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

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

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

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

that's what social security is, too.

not in australia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More to come later. I have to run.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither am I.

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

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

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

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

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

That was going to be my next point...

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

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

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

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

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

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