A God-given right to discriminate?

bully says:

11:44am | 30/12/10

A bill of rights enacted in this day and age would be devastating. Maybe if it were enacted 80 years ago when there real people around and not the farcical lot of today it would have been great. I don’t care if someone is Homosexual, I don’t care what they do in their own house as long as it is not pushed onto me. Whether you are homosexual or heterosexual you can be nurturing and caring, and at the same time be masculine when the situation dictates.

chillipea says:

05:20pm | 30/12/10

An updated Bill of Rights was introduced in the UK in 1998 and is working well with only a few teething problems.  The only reason I can think of for Australia to not have a Bill of Rights is because it means that politicians and justice courts would then have to ensure that our rights were not infringed upon when making new laws.  Why on earth would our politicians want to do that?

LC says:

06:37pm | 31/12/10

An Australian Bill of Rights should cover:
- Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Expression
- Freedom of (or from) religion*
- Freedom of Information
- The right to free association
- Freedom of the Press
- The right to privacy on private property
- The right to privacy when using the post system, telecommunication systems or similar services
- The right to a fair, unbiased hearing in a reasonable amount of time
- Freedom from cruel/inhumane punishment*
- Freedom from slavery*
- Freedom from laws which discriminate against any portion of the community*

In order for Parliament to breach any right (except those marked with a *, which cannot be breached for any reason), after it has been passed by the house of reps and the senate, it must go to a panel of 3 high court judges and 25 experts in the area(s) which the law concerns, up to a maximum of 5 experts in 5 separate areas. They will attempt to answer the following questions with an evidence based approach:
- Will the law do what the government intends?
- Could those results be achieved without breaching the Bill of Rights?
- Is the gain from the proposed law good enough to be worth the breach of rights (taking into account how serious the breach would be)?
If the experts agree with a 4:1 majority (and at least one person from each field amongst them) and the judges agree unanimously, the bill is sent to the GG for signing. The law is valid and enforceable for up to 10 years after it receives the GG’s signature, after which it must go through the two houses of parliament and the panel again. The panel may also consider how effective the law has been so far when it’s reviewing laws. They may also send suggestions to the government of what they’d have to change to have a better chance of approval. All panel members must be independent of any political party. If anyone attempts to bribe, blackmail, threaten or otherwise force members of the panel to vote for or against a bill, they face a prison term of up to 20 years, and if that person is a member of parliament, they are stripped of their seat in parliament and a bi-election is held. If any corruption is discovered after a law has been passed, it is deemed unenforceable unless a fresh panel approves it.

StefanR says:

08:42am | 30/12/10

It’s selection bias at work here: only the gay men who really really want to have children are going to be having them because of all the hassle. These men would make good parents and would generally be very able to support the child. Compare this to the straight couples and you have a whole spectrum of parents.

Don Oorst says:

11:16am | 30/12/10

I dont think thats really the point. You can be precisely as good a parent as you chose to be, regardless of your orientation. I think the ‘queers make great parents’ quotes are just to make a point that the dumbass religion assertions that queers should be denied kids is irrational and not based in empirical observation.

My folks, like me, are hetro and where great parents. And if they where queer, I’m sure they’d be awesome too.

Thats the whole crux of this queer thing I think. Love pervades all if we let it, and we should!

Jason says:

05:35pm | 30/12/10

It makes perfect sense. Gay people can’t get drunk one night and accidentally sign some adoption papers ie every child with gay parents is a wanted child.

Pretty much reinforces the most obvious point here: what children need most is love, not gender roles.

Cat says:

07:52pm | 21/01/11

Jason - knowing a lot of people who were adopted I can tell you now, having to go through a lot of paperwork and red tape and time and effort to aquire a child does not mean you will guarantee a fantastic parent.

Tedd says:

07:55am | 30/12/10

Religion relies on the false proposition that homosexuality is a choice, when it clearly isn’t for most homosexuals.  That falsity is patronising and bigotry.

Germainewolfe says:

11:03am | 30/12/10

Tedd - so is peadophilia something you’re born with and not a choice?  If so why put them in prison?  Surely it is unfair to punish or discriminate against someone for something they can’t help?  But even if we do incarcerate them because they have caused others harm should we not bother putting money into trying to reform them? -  surely we should just throw away the key?  Now before you start having conniptions I am not saying that homosexual people are paedophiles…I’m just asking where do we draw the sexual choice line?  Are we discriminating against paedophiles in saying their sexual choices are not valid just like if we do Homosexuals?  It’s a slippery slope, don’t you think? 
I work for a religious foster care and adoption agency and one of the reasons that we oppose homosexual fostering/adoption is because the kids we place have come from difficult and often alienating backgrounds.  They are damaged and fragile and because of this we are reluctant to put them into families that will further cause them to feel alienated from what is considered “normal”.  And before you lose it about that, love them or hate them, homosexual families are not considered “normal” at this point in time - outside some inner city suburbs.  If this changes in the future then our view may change.

Bully says:

11:54am | 30/12/10

Germainewolfe. What a stupid comparison. The reason a Paedophile is in prison is because they have broken the law, they have deeply impacted on the life of a young person. Paedophilia and Homosexuality neither go hand in hand nor are the same in any way, shape or form. Homosexuality is consensual, and if it is not, it then becomes a sexual offence and the perp is Gaoled.
And speaking of Religion and Paedophilia, The church can hardly comment as they have a horrendous history of committing sexual offences against Children.  It’s like saying that Dracula now opposes blood donations. Once again, this country bows down to the Church. Regardless of sexual orientation, both sexes have the capacity to be either good or bad parents. I am glad I have nothing to do with religion, you generally find the most religious people have a tepid past and are incredably hypocritical. The conglomerate of Religion is as trustworthy as a Bank or a Political party.

A Bob says:

12:02pm | 30/12/10

“where do we draw the sexual choice line”

You started by agreeing it was not a choice and then changed… you seem very confused.

Peadophiles may well be born that way and there is nothing that can change them. We don’t imprison them for being peadophiles though, we imprison them for raping or molesting children. We regard this as a crime because we consider a child to be too young to give informed consent to a sexual relationship and can be seriously harmed by it. For that, we lock them up.

Adult GBLT’s are consenting. If they are not, then it’s called rape and we lock them up too.

There is no slippery slope because we don’t rely on a condition being genetic as an excuse for behaviour. We let peadophiles out of jail on that basis, that they not reoffend. It’s about what they do, not what they are.

germainewolfe says:

12:06pm | 30/12/10

Yes, homosexuality is consensual…. but what right to consent do children in out of home care have to be placed in a homosexual family? None. 
I with you agree about the church and sexual sin.  But you need to seperate the church from Christ and His teachings and standards.  The church should be held up to high standards and Christian people have let Christ down terribly.  I don’t blame anyone for raising that double standard.

A Bob says:

12:07pm | 30/12/10

And another thing, as GBLT’s have often had difficult, alienated childhoods themselves, they may well be in the ideal position to empathise with a kid with special needs and be a better parent as a result.

Is it not better to assess applicants on a case by case basis for their suitability rather than making stereotype driven assumptions?

Tedd says:

12:11pm | 30/12/10

Germainewolfe,

I appreciate “the kids you place have come from difficult and often alienating backgrounds”.  I appreciate many might have issues with homosexuals in a relationship in a parenting role, but this is diminishing. 

I think the phase “homosexual families” is unfortunate - it is a misnomer, as there is no such thing, and especially because of the truism I posted above - sexuality is *not* a choice, it is innate: it is god-given, if you like.

You ignore that key point in mentioning paedophilia in a blog like this.

Paedophilia is different, as it is “typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Your use of “conniptions” and “lose it” as prefaces is snide and suggests a sinister agenda, such as a desire to besmirch homosexuals and their generally inter-adult expression of their sexuality.

Tedd says:

12:13pm | 30/12/10

Bully, not many banks are that bad these days

Tedd says:

12:32pm | 30/12/10

““what right to consent do children in out of home care have to be placed in a homosexual family? None.”“
@ germainewolfe says: 12:06pm | 30/12/10

It probably depends on the age of the children, and thus their ability to comprehend and judge, as well as need of the child, and other pre-placement and post-placement assessments by social services, including the community they would function in.

They would not be a homosexual family.  I deal with families, and I would define a family as “at least one adult and at least on pet”!

StefanR says:

01:33pm | 30/12/10

@Elphaba “What I’m interested in, is once gay and lesbian citizens get all the rights that heterosexual citizens have, will that mean the death of the Mardi Gras?  Or do straight people get a Pride Parade - in the spirit of being fair? “

This is best answered by Joey Comeau: http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=573

Philip Crowley says:

02:23pm | 30/12/10

@Bully…I say Bully for you. Very well said and I second your comments in full.

you choose says:

02:51pm | 30/12/10

Ahhhh Tedd - yes homosexuality is a choice. There is no identifiable ‘homosexual gene’ just as there is no ‘paedophile gene’ or no ‘poligamist gene’. To say it is *not* a choice has no medical basis and is quite obvious becuase people can and do change from one to another. IF people believe it not to be a choice you have to open the box Germainwolfe made reference to - what is sexual choice vs what is ‘inate’ and who are you to say mine is wrong?! Let me illustrate

Lets say a 14 year old girl or boy decides to explore their sexual options by becoming involved with a 40 year old (same or opposite sex) partner. Currently illegal - go straight to jail do not pass go!!

Why is this wrong?? Now before you say they are not old enough to make informed decisions, look into Germany’s laws which state a 14 yr old can have sex with a 16 year old (but not a 17 year old…...) so clearly old enough to make a choice about sexual behaviour. Interestingly enough what kind of retarded society says you are not old enough to drive or vote - but you can make babies !!!! Go figure that one!!!!!!

now let work back to a 13 year old, 12, 11…....where is that line? Our society draws the line at 16 other socieites have people married with kids by 14. Who’s right - who’s wrong? 

It is interesting that ‘the church’ is always the one institution branded as paedophiles but statistically the percentage of convicted paedophile have nothing to do with reiligon - we have lawyers, politicans, police, car salesmen, bankers, pool worker etc etc…..anyone!

Kelvin says:

03:13pm | 30/12/10

@you choose
“To say it is *not* a choice has no medical basis and is quite obvious becuase people can and do change from one to another”

So I suppose you fondly remember the day you choose to be hetrosexual? I mean if its a choice then we should have all made a conscience decision about it growing up.

To assume that everything we are comes down to one gene is grossly in error.  I suppose there is just one gene for height? for weight? for gullibility?

