsible for nuclear waste, of course).
You know what? I have always assumed that gays were in general just like the rest of us. But reading this blogg is fast convincing me that homosexuality fries the brain!!!
Here's what I've seen:
Heaps of posts. Heaps. Many against gay behaviour with strong non-personal arguments. We have seen facts and figures that suggest we shouldn't touch homosexuality with a barge-pole. I don't think I have seen any posts villifying homosexuals as people. No mud-slinging, mo reference to "poofters", "fags" or whatever. On the other side? Well all I see there is a laborious repetition of "bigot", "homophobe", "prejudice" along with meaningless comments about dark ages. For good measure, there's the general ignorant assumption that anyone who is against homosexuality must be a religious nutcase. A slightly more intelligent argument from the ladies concerns their love for the children in their care and their abilities at parenthood which I don't recall being in question and which doesn't address whether the influence of a homosexual relationship on those children is good or bad. But the whole reaction has been that of responding to a non-existent slur of the characters of individual homosexuals! You people just insist on creating your own demons to fight, rather than actually reading and responding to the issues in the posts!
Not one individual post advocating homosexuality or so-called gay equality has given the rest of us anything other than tired platitudes. I can only assume there are no answers to the very real issues raised. No good arguments as to why homosexuality should even be allowed except for weak wishy-washy talk about "who you love". For heaven's bloody sake pedophiles can say the same things!!!

Come on gays. Give the rest of us us something we can really chew on and defend you with rather than villification and the same tired emotional platitudes. Until you do, we don't need the 'homophobes' to convince us. You're doing a good job of it yourselves!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
August 7th, 2007

"Hetersexual males love woman's backsides too and have sex the same way."

You obviously read my post in which I already pointed out that sodomy is equally as perverted when performed on a female as when performed on another male.

No-one is defending deviant heterosexual behaviour here. Its not the subject of the debate. However if I discoverted that my daughters were about to be taught during their sex education at school that anal penetration is just as valid and healthy as sexual intercourse, I would pull them out of that class as quickly as you could blink. Wouldn't most fathers want to protect their daughters from the hazards of injury and infection that can easily arise from anal penetration?

Oh, and in terms of "being caught up with what gay guys do with their bumns", it's about time somoeone calls a spade a spade instead of restricting discussion to all the quaint euphamisms that make it all sound so normal.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
August 12th, 2007

All I want is my relationship with my partner to be recognised under the law in the same way as other relationships are viewed. Whether it is perceived to be right or wrong, homo or hetro is irrelevant. Discrimination is not accepted in other areas of society so there is no reason why there should be this exception when this is the only reason I am considered to be 'different' in Australia.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
August 15th, 2007

Rather an interesting point at which to remove the link to this blogg.

Did it get a bit too close to the truth?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
August 16th, 2007

"right or wrong, homo or hetro is irrelevant"

So simply sweep aside all the broader implications of such a policy? The colossal economic, health and social costs to society of the acceptance and propagation of homosexual behaviour? They are all "irrelevant" issues are they?

You doggedly want to limit argument to the fact that you want your pseudo-sexual relationship to be judged to be as valid and healthy to society as normal relationships.

Well how is it possible to make such a judgment without being prepared to look at those health and social implications, let alone the huge financial burden that homosexuality places upon all taxpayers, homo and hetero?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Stacey Harper
August 19th, 2007

I have to say I find so much of this discussion really sad. It scares me to think of how narrow minded many people in this country are. There seems to be a fairly high correlation between increasing age and increasing narrow mindedness.

Personally I am young female heterosexual, and I don't understand why there is so much fuss about homosexuals having equal rights to marriage.

In case you hadn't read the statistics more than 50% of marriages end in divorce these days. How sacred...

Why is is so morally offensive to allow people that have different bedroom tastes a LEGAL union. It doesn't even have to be called marriage, just give them the same rights as any other citizen who is in a commited relationship to another citizen.

It seems that many of people, aside from some exceptions, who are really offended by this topic tend to be people that have ideas and ways of thinking from long ago ingrained in them so strongly that any other idea is unacceptable. Any other viewpoint that is not their own is just not okay, and when they are forced to argue the point it often just comes back to, 'because it's just wrong'.

