But marriage is not denied to anyone that's of legal age and single, Bruce - you should know that if you lecture in law. Gay people can marry like anyone else, but it needs to be someone of the opposite sex. Because that's what marriage means, actually. It says so right there in the Marriage Act 1961: "marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". Note the word 'means'? It has never meant anything else, ever, Bruce. Just think about that for a minute....

Hi Dania,

The law changes. Definitions change. Marriage once excluded indigenous Australians. Now it doesn't.

Please read "A history of marriage in Australia" by Rodney Croome. (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2778326.html)

In a range of countries overseas marriage between same-sex couples and those who are neither male nor female (ie intersex) is legal. Those countries have redefined marriage. There is no data available showing this has had a detrimental affect in society.

Your bias is disappointing Dania. Remember, women were not always equal in the law in Australian society, but that has changed. You take too much for granted.

Michael.

Hi Dania,

Why do you care who other people marry? Do you feel it will impact you somehow?

Exactly, society has determined the same meaning for thousands of years. But it isn't because of tide of opinion, or anything else like that. It is because men have a particular sexual organ whilst women have another, when these are brought together in a particular physiological act, copulation takes place - which is the only known way to procreate humans. So regardless what the society wants, this will always remain a unique kind of relationship - it is a fact, not something akin to a leaf in the wind. You can take the word 'marriage' away from its present meaning, but another will have to be invented because as humans we can't communicate unless we label things that are different with different terms. Before 2004 the meaning of marriage was a given, but certain political activism meant that it needed to be clarified. So then what is your point?

Btw, in my naive sort of way, I thought laws are not made and changed by political entities, but rather by legislatures and judiciary?

Hi Dania,

Sometimes some men and some women are infertile and can't reproduce without artificial assistance. Sometime some women are post-menopause. Sometimes some men and women choose not to have children.

None of these couples are denied the right to marriage because they can't or don't want to have children.

And unmarried couples have children too. Single women have children too, when the father abandons the mother.

Same-sex couples raise biological or non-biological children successfully, with no proven harmful outcomes and often with higher than average successful outcomes. Data is available on the latter. Google it.

Your argument that "man with penis + woman with vagina is ok for marriage" and "two men with penises or two women with vaginas are not ok for marriage" are really very silly propositions.

Ultimately marriage is a contract that is about settlement of property. It is not about children. In fact there is not a single statement, implied or otherwise, about procreation in the Marriage Act.

Michael.

Hi Michael
You're asking me to read a diatribe by a well-known gay activist who compares gays with Aboriginals? And are you comparing women's oppression with that of gays? This is a method employed by gay activists - and most women and Indigenous people find it quite insulting. This is because gays are not 'disadvantaged' like Indigenous people or women. As a group, they enjoy better economic and social status than others in society. They have been discriminated against, and still are - by right wing religious nutters, and by rednecks, which is despicable and we should never tolerate. But it is getting better, and there is vastly more tolerance and acceptance for gays than ever before. However, gay activists are not content with equality, and this is where the problem actually is.
I really do think wider reading might help here, so let me return the favour, and link you to a somewhat different perspective on all of this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/its-all-about-the-children-not-selfish-adults/story-e6frg6zo-1226099613917

Michael

These are arguments which have been recycled for quite some time now, and properly discredited. I think you should keep googling, but try to widen the repertoire of search terms you're employing. Here's something to watch , it's only short, but it will explain how the arguments you raised in the first part of your topic are nonsensical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYBl2uzXEw&feature=related

There is no reliable research which demonstrates that ss couples raise children "with higher than average successful outcomes", if you can show me such research I will be very happy to take it on board. In fact there is some biased and discredited stuff being peddled, and that's what you have probably been reading.

And so, how is woman+man the same as man+man or woman+woman? Because that's what the argument is really about. It isn't about equality, but about doing away with differences. That is, as a heterosexual person in a permanent heterosexual relationship I would not be allowed to distinguish myself from persons in same-sex relationships - there will be no name for my relationship to indicate that my partner identify as different because of our heterosexuality (not superior, or having access to more social and economic resources, or having different citizenship rights, or whatever - but simply different).