You try to make a good point with the rest of the post looking at so called “lines in the sand” but get completely misguided by your own pre-existing ideas.  Instead of falling down the rabbit hole maybe you can think of why what you suggest is against the law or why it shouldn’t be?

Andrew says:

03:17pm | 30/12/10

@You Choose: The crimes of the pedophiles employed by churches are particularly heinous because they are supposed to be role models and advisors to the “lesser” of us. It is a rude awakening for some, and so of course they get more p***ed off than if the perps were some Joe Bloggs off the street.

Tedd says:

03:28pm | 30/12/10

you choose,

despite the fact there are no genes for homosexuality, it is *not* a choice - the repeated consistent testimony of homosexuals to their realisation when they reach the age of sexual awareness- puberty - is proof of that.

whataboutery does not illustrate, especially whataboutery about the age of marriage or “the age of consent”.

Admittedly, there are some individuals who engage in experimentation as adolescents or who are bi-curious.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

08:31pm | 30/12/10

@Kelvin - Why are you trying to use hetrosexuality to claim homosexuality is not a choice? Last time i checked hetrosexuality leads to reproduction. Every single species on the planet aims to reproduce. Hetrosexual sex goes beyond “love” or “pleasure” into creation of new life. Its hardly a choice.

And there actually is a height gene.

acotrel says:

09:33pm | 30/12/10

‘Religion and homosexuality have always been incompatible’

The record doesn’t show that to be true.  Religion is often about maintaining a double standard, appearance is everything!

AJ says:

09:03am | 31/12/10

@Geoff - Brisbane.
You are saying that being homosexual is a choice because the inability to reproduce?  What of those many millions of heterosexual people in Australia and around the world, who are unable to reproduce for whatever reason, are they to be branded, as you would have them?  Are these people lesser human than you perhaps?
Geoff, there are many animal species around the globe that show homosexual and/or bisexual behaviour, these include but are not limited to; Elephants, Bears, Rats, Buffalo, Caribou, Domestic Cats,  Cheetahs, Dolphins, Marmosets, Raccoons, Domestic Dogs, Bison, Humans & Penguins, to name but a few.
I agree they have not conclusively identified the ‘homosexual gene’ as yet however there is research that shows links towards cretin genetic make-up’s and sexual orientation.
I find your blinkered and bigoted view to be obscuring what little insight you might have into this topic.  For those tens of millions of homosexual and bisexual people around the world it is not a choice, they are as God made them.

Paul Prentice says:

10:00am | 05/01/11

RE JASON
You backward fool ,i notice you dont have the balls to put your real name to that comment…it shows what uneducted illbreed six fingerd,
four toed ,idot you really are ,some what illetrate in the process in adopting a child my parents had to sell there home and buy a bigger one in order to adopt there second child ...some mothers do havem…

Sheldon says:

07:43am | 30/12/10

Just another Atheist having a whinge

Andrew says:

09:18am | 30/12/10

The overall argument seems clear to me: there is no rational justification for refusing gays the right to become foster parents. The churches just don’t like them. The positive side of it is that they will, eventually, be dragged kicking and screaming, out of the Dark Ages on this topic. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. Religion has ever been a force against beneficial change.

Simon says:

03:39pm | 30/12/10

Uhhh! A force against beneficial change. Who opposed slavery in England? Who were the sufferogettes? who started universities and schools for the underprivilaged poor? Who started Hospitals for the underprivileged and poor. Please get your facts straight!

MrMac says:

04:12pm | 30/12/10

Simon,

past deeds are not compensation for present ones, and especially given the varied deeds of the group - especially with regard to slavery - and the dominance of “the force” in times of establishment of the likes of hospitals and schools.  Up to 150 years ago, parishes were the sole “local government” in the UK and many other places

Steph says:

09:20pm | 30/12/10

Mr. Mac - Okay, if past issues do not reflect on present ones, then their stance of “Dark Ages” feelings towards gays can be brought into the 21st century, and is not considered an outdated way of thinking.
Also, Many charities in todays age are Christian. Salvo’s, St. Vinnie’s, Tearfund, Unitingcare, etc etc. The church never stopped doing as many good works as it could - the government just took over some of the ones they ran. Hospitals, orphanages and schools used to be run by the Church until they were taken over by the Govt. Some of them, privately, are still run by churches. So if we can’t count the deeds of the past, then looking at the present, I’d say they’re still going…..

TC Davidson says:

08:43am | 30/12/10

Wrong Rosie, Gillard is a puppet so is influenced by those that pull the puppet strings! The Greens, Independents, Rudd and the Faceless Men have more influence than PM Gillard.

Tedd says:

08:47am | 30/12/10

“Gay fathers are more compassionate towards their children than their heterosexulal rivals.” Maybe because thy lack that certain gene to be born a female in the first place.

there is no evidence a gene is lacking (or altered), yet there is a significant difference in a certain chromosome - X/Y - Rosie.

Rosie says:

09:16am | 30/12/10

Thanks Tedd is that right?

In the Pacific Islands like Tonga and Samoa, it is always a blessing if one of the male children are that way inclined. Even more so if that male child is the first born. This is because the gay child is the one that remains in the family home taking care of the parents! This child is given more respect than any of the other children!

In these islands they don’t need any laws to foster children, they just welcome any of their relative’s children born out of wedlock and will take care of them unconditionally.

Oh, how simple life could be without the over worked brains of the over educated!

Andrew says:

09:24am | 30/12/10

So you don’t like intellectuals (i.e., people who try to think things out in the best way possible), Rosie? Okay, but I know where I will turn when I want to know more about how to solve society’s knottiest problems - and it won’t be to you.

clovis says:

09:43am | 30/12/10

Rosie, there are no federal laws at all protecting same-sex-oriented people from discrimination. There are laws protecting cultures, religions, etc from being discriminated against… but not queers. The result is continuing homophobia and related abuse. Why does that please you?

Tedd says:

10:07am | 30/12/10

Rosie, I agree with your support for “welcom[ing] any of their relative’s children ... tak[ing] care of them unconditionally”, and acknowledge the culture(s) that feminise males - gay or not.  It was common in Greek society pre-Christianity, too.

To clarify, my point about chromosomes was simply the difference between men and women - that men generally have XY and women have XX, and did not mean to imply homosexuals have any known differences to all men, chromosome-wise or gene-wise.  i.e. there is currently no known genetic or chromosome differences between homosexual or heterosexual men.

Of course, some men have XXY or XYY (both occur at about 1 in 900-1,000)

Zach says:

04:19am | 31/12/10

@Rosie
Wow, to say that shows that although you may have done your research, you really don’t understand Poly culture at all.  Sure, they stay at home and care for the parents.  But only because there is no other place in the relatively stratified society for them.

Zach says:

04:22am | 31/12/10

@Clovis
True…and there aren’t any laws protecting heterosexuals either!  Keep it fair!  One day, I’d like to see a Straight White Man’s Parade, just to remind everyone that they still exist, not to be lost in the swarm of minority special interest groups.

Tupou says:

11:27pm | 31/12/10

Zach can’t you just accept how it is in Tonga and Samoa! I am sure Rosie didn’t do any research to know that it is a blessing if any family has a gay child and very much welcomed, loved and respected.

Yes they do stay at home and care for the parents. and in all the case that I have known it is their duty to do so. These days they usual find a partner and live together caring for both families. The family home remains in the family and there is always someone taking care of it.

“But only because there is no other place in the relatively stratified society for them.”

Zach I should know because being a Tongan, my older brother is home taking care of the family house so there is a home for us to go to whenever we go back! He has found himself a partner and they also take care of his partner’s mother who is still alive!

You make everything very complicated in the Western world.

Brian says:

09:21am | 30/12/10

@Tim.  You suggest that David has cited ‘partisan’ researchers and ‘selective’ and flawed research.  Would you please provide the evidence to justify this claim.

Tim says:

09:55am | 30/12/10

Brian,
a google search on Charlotte Patterson should start you off.
I’ve looked into a lot of this so called “research” and while some of it is credible, a lot is just gay lobby propaganda. The same goes for a lot of the research saying the opposite.
The author says below that”
“those who wish to prevent such an arrangement must supply evidence beyond Biblical injunction and selectively biased reports.”
He is guilty of the same.

I think the problem is that it is extremely hard for research in this area to be conducted neutrally without bias because most of it is conducted by people trying to push their own agendas.

Reggieman says:

10:13am | 30/12/10

@Brian

“Would you please provide the evidence to justify this claim.”

From the article above - Research by Gillian Dunne, senior research fellow at the Gender Institute of the London School of Economics

There’s the Partisan research. An organisation tasked with finding gender-based bias in society. Evidence enough?

Brian says:

11:01am | 30/12/10

@Tim & Reggiemann

Assertions that researchers are biased based on where they work do not demonstrate that their research is flawed.  That they are are both well credentialed and widely published academics employed at major universities should give you some pause before you make such accusations.

If you want to convince that their research is flawed you will need to show that by a critique of the methodologies and conclusions of their studies.  A valid critique of that sort would be evidence enough.

Daemon says:

10:18am | 30/12/10

IMHO Eskimo, the mere fact that “religions” are the ones running orphanages, based on prior history, makes a mockery of the government and the religions, vis a vis children in care.

Based on the last 100 years or so, the kids are more likely to have been raped, more likely to have been physically abused as well as more likely to have been used as slave labour.

The fact that governments of both persuasions are constantly reaching out to the abusers in alternative clothing, for support for what they (the government) is planning completely bemuses me, since there are so few of the non-thinking morons left in the population, and most of the ones who are still around, are in their dotage. Those of us with the ability to think for ourselves actually find it weird that people actually believe there is someone out there leading the way.

Dash says:

09:08am | 30/12/10

David, I agree with Iain. Where’s your case firstly that this right exists. And where is your case that this “gay right” is greater than a child’s right to have both a mother and a father.

Your article does nothing to address these questions. You merely have written the piece on the assumption that this right is there in the first place.

The other thing you need to do in a democracy, is prove that your argument reflects the ethics and moral will of the people. Otherwise it would be plain wrong for the law to reflect your views. You fail to do this in your article at all.

And we hear a lot about gay rights. But what about gay responsibility. If we all thought more about our responsibility to society and less about our rights, this world would be a much better place to live in.

You are right to say religious groups are biased towards their religion. Just as it’s right to say you are biased towards Atheism.

Philip Crowley says:

09:11am | 30/12/10

Hear hear David

MrMac says:

09:22am | 30/12/10

Dash

Of course every child has a biological mother and father, Dash, but their absence or dysfunction is why kids are up for fostering or adoption.

So, it’s it’s about reality, not about rights that can’t be or shouldn’t be met.

