"No Superannuation is not social security.. Superannuation in australia is in your working life a part of your wage goes to a fund so that when you retire you or your spouse if you die have access to money for your retirement. This is different to socail security where money is paid out by the governemtn to people so they can live when they retire. Just a clarification."

As a citizen of the US that has paid into my future social security on every paycheck, I have no clue what you are talking about. Before you clarify, maybe you should have some idea of what you are talking about.

As a citizen of the US that has paid into my future social security on every paycheck, I have no clue what you are talking about. Before you clarify, maybe you should have some idea of what you are talking about.

Im talking about australia, do you know where that is Bakerstreet? Yes its the country in the southern hemisphere, and no we dont have kangaroos jumping in our main streets.. Sorry to break that news to you. I hope you can sleep now with your koala bear wrapped in your little arms.

that's what social security is, too.

not in australia.

"Superannuation in australia is in your working life a part of your wage goes to a fund so that when you retire you or your spouse if you die have access to money for your retirement."

Enlighten us as to how that is different than Social Security, please. You were the one that said it is different in reply #75, above. I have no idea why you are even talking about it here anyway...

Enlighten us as to how that is different than Social Security, please. You were the one that said it is different in reply #75, above. I have no idea why you are even talking about it here anyway...

Well if you care to read the entire thread you will see that I mentioned superannuation. In Australia, social security is not superannuation. Social security is a benefit that is paid by the government, we dont pay into social security here in australia.

I mentioned superannuation because people in same sex relationships are not entitled to their partners superannuation if their partner was to die, or if they were to seperate, yet in heterosexual relationships de facto parters are entitled to their partners superannuation. I mention it here Bakerstreet, obviously you havent cared to read all the thread, only jumping in where it pleases you, because I was talking about how its not all about sex for gays and their bringing it to the public arena, its about equal rights as humans.
But I wouldnt expect you to understand that, seeing you think its humerous to bash and gas homosexuals.

"But I wouldnt expect you to understand that, seeing you think its humerous to bash and gas homosexuals. "

That is the same, tired, disgusting drek I am accustomed to seeing you puke at people that disagree with you. I never said the first time that I thought that those statements made by Sir Peter were humorous. I was addressing the fact that you can't tell the difference between real and fictional characters.

You have some serious problems, pheonixboi. You have done a lot to drag down the level of intelligence and civility here at JU.

And I still haven't seen any concrete examples of HOW society would be harmed by treating all people as equals.

It's not about treating people as equals. Homosexuals should be treated with equal respect and rights. But I believe society has a responsibility to protect people susceptible to dangerous behavior and encourage them to lead healthy lives. It also has the responsibility and right to protect itself against the negative consequences of that dangerous behavior.

Hear are some examples of harm that could be caused by redefining marriage to include same-sex couples:

1. A further separation of the intrinsic relation of procreation and childbearing to the institute of marriage. Societies need couples to procreate. Many first-world/industrialized nations are droping below the fertility rate necessary to replace its population, especially the Ukraine (1.1 woman per child), Spain, Russia (both 1.2 children per woman), Japan, Germany, Italy (all 1.3), Poland, Canada (both 1.4), South Korea (1.5), Great Britain (1.7), Taiwan (1.7), and France (1.9). The rate necessary to replace a population is 2.1 children per woman. Most of these countries would not sustain their populations without immigration.

Source: After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd, 2003, p. 29.

Most people know about overpopulation, but the rising population is a problem almost entirely in the third world. (The world population is actually starting to level off.) What many people don't know about is the problem of under-procreation in the first world. It's a serious problem. You can't possibly tell me that gay marriage will increase the fertility rate!

2. Further normalizes and encourages homosexual behavior. Gays have the right to practice a homosexual lifestyle, but it is clearly not a healthy one. One line of evidence is that rates of drug abuse, alcoholism, smoking, depression, disease, domestic violence, and suicide are all much higher in the gay community. Another scary fact is that nearly 1/3 of the child abuse cases are homosexual in nature, while homosexuals are only 3% of the population. The fact is that living out homosexuality is not normal, healthy sexual behavior, and they facts support that.