Let's start here:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/two-mums-better-than-dad-20100614-y7h6.html

and then here to this email:

================
From: Simon Margan
Date: 15 June 2010 03:17
Subject: Re: Two mums better than dad, SMH, 14 Jun 10
To:

The research report on which this newspaper article is based is as
follows: -

Nanette Gartrell & Henry Bros, "US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family
Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents" [2010] 126
Pediatrics 1-9.
<http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2009-3153v1?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Bos&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT>;.

Actually, in my opinion, the following is a more comprehensive article on
this report: -

Dr. Brian Mustanski, "25 year-long study finds children with lesbian parents
may be better adjusted", Psychology Today [New York, United States], 08 June
2010
<http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201006/25-year-long-study-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better-adj>;.

Here are other articles on this issue: -

a) Jessica Geen, “Children Of Lesbian Couples 'Have Fewer Behaviour
Problems”, Pink News (United Kingdom), 08 June 2010
<http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/06/08/children-of-lesbian-couples-have-fewer-behaviour-problems/>;.

b) Jim Giles, “Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers”, New
Scientist [United States], 08 June 2010
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html>;.

Previous studies have come to similar conclusions stating that either
lesbians make just as good, if not better, parents: -

1) Amy Willis, "Lesbians make 'better parents', says senior parenting
official", Telegraph (United Kingdom), 15 November 2009
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/6574238/Lesbians-make-better-parents-says-senior-parenting-official.html>;.

2) Maggie McKee, "Lesbian, Couples, Raise, Well-Adjusted Teenagers", New
Scientist [United States], 15 November 2004
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6670-lesbian-couples-raise-welladjusted-teenagers.html>;.

3) S. Golombok, B. Perry, A. Burston, C. Murray, J. Mooney-Somers & M.
Stevens, et al. “Children with lesbian parents: a community study” [2003]
39(1) Developments in Psychology 20-33.
4) Ellen C. Perrin, “Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family
H. Technical report: co-parent or second-parent adoption by same-sex
parents” [2002] 109 (2) Pediatrics 341-344
<http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/2/341>;.

5) F. Tasker & S. Golombok “Adults raised as children in lesbian families”
[1995] 65(2) American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 203-215.
6) S. Golombok & F. Tasker & C. Murray “Children raised in fatherless
families from infancy: family relationships and the socioemotional
development of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers” [1997]
38(7) Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 783-791.
7) H.M. Bos, F. van Balen & D.C. van den Boom “Child adjustment and
parenting in planned lesbian-parent families” [2007] 77(1) American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry 38-48.

If anyone has come across any other studies I would love to hear about them.
================

Michael - I must confess I said a fib before, I am not that naive about law after all. A state is described under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1933, art 1 as a defined territory, permanent population, effective government, and the ability to enter into international relations. You're departing quite a bit from your original argument. Unless you want to talk in terms of political philosophy, which is another thing altogether. Law is made by the legislature and judiciary, and arbitrated through a system of superior courts culminating in the High Court of Australia, and the Constitution - which we all know is extremely hard to change.
Yes, we will be in trouble if marriage describes anything else but the institution which has evolved around procreation (which can only happen through copulation). What would you have in its place? Designer procreative clinics, which produce babies anonymously to fill orders placed by prospective 'parents'? It is quite possible, but is it desirable?
Regarding your last argument. Say that you can't see the couple, so you can't 'point' at them. How do you know they are hetero or gay? If you say that it doesn't matter - then why?
If you are gay, then obviously I am wasting my time, because you wouldn't have my perspective. This is perfectly okay with me. But why shouldn't I have my own perspective as well, and thus live in tolerance of each other?

Lol, okay Michael, you can do searches. Well done.

I am not going to review all of the articles you cited, I have come across some of them previously. But I will do one for you, then you can perhaps replicate the review method on the others. But to start with, I have two questions/comments to make:
- Firstly, have you just done a search with 'make better parents' in the search query? :)
- Secondly, why do you think most of these are studies on lesbian 'parents'?