The world is NOT a black and white place. There are so many levels of grey. It makes one look really stupid to just bluntly say that heterosexual couples make better parents. There are plenty of abused children in this world and the sexual habits of their parents makes little difference to their wellbeing.

For me personally I don't see any reason why gay people don't deserve rights. I do hear the debate, and I have listened to both sides. But I really have not heard an argument that, for me, makes it acceptable to persecute someone just because they think and feel or are different. Quite frankly I find it disgusting to try to make someones life harded just because they don't subscribe to your own views.

And the further away we can get from ignorance, narrow mindedness and inequality, the better this world will be.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Everthe Optimist
August 25th, 2007

Back to my point of Jul 24th ...

The problem only arises because we give different rights to people who happen to be part of a couple compared with the rights that the two people were previously granted as individuals. Why do we do this ? Why does forming a pair-relationship magically mean that the law should treat people differently.

Several people have commented that we should allow all citizens to have the same rights irrespective of sex, race, colour, religion or sexual preference. Why not just add "single" or "coupled" status to that list, then sexual preference would vanish as an issue.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
amr
August 28th, 2007

Kevin Andrews is well known for his 19th century attitude towards same sex couples. Sign the petition: www.andrewsmustresign.com

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
mike
September 7th, 2007


well i'm gay and i hope rudd's better on gay issues than howard.

i don't know why conservatives think their religion gives them the right to boss other people around. they should live and let live. from this board, the things that they seem to resent most are gay stuff in schools and gay marriage. seems they've gotten over decriminalisation and antidiscrimination ('cept for a few trolls). well three cheers there! well done conservatives! wasn't so hard was it.

on school, well, if i had been told about being gay at school it would have made a huge difference to me. absolutely huge. my parents would have been dead against it, but from my point of view, um, so what. and i never believed all the christian stuff, so being sent to a christian school didn't work either. believe me, its just a basic fundamental human right for gay kids to be told the facts of life as they are going to experience them. and its worth pointing out that conservative heterosexual parents are probably the last people who can or will help.

on the marriage issue, i didn't used to care, it just seemed like another bunch of self-obsessed mumbo-jumbo, like all their other stuff.

de facto would do just fine, its the being locked out of hospital when your lover's dying - think about that one for a moment - or being impoverished in old age because you don't legally count as a spouse. that's what i thought the important issues are. and i've seen lots of that sort of thing. families refusing a lover access to the body, or the service, two funerals being held (one without the body), being locked out of your own home, account, car, you know really nasty vicious petty hatefilled stuff. rightwing christian stuff. they may not burn you alive anymore instead they save it all up for those special special moments. i was pretty shocked the first few times, its amazing how low they will go, but there's a few things you can do to head the bastards off at the pass. if you have cash for lawyers that is.

so its the actual rights, not the metaphysical tinsel that's important.

and i did distrust the marriage argument, because rightwing gays like andrew sullivan argue that it will integrate gays into normal society more, that we'll just become like everyone else, just with a same sex couple on the wedding cake. well i'm not sure about that. not being like everyone else sure has its attractions. bigtime.

but so many other gays want it, and its a big cause, so hey, why not. and conservatives get really worked up about it so there must be something in it. might even kill a few off from apoplexy. could even tie the knot myself, specially if its in plain view of philip ruddock.

mike

PS and good for getup, i think its great you're a front for the labor party and the unions and hopefully every other light on the hill that might lead us out of this dark fearmongering conservative tryanny

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
September 14th, 2007

"In case you hadn't read the statistics more than 50% of marriages end in divorce these days. How sacred..."

My dear, in case you haven't noticed, the institution of marriage itself has come under tremendous assault in the last few decades. Increasingly, people want sex without responsibility, and unfortunately your gender sells itself short by playing right into the hands of men who don't want to gie you a life commitment, but are happy to use your body until the novelty wears off. Of course marriages frequently end in divorce these days! What else would you expect? It is unreasonable and illogical to destroy the fabric of an institution and then use that destruction to prove that the institution doesn't work.

"...and when they are forced to argue the point it often just comes back to, 'because it's just wrong'." You just haven't been reading the posts have you? If you have you've only read the pro-homosexual posts, because it is those posts that just ignore the health, social and economic arguments raised while insisting that their opponents only have religious arguments. You do sound like a nice young lady who probably has an innocent mind and very little concept of the actual practices that occur within male homosexual behaviour. Suffice it for me to say to you that it involves more...much, much more than simply "different bedroom tastes", and the health consequences are horrendous.