3. Fails to provide children with the basic family structure that has shown to work best for 100,000+ years. Humans have not developed the "family" by mere chance. It happened through a process of natural selection, which showed that humans have a better chance of survival when they organize themselves into family units. In recent human history (the last 0.1%) some aspects of modern urban life have contributed to the breakdown of that family structure. Another thread is that of "homosexual families."

Many have argued that homosexual couples can adopt, and there is no doubt that two fathers or two mothers would be better than no mother and no father, but clearly one mother and one father is the ideal. Scientific research investigating the effects of the "homosexual family" on children are conflicting, but research is quite young, especially when considering how recent a trend we are dealing with (last 50 years approximately).

More to come later. I have to run.

You can't possibly tell me that gay marriage will increase the fertility rate!

Nope, but we can say that it's not going to decrease it.

Let's say we all decide to allow for gay marriages, would you go out the next day and start "being gay"? I don't believe you would, and I sure wouldn't either. People who were all ready to have children in their heterosexual relationships aren't going to decide to be gay just because it's now legal for gays to get married. There is always going to be a stigma in society against gay people, because most straight people, even if they don't think it's "wrong", think it really really gross. There isn't going to be a giant flood of people dumping their wives and marrying their drinking buddies. Straight people would still produce as many children as they do now.

Gays have the right to practice a homosexual lifestyle, but it is clearly not a healthy one. One line of evidence is that rates of drug abuse, alcoholism, smoking, depression, disease, domestic violence, and suicide are all much higher in the gay community. Another scary fact is that nearly 1/3 of the child abuse cases are homosexual in nature, while homosexuals are only 3% of the population

Show me where you got your stats, please, because those numbers seem skewed. 

Are you trying to suggest that most homosexuals are child abusers?  Because that's what that sentence seems to imply.

I'd really like to see where you got your numbers from.

I think it refers to the fact that child sexual abuse between adults-kids of the same sex is disproportionate to the recognized percenage of homosexuals. I have read that several places, too.

I don't think it is necessarily reciprocal, though, to say that because a certain percentage of pedophiles behave homosexually, that the same percent of homosexuals are pedophiles. I have no idea why people would choose to pick kids of the same sex to abuse, but I am not willing to lay the blame for it on homosexuality. It wouldn't be any more valid than saying heterosexual pedophiles do so because they are heterosexual, since the majority of kids that are abused are vicimized by adults of the opposite sex...

I have no idea why people would choose to pick kids of the same sex to abuse, but I am not willing to lay the blame for it on homosexuality.

Neither am I.

One line of evidence is that rates of drug abuse, alcoholism, smoking, depression, disease, domestic violence, and suicide are all much higher in the gay community

Which could be a result of being reviled and ostracized by "society." What a concept!!

Fails to provide children with the basic family structure that has shown to work best for 100,000+ years.

Time to make divorce and unwed parents illegal as well, then.....no basic family structure there, either, is there?

Which could be a result of being reviled and ostracized by "society." What a concept!!

That was going to be my next point...

...as was the 'family structure' issue.  How many people do you know that are divorced?  How many people do you know that are single parents, ie have a child but are not married to or residing with the parent of that child?  On the street where I live there are 2 divorced parents and 2 single parents....and I live in white bread vanillaville, South Dakota.  I think that the resons people are throwing out against gay marriage are somewhat trite, to be honest.  I've heard arguments about it 'devaluing' the 'sanctity' of marriage...yeah, cheating on your spouse does that as well, and that's not illegal in most states.  Nor is it as frowned upon as same sex wedlock. 

I'd like to know how 2 people of the same sex getting hitched makes my marriage any less valid or sacred.  As long as they're not sleeping in my bed, I don't see how it has anything to do with me.