Now for my analysis of the first article. Here is what I see in the methodology and the findings:
1. Participants were all volunteers, their children conceived through donor insemination
2. The sample was non-representative ("were recruited via announcements that were distributed at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers"), the authors label it "a prospective study" and they acknowledge it is based on a "nonrandom sample"
3. No control group was employed (that is, the study was not strictly scientific)
4. Data was collected from mothers through some phone interviews and self-reporting methods. Children completed some questionnaires online. As far as I can see, no attempt was made to control for bias.
5. Adolescents completed the Achenbach instrument for well-being, which the authors claim is known for its "reliability, internal consistency, and factor structure"
6. But no teacher reports were included (this is highlighted by the researchers themselves)
7. And again: "The NLLFS sample is drawn from first-wave planned lesbian
families who were initially clustered around metropolitan areas with visible
lesbian communities, which were much less diverse than they are today" (In other words, the participants were not representative, but probably an 'elite' group of lesbians who could afford the large expenses associated with 'planned parenthood', and thus probably on average better educated, with better jobs, and so on).
8. Lastly, here's the authors' own acknowledgment here:"The NLLFS was supported in part by grants from the Gill Foundation, the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay Lesbian Medical Association, Horizons Foundation, and the Roy Scrivner Fund of the American Psychological Association" (i.e., lots of gay money!)

Michael, that's exactly my point - these studies are a dime a dozen, heaps of them around all 'designed' to support a particular point of view. Why don't you read something like this instead? http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065

Dania, you have just entered troll boss-mode.

This is the text-book definition of homophobia. Even now, how do you think you make the gay people in this discussion feel by saying these things? Attitudes like yours in the comment above bring shame onto our country. You cannot generalise all people who are gay, just like you cannot generalise all people who are women, or 25-34, or asian. Being any of these things is not a choice.

Imagine if you felt a biological sexual repulsion to males and attraction to females. Would you still marry a man to keep the order of society. Even if the acts of coitus would be as revolting to you as such acts would be with a woman to you now. Even if you could feel no romantic love.

One's sexuality is not a choice. Remember that and you might have a better chance at practising tolerance.

I was almost tempted to flag your comment as inappropriate, but I think it is important to keep it around so that it adds context to the rest of your activity in this thread.

Chris
I am a troll and a homophobic because I have an opinion that differs from yours and that of the other bigots in here? What textbook on homophobia do you refer to, pray tell? And what has choice of sexuality have to do with this discussion? Why are you putting words in my mouth and misrepresent me? What do you hope to achieve through this tactic, besides exposing your own bigotry and intolerance?
Michael is an activist heterophobic troll - the kind that infest most online discussions that dare to resist the now widespread mantra of mis-information about those who point to the truth about the agenda of the gay activists. If I knew who he is to start with, I would not have entered into a reasoned discussion with him, because people like these are impossible to reason with (unless you completely agree with them, of course). Just have a look at ony online fora where they are permitted to swear and threaten participants - just look at the Q&A sessions where they stacked the audience. Notice also how in this 'conversation' (as in others I participated in) the gays outnumber others - they're supposed to be only 2-4% of the population, yet, by some 'miracle' they sometimes outnumber others in fora like these.
But I am not here to convince gay activists and appease other bigots who hold a particular sheltered view of the world. I am here so that at least I provide other readers with an alternative view, so there is some balance in the information they get from this kind of biased publication. I am not here for the blue flags, I am here to provide hope to others who feel pressured by the untruths and exaggerations they encounter everywhere. I wear the red flags with pride, and accusations of trolling as confirmation that I am getting to the bullies who mob anyone that provides information and views which challenge the gay agenda.
If you think I am homophobic, then you're a repulsive individual because you judge me without knowing me. I don't care if you report me, go ahead - it's a free internet.