Andrew says:

09:27am | 30/12/10

It would be nice if we were governed by a secular democratic system; unfortunately, there is nothing to stop politicians being influenced off the radar.

A Bob says:

09:29am | 30/12/10

Dash, your reply does not make its case, it is just a lo[o]se collection of unrelated snippets that make no overall argument.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

09:47am | 30/12/10

Dash,

I think you may have misread the article. If there is no evidence that, it is harmful in raising children in a homosexual family, then the rights of the child or the parent are irrelevant.

Even though I am unhappy with the idea that ethics and morality should be defined by an ad populum argument, recent surveys conclusively demonstrate the public are unfazed by homosexuality.  So I don’t see your point. 

“You are right to say religious groups are biased towards their religion. Just as it’s right to say you are biased towards Atheism.”

We are in part agreement. That is always a good start. But I must pick you up on that I am “biased towards Atheism”. 

Just a modicum of thought shows this to be profoundly wrong.  It is like being biased towards afairyism because I do not accept fairies exist.

All it means is I respect reality over fantasy.

David

Dash says:

10:07am | 30/12/10

@ Mr Mac, sorry you’ve lost me. I agree with your first point and I didn’t question that at all. This article is about the law following one view over another. I have made it clear that the law should reflect the morality and ethics of our society. And I have also made it clear that a right does not exist purely because David Nicholls says it does. This article is about rights and that’s the reality. Otherwise David wouldn’t have written it.

@ A Bob, it’s so important to think for yourself. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute which is of your own mind?

@ Andrew, no argument from me on that. Minority groups often have a disproportionate amount of influence. But we do need to remind ourselves what the fundamentals of democracy are. And I would argue that our right to vote should be used to keep politicians on the radar. If society agrees with David’s view, then the law should reflect it. I would not argue with it.

Dash says:

10:47am | 30/12/10

Hi David,

Come on man, Atheism is a view of what is reality just as religion is. You are biased to your view but at least show some respect for others. You don’t have to agree with something to tolerate it or to respect others rights to believe it. As president of your foundation, you show it and its members to be intolerant and disrespectful to the majority of the population.

Have a look at the last census David. Just 19% of respondents declared ‘no-religion’. If no one believed in religion, your fairies argument may be valid. But more people recognised organised religion than atheism. Anyway, your argument is profoundly rediculous as it could logically be used by anyone who believes they come from a position of truth.

MrMac says:

11:01am | 30/12/10

Dash, the commonly trotted out “a child’s right to have both a mother and a father” on its own, or relative to another scenario, such as a gay desire to parent - as you do - is a generalisation that does not always apply.

My point was some kids lose one or both parents, or one or both parents are detrimental to the kids welfare, hence those kids need to be fostered or adopted, and this negates a perceived rigid right that they should stay with their parents.

Blandly stating “a child’s right to have both a mother and a father” denies the reality some kids end up in, ffs

Tedd says:

11:06am | 30/12/10

Dash says [10:47am]

Ad hominem fallacy, hasty generalisation fallacy, red herring fallacy, special pleading and appeal to popularity fallacy.

Argue for your position or at least the issues, dash.

A Bob says:

11:07am | 30/12/10

Dash, indeed, didn’t you notice? I corrected Iains spelling error.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

02:04pm | 30/12/10

Dash,

“Atheism is a view of what is reality just as religion is.”

No, Atheism accepts there is no supernatural sphere. No other conclusions can be drawn from that. Religion accepts there is a supernatural sphere and many conclusions are drawn from that.

“You are biased to your view but at least show some respect for others.”

How can I be biased about not believing in magical sky gods?  I respect all others, I just don’t happen to respect views that oppress others.  Sorry you are not like that.

“You don’t have to agree with something to tolerate it or to respect others rights to believe it.”

How you have concluded, I do not respect anyone’s right to believe what he or she wants shall, I suppose, remain a mystery.  Atheists, including me, couldn’t care a less if people want to believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.  Just don’t try and impose that on the impressionable minds of children through indoctrination or onto the political system and we’ll get along fine.

“As president of your foundation, you show it and its members to be intolerant and disrespectful to the majority of the population.”

Pure bunkum, of course.  What you are saying is that other Atheists or I shouldn’t have an opinion and should just shut up.  Obviously, your own plank needs looking at before you worry about my splinter.

“Have a look at the last census David. Just 19% of respondents declared ‘no-religion’. If no one believed in religion, your fairies argument may be valid. But more people recognised organised religion than atheism.”

What do you expect with a leading question as follows? “What is the person’s religion?  How many people answer with the religion of baptism even if they are not religious now? 

And, what about taking into account, the 20% of children under the age of 14 years.  They are no more little Christians than they are little Muslims in Iran.  The figures are wrong but that is not important so much as you consider that the more who believe, the greater is its chance of being true.  Yeah, right!

“Anyway, your argument is profoundly rediculous as it could logically be used by anyone who believes they come from a position of truth.”
Who is talking about truth?  Not me.  I am not proposing that one of the invented 4,000 gods exist.  If you are proposing such a thing, then let’s see the evidence before you start blabbing on about what your particular god expects of you and those in society who reject the idea as delusion.

I’m hopeful you will put some thought into your reply.

David

Bigos says:

03:41pm | 30/12/10

David; Aren’t you “Special pleading has no place in it.”? The research you cite in your article appears to be made from observations. Besides phsychology is entirely opinion based. You use these flimsy argumets to attempt to change the natural order of things? The thing common within this debate is that both sides don’t really have an argument, which makes me take the side of “Just Friggin Leave it Alone”. It’s a slippery slope where the state decides/recognises peoples personal sexual choices. Having said that there is no law stopping gay people from getting married, it’s just that this gay marrige social construct isn’t recognised by the state and society at large.

Dash says:

03:46pm | 30/12/10

David,

Is a belief that no supernatural sphere exists a concept of what you belive to be real or not? If that is not your reality then what is it?

You believe in magical matter that just happened to be there! You don’t have the answer as to how it got there to begin with. You have theories as to how it developed but you can’t explain what the original matter was let alone how it came to exist. There are still many mysteries in science yet to be explained. Some people plug those gaps through religion. You just live with the void. Magical Sky Gods vs Magical mysterious matter that just happened to be there somehow once upon a time! Not sure how or why or who but to you that’s not relevant.

Sorry but in my opinion, telling people they believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden shows a significant lack of respect for people’s beliefs not to mention a very healthy dose of arrogance! I never said you shouldn’t have an opinion (please don’t put words into my mouth to satisfy your own agenda), just that you should show some respect to others. Particularly when you don’t have all the answers yourself. And as president, that is the image you project for your foundation. You complain for gay rights yet you show a lack of respect for peoples right to practice their religion.

So let me get this right, the lesser of the population who prescribe to the atheist point of view, the greater is it’s chance of being true. Your argument looks at the very least, just as bad when applied to your view of the world.

Your version of the truth is that there is no God! So lets have your evidence that there is no God before you start blabbing on in mainstream media offending religious people by comparing their views to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones David. Perhaps it’s the survival of the fittest coming out in you.

Simon says:

04:04pm | 30/12/10

“Pure bunkum, of course.  What you are saying is that other Atheists or I shouldn’t have an opinion and should just shut up.  Obviously, your own plank needs looking at before you worry about my splinter”.

OH. that’s right, only believers in ‘magical fairy gods’ should be compelled to keep their opinions tothemselves.

I thought we lived in a democracy and that everyone has the right to exporess an opinion. Expressing an opinion is not necessarily forcing it or indoctrination.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

07:00pm | 30/12/10

Dash,

You have been overly antagonistic so I respond in kind.

I do not know how the universe started or how life originated but neither do you.  Your guessing a ‘god did it’ is not a satisfactory explanation to a thinking mind when there is no evidence to back it up. 

When the fact arises that your god is the god of your culture and it is brought into the equation, a thinking mind must suspect there is something else at play as all cultures defer to their god.  They are all different and they play on the fear that humans have of eventual annihilation, which is reinforce by most religions.  Not to mention the fear of hell thrown it for good luck as a constant theme even if it is disguised as Pascal’s wager.

Asking me to prove the negative of the existence of your god shows how little you understand the reasoning processes involved with logical thinking.

Knowing you respond as this has me using the fairy example in an attempt, obviously futile, of making you think for yourself instead at the behest of your upbringing in a religious tradition.

I mean you no harm but I refuse to bow down to irrationality as that is worse than death to me.

David

Dash says:

08:20am | 31/12/10

David,

I responded by reflecting back at you the very arguments you made yourself. When I do it, you call it antagonistic. When you do it, everything is fine and reasonable.

All I asked you to do was show some respect to people who have different beliefs than you. I did not tell you what I do or don’t believe (yet you seem to be reaching your own conclusions) nor did I tell you what you should believe. But I did try to point out that no one has all the answers.

You asked me to prove there was a God, I asked you to prove there wasn’t one. Then you berate me for throwing your own argument back at you. How is that rational, if not hypocritical, behaviour?

There are many thinking minds behind theology David, always has been. Many people may see you as patronising to suggest theologists do not have “thinking minds”. It merely backs up my comments about the way you represent your foundation. Anyone who disagrees with you does not have a “thinking mind”, believes in “fairies”, does not “think for themselves”. I would argue the thinking mind is one which remains open. Yours seems to be shut rather tightly.

I’m not sure why you assume I can’t think for myself. I would suggest I have quite an open mind on these points. You assume I believe everything I’m told, yet you don’t know me or my upbringing or what I believe or don’t believe. You know what they say about people who assume.

Unfortunately we have digressed from my original post which said that the law on these things should reflect the morality and ethics of society. That it is fine to question those values but impossible to separate religion from the argument because of it’s role in establishing those values. It is also impossible to separate religion from it’s people. I have no problems with the law being changed. But I do have an issue if it is changed on the basis of a minority view in spite of what the majority want. You may well argue you are in the majority on this one. Once you’ve convinced the legislators, the appropriate changes will be made as they have been in the past.

You however, do not have an Atheist given right to descriminate any more than religion has that right. The Church’s view to you is descrimination yet your view is apparently not?

James1 says:

01:30pm | 04/01/11

I can’t help but wonder if Dash could have more effectively missed David’s point.  You need to seriously think much, much harder Dash, as you are clearly out of your depth in this debate.  You have not responded to one of David’s arguments at all.  Particularly funny is your asking him to prove that the god you believe in does not exist.  How about this: no doubt you agree with David that Zeus and Apollo do not exist.  Can you prove that Zeus and Apollo do not exist?  That is the intellectual equivalent of your question.  Think on that a while. 