I'd like to know how 2 people of the same sex getting hitched makes my marriage any less valid or sacred. As long as they're not sleeping in my bed, I don't see how it has anything to do with me.

Okay, you're scaring me.... ...this is the same point I've made repeatedly to people.....your marriage is as sacred as you and your spouse make it, no more, no less.....what anyone else does in their marriage should have zero impact on that.

your marriage is as sacred as you and your spouse make it, no more, no less.....what anyone else does in their marriage should have zero impact on that.

Exactly.  Does my neighbor's infidelity make my marriage unholy or not valid?  No.  Neither does a union of 2 people who just happen to be of the same gender. 

Let's say we all decide to allow for gay marriages, would you go out the next day and start "being gay"?

Of course not. It will happen over the long term. We're talking about changes in society, which you can't think about in terms of days, months, or even years. The damage will be done over decades and centuries.

Nope, but we can say that it's not going to decrease it.

I don't think you can even say that. But we'll see. Someone needs to measure the fertility rate in Massachusetts every year for the next 50 years (assuming they don't amend their constitution as well).

Time to make divorce and unwed parents illegal as well, then.....no basic family structure there, either, is there?

People should have the right to divorce. Unworkable marriages are bad for children, too. I do think we should reconsider "no-fault" divorce though, like in California, where divorce rates sky-rocketed once they made this change.

Unwed adults should also keep the right to have children, as that is every person's right (in the US at least). It's not about making bad behavior illegal, it's about society choosing to reward behavior it deems benefitial to society. It seems by the replies some of the commentors are missing this point.

...as was the 'family structure' issue. How many people do you know that are divorced? How many people do you know that are single parents, ie have a child but are not married to or residing with the parent of that child? On the street where I live there are 2 divorced parents and 2 single parents....and I live in white bread vanillaville, South Dakota. I think that the resons people are throwing out against gay marriage are somewhat trite, to be honest. I've heard arguments about it 'devaluing' the 'sanctity' of marriage...yeah, cheating on your spouse does that as well, and that's not illegal in most states. Nor is it as frowned upon as same sex wedlock.

Stating the fact that divorce and adultery is harmful to the family too doesn't do anything to negate the argument that heterosexual couples are harmful to the family. Of course, divorce and adultery are bad and should not be encouraged. Again, it's not about making harmful acts illegal, it's about refusing to encourage negative behavior by giving public rewards for it.

Show me where you got your stats, please, because those numbers seem skewed. Are you trying to suggest that most homosexuals are child abusers? Because that's what that sentence seems to imply.I'd really like to see where you got your numbers from.

The only places I've seen this statistic quoted online is on websites that you would probably reject as biased (please tell me if you want to see them anyways), but I believe they come from the following peer-reviewed journal article:

Freund, K, and Watson, R. J., "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Paedophiles among Sex Offenders against Children: an Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (1992): 34.

It's not available online, but my library has it, so I'll try to copy it and post it as soon as possible.

And to answer your question, NO it doesn't mean that the majority of homosexuals are child abusers. I am surprised you implied this from what I wrote. It just shows when you look at the population of pedophiles by demographic group, homosexuals are WAY over-represented.

If homosexuals represent 3% of the population (this number is controversial, some say its as little as 1%, some say its as high as 10%), then one would expect 3% of the pedophiles to be homosexuals. Instead it is around 33%, so the rate of pedophilia among gays is roughly 11 times the rate other demographic groups.

If you wanted to know the percentage of homosexuals who are sex offenders, you would have to know the rate of pedophilia among the general population. Then multiply that number by 11, and that's the percentage of homosexuals who are pedophiles! (I say this with alarm not humor.)

I don't think it is necessarily reciprocal, though, to say that because a certain percentage of pedophiles behave homosexually, that the same percent of homosexuals are pedophiles. I have no idea why people would choose to pick kids of the same sex to abuse, but I am not willing to lay the blame for it on homosexuality. It wouldn't be any more valid than saying heterosexual pedophiles do so because they are heterosexual, since the majority of kids that are abused are vicimized by adults of the opposite sex...