Michael, it is likely that I will banned on this thread, or the thread will be closed soon, because I have dared to contradict you and others. But I wanted to respond before that happens. You need to understand that for some people, when you claim to be an expert in something in order to support a particular view, then that expertise will be challenged (as you would no doubt know from your '101 whatever intro to legal studies'). And you need to think before you say something. Yes, laws are made and unmade, but not everything is a 'right' just because some want to make a law to mandate it as a right. There is a natural order which surpasses the body political and so the judiciary. Slavery, for instance, was never a right for some to practice, never will, despite any law. There are fundamental entitlements which must be protected for every individual in society - that is the basis of the social contract which can't exist unless specific elements of natural law are respected, this is something on which (in Western societies) any jurisdiction must rest. You misunderstand the problem completely, and you misunderstand me. People like me don't object to others doing whatever they wish to do in their private lives (unless it harms other individuals) - it is in fact because of people who hold particular ideals about freedom and respect for difference that anyone can do and live as they want. Wallace is one of those persons (remember that he is a highly decorated officer who fought for our rights, among which is that we can express our views here, even when we disagree). Remember also that Wallace and Jensen do not stop anyone from doing what they want (as long as it doesn't hurt someone else), they simply hold particular views. And no, the people you speak of do not represent a minority, and they're not religious bigots, and many are quietly angry for being called that - in fact they represent a majority. That's why the next federal election will be won by the conservatives, and that's why savvy politicians like Gillard refuse to support 'gay marriage' in the parliament, even though they privately don't care. Just remember this next year, when the quiet, angry majority will vote.
Bye for now, I am finished with the discussion in this thread.

Yes Michael, he is. I went and did a search to see who he is, would you care to do one as well? And as an activist (i.e., someone with a specific agenda) how is he ('calmly') right, and I am wrong? Where have I pointed to data that are wrong? Please stop misrepresenting what I said, it does not help support whatever argument you're trying to make.
I watched every Q&A program, and I can only see what I can see: same people attend over and over, and invariably poise the same kind of questions over and over.

Diana Ng states "most gay people I have ever met were rude, belligerent, bullies and unfair (not to mention foul mouth). So I simply avoid discussions with them, just to be safe"

That this shows undisguised bigotry and hatred apparently never occurs to her. Perhaps she should reflect that if this is her view and attitude, is it any surprise if (a) and same sex attracted people choose not to engage with her and (b) those that she can identify that meet her do react to her bigotry with anger?

She might also like to reflect that since a peersons sexual orientation is such a fundamental part of what makes them a person that to deny them the right to express that with other consenting adults is a fundamental deniaal of their human rights

Yes, I made a boo-boo, maths never was my strong point. Now, let me rectify this and see if we can arrive at a point where you can move on to actually see beyond my errors the general point I was attempting to make.
The report I quoted from states: "The median survival period among people diagnosed with AIDS increased from 19 months prior to 1998 to 69 months in 2002. (NCHECR, 2008: 28) It has also influenced disease progression and health maintenance". So then I stand corrected, it should be 44 years + (69:12) = 49.75 years. So let's round it to 50 years - is that better?
Care to explain, then, how you're still not seeing the point I am trying to make, albeit I have erred in my presentation of facts?
To remind you, the point I made initially was that the statement that Wallace is relying on one study is simply not true. Even if we leave the information I referred to (and my error which you and others so gleefully focus on) aside, you can go here to see just how untrue the claim that the author of the article above is: http://www.aidsmap.com/People-with-HIV-have-21-year-reduction-in-life-expectancy-in-US/page/1435924/

I would like to make a quick point.
You do realise the article you linked doesn't differentiate between homo and heterosexuals. It seems that you are making an assumption that all Homosexuals have HIV. Whereas no Heterosexuals do. I really don't know if this could be classed as a false dichotomy, conflation, willful ignorance or a mixture of all three?

But it does say that those with HIV have a considerable reduction in their life expectancy? Which is what we were actually talking about ...

Ms Ng still doesn't get it - she is apparently incapable of reflection on her bigotry.

The issue os one of safe sex practices (or lack thereof) not sexual orientation. She can quote all the data she likes to show that safe sex practices are more common amongst homosexuals. This is not in dispute.

The issue is how we address it - which we do not do by condemning same sex attracted people for being same sex attracted. We should focus on the unsafe sex behavious - not their sexual orientation.

Others have raised the analogy of petrol snigging amonst indigineous youth - and the parralel is apt. The behaviour is rife and it contributes significantly to reduced lifespan aand health outcomes for those involved.