David is not arguing about the existence of god(s); he has his opinion, you have yours.  David is saying that your belief in god(s) should not have an impact on policy-making such that certain categories of citizen are deprived of rights available to other categories of citizen.  This deprivation of rights should only be conducted on the basis of evidence.  Hence the inappropriateness of raising pedophilia in this debate, as there is a wealth of evidence (much of it derived from organised religion and its activity) that the actions of pedophiles do have a detrimental effect on children.

Also, you spell very badly.

Mark says:

05:34pm | 05/01/11

Actually both David and Dash are fundamentally wrong in both of their arguments.  The fact is that laws should be capable of supporting all of society, not the majority.  Just because some people believe the gay or lesbians adopting is wrong, does not mean it is wrong, even if the majority believe this!  Creating law to support only some people is discrimination.  This can only be argued in relation to where we draw the line, not in the fundamental principles.  Speaking of Gay Responsibility, how is this any different to Hetero Responsibility, infact why does it need to be differentiated?  Once Gay rights equal Hetero Rights, it will not be Gay Rights, it will be Human Rights. 

We could go into the childs Rights argument quite deep, but I just present the question of, why happened to the childs rights to live with their biological parents?

Lastly, and this is what really annoys me, is why does there have to be a beginning.  The concept that we HAVE to explain how everything started is limiting and frustrating.  If God created existence, then God has always been present, why can’t matter be aswell?  Until we have proof that matter was originally created from something, or that God was originally created, both arguments are flawed.

In short, I am an Athiest who does not believe in God, but I respect others belief in God, and respect their right to perform their religion as neccesary, as long as it does not infringe on my rights, or the rights of others.  The same as I respect gays and lesbians the right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as it does not infringe on my life or the life of others!

L. says:

09:06am | 30/12/10

“When will we see homosexual or atheist organisations setting up their own adoption agencies? “

Do you really think they would be allowed to..? It seems more than a little dumb to blame gays for not setting up an orgnisation that the churches…and therefore the gov… will not allow.

notsurprised says:

10:16am | 30/12/10

“Do you really think they would be allowed to..?”
Why wouldn’t a homosexual or atheist organization be allowed to set up their own adoption agency? Do you believe that the church or the government would not allow? Now, that would truly be discriminatory!

L. says:

11:01am | 30/12/10

“Why wouldn’t a homosexual or atheist organization be allowed to set up their own adoption agency?”

Because the churches would scream blue murder at the prospect, that’s why… and the gov (both sides) would jump to attention immediately for fear of losing votes.

notsurprised says:

12:13pm | 30/12/10

So what if the churches scream, it does not stop a homosexual or atheist organization from setting up its own adoption agency. If it is not outside the law then they could do it, fact is they haven’t.

L. says:

12:27pm | 30/12/10

“So what if the churches scream, it does not stop a homosexual or atheist organization from setting up its own adoption agency.”

Really..?? You don’t think that adoption agencies are licensed in same way? Do you really think that the Gov would allow an organisation staffed for and by homosexuals to place children..? The reason is, the Churches would mount the mother of all political scare campaigns to make sure such an organisation never comes into existence.

If you don’t think they would, just have a look at the religious / moral hand wringing over the possibility of an R18+ classification for video games aimed at adults!

Andrew says:

12:39pm | 30/12/10

What exactly is an “Atheist organisation”?  There are plenty of charitable and other organisations that have no religious affiliations - they would perfectly fit the definition of “Atheist organisations”, would they not?  Please think about this for one second - having an organisation based on their DISbelief of something is ludicrous.  It would be like having the “we don’t believe in fairies” club, or “leprechauns are a load of bollocks” club.  It just won’t happen.  Now, the “religions are stupid and waste of humanity’s precious resources” club might have slightly more merit, but still doesn’t have the necessary collectivising force necessary to be the central tennet of an organisation.

But since you ask for some, here’s a few organisations that don’t have anything to do with religion - you may have heard of them!  The Red Cross.  Amnesty International.  Doctors Without Borders.  Oxfam.  The Gates Foundation.  The list is endless, if you’d do just a bit of research, and each of these organisations does GREAT work, unhindered by any adherence to stupid, ridiculous, and out of date religious dogma.  And in most cases, they do it with far fewer overheads than religious-based charities are capable of, and without forcing their ‘victims’ (the people they’re supposed to be helping) to sit through the sermons, lectures, and guilt trips associated with religion.

It’s a very interesting point the author makes - anti-discrimination laws were setup in part to stop people being discriminated against for their religion.  It’s ironic that now, the largest form of discrimination is being carried out by those very religions.

Rossco says:

08:35am | 30/12/10

I’d just like to add that any private organisation that receives public money automatically gives up those rights to discriminate however.

Daemon says:

11:03am | 30/12/10

Rossco hear hear.. Problematically however, the Catholics don’t seem to be fazed by the opprobrium of the masses vis a vis unmarried men telling others how to run their lives, and then adding, sort of as an afterthought, “can little Johnny stay with me this weekend”?

The parents never questioned the offer since he was god’s representative and beyond reproach, and little Johnny never thought to mention to mummy and daddy about what happened when he overnighted with “father whatever”, since he knew damn well, he wouldn’t be believed.

After all of that, the unthinking still pop in and genuflect on a Sunday, still follow the “infallible” Pope and his rulings on such a range of things as whether condoms stop AIDS. And still they don’t question! What does it take for someone to realise that “something is wrong in the state of catholicism”, after all these years and all these court cases and all those sore bottoms?

Why indeed would a gay person want to be part of such a monstrous load of claptrap and abuse?

Bigos says:

04:01pm | 30/12/10

bec, not sure what you mean? The right to use public roads, transport, the right to attend a school, university? What privileges are afforded to hetrosexuals? I’m a single male who is hetrosexual, what rights or privilages do I enjoy that a similar person of homosexual persuation doesn’t?

Chloe says:

09:06pm | 21/01/11

@ Bigos

The right to marry and adopt without discrimination, of course. What article are you commenting on?

Jade says:

11:07am | 30/12/10

So you would have supported continuing to deny the vote to women, indigenous people, and immigrants? Or the White Australia Policy? Or the banning of interracial marriages? Perhaps you feel that there was no reason to ever allow women the right to hold property? Or indigenous people or women to attend university?

The above were all at one stage or another, the “will of the majority” and in some instances, probably still is. The majority should never have the right to deny people rights based on arbitrary categorisations such as gender, race or sexual orientation.

Dash says:

12:36pm | 30/12/10

No Jade I definitely would not support the denial of any of those things, come on! I don’t understand why you jump to that conclusion from my comments?

Please read my comments again. In the circumstances you mention, the law was correctly changed to reflect the change in societies morality and ethics. That’s exactly the point I am trying to make. The same may well happen in this situation. I don’t believe you are right to say any of those things remain the will of the majority. There was a landslide referendum on the Aboriginal vote. Immigrants were never denied a vote and Australia led the world in granting political rights to women.

All I say is:
1. the law should reflect societies morality and ethics
2. religion is important because of it’s impact on societies morality and ethics. That may be changing but last census showed only 18.7% didn’t recognise religion.
3. you cannot separate religion from the people it represents

And I ask what makes something a “right” Jade? When does gay parenting move from being physically impossible to being a fundamental human right that should be protected by the law? In my own mind, no one has answerred that sufficiently for me in this instance. I’m more than happy for you to enlighten me. But I wont blindly accept that a right exists just because it’s an assumed truth in an article such as this one.

I know this is an emotional topic, but I fail to see how I suddenly become a target for you just because I point out some holes that need to be filled in David’s argument.

Greg says:

12:44pm | 30/12/10

Jade, would you prefer minority rule? I think Dash’s argument about the law needing to reflect our values is reasonable and hasn’t that been a fundamental corner stone of our modern way of legislation? I also think religion still plays a big part in forming those values. And I think all of the things you highlight, changed in line with the changing views of society. Isn’t that democracy in action?

MrMac says:

12:53pm | 30/12/10

“2. religion is important because of it’s impact on societies morality and ethics. That may be changing, but last census showed only 18.7% didn’t recognise religion.”

Morals and ethics are independent of religion these days, especially after the issues of child abuse in church institutions, and also to do with ethics around arguments of truth in theology, or lack thereof .

18.7% in 2006, plus 11% who did not answer the optional religion question, yet what will those figures be in 2011 after 5 years of debates like this?  18.7% is about what the Anglican figure was.

Jade says:

01:00pm | 30/12/10

There were several countries which preceded Australia in granting the right of women to vote, and it certainly was not the will of the majority. Similarly, it was not the will of the majority to recognise the right of women to own property, nor the overturning of the White Australia Policy. Certainly, people got used to it after it happened, but based on recent opinion polls and the popularity of anti-immigration rhetoric, it would not surprise me if this country welcomed a return to the White Australia Policy with open arms.

Furthermore, the continuing support for income management and the other discriminatory practices of the Northern Territory Intervention demonstrate a deeply held belief that indigenous peoples should not be granted equal rights in this country. 

If a straight couple has the right to adopt a child that is not their own, it becomes inherently discriminatory to deny that right to adopt a child to a same-sex couple. The right to adopt exists - to deny that right to a couple based on the gender of the people is discriminatory and bigoted.

Your views became a target because I don’t believe that we should allow tyranny by the majority. If it were up to the majority, there would be continued segregation in the US, we would still be seeing European immigrants only, and women would likely still not be permitted to work after marriage in this country.

The reason that society’s views on these issues changed had little to do with a “gradual” change in attitudes and more to do with unpopular movements pushing an agenda of fairness and human rights in the face of some overwhelming opposition to the concept. The attitudes changed AFTER the change to society, not the other way around.

Dash says:

02:38pm | 30/12/10

Jade, I think it is a very lefty dangerous place you want to throw us into. If you want minority rule, move to North Korea.

Australia Federated in 1901 Jade. Women were given the right to vote as part of the constitution from day 1. Globally, NZ was the first country, followed by the colony of South Australia. Your claim of several countries is wrong.

Your view on the White Australia policy is mere scare mongering without substance. You are starting to sound like a raving greeny to me now. Border protection does not equal racism. Australia’s immigration levels have been the highest of the Western World recently.

The NT intervention was introduced in response to rampant child sex abuse and the “scared children” report tabled by the NT government. It had bipartisan support in the parliament and is still supported by the current ALP government. Does your view on Aboriginal equal rights extend to mean equal welfare systems? Or would you be hypocritical and say that they should have a welfare system that no one else in the country can access as is the current state of affairs.

“Tyranny by the majority”? OMG put down that little red book Jade!