Read the posts. Oh, and use a dose of commmon sense a

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Notborn Yesterday
September 14th, 2007

"There seems to be a fairly high correlation between increasing age and increasing narrow mindedness."

Sorry but I missed that one in the first reading! It isn't that people get narror minded as they get older, and to be fair I'm assuming you said it tongue in cheek. The fact is that times are changing and so are the attitudes of people. Fidelity has largely gone out the window. Genuine chivalry is seen, even by many women as "cute" at best, "patronising" at worst. Where once, young people as a whole understood and acdepted their duty to make ther way in life responsibly, now many of them feel the world owes them a living and walk around with a chip on their shoulder if they aren;t provided with a skateboard park and a computer-games arcades to spend their dole on. Corporal punishment has been outlawed by the enlightened ones, and of course the ensuing lack of discipline in children's lives has given way to lawlessness of every kind. The illogical abandonment of moral absolutes has reaked havoc, robbing our precious children of their innocent childhood, our young girls of their virginity and creating a pandemic of teen pregnancy. This is solved of course, through the inevitable selfishness bred by the abandonment of absolutes as millions of unborn children are chemically burnt and physically ripped apart in agony in the womb - now statistically the most dangerous place in the world!.

Yep. We sure get narrow-minded as we get older!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Andrew Varano della Vergiliana
September 22nd, 2007

Notborn Yesterday, I don't think a discussion about political rights should ever be reduced to a matter of economic cost, nor should a discussion on poltics in a liberal country ever involve religion.

You are entitled to your own opinion and, as much as it disheartens me, you do not have to approve of homosexuals. But, as they are consenting adults who work, vote and participate in a free country, you have no right to deny them equal status in law. Deciding whether homosexuals are the way they are because of genetics or enculturation makes little difference to the debate.

You can not use your own exaggerated ("colossal") projected health and economic implications to prevent the awarding of equal rights. Hell knows, I don't want to live in a country that would reduce the political and legal rights of smokers, heavy drinkers, fast-food junkies, the obese, etc because of their economic expense.

Besides, this isn't a discussion about whether homosexuality should be legal, as it already is. It is a discussion about extending de facto rights to gay couples. If the legeslation were passed tomorrow nobody would even blink. It's not a revolution that we're talking about.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
September 27th, 2007

I love marriage, and I believe that my gay friends are entitled to the same rights that I have.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Mike
September 28th, 2007


notborn you can't possibly know what you're talking about. you have no idea what gay life is like, and your fanciful 'health facts' are contrived to suit your strange, preconceived ideas

seems to be a bit of a theme on this board. straight male conservatives seem to obsess on gay sex in an amazingly lurid and bizarre way (lets leave the obvious comment standing there for a sec).

how about a few alternatives, with actual 'facts' in them. gay men in australia - with the support of the hawke-keating governments - managed HIV in one of the most successful health campaigns on the planet. HIV is not epidemic or endemic in australia at all because of GAY PEOPLE and our concern for each other and the rest of the community.

contrast with america, where their nightmarish rightwing tendency and its rank psuedo-christian morality threw their gay population, their IV drug using population, their sex workers, their non-insured poor people, their everyone, to the dogs. HIV is endemic and an epidemic in america and costs that country a fortune (well, for the ones with insurance, the others die cheaply in gutters). thats conservatives for you.

the upcoming defeat of the howard government (wo ist wenck!) and the complete liquidation of rightwing rule in australia is no loss to anyone. it will prove decisively that workchoices is UNAUSTRALIAN, and australians won't stand for it even with john howard sitting on his trillion dollar surplus. savour that one for a minute. no liberal governments anywhere in the country, the reintroduction of a regulated and humane labor market, never to be challenged again, and 'the australian' tearing itself apart over the irrelevance of the liberal party.

i'm sure we'll all chip in to help, wedgewise.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
nula
October 3rd, 2007

Here here, Andrew!


This debate isn't about health and economic costs, it's about human rights just as Andrew said.

In my view, when we bring physical and mental health into the picture, the economic and health costs of a government maintaining inequality in the law are far greater than one embracing equality.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Glenn Law
October 23rd, 2007

As regards polygamy, this is a completely unrelated issue.