But we do not condemn indiginous people for being indiginous because of this - we address the unsafe behaviour.

Of course, some people DO express bigotry (whtehre thinly disguised or not) towards indigninous people - and this also results in increased depression and suicide for them. Again the parallels are apt.

It is time to stop the focus of the argument being on people's sexual orientation and focus on what we can do to improve outcomes.

Comments that display intolerance don;t help - they only make it worse.

I responded to your argument and accusation elsewhere, Mark. Here I just simply want to say how terrible it is for you to compare Indigenous people with gays, as if race and circumstances are the same as sexual orientation. This is one of the most disgusting comparisons routinely made in order to give traction to a particular sexual orientation! How can you possibly equate the two? Indigenous people have been murdered, oppressed, dispossessed, taken away from their families, and systematically disadvantaged for two centuries. Whereas, with some exceptions, homosexuality has been tolerated and permitted throughout human history. Terrible and disgusting, especially as I am sure you haven't asked any Indigenous person if you have permission to use their experiences to aid an argument such as yours. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The person who posts here as "Dania Ng" said "bye for now, I am finished with the discussion in this thread - but here he/she is again.

"Dania Ng" says that slavery was never a right for anyone to practice, "despite any law". If universal truths - like human rights, can transcend "any law", then "any law" can also adapt itself to maximise the rights of its citizens - so long as those rights don't cause harms to others.

Mr or Ms Ng, how do you see the legalisation of same-sex mariage causing harm to you?

Irrelevant ad-hominem. Doesn't answer the question addressed. Obfuscating Gish Gallop.

Ms Ng - Do you oppose same sex marriage? If so on what basis do you see it as causing harm to you? How do you justify your overt bigotry in stating "most gay people I have ever met were rude, belligerent, bullies and unfair (not to mention foul mouth). So I simply avoid discussions with them, just to be safe"? Are you aware that this sort of homophobic fear mongering and dsicrimination contributes to the suicide rate of young people struggling with their sexuality? How do you justify such bigotry in light of the proven harm it causes?

Seriously? I am condemning people for being gay? What's wrong with you? When did I do that? Listen here, you can do whatever you like in the privacy of your life, as long as you don't hurt another through your actions. How does that equate with condemning anyone. I don't have to like what you do, nor do you have to like that I don't like what you do. That does not mean that I condemn you, or that you condemn me. Whatever you say or I say, the fact still remains that sexual orientation, as a variable, is not the same as Indigenous status in explaining the injustices and wrongs that are being perpetrated on Indigenous people - I have worked many years with Indigenous communities. Hence to see here that Indigeneity is used as a parallel to demonstrate a 'false basis' to a premise you wish to challenge makes my skin crawl in disgust. Which part of the fact that people who enjoy anal sex are nowhere near as disadvantaged or discriminated against as Indigenous people don't you agree with? Which part of the fact that sexual orientation is directly correlated to risk of being infected with HIV (and other diseases) don't you understand?
And yet you turn on me once again and accuse me of bigotry?

The voice of "Dania Ng" sounds very much like a teenage boy - who thinks it is funny to post as "factory worker" and sling mud around. We know that he/she opposes same-sex marriage, but we haven't been able to get him/her to explain what effect its legalisation would have on his/her life.

No head explosions - just want to understand why there is so much belligerence, particularly focused on the points about same-sex issues.

Oh, and BTW, the Medical Practice Acts in each state have only just been revised to incorporate the structure for the new national AHPRA. There is no further revision currently contemplated - it appears you have made that bit up.

Dania, if I used your logic:

Every time I have come across someone named Dania it has been a traumatic experience for me, so I will just not interact with people named Dania again in the future.

Makes sense, right? All Danias are the same, surely.

Except... what if they aren't ... is that even possible? I guess I will use my bigotry as a shield against ever finding out. All future Danias I come across will pay for the trauma you have caused me.