Yes I agree with the notion that people should shout for what they believe in. It’s one of the great aspects of any democracy. It stimulates debate and there are many instances of change for the better. But no one owns any debate, no one can lay claim to the absolute truth and no minority group should force it’s will upon a democracy which by definition is by the majority for the majority. The consititution of this country can only be changed by a majority of votes in a majority of states for a reason. If you believe that’s tyranny of the majority go and live in China, North Korea or Iran. Those shining lights of human rights!

You still haven’t explained how something physically impossible suddenly becomes a human right defendable by law. Perhaps it’s just the vibe?

Mark says:

05:56pm | 05/01/11

Dash, your comments completely rub me the wrong way.  Not only do you regularly jump to your own conclusions against what someone has said, you are also asking ridiculous questions.  Jade is not asking the minority rule, she is stating that the majority shouldn’t rule either, we should all rule.  Just because more people believe something is wrong, doesn’t make it wrong!  Rulings should be decided based on facts, not on our feelings and belief!  Secondly, while I agree with several of your points, the fact that you need to ask what defines a human right is ridiculous.

Using your point, lets break it down, what makes anything a Right, Dash?  Equality, thats what.  Equality among men(used in the reference of our species, not man himself), means what is a right for one, is a right for everyone.  It was decided it was mankinds RIGHT to adopt.  If a single man wants to adopt, it is his right, if a single woman wants to adopt, it is her right, if a man and woman want to adopt, it is their right, but if two men or two women want to adopt, it isn’t their right because of their sexual orientation?  That, right there, is discrimination.  We are not talking about a man and a woman creating a child, which is impossible without external influence, we are talking about ADOPTING, which is quite possible!  The fact that you are arguing that because they are unable to birth a child naturally, means they don’t have the right to discriminate, means you should have the opinion that single people cannot adopt.  Is this the case Dash?

David says:

03:07pm | 18/01/11

@Grumpy Old Man

No, homophobia is not a creation of religion, Homophobia came first and was reflected in and propagated by the religion that a homophobic society created.

Harry t says:

09:35am | 30/12/10

Religious groups are no less accountable David, and in terms of public debate, they face much more criticism than ‘secular’ groups.
Religious groups allow non or irreligious people to adopt. But you are correct in that a gay or atheist adoption agency would not be considered religious but it would be an interest group driven by a set of values probably written down in a book, let’s call it a bible. Yada yada…

notsurprised says:

10:09am | 30/12/10

David, please clarify…
In your statement, “Religions operate using very large government subsidies and grants to the tune of 30 billion dollars of untaxed income in Australia.”
1. Are you implying that a non-taxable income is the same as a receiving a government grant or subsidy?
2. Are you implying that organized religions in Australia receive monies from the Australian government in any form, excluding that acquired by a common fund managed by such an organization?

Horse says:

10:21am | 30/12/10

No, let’s not call it a bible, Harry t.  Let’s call it a code of conduct or guidelines to meet the values of the stakeholders.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

10:52am | 30/12/10

notsurprised,

The best way for you to understand the religious free financial ride is to read Max Wallace’s book, ‘The Purple Economy’. It was written to bring awareness to the fact that ALL income derived by religion is untaxed as they are classed as charities.  Not all of that income goes to charitable use.  The taxpayer does not know the amount used in charitable work or for other purposes.  Gomez and Perkins (Google it) estimate that the total figure is about 30 billion dollars annually.  Their article gives a breakdown, the type you are after.

David

L. says:

09:23am | 30/12/10

“But please oh please stop ramming these beliefs down our throats and force others to agree with these differing views. “

Sorry, to whom are you referring? The Gay’s, or the chruch..?

Matt says:

12:19pm | 30/12/10

Drew, this is so true!

Jade says:

11:17am | 30/12/10

If churches do not wish government interference to ensure that they act in accord with the views of the government and wider society, perhaps they should begin to be taxed as any other private organisation, and perhaps they should also cease taking government money.

Furthermore, try in all instances where we are referring to “gay” or “homosexual” couples, substituting “interracial” or “mixed race”. Remembering that once upon a time the view of the Church on these couples was very similar to their current stance on homosexuals.

MelD says:

09:55am | 30/12/10

How did women get in the same category as illegal immigrants? really has me sctratching my head about that, women are not disadvantaged at all we are just pushy and if people (read men) cave not our fault at all, no one held a gun to their head, I am against baby bonus and government hand outs to single mothers or mothers in general, it is NOT a miracle you have bred, it has happened to millions of others for thousands of years get over yourselves seriously, stay at home mothers wanting to be paid for being parents which was their CHOICE no friggen way, being a parent is not a job

bec says:

01:27pm | 30/12/10

What great injustices are straight white men experiencing, apart from an increased tendency for sunburn and an inability to dance?

Belly says:

02:28pm | 30/12/10

Fiddles were not invented at the time of Rome’s burning.

Although SWM’s ARE disadvanteged because they are that ‘advantaged’ they become disadvantaged without it…....make sense? Thought not !
You poor poor unfortunate disadvantaged single white male I feel so sorry for you :,,-(

Ray says:

02:41pm | 30/12/10

Hey bec, 1 out of 10

Ray says:

03:30pm | 30/12/10

Belly, read again slowly, I said SWM - Straight White Male (not Single White Male). I know my last sentence is probably beyond you. Plus you don’t know when you’ve been ‘had’.

Belly says:

09:34pm | 30/12/10

WOW! Ray what a hoary old ruse eh? Oh gee you got me!
Must’ve been month’s in the planning!
Genius! Just like the genius reasoning of your last sentence.
Those blasted minority groups eh?

MelD says:

09:56am | 30/12/10

not on their own but there are ways around it, surrogates and IUI spring to mind

Horse says:

10:12am | 30/12/10

That doesn’t preclude adoption, fostering, or the fact that plenty of gay people are biological parents.

Your comment precludes virgin birth, too

MelD says:

10:37am | 30/12/10

yeah horse that doesn’t fly these days, i tried telling my parents immaculate conception, really and they didn’t buy it

Rossco says:

11:03am | 30/12/10

lol nice one horse.

graeme2250 says:

11:06am | 30/12/10

MelD, Still needs male and female somewhere in the equation.

Mayday says:

02:13pm | 30/12/10

The Virgin Mary managed all on her own!

PaulB says:

03:46pm | 30/12/10

Thanks for that little trip back to the late 60s school of reasoning an argument through irrelevance Graeme.  This debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the biology of childbirth.  Sometimes its really better to just not say out loud that first uneducated mindfart that seems so cute when you first think it.

JulesG says:

10:22am | 30/12/10

Gus: Yes, I’ve often thought that if there was a God it would be a women because a man could not be that perverse.

On the other matter, woman + woman = 0 babies too

AliceC says:

10:00am | 30/12/10

@Ken

‘4… If a woman fears rape it is not rape-ophobia, but her legitimate dislike of rape.  If many heterosexuals hold homosexuals unnatural it is not homophobia but our genuine aversion to homosexual activity.’

There is a huge difference to not wanting to be raped (someone inflicting sexual violence on you) and being homophobic (caring about what people do in their own bedrooms, which does not physically affect you in any way).

“If we got rid of the family, we would get rid off a small number of bad parents & lose a much greater number of good parents”

In what way is the author stating we should get rid of the family? All he is trying to say, is that gay people should be allowed to adopt/foster based on secular human rights, and not opposed based the beliefs of religious institutions…

MelD says:

10:02am | 30/12/10

I’m sorry, you equate rape a violent crime with homosexuality? are you kidding me? it’s not the same thing at all, should we go back to fearing black people too? homosexuality is not an action it is their way of life, who they are, like hippies, rape is a violent crime against men and women alike

and children take on their parents bigotry, there is no way to stop child hood bullying, it is more likely to occur coz your offspring is a ranga or has a funny shaped head

HappyCynic says:

10:41am | 30/12/10

Children are not solely raised by their parents, they are raised by their community.  This dismisses your silly argument that children of gay parents can’t get role models of both sexes.  Besides your notions of gender are horrendously outdated.  Fathers are every bit as capable of being nurturing, just ask any single father and vice versa for mothers.

As for your cost-benefit analysis of Christianity, well it depends on your viewpoint and history.

Also spamming your site on other sites?  It reduces your points to little more than a crappy advert, hardly worth a response.

A Bob says:

10:41am | 30/12/10

Ken, you make a category error by assuming that “normal” (in the majority) with “preferrable” or “right”. Normality is a statistical category, the others are an ethical category. If I were to visit a leper colony leprosy would be normal, but I would be mistaken to say that it is preferrable on that basis. Should I be denied some right simply because I didn’t have leprosy?

Another error. The woman who fears rape is not phobic, it is healthy to fear something that does us harm. How does someone being gay do you harm? To fear something that does not harm you is phobic. You have said in point 1 that you do not believe a child raised by a homosexual couple is likely to be harmed any more than a straight couple. You admit to the absence of harm but then justify your ‘aversion’ with poor logic. This is irrational and phobic.

You regard minorities as existing like parasites on the good grace of their normal hosts. This is in itself a denial of a fundamental human right as it regards minorities as being somehow less than human.

We live in a democracy. Democracy is not majority rule as a few have stated above, That is called mob rule. Democracy protects the few against the mob and recognises the majority can be wrong.

Sheldon says:

10:06am | 30/12/10

Um you do realise that the article is written the President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia

Tedd says:

11:39am | 30/12/10

So what, Sheldon?  The AFA and similar organisations have no desire or aim to expand into social services to push or maintain their views.

Matt says:

12:25pm | 30/12/10

@Tedd, well that is their CHOICE, but they should not complain that their members cannot adopt or foster through religious organisations.

joob says:

12:52pm | 30/12/10

Gays and lesbians aren’t necessarily atheists, Sheldon. I can’t remember if the bible makes that distinction.

Tedd says:

12:58pm | 30/12/10

Matt, it not about AFA members.

mary says:

11:15am | 30/12/10

oops .. blaming the sat nav .. this comment belongs in the ‘an honest guide to living better’  article ..

AliceC says:

11:02am | 30/12/10

@AG

“So the normal people get bombarded with the purverse behavior of the Homo"s and we just have to cop it without objection.”

How are you being bombarded? What ‘purverse’ behaviour do you speak of?

Dude says:

01:31pm | 30/12/10

Does anyone else wish AG’s parents were gay and thus, not able to produce such a nuff nuff? Also, I hate to break it to you AG, but you’re not normal.

Don’t get offended, AG, I am just telling you the truth.

AG says:

04:31pm | 30/12/10

Dude If they were gay they would be able to adopt a child and when the novelty wears off they can just hand it back without any future obligation to anyone. If not being Queer is abnormal then so be it.