Back on topic, the question as to the bestowal of equal rights upon same gender couples must surely spring from an assessment of their fundamental human right to take any partner of their free choice in the first place.

Fortunately, as a free, enlightened and secular society, we have overwhelmingly endorsed their rights in this regard, whilst a dissenting minority continue to attempt to demonize such citizens, largely along faith-based religious lines.

The true nub of the issue therefore surely must be to question the unproportional influence exerted on Federal legislators by lobbyists amd financial donors acting on behalf of these zealous minorities, such as the Exclusive Bretheren, and their success in the face of such widespread contrary public opinion.

This of course goes beyond the rights of homosexual couples to the very foundation of Democracy in this counrty.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Anders Friederich
October 25th, 2007

I have submitted to promise watch my correspondence from the ALP.
I have also signed the petition to the PM.
I am deeply concerned by this comment from Labor:
"Labor supports the removal of discrimination against gay and lesbian
Australians in federal legislation, and we have pledged to address this issue - as well as committing to a new scheme of state-based
relationship registers - if we win government."
The 'registration' of homosexual relationships is somewhat reminiscent of the Third Reich's actions, not to mention what is happening to today is some slightly less socially progressive countries.
Yes, I know it's probably semantics, BUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE POLITICALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL 'CIVIL UNION'? Or Civil Partnership. All modern countries that have reocnised unions, but not full Same Sex marriage use such terms. They DO NOT use REGISTER - and they avoid that term for its negative connotations. (Ranging from the extreme in Nazi Germany, through to to car, dog and poof registration).
Most of my friends would not enter into an arrangement that placed them on a REGISTER, many asking if a pink triangle patch and tattooed number would be optional or enforceable.
What makes this even worse is that Labor is the party of semantics, that has always erred on the side of caution. It makes me wonder if this negative connotation is not intentional?!
ANF

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
BTW notborn
October 25th, 2007

Don't bother to try and rile me notborn. I see you are trying to feed your own need for hatred by passing god-like judgement here. I hope others, like myself will ignore you. Feeding pests only encourages them.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Wondering Debater
October 29th, 2007

Hmmm... Someone was very quick to dismiss my comment below about the rights to polygamy.

Any reasonable person would realise that homosexuality and polygamy are two completely different acts or lifestyles from one another. That is not the point.

The point I was trying to make was for the RIGHTS for people to willingly live in such manners. Where there are people fighting for the RIGHTS for homosexuals to gain rights equal to other heterosexual citizens, why would it be different for people to fight for the RIGHTS of people wishing to lead polygamistic lifestyles?

They are both arguably historicaly unorthodox concepts in regards to people living together in an intimate or sexual relationship. But why would one concept be considered "right" and another "wrong"?

Surely, these civil libertarians would be wanting to fight for both groups of people's rights? There are groups of willing individuals falling under both concepts.

But would Homosexual Advocates go against their own civil libertarian views, and condemn the very notion of polygamy relationships?

I ask of you, is it "wrong" for two willing women to live intimately with one willing man? Why?

And then, why is it "right" for two men to live together intimately?

It is a question as to what extent do we want civil liberties to push for individual liberties, or to what extent should liberties be constrained.

Thus, should civil libertarians be consistent in their work, or should they be contradictory? At what level of progressivness or conservativness should Civil Libertarians operate at?

Lets Discuss.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Wondering Debater
October 29th, 2007

To go out on a limb, I would say that most people out there would condemn Polygamy and think that it is wrong.

Then why shouldn't homosexuality not be wrong also?

Logically??????????

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Katness
November 3rd, 2007

As a basic and passionate human rights supporter and a lesbian. This drive and the outcome mean a lot to me. And gives me hope that we are moving in the right direction

One person was saying that our unions are not a marriage because our committment is not one that is between a man and woman. Therefore it is not the same. So we should call them a union and not marriage.

I just wanted to say. In my eyes they are the same. As a marriage to me is a committment between two adult human beings based on love. So weather it is heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant.

I condemn polygamy and not homosexuality because there is a huge difference between the two.

Now unless the two people in the gay relationship have an "open" relationship, which again is different to polygamy then a lot of gay/lesbian people are actually monogamous, like me for instance.