Oh really? Darn! I have been caught out! Incredible sleuth work. You must be relieved then? Okay, okay, it was meant to be a hypothetical question, but then I thought 'What the heck! Sue obviously appreciates good satire'. My mistake, sorry.
I have made my position clear on same sex 'marriage' elsewhere, you know this Sue. But here's the deal, if you respond to my hypothetical question, I will respond to yours. Howzthat? (but maybe not today, I am really tired at the moment, so I am going to catch some sleep in a few minutes, maybe).
As for the 'factory worker' label, have you not noticed how so many organisatiuons are like factories now? Managerialism is rife, we're all factory workers, I feel the label describes what I do for a living perfectly.

Mark, I have responded to your accusations in another post. But I really don't have anything else to say to you, except maybe to pull one of my favourite quotes out, to show you how I feel about your nonsensical attacks on me:
"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third, by experience, which is the hardest" (Confuscius).
I truly think you're only focusing on the second method.

I am sorry that you have such a douchebag boss though.

All employers have a duty of care to provide a workplace free from some of the behaviours you describe: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/214/employment-law---workplace-bullying.aspx

Each state has different laws, and I'm not sure what state you are in, but you are definitely have the law on your side if you want a workplace free from harassment/bullying/abuse.

You were SERIOUSLY making an analogy between paying doctors and nurses the same and treating all couples the same before the law? Really?

OK - here's my answer: So long as your hypothetical law change doesn't change the way my job is regulated and remunerated - it wouldn't affect me. Whatever someone else's "priveleges" are doesn't affect me unless mine are also changed.

Your turn. How would same-sex marriage laws affect you?

Hi Jess,

Check here: <a href="http://usask.ca/cuisr/docs/pub_doc/health/BanksHumanCostFINAL.pdf">The Cost of Homophobia: Literature Review on the Human Impact of Homophobia On Canada</a>.

Michael.

It's worth reading these two analyses:

http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/wallace-shortens-life-expectancy-of-the-australian-christian-lobby/

http://gps.storer.net.au/?p=535

Michael.

Hi Dania,

The only people who are at risk of getting HIV are those people who have unsafe sex (in terms of sexual activity). Millions of heterosexual people in the third world and developing countries have HIV because they have not had safe sex (ie used condoms). These people unfortunately do not generally have ready access to HIV medication. HIV does not disciminate on the basis of a person's sexual orientation.

Homosexual men are no more at risk of getting HIV than heterosexual men if the sex is safe and protection is used for penetrative anal sex.

As I said before, in 2012, in Australia, people do not die from HIV/AIDS. Your level of ignorance and misinformation is most distressing.

Michael.

Hi Dania,

Crikey did a great job ripping Wallaces stupid statements to pieces bit by bit: http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/09/06/get-fact-do-gays-have-more-health-problems-than-smokers/

Even if it were true, in this day and age, that being gay knocked 20 years off your life - what on Earth does that have to do with getting married? Someones sexuality is whatever it is, and you are not going to talk them out of it with an argument or cigarette packet style warning labels.

What if I told you that being an Indigenous Australian knocked 16-17 years off your life (which it does): http://www.aihw.gov.au/indigenous-life-expectancy/
Are you going to suggest we ban Indigenous Australians from getting married? Are you going to suggest they change race to be healthier?

Nope, not suggesting that for a moment. Anyone can marry under the law, regardless of who they are, and regardless whether they're Indigenous or gay. But marriage means what the Marriage Act or any dictionary tells us it is - see for example the oxford dictionary here: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage
Do you mean that we should change the meaning which the word has had since recorded history (me+women)? What should we then call heterosexual unions, and why wouldn't we recognise these types of unions as being different from same sex unions? Or are you saying they're exactly the same? What are you saying?

And yes, the writer of that Crikey article you're referring to lives up to his namesake.

erm - that should be men+women, sorry.

"I never heard Jensen say he hates gay people, he simply said he does not agree with homosexuality - so that makes him a homophobe?"

Homosexuality isn't an argument, you can't agree with it, any more than you can agree with people being brown, or black, or white, or yellow. To believe otherwise would perhaps imply an ignoramus rather than a homophobe, though.

To treat people who enjoy being amorous with folk of the same sex with any less respect because of that fact is the commonly accepted definition of homophobia.