Rossco says:

11:08am | 30/12/10

Where have atheists said that Christmas should no longer be practised? Many atheists or non-religious celebrate christmas. If you havn’t noticed it’s largely a secular celebration these days…

You really have no clue about atheism or the people that call themselves atheists.

Jason Todd says:

12:47pm | 30/12/10

I tend to agree with Rossco here. I don’t know of any atheists that are millitant about NOONE celebrating Christmas or wishing people a Merry Christmas. I am an atheist, and I will gladly wish people a Merry Christmas if they wish me one.
If anything, I would suggest that the use of “Happy Holidays” comes from us celebrating our diversity and not wanting to offend people of other religions who may have different celebrations around the end of the year, rather than an atheistic “War on Christmas”. After all, it is innapropriate to wish someone a Merry Christmas if they don’t celebrate Christmas, in the same way that if I wished everyone I met a Happy Channukah, it would be innapropriate to those who didn’t celebrate the holiday.

Relax Chris, Noone is trying to put the kibosh on Christmas any more than we are trying to put a hold on Channukah or restrictions on Ramadan. We just want to ensure that our well wishes are well recieved and that everyone has a happy and safe holiday period, no matter which God or religion they belong to.

David says:

01:17pm | 30/12/10

Have to agree with Chris rather than Jason Todd or Rossco. It is people who do not attend church who want to deny others Christmas celebrations. There is nothing inappropriate about wishing anyone a Merry Christmas. They need not celebrate it any more than others need to celebrate their particular religious holidays - or, if you must, say, “If you celebrate it then Merry Christmas” . What is wrong is to turn it into something that it is not for fear of offending. It is not a holiday it is Christmas. If we extend that logically then we should not wishing anyone a Happy New Year either because New Year comes at various times - that however never seems to be an issue. It is the Christian Christmas which is what people seem to object to - and I find that highly objectionable even though I do not attend church.

Belly says:

02:42pm | 30/12/10

David you didn’t even read their comments properly, the comprehension of some people is lamentable!
They both categorically state that as atheists they have no problem with people celebrating christmas or wishing people a merry christmas. Use your brains!

L. says:

11:05am | 30/12/10

“Oh please. Do we believe in freedom of religion in this country or not?”

Interesting. In the conext of this discussion, what makes you think that either the hopeful gay couple, or the child are (or would grow to be) religious?

Isn’t this a case of a church enforcing their beliefs on society..??

notSue says:

11:46am | 30/12/10

Well said, Peter. Even though I abhore homophobia and discrimination based on sexual orientation, I have to agree that in principle, unless a religious belief/practice is manifestly physically or psychologically harmful and against our curent laws, freedom of belief is a fundamental right.

I have absolutely no problem with gays being parents/foster parents and understand that in many ways it is a clear choice for them, versus many straight couples who don’t make such a thoughtful decision. However, I would take issue that that makes gays ‘better parents”. If they wish to foster or adopt however, why insist that agencies with a fundamental bias against them should be compelled by law to accomodate them? Setting up their own agencies seems like the perfect answer (as long as ALL legitimate adoption agencies receive funding and oversight by DOCS).

When we start picking and choosing *which* religious freedoms we allow we walk a slippery slope.

and @L. Where in Peter’s reply is that conclusion made?

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

11:57am | 30/12/10

Peter,

That was an interesting lesson in history although some of the wording seemed to be intentionally chosen.  Such as combining ‘religion’ and ‘education’ in the same sentence instead of using the more accurately described ‘religious indoctrination’ as it is rightly known in the modern world.  If one is discussing the non specific aspects of religion then it is education.  If one is promoting a particular religion as true to malleable young minds, it is indoctrination.

I agree with you entirely that the historical aspect of religion in society should be acknowledged, but to use that as a template for contemporary times is misguided.  Society has its roots in all kinds of misadventure.  Social evolution is recognising what is wrong and righting it.

This does not mean the forceful ridding of religion in society but it does signify that the immense perks, advantages, political control by religion is now coming under intense scrutiny.  And not just by Atheists.  The population as a whole is questioning the significance of the role of religions.  Surely, the number of disgruntled posters on this page shows this to be a factor.

If religious organisations take money from the taxation pool, then they must abide by the law of the land.  Only if they are totally financially self sufficient can they dictate to their own members on that which they deem permissible.

Australia needs a Bill of Rights to guarantee the protection and equal status of everyone.  I wonder if you agree with that statement?

David

Phil says:

11:07am | 31/12/10

David I could not disagree with you more.

Personally I am a born again Christian. I believe that Jesus died on the cross to redeem my sins. I fully respect your choice to be wrong with your beliefs, but that is for another discussion.

Firstly I have nothing against Gays, Lesbians etc. Hay cant see the trannys as being normal but thats my opinion. I have worked with and employed them, they are generally the ones taking the piss out of themselves, and not one person I met treated them any differently to a straight peron.

Do I want a gay or lesbian teaching in my daughters Christian School, telling them being gay is normal, no I do not. It is not normal, or adnormal it is something a minority of society conforms with and that I fully respect and support. As for Churches having a say on who they adopt out to, I agree with this entirely.

By the way what charities does the Atheist Foundation Run. What hospitals do you run, what schools do you run, what overseas aid programs do you have ? Didnt think so. Cause none of you will put your money where your beliefs are.
My thoughts are this comes down to Jealousy. Nothing more, nothing less. Atheism is a minority. Christianity in all its forms is by far the vocal majority in Australia, be that The Muslim Faith, Jewish, Chistian, Catholic, Methodist etc.

Do you not for one moment think that if the government thought they could do a better job, cheaper, providing a better service, particularly given the left wing elements amongst them who would be of similar thoughts to you, they would cease funding of what you call religious institutions. You can harp on all you want about the tax free status of religions, and some of this may be so, but its only tax deductible for the building funds, missions etc, not for normal running of the operations of the churches. I like many pay my taxes and on tax paid money give to my local church. How is that any different to giving a mate $ 200 (on which tax has been paid) would you expect him to pay tax on that again if I gave him that every week.

Of course your lot would rather on any given Friday night that Rave Parties went on where all kinds of mind altering drugs are consumed cause thats what progressives do in this day right? rather than kids be in a youth group praising god and having wholesome fun. Yes many might not consider this idea fun but its a darn side better for them than getting off their faces on illicit drugs.

Before you go on I will concede many religious organisations in the past abused children, many parents also turned a blind eye to things thinking better, guess what this also occurred in many non religious organisations, should we shut them all? I do think that the Churches as a whole have learnt, and children are better educated on the rights and wrongs and would speak up today if anything occurred. Hey Militon O was convicted of similar things, should we shit parliment.

See you cant have it both ways, either Faith based Schools, Education, Medical Treatment is for the better or its not. Either close the lot or keep them open with their own set of rules and continue the funding. See every corporation, organisation has a right to choose who they best find fit to do a job. I bet I would not be considered for yours given my Christianity. I bet as a straight married man I can get a job as the head of the gay lobby, and that is how it should be. Is it reverse discrimination. Yes it is, so according to you, Mardi Gras should be able to be run by Straight Christians otherwise with your bill of rights we could sue them for discrimination.

I am not catholic as stated above, and yes they were major players in the wronging of kids, so should you shut them all down. The education system would collapse with the added pupils. Shut any faith based health services as well, again major chaos. Should you them shut the Salvos, Vinnies, etc.

See you cant have it both ways. Just cause they dont agree with you, you want to impose your world views on them. It wont work. Just like light and dark can never go together.

Tedd says:

02:59pm | 31/12/10

Phil says: 11:07am | 31/12/10
” I fully respect your choice to be wrong with your beliefs”

A good dose of sanctimony there.

Chris L says:

12:09pm | 01/01/11

Phil, any school, charity or other service that is not religiously based could be described as atheist. I think you’ll find that atheists don’t claim to be doing good collectively as we are not collective. Thus programs like Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, the Gates Foundation, etc are attibuted to the philanthropists behind them rather than having the credit claimed by a group that is not necessarily involved. On that note, having your religion claim credit for organisations that were founded and run by individuals seems a tad disingenuous.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

10:00am | 02/01/11

Phil,

Quite a rant, unfortunately it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It’s great that you are a born again Christian, if you think so, with a dislike for Catholicism.  What has that to do with equality for same-sex oriented people?

Normal is a poor choice of words when it comes to sexuality. It is loaded in such a manner as to make it look ‘abnormal’ to be anything but heterosexual.  This kind of language manipulation is a sure sign of programmed responses to anything that doesn’t fit within the narrow confines of a particular ideology.  It is not an educated evaluation but a prejudices one. 

The AFA is not a religion; it is an educational/philosophical organisation.  If you wish to see secular and non-religious hospitals, schools etc, you will find them in most communities. The AFA has a mandate to expose the irrationality leading to harm by religions although we do donate to worthy causes like for fires, tsunamis and floods, without government assistance or advantages.

As for Atheists being a minority in society, that is oh so true but we are increasing rapidly in numbers. In fact, non-belief is the fasted growing demographic in Australia.  The reason for this is that everyone is born an Atheist and then many are brainwashed into believing one of the 34,000 religions that have existed.  Folk are waking up to the fact that they have been hoodwinked by their culture and evolutionary propensities and are reverting to the Atheism that is their birth status and right.

No one is denying that charities should receive tax breaks whether they are religious or secular.  Unfortunately, the situation is that all parts of religion are classed as charities in a phoney definition invented in the sixteen hundreds I believe.  Sure, let charities have tax breaks but only charities, not the proselytising parts of religion, and let them have proper accounting as to how that charitable money is spent.  None of the money that misses on being taxed with religion is accounted for and that is considered devoid of ethical standard by everyone except those with an incredibly narrow view on what is right and what is wrong.

It would be a waste of time to argue against your take on discrimination being a good thing.  Your religion has taken away your ability to reason correctly about such matters.  If you live in and benefit from a democratic secular system of government, and cannot see that discrimination is against that ideal, maybe you should try living in someone else’s theocracy for a while, one that is not your religion.  That might make you rethink such a ludicrous idea. 

Phil, it is religion which is imposing its dangerous notions on society as a whole, Atheism is just pointing that our, nothing more.  Religion has made you paranoid.

David

Heath Karl says:

10:09pm | 30/12/10

Children definitely don’t have memories. That is why homosexuals can raise children, because any trauma they inflict is merely forgotten.

We can only imagine what a poorly-adjusted, unreasonable, unthoughtful, loud child you were. You’re heterosexual must have done some damage to you, and been dutifully punished by your bad behaviour.