Pedophiles don't "do it" because they are homosexual or heterosexual. They do it because they are sexually abnormal and ill. Homosexuality is also a sexual abnormality. It is NOT like having green eyes, as opposed to the norm of dark-colored eyes. Green eyes work just as fine as any other. Homosexuality does not work just fine. It might give sexual pleasure to engage in homosexual acts. It might also give emotional pleasure. In fact, I know it does. But rubbing your genitals against a dead chipmunk would also give sexual pleasure. And of course one can feel emotional attachment, love, and the desire to be near and intimate with members of the same sex.

The abnormality is that this desire is replaced or confused with the sexual desire that is felt in sexually healthy humans to be intimate and have a sexual, romantic relation with a member of the opposite sex. This desire was developed by the processes of evolution so that humans will reproduce. There is no known biological mechanism to preferentially select individuals for homosexuality, just as there is no known mechanism to select individuals who have sickle cell anemia. Both are devastating abnormalities when considered from th point of view of evolution. Yet, at a certain rate biology sometimes gets it wrong and produces humans with unique challenges to life.

This is exactly how we should view homosexuals. They have a unique challenge to living a sexually normal life (I don't use the word normal in the vernacular sense--being eccentric is not a burden but rather a gift--I use it in a medical sense, like my lungs are normal if they provide me with enough oxygen for normal respiration).

As decent, moral humans, we should support homosexuals in their journey of life. Five of my close friends are homosexual. They are wonderful people, and when they are happy with their boyfriends, I am happy for them (unfortunately one is not out of the closet, and he struggles greatly to find romantic companionship, sincerely attempting to be "straight," but I fear that it may never happen). Sad but tellingly 4 out of the 5, I know have suffered from severe depression, two of them having recently had nervous breakdowns, one having to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital and physically protected from killing himself. One of the hardest things I ever had to do was visit my friend locked up in a psychiatric ward. When are we going to start recognizing this condition as the tragic disorder that it is?

I say this about my friends, who will remain anonymous, so that hopefully when people read what I write about homosexuality, they will know it is not out of despisement, but rather out of my sincere desire to help them, mostly help them fight the damage they do to themselves, but also to guard against the negative effects that homosexuality has on society as a whole. Again: mostly to help them. And trust me, many are asking for help.

I'd like to know how 2 people of the same sex getting hitched makes my marriage any less valid or sacred.

If I win an award, let's say, the Nobel Peace Prize, for caring for the orphaned children of Bolivia for 50 years of my life, I'd take pride in having acheived an award that others, such as Mother Teresa, Desmond Mpilo Tutu, and Nelson Mandela.

Then, the next year Osama bin Laden wins the Nobel Peace Prize for rallying distraught Muslims to violent uprisings and liberation from the "oppresion of the West"...I'd probably protest and not go to bin Laden's award ceremony. I'd keep my award though because I'd be proud of the work I did.

If the next year, Fidel Castro wins for "fighting the oppresion of democracy for over 50 years," I'd probably again, protest the award ceremony, but keep my award and start petitioning the Nobel committee to refuse to give the award to those who use violent or oppresive methods to further their cause.

If in the following year, Kim Jong II won the award for "keeping child pornography off the streets of P’yŏngyang by buying up all the porn and keeping it in his personal collection" ....I'd start using my Nobel as a doorstop or something.

That, to me, is like saying that a person is schizophrenic by choice, or near sighted by choice.

  A classic analogy. Your question is timely and constructive.

Robert:  I still don't see it that way.  If I won a Nobel prize for outstanding work, then year after year the standards dropped...well, it wouldn't mean MY Nobel was worthless.  It would just mean the the criteria changed after I'd won mine. 

Steven:  Thank you!