Usually a gay/lesbian relatinship consists of two people committed to each other. Not one gay guy and 20 husbands or one lesbian and 20 wives. Or even 2 husbands or 2 wives to one person.

But then there are people who would find polygamy normal. Which just goes to prove that "normality" is subjective because it is different for different people.

And to other people who are saying we want "special rights". Consider this:

How would you feel if your girlfriend or boyfriend were in hospital and incapacitated and you went to see them but couldn't and you couldn't make a medical decisions on their behalf either because the hospital told you:

"No, you can't, you are not family"

Then they closed the door on you?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Privileged minority
November 10th, 2007

Although this blog is not about gay marriage as such, I would like to share my son's innovative solution to this "problem".

Why not get rid of the word marriage?

It seems to me we are locked into outmoded notions of family and marriage. Good relationships are characterised by commitment to significant others, whether between men and women, women and women, men and men, blood relatives, or friends. This does not, of course, preclude random acts of kindness to strangers!

Some relationships are toxic, including those between blood relatives, and some are wonderful. In my view, children are best raised by one or more committed parents - biological, step, adopted (including grandparents), heterosexual or homosexual.

My husband and I are each in our first marriage and live with our biological child. This puts us in a (highly privileged) minority of, from memory, about 14% of Australian families.

Yet we still cling to the notion that the nuclear, heterosexual, family unit is the ideal one. Why?

Re-writing the 'norm' to better reflect reality might just dissolve the problems some (but not all) children experience following divorce or separation.

If couples are to be granted legal privileges, then extending those privileges to homosexual couples as well as hetrosexual couples is simply a matter of human rights.

A no-brainer.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Socrates please
November 14th, 2007

This issue is easily solved; as it should have been a long time ago, using ethical and philosophical methods, rather than political, moral, religious or whatever million other ways there are to create drama and lie to ourselves.

Let’s be smarter than that.

Some questions to ponder;

Was life better ‘in the old days’, and what do we mean by ‘better’?

We remember the depression, surely. We remember Vietnam and the World Wars, we remember Aboriginals and women not being allowed to vote, we remember children being flogged with belts, molested by parents, priests and uncles, we remember syphilis, or having to leave school at eight years old to slave for alcoholic parents, we remember low wages or no wages, police corruption, and eating chocos because that’s all there was.

You can find all this information from spending a day or two in your local library reading the autobiographies of the people who experienced all of the above and much more… from a time when heterosexual marriages abounded the world over – was it better?

I doubt we can say ‘yes’ with certainty. Sentimentality tends to gloss over past hardships – it’s a very human trait, and forgivable as long it causes no harm to others. Doing something one way because that’s how it’s ‘always been done’, is just not smart.

So, should any human being be stopped from spending time with and saying goodbye to a loved one who is dying in a hospital bed? The answer must surely be ‘no’. And, if it is a ‘no’ then it’s a yes for the kinds of ‘unions’ that encourage such love – in whatever form they take.

Difference can be very frightening and change is a scary prospect. But we mustn’t stop thinking or behaving ethically no matter how afraid we are.

We need to be better at being human because we are so very bad at it – we let our opinions (which are subjective therefore not ‘true’ for anyone but ourselves) get in the way of a genuine life.

Don’t be afraid to change. Please.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
Sam Medley
November 14th, 2007

Love is blind, it knows no gender or race.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Paula Again
November 16th, 2007

Hey NOTBORN YESTERDAY!
Did god create man or man create god?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.
jack woolley
January 23rd, 2008

with all the issues of violence in the world, what is wrong with some more love, so what if its the love of two men, two women or a man and a woman. love is love, as many people have said, love is blind and come in all forms and shapes. if two people wish to express their love for each other in a union then why should they be stopped. we only have one life as far as we know and when i read/hear how some people try all they can to stop the love of two people and try and cause pain and upset i just feel sorry for them. we need to all move past these stupid divides and let people live the life THEY want to lead not how they are told to lead it, i mean seriously, get real!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note: because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

GetUp is Action for Australia

GetUp.org.au is an independent political movement to build a progressive Australia. GetUp! brings together like-minded people who want to bring participation back into our democracy.

Make a donation today!


© 2006-2008 GetUp! All rights reserved.
Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 5A, 116 Kippax St, Sydney NSW 2010