AliceC says:

12:32pm | 30/12/10

“There is nothing natural or normal about homosexuals raising children’

What a hateful, intolerant and nasty response. You plead tolerance by being intolerant???

Horse says:

12:39pm | 30/12/10

How are children that are up to be adopted or fostered denied a mother or a father?

Answer: something has happened to those parents, right?

It is a straw-man redd-herring fallacy to say they are being put up for fostering adoption with the express aim to deny them their mother or father,  Sheeesshhhh!

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

12:07pm | 30/12/10

Ihatenaivety,

My guess is that the picture was chosen as a bit of a provocateur in playing on the stereotypical ideas some people equate with homosexually. 

Overt sexuality does seem to upset some folk although I have noticed not so much when heterosexuality is involved.  Check you local, garage, supermarket, corner store etc.

If you want to put a face to the reality of same-sex oriented people, have a look here and report back. 

http://www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org

David

Matt says:

12:49pm | 30/12/10

I certainly would not want such people raising children.

David Nicolls says he chose the picture to be provocative, but that seems to be the general trend with the Atheist and Gay lobbies, they simply do things to provoke, but never do things with the interest of society as their sole purpose.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

01:09pm | 30/12/10

Matt,

Please read what I said.  I did not choose the picture.  And, did you visit the URL I provided.  What are your impressions?  Let’s hear them

David

Belly says:

02:52pm | 30/12/10

“(consciously or otherwise) lifestyle choice, “
Or otherwise must mean subconciously? How could that possibly be a choice if it’s subconcious?

MrMac says:

12:45pm | 30/12/10

Ah, the good old “angry” ad hominem fallacy.

Yet, you start banter, David-the-christian.

Show the studies are “flawed, biased and inaccurate”, David-the-angry-christian.

Chris L says:

12:15pm | 02/01/11

“I have neither time nor inclination to banter with a prejudiced, hypocritical, angry man.” - umm… so what are you doing?

BTW we cannot blame any of the thousands of gods people have made up. The reason for this is that we don’t think any of them really exist. We do hold religious organisations accountable for their actions and I think that’s a good thing. I also think if you felt your own particular belief system were honourable you would not be afraid of anyone shining a bit of light on it.

AliceC says:

12:45pm | 30/12/10

“It is the RIGHT of the child to be raised in a well rounded and balanced family situation free from abuse and neglect.”

And being raised by a homosexual couple removes that right in what way?

St. Michael says:

01:11pm | 30/12/10

It’s probably something of a circular argument, but there is one absent factoid that’s being ignored amongst the gamut of surveys raised in support of the article, and that’s the extent to which prejudice against the child from people *outside* the single-sex family affects the child.

Like it or not, children are cruel: talk to any kid unlucky enough to have been born with red hair to understand the way you can get labelled for something—to your psychological detriment—by your closest peers.  Childhood bullying and/or teasing has psychological effects that can last a lifetime if the ground is fertile; why would we assume that dear old Nicky will observe Marquis of Queensberry rules and merely restrict his teasing to subjects such as the kid’s height, age, weight, or hair colour and not to the fact he has one of each while Joseph has two of a kind?

And, despite all the immediate calls I’m sure they’ll be to ‘educate’ children that it’s totally normal to have two mummies or two daddies, you can’t educate every child in the class, and you can’t educate all their parents, either.  This thread of discussion eloquently displays why that will always be so, too.

Maybe the kid suffers no psychological or emotional deprivation from having two parents of the same sex in itself, but I don’t see any ruling out of these outside factors.  Intellectual dishonesty, sir.

AliceC says:

02:13pm | 30/12/10

@Double standards

It’s the Christian religion that holds a great deal of power in Australia, and affects the policy makers, that’s why they bear the brunt of the author’s argument.

Concerned Citizen says:

02:33pm | 30/12/10

Double standards my friend you are forgetting that islam is the religion of peace. Just ask them.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

02:46pm | 30/12/10

Double standards,

The Atheist Foundation of Australia, (Notice the name of the country) considers all religious belief to be a similar delusional state of the believer. Whether that is Hindu, Muslim or Christian, none has any evidence for their supernatural claims.

In countries where religion is entwined with politics to any great extent, injustice follows as with how homosexual people are tortured and killed in say, Muslim Iran or Christian Kenya.

But, we are the Atheist Foundation of Australia and Christianity being the dominant religion is the one upon which we focus.  We do this to alleviate present injustice brought about by religion and to make sure Australia doesn’t become like the aforementioned nations.

David

Outraged says:

03:47pm | 30/12/10

I am a gay guy and I agree with “Double Standard”! I am more scared of Islam becoming dominant in our culture! Christians just “tsk-tsk” us, but Muslims stone us to death!

Double standards says:

07:28pm | 30/12/10

David, you conveniently (and not surprisingly) completely ignored my question.  Where’s the condemnation of Islam? Christianity may be ‘the dominant religion’ in Australia but it isn’t the only one. You pick on Christianity because it’s a soft, easy target where you have nothing to fear in the form of retribution. Try criticising Islam (hey, post a cartoon mocking Allah!) and see how far you get. While you’re at it, how about you say something about how homosexuals are treated under Judaism? Too difficult, huh? Don’t want to be seen to be intolerant, hey?The worst treatment that homosexuals can expect from Christians may be discrimination, but at least they don’t face being imprisoned or stoned to death like they would in certain muslim countries. You’re typical of the rabble who take the easy route of condemning a peaceful faith while turning a blind eye to the barbarities of other religions.

Chris L says:

12:10am | 03/01/11

Whenever we criticise Islam the Christians say “we’re not like that!” and whenever we criticise Christianity they say “why don’t you criticise Islam?”.

Circular logic from professionals.

A Dose of Reality says:

03:24pm | 30/12/10

I’d go further, to paraphrase; “The church is by definition, the continuance of the roman empire - through the ascension of one the empire’s political tools”. 

I am in total agreement though.  Those of christian belief or “faith” may or may not discriminate.  Those that are of a political tool to control those of christian belief, or “faith”, discriminate systematically in order to control and maintain their own position.

“god’s Law” - interesting concept.  I wonder who benefits from it’s determination …...

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

03:19pm | 30/12/10

Ken Maynard,

Thanks for the offer to discuss the limits of prudence but unless you can provide some universally accepted evidence for your wild claims about religion, I think the encounter would not help you.

David

Ihatenaivety says:

10:08am | 31/12/10

By the same token, David, I’d love to see you provide proof that god doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, whether god does or doesn’t exist is not the question, whether we’d actually even be able to prove it if he does is the question.

Atheists are just as flawed by their stance as those who are religious are. Both require faith to believe what they do. Religious require faith to believe that a god exists, and atheists require faith to believe that a god doesn’t exist. The notion that one group is more superior to another because the have the backing of science, is also flawed because science can’t conclusively prove that god doesn’t exist. Using the physical to measure the metaphysical is flawed and even science would acknowledge that.

The only thing that bugs me more than hypocritical religious people spouting their religious ways are the new wave of born again atheists trying their hardest to convert people to their way of thinking, and doing so in the most hypocritical way, by judging those that you claim judge others. Its sad that the only way you’ve found to get through your day is to create another religion to support the concept of no religion.

What are you going to do one day if you find out one of the Jews/Muslims/Christians are right?

Horse says:

10:49am | 31/12/10

Ihatenaivety,

things either exist or they don’t - fact.

believing doesn’t change that fact.

It is reasonable to deduce something that doesn’t exist doesn’t!

Chris L says:

12:58am | 03/01/11

@Ihatenaivety there is no burdon of proof on atheists or else we’d need to disprove Zeus, Osiris, Raiden, Thor etc.

Do you believe in Cernunnos? If not, where is your proof?

David says:

04:11pm | 18/01/11

Ihatenaivety,

I your assertion that atheists, like theists require faith to believe what they do does not sit well with me.

Atheists beliefs, or lack thereof, are not based on faith. Atheism is simply the acceptance that there is no credible and reliable evidence to suggest that god or the supernatural exist. An atheist’s lack of a belief in god is the result of a lack of any compelling evidence to believe that god does exist. Atheism is not faith in an unverifiable belief system as your comment suggests.

Suggesting that David should provide proof that God doesn’t exist is absurd. There is no proof that fairies don’t have tea parties in my house when I am not there. That is not a compelling reason to believe that they do.

Ray says:

03:26pm | 30/12/10

Thanks Tory, but you haven’t looked too hard, and none fitted your ‘torpedo’ criteria. May be the dry humour you are missing, and the dislike of special groups seeking privelege and thriving on it. Like women who are the principal architects, conceivers and exponents of PC favours, really without peer. I see this as the thrust (for gays) behind Dave’s blog with little or nil objective basis. Hope there’s no swear words, abuse or ‘no point’, although the ‘no point’ can depend on bias and mental capacity. Bit like selective quotes of ‘Univerasity researc’ random examples, such as Dave would have us believe from Virginia and Southern California

My regards

thatcherschild says:

06:14pm | 30/12/10

And what happens when a straight couple split and the house and kids have to be divvied up, absolutely no freaking difference so theres no point to your comment.
In response to the odd person here moaning about christians being discriminated against, your religion is a choice, being gay isnt, its really no different to being born left-handed, another thing the church has demonised over the centuries.
In the Vic regional town where I live a gay friend was being assesed for the Disability Pension, in order to be processed she was obliged to attend a programme, through Centrelink, and was given two choices, one run by a catholic group, one run by the Sally Army.
Both groups have an anti-gay political agenda yet the govt was using my gay tax dollars to fund these two groups to place a gay person on their books.
My friend had no choice, if she didnt attend she was denied payment.
This situation sickens me, it seems these church groups are prepared to take tax dollars and promote an anti-gay agenda, yet gay people are forced to use these services - we have no right to say no, we are given no choice, that is discrimination.
So churchy people, until your basic rights to govt services are denied to you because of your faith you have no grounds to play the victim card.

stephen says:

09:14pm | 30/12/10

‘Bend over and I’ll drive yer home Mr. jenkins’.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

05:06pm | 30/12/10

Hi Melissa,

That is a point that has not been broached to date on this forum.  I would guess that children don’t have expectations about gender of their carers until much later in life. By then, they would have some understanding of the situation in which they were raised.

An insight into this seeming dilemma is this. I think it’s a bit like animals that have been orphaned and rescued by one of the wonderful fauna rescue and rehabilitation groups around.  Young animals adjust to new circumstance, fit in with, and accept their human carers as part of growing up.

I know it’s not an exact science using other animals as a guide but after all, animals is what we are.