To be repulsed by (literal) homosexual acts is not homophobia. I'm no scientist, but this is probably our biology doing its thing (well it's basically how it tells we are straight or gay isn't it?).

Letting these aversions against physical acts (which are hypothetical in the cases of most commentators on the topic, I am sure) manifest into fear and hate against people is a bad, bad, thing however.

I wish more people knew that it isn't a contradiction to feel icky at the thought of literal homosexual acts, but still treat being gay as not a thing to get upset about and people that are gay as first class citizens.

I agree entirely, Chris. But the likelihood of this being seen as sufficient is very unlikely.
If you don't like homosexual acts, you're homophobic. If you argue that heterosexuality is different than homosexuality, you're homophobic. If you as much as dare to suggest that marriage has always been male+female, you're homophobic. If you point to the fact that homosexuality is a riskier sexuality than heterosexuality, you're homophobic. If you have been looking at a church or dared to listen to someone like Peter Jensen, you're homophobic.
Get the picture?

Dania, why should there be a different word to distinguish between same sex and opposite sex marriage at all?

Good grief...sexual acts are the business of the people involved, and no-one else. I have news for you...I'd say given the choice, the vast majority of heterosexual men would engage in the so-called 'icky' acts. What on earth does any of this have to do with the concept of same sex marriage? Whether people approve or not of what individuals choose do do with their own bodies, it has zero to do with the right to equality.

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. People DO squirm when thinking about acts that are not their cup of tea. The Jensenists, it would seem, especially. Your point is well made but obviously misunderstood by some on here-perhaps deliberately. I am no homophobe, I feel people have every right to be sexually different, but, if my thoughts are somehow directed towards homosexual lovemaking then I confess I feel uncomfortable. But being a bloke, I don't mind thinking about women homosexuals getting it off. Weird hey. Each to their own and vote 1 gay and lesbian rights.

"Whether people approve or not of what individuals choose do do with their own bodies, it has zero to do with the right to equality."

That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if it didn't come across.

Dania,

I'd encourage you to review your understanding of "facts" on marriage. This chronicle is a good place to start:

http://erebusnekromantia.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/the-same-sex-marriage-chronicle/

Michael.

Non-sequitur.

The health complications resulting from contracting HIV - and the possible subsequent development of AIDS if untreated which can result in death from opportunitstic infections - is a safe-sex practices issue.

It is not a gender orientation or same/opposite sex attraction issue. Nor does HIV discriminate based on the sexual orientation of its host. The huge HIV infection rates in sub-saharan africa is clear testament to this

This is at the core of the problem that Wallance and Jensen were conflating in practicsing their thinly veiled homophobia and bigotry - and incidentally showing thmesleves to be decidedly unchristian.

A true christian - finding that unsafe sex practicies could lead to increased suffering and death in some of god's children - would (a) minister to tgheir suffering and (b) support and promote education about safe sex practices, especially the use of condoms. They would not condemn them for being who they are 9sexual orientation being a fundamental part of what makes us human and the right to express it responsibly therefore a fundamental human right)

Only the Pharisees would instead choose to condemn, out of bigotry and ignorance, a section of the community based on their sexual orientation.

Tracy, why shouldn't there be? They are different, no? Otherwise why do we have the words 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual'?

We can continue to argue over who gets what, Mark - I am not sure where the bigotry lies though. All I am saying is that some sexual orientations are inherently riskier than others because of their very nature - do I get this wrong, or is anatomical 'design'/the theory of evolution wrong? Or is the literature I have been reading and referring to in other posts here wrong? Are you, indeed, serious in saying to a patient that might routinely engage in anal sex that their sexual orientation is safer than heterosexual practices? Where is the error in conflating what I am saying? Note that I am not passing judgement, I am merely pointing to a fact - you are the one judging because you have conflated my argument with bigotry.

