LeCharivari

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

• basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

So now the Bing Dictionary is the arbiter of what constitutes a "civil right" ?

..... and to be fair to the Bing Dictionary, they DON'T actually "label same sex marriage a civil right" at all!

Personally I'd go for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a bit more of an authority (although I may OF COURSE be wrong), but unfortunately its a bit ambiguous as it refers to "men and women", not "men or women" which is a bit of a stumbling block - and even then some countries apply unchallenged limitations of their own, making it far from "universal".

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a16

Repealing a law does make a lot of difference to a lot of people. It also makes a huge difference in how the State treats an individual.

Yes and no in this case.

Yes, it would make a lot of symbolic difference to a number of people in India (and outside).

No, it wouldn't make any actual difference to how "the State" (India) treats anyone. Police who harass LGBT would continue to harass LGBT; anyone who doesn't want to employ LGBT could continue not to employ LGBT; treatment of MSM with HIV (see the judgement for relevance) would continue unchanged - no applicable laws would have been changed.

What would be needed to make any difference would be either new anti-discriminatory laws or a radical change in the public view of LGBT.. "Repealing a law" doesn't do either of those.

There is a world of difference between what is symbolic and what is effective.

When you are fighting both the public opinion and the law, there is a problem. The law should be the place where people can get justice and protection. In India, it appears they have neither.

That depends on who "they" are.

Those who support gay rights think that the law should protect them - quite rightly, in my view. That would require not a repeal of 377, which is purely symbolic, but a whole new set of anti-discrimination laws.

Those who are anti-gay rights think that the law should protect them - some previous links explain their view of what from. 377 doesn't do that, but Indian public opinion currently does.

Some here appear to have difficulty reading what has actually been written through the haze and steam.

Neither I nor the Indian Judges said or even suggested that there was no oppression or discrimination against LGBT in India. The judges did NOT say that, despite what the New Yorker reported, NOR DID I as some here have said equally incorrectly.

That was the whole point of my opening paragraph:

It's interesting to compare what some of the media said the judges said with what the judges actually said, since the judges did NOT say that they believed "that the criminalization of homosexuality did not cause sufficient harm to justify any action from the court" but that they simply considered that the applicants had "miserably failed" to make their case. Hardly the same thing.

Let me repeat: "HARDLY THE SAME THING"

Let me try to make it as simple as I can:

It was a court case.

Judgement in a court case is supposed to be based on the evidence presented, nothing else. This was.

The evidence presented by those claiming discrimination was "singularly laconic" and "wholly insufficient" and they "miserably failed" to make their case.

There may be plenty of discrimination (in my view there is), but NONE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT. It was claimed that the law (377) had been used to prosecute gays, but not a single case of such prosecution was cited and the ONLY case cited was of a man having sex with a cow's nose nearly a century ago.

One side presented a good case. They won. The other side presented virtually no case. They lost. That's what happens in a court case - and this WAS a court case, not a moral debate.

I don't think anyone's not as good as me - just not as fortunate.

In Thailand, I could just go to certain gay bars!

... are they "virgins", though?

No, they know what they're doing (pretty bored about it, too, some of them). Anyway, how would you know?

If they were (and particularly if they were the canvas, not the brush), I doubt if they'd be bored!

I'm not comfortable with such "tolerance" for hateful laws criminalizing homosexuality in ANY country. As GAY people in the world, we are part of an INTERNATIONAL struggle for legalization of both homosexuality itself and also the relationship aspect as well. Every country is in their own place and will find their own way, but speaking as a JEW I wouldn't tolerate criminalization of being a JEW any more or less than I would tolerate criminalization of being GAY. The government of India deserved to be STRONGLY and FORCEFULLY condemned for this recent action of blatant oppression against our brothers and sisters, the GLBT people of India.

But it isn't a "recent act of blatant oppression". It dates back to 1861.

Neither does the law criminalize homosexuality, but that doesn't seem to matter to some .....

It's interesting to compare what some of the media said the judges said with what the judges actually said, since the judges did NOT say that they believed "that the criminalization of homosexuality did not cause sufficient harm to justify any action from the court" but that they simply considered that the applicants had "miserably failed" to make their case. Hardly the same thing.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/12/the-dubious-arguments-for-indias-gay-sex-ban.html : "The final judgment makes it clear that the issue was not restraint per se, but the judges’ belief that the criminalization of homosexuality did not cause sufficient harm to justify any action from the court."

http://www.livelaw.in/why-section-377-is-constitutional/ "The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was singularly laconic in as much as except giving brief detail of the work being done by it for HIV prevention targeting MSM community, it miserably failed to furnish the particulars of the incidents of discriminatory attitude exhibited by the State agencies towards sexual minorities and consequential denial of basic human rights to them. ..... These details are wholly insufficient for recording a finding that homosexuals, gays, etc., are being subjected to discriminatory treatment either by State or its agencies or the society."