I don’t see it as a problem but would bow to a more studied view on the subject. If there is one.

David

Elle says:

09:55pm | 30/12/10

Might I suggest that when most children go into care because of neglect or abuse, the sexuality of a foster parent is often the last thing they care about. If it is an issue for an older child they would be able to express their opinion. And as far as defending themselves, don’t kid yourself. The very fact that they don’t live with their birth parent/s is enough for them to have to counter comments in the playground. Coming to grips with that fact is just about the single hardest issue for them. It’s about time people understood that you can’t replace a broken home and damaged childhood with a perfect family. And quite frankly, many of the traditional couples I see fostering are ill equipped to provide children with special needs with the exceptional level of remediation and care they need. If there are clever, capable, loving people out there with the guts and determination to be good foster carers, then who are we to dismiss them out of hand?

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

09:42pm | 30/12/10

Hello Wayne,

You need to separate gay from Atheism even whether that is sympathetic to gay. There is no correlation.

The expression, “open attacks on Christianity” is not what is under discussion.

Religion whether that is Christianity or some other faith, has made homosexuality a ‘sin’, and this therefore adds to the social repression of homosexual people.  I guess you are not gay and don’t know exactly what that means. It is how gay people have to hide from others whom they actually are, to put across a story that keeps them from being beaten up or prejudiced against in some manner. You will never experience such a thing so you can easily proclaim ignorance in its happening to others.  My advice is to get out there and see the real world and meet some of these people who are not just figments of religious imagination but actually really exist as living breathing human beings.

Check this site out for starters. http://www.thepotentialweddingalbum.org

The use of words such as disrespect, blasphemy and intimidation are meaningless emanating from frightened persons who have never seen the damage these irrelevant defences do in the real world.  Blasphemy is a victimless crime, no one intimidates religious person in Australia, disrespect results from the stupidity of some people.

Why should I take responsibility for the blatant ignorance of religious folk who don’t see or don’t care about how they add to the prejudice experienced by lesbian and gay people.  Such activity is based in ignorance and not in rational thought.

No one is trying to destroy Christianity, and no one needs to as it is doing a mighty fine job by itself.  Stop acting like a brainless dorks and you won’t be treated that way.

Yes, most Australians will back rationality over yesteryear superstition every time. And guess what, they don’t care if you attend a church, mosque, or bash your heads out on the sacred wall in Jerusalem. 

I don’t have to prove if my motives are good bad or indifferent, you have to show they are malevolent. There is not a skerrick of evidence to suggest they are.

Please reply when you have gained control of your thoughts.

David

Horse says:

10:08pm | 30/12/10

The quintessential Australian is these blog posts, Wayne.

Vague whinging - special pleading - doesn’t seem like a good argument, Wayne.  Complaints of disrespect might also apply to your posts in blogs in the Punch, too, Wayne.

As for blasphemy or intimidation - the former is more special pleading and the later - well words and debate are hardly intimidation, Wayne.

Tedd says:

06:10am | 31/12/10

Good point, Cjunk.  One espoused on another blog here

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11424

where there was complaint of religious closedmindedness to science

jum says:

08:16am | 31/12/10

A recent news article [February, 2005] appearing in the AFA Journal, sponsored by the American Family Association, was critical of a study of gay and lesbian parenting and its co-author.

The co-author is not a researcher but a propagandist, asserted Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network. Glover noted that the co-author of the study, University of Virginia professor Charlotte J. Patterson, is a lesbian living with a female partner and raising three children.

http://www.narth.com/docs/patterson.html
She could not come up with any other result!!!

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

10:35am | 31/12/10

Ray Graham,

“This is all like dear Dave who wants to promote gays as disadvantaged because they disadvantage themselves, much like women.”

What a sexist, homophobic and stupid sentence. The AFA receives similarly worded mail from time to time, some much worse. Generally, the perpetrator is hurting for some reason and the only defence is to take out their frustrations on anyone they can.  It’s done to make them feel better but from my experience, it’s hardly ever successful in achieving that.

Your warped rant does more good for bringing about equality for same-sex oriented people than you could ever imagine.  No sane person would like to be associated with such thinking. I’m reasonably sure that people who are opposed to equal rights for lesbians and gays would not want you on their side.

Don’t blame them really

David

Ray Graham says:

12:09pm | 31/12/10

Hey Dave I aint hurtin. I’m the pedigree white Aussie male that can play you ‘disadvantaged’ minorities off a break. Sexist, homophobic or any other ‘ist’ like ‘racist’, they are the indefinable cornerstones of expediant convenience for minorities. Which paddock are you grazing in Dave, or are you sitting on the fence. Whatever Dave, keep at it but don’t tell me gays, women, illegal immigrants aren’t the greatest exponents of sexism, racism or homophobia. while the SWMs are supposed to cop your crap, and similar track form from the likes of ‘Belly’ ache. The only really disadvantaged in this country are Aboriginals, but the remainder want to hold society to ransome for their own inner insecurity while the opportunity of a misguided society remains under PC influence.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

01:21pm | 31/12/10

Ray Graham,

My, my, haven’t you got the world worked out – Not!

Thanks for all your help.  It would be considerably more difficult a task without your opinionated viewpoint.

David

thatcherschild says:

02:10pm | 31/12/10

Wayne, you say “gays are firmly in your court”, how dare you presume to speak for gay people.
Gays are in nobodies court.
Within my social circle I have straight atheist friends and gay people of faith, the one thing that unites us is our disgust at the hate that people like you perpetrate, you complain of attacks on christianity, well groups like the ACL with their nasty, unchristian hate-mongering deserve to be held to account.
You obviously are not in control of your thoughts, you are controlled by the words in an old book.
Keep your attacks coming on those that you hate Wayne, they will only be met with logic and common sense, something else you fail to grasp.

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

02:16pm | 31/12/10

Wayne Fehlhaber,

I am not responsible for the words of people who post on this forum. I take no responsibility, as they do not lead to adverse results for religious people.  However, you are responsible for the words supporting a religion that actually leads to oppression of various groups in society.

That is the big difference.

Your ‘hurt fawn’ response does not impress me.

It might be better if you worked out as to why you are upset by the opinions of others and it might be another good idea to work out why these ‘upsetting things’ are being said.  Trust me; there are reasons for these words.

And I hope you notice that I do not use language to attack anyone’s religion only to demonstrate mistakes in any of the faiths leading to harmful affects on Australian citizens who cannot defend themselves.

It would not matter how anyone formulated a criticism of religion, no matter how mild; the religious would still view it as being poor form.

David

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

10:38am | 01/01/11

Luke , i agree with your assessment on this article and the author.
There IS an intent to villify and destroy religion though it is denied along with responsibility for the blatant and beligerant intimidation displayed by gays and athiests in this column.

thatcherschild says:

11:24am | 01/01/11

Luke and Wayne, nobody wants to see your beliefs and religion destroyed, just held accountable in a modern, secular country.
Why do people like you feel its your christian duty to villify and demonize sections of society and people you obviously have no dealings with in day to day life?
I dont care what your religion is, I just dont want it to have any influence on our government, as a christian you wouldnt want to be dictated to by sharia law, yet you expect non-christians to be influenced by your christian laws.
The hate and destruction emenates from your side of the fence, not ours.

Ray says:

05:52pm | 02/01/11

Dave, you have a problem

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

06:12pm | 02/01/11

Ray,

“Dave, you have a problem”

If you are referring to me, there is no doubt about it at all. I admit I am human and with that territory comes the possibility of making mistakes.  However, I look for those errors in my judgements and you know what, I get better at it all the time and making less of them.

If I did not look for my imperfections, biases, prejudices and warped thinking, I would stagnate and continue to make them over and over again. 

Somewhat the same as you are doing.

David

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

08:50am | 03/01/11

Ray,

How can you be so wrong?  Lobbyists for gay rights, as you put it, are asking for the discrimination by religion to stop.  One is not being discriminatory by stopping discrimination.  That is so stupid that it beggars belief.

And I suppose investigation at the behest of religious organisations is not biased.

Unless you can come up with some original thought, something you certainly seem to have difficulty with, your input is about as helpful as another iceberg would have been to the Titanic.

David

David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Aus says:

10:35am | 04/01/11

Hello Patrick,

Sin, in the context you are using is a religious word. All it means is estrangement from a god or a transgression of what is thought is a god’s will. These are reasonably standard definitions.  Religions have invented some of the ‘sins’ that are allegedly displeasing to a particular god.  Other ‘sins’ are just common sense, such as it is a sin to murder, and sanctions against murder have existed since time immemorial. Religion did not invent that.  The ‘sin’ of homosexuality, mentioned in the bible was written at a time when an understanding of nature, including human nature and human sexuality, was very basic.

All homosexuality means is an innate sexual attraction to the same sex in the same way heterosexuality is an innate attraction to the opposite sex.  Neither homosexual nor heterosexual people choose to whom they are attracted.

Religions in general have a huge problem with human sexuality overall as exemplified in the Monty Python film, ‘The Meaning of Life’.  The song in it, “Every Sperm is Sacred” is a parody showing the outcome of this exaggerated reverence for human sexuality as being ridiculous.  There would be a video on the web via Google.

Religions teach a morbid fear of sexuality outside its evolutionary procreation purpose.  It produces a state of guilt in adherents by setting up an image of perfect sexuality that no one can attain. Nor should they even try.  It is high up on the list of the worst teachings that have ever existed on the planet.  The end-product of the harm caused by such a narrow view of sexuality is one of the ‘hidden herd-of-elephants in the room’ of human history.

David

James1 says:

10:48am | 05/01/11

It is an institute that studies gender.  Just the the Institute for International Affairs studies - can you guess - international affairs.  Or the way the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre studies strategy and defence.  What is your point?

James1 says:

03:04pm | 05/01/11

None of the institutes you mention are based at the London School of Economics.  The LSE also funds the institute.  Which, like it or not, has an excellent reputation.  The SDSC I mention above is funded in part by the Australian Department of Defence, but regularly produces publications highly critical of Defence and the Australian government.  You should not dismiss something just because it is an institute. 

How do you know what their studies mention?  Have you read all of them?  And why would they mention STDs?  Given that most people undergo health checks before adoption anyway, why is that relevant to this discussion?

Steely Dan says:

03:41pm | 05/01/11

@ brett

“there is not a single study conducted by them that in anyway mentions some of the disadvantages of being gay. (like higher rates of STD’s)”
Why would that be relevant (if it’s true)?

“researh is a great thing, you can prove anything if you are selective with what you look at.”
So you have a problem with the data from their research or their methodology? 
Or is it that you just don’t like the findings?