Precisely. They are social constructs, built around natural conditions. Marriage is a heterosexual construct, see any queer theory - and to a lesser degree, some feminist writings. These also argue for the dismantling of heteronormativity, they see this as what has restricted sexual practices, and as a form of oppression. I actually know Foucault's writings well (poor old queer - did you know he, too, died of AIDS?). Actually I think Foucault's work is brilliant, and I use his genealogical method of discourse analysis, and often employ the notion of governmentality and new panopticism ... but I digress.
I am glad you have brought up the 'some traditional cultures fostered sexual practices of this or other kind' argument, it is another argument often used by gay activists and was wondering when it will pop up. To this I would simply respond, 'So what?' - some traditional societies used cannibalism, killed their young (some still do), and suckle piglets on their females. Does it means that we should accept such practices as well?
Lastly, in the world we now live consenting adults can enter in permanent relationships! The law now rightly recognises all such partnerships - a bit late, but nevertheless it does. I support this. Marriage, on the other hand, is about heterosexual unions, and therefore how can remain 'marriage' if this is changed?

Wait, if Bill and Ted down the road are allowed to marry, my own relationship becomes meaningless?

That's no kind of logic.

Hi Dania,

You realise that heterosexual couples also engage in anal sex, right? It's a thing.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

This US study shows that 40% of men and 35% of women between 25 and 44 have engaged in heterosexual anal sex. I am sure people smarter than me can find studies more relevant to Australia. Even if it is not as prevalent, the point still stands - a non-trivial number of heterosexuals also practice anal sex.

In light of this fact, this statement is quite ignorant:
"Are you, indeed, serious in saying to a patient that might routinely engage in anal sex that their sexual orientation is safer than heterosexual practices?"

Phrase it like this, and you have a point:
"Unprotected anal sex with non-monogamous partners is _a lot_ riskier than protected sex of any description, regardless of the gender of the participants (obviously at least one is male though, lol)."

what stupid image - and you must mean "people in marriages" - and a brain dead argument. a.v.

Errr why must I mean people in marriages? Perhaps there is data that distinguishes between single people, people in marriages and people in defacto relationships, however I am not aware of it.

leave people in unmarried relationships - unmarried couples are straight & gay - out of it. your beef is with gay marriage, not gay relationships. or is it? what is your objection to gay people getting "married"? is it semantic? sociological? ideological? public health? theological? or is it just "stop complaining"?

no one faults jensen for gay people's health outcomes, they fault jensen for being part of the problem & not part of the solution at this time in the nation's history. if jensen hadn't lain himself, in his condescending reactionary fulsomeness, across the road to progress, people wouldn't be detouring to run over him. gay people, and their supporters in civil marriage equality, don't blame jensen for gay people's health outcomes, they blame jensen for getting in the way of gay people entering into relationships called marriages which would enacted through civil ceremonies overseen by officiators not of his church. he wants to veto the extension of a purely civil piece of law for reasons pertaining to his conservative theology & his machinations in conservative politics.

it doesn't have to be this way - only in jensen's arch-conservative anglican ascendancy pettifogging interfering rearguard world. in canada, for example, the largest protestant denomination (united) marries gays & participated in the gov't consultative process during the drafting of the legislation. the american anglicans are cool with gay marriage, too. they even have women ministers & bishops - something jensen won't countenance even being discussed at church synods here - and a woman archbishop, with phd degrees in theology & oceanography, who was elected to her post despite affirming that god created the world & evolution is his modus operandi. and jensen struggles in debate with dawkins - god forfend he should have to debate a seriously liberal anglican theologian like john shelby spong in an open public forum !

are you sure your couple/single health data doesn't include health data of gay couples/singles? "Perhaps there is data that distinguishes between single people, people in marriages and people in defacto relationships" - you did fill out your census didn't you? -a.v.

I don't mind gay people getting married, provided they marry - as large numbers of them do - someone of the opposite sex.

Look even if Jensen did have a PhD in oceanography and supported gay marriage you wouldn't join his church, so where is the incentive for him trying to angle for you approval? His message resonates with his core constituency and seems to deliver good outcomes for them - remember we aren't discussing high suicide rates amongst Anglicans. So clearly the Anglicans are doing something right and we need to learn what it is.
"are you sure your couple/single health data doesn't include health data of gay couples/singles?"
Probably it does, but since the numbers of gay couples and singles are very small they aren't going to skew the data that much. Empty vessels make the loudest noise.