Its also interesting to note that the applicants didn't come up with a single specific case of the law ever being used to prosecute or persecute gays, and the only case actually referred to at the hearing which had been prosecuted under the Act was one from nearly a century ago when a man was prosecuted for having "intercourse with the nose of a cow" - hardly a surprising prosecution in India given the sacred status of cows to Hindus, even if the cow was a consenting adult.

In other words, and despite all the hype, there was NO evidence presented that there has been any "blatant oppression against our brothers and sisters, the GLBT people of India" at all.

For starters it was meant to be funny - but since you mentioned it I wouldn't have it any other way. The first and last trip I've ever made by myself in 25 years was a few weeks back and neither of us could sleep whilst I was away, not for fear either of us would play around, we are simply are co-dependant, heck I struggle to remember how I take my tea most mornings.

I would never stare down another guy in my husband presence, I think it's terribly inconsiderate, ever notice the straight/gay folks with wondering eyes. I've been spending a lot of time with my young nephew these days and I see the older white guys thinking I have a money boy and I want to smack them, but then I see their money boys smiling at me - all seems rather strange for me.

I believe it's more than your heart belonging to the other person, but as you say people are different and that's okay.

"I see the older white guys thinking I have a money boy and I want to smack them, but then I see their money boys smiling at me - all seems rather strange for me."

Thank God I seldom go anywhere where I see any "older white guys" ... or "their money boys".

Some very long postings here. Have we defined yet what 'promiscuous' means? We learned that there is a measurement problem: Number of sexual encounters vs number of sex partners. Does it make a difference whether the subject is in a relationship? What is a relationship? When you've known each other for 3 hours or 3 weeks or 3 years? Or only when you are married or monogamous? So many questions. Sent from my I-405 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It doesn't really matter what "definitions" you use or what "questions" you ask as long as you are CONSISTENT - in other words you apply the same definitions and ask the same questions of samples selected in the same way.

If you don't differentiate between a mean and a median average and one sample is based on those cruising singles bars, saunas, parks and public toilets while another is based on a computer generated randomly selected sample any conclusions drawn are questionable, at best.

In Thailand, I could just go to certain gay bars!

... are they "virgins", though?

I can't see what you are arguing about.

(edited for brevity)

That makes two of us ..... maybe more.

Quite what Australian taxes, the legitimacy or otherwise of the Australian government, its listing or otherwise on the New York Stock Exchange, etc, etc, have to do with same-sex marriage in Australia (or anywhere else) is beyond me.

No it's still porn whether you're into him or not. If I were to make a porn film (be VERY grateful that's never likely to happen) I'd expect to get paid for it. I certainly wouldn't do a freebie.

He very probably does expect to be paid - or, at least, to turn a profit on his otherwise unremarkable "art" which he is selling on e-bay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Contemporary-Orginal-Art-Whoregasm-Clayton-Pettet-/251377130847 ) .

He doesn't seem overburdened with gray matter - the name "Whoregasm" is anything but original in the art world, and when he spray painted an ad for his "performance art" (and was arrested for graffiti) he forgot that next year was 2014, and wrote 2013 instead.

Maybe he'll finish his act by emulating his fellow Russian performance artist's efforts last week: http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/nov/11/russian-artist-nails-testicles-red-square-cobbles-video or a Japanese artist's last year: http://digitaljournal.com/article/325480 .....

[so many errors of basic FACT that there isn't room to "quote" them all here, so since you seem to delight in questioning other's IQ because of their grasp of "facts" I'll try to go through some of them for you:

"It's not a matter of 'what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room'.......that's just homosexuality, something to which I'm not opposed, not for me,"

Thank you for your lack of opposition, but "what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room'" is no more "just homosexuality" than it is heterosexuality - its just sex.

"... currently the law states that marriage is between a man and a woman, not another man who thinks he is/pretends to be a woman."

Gays do NOT think they are or pretend to be women. End of story. Men who think they are or pretend to be women are transexuals, not gays, and some are heterosexuals.

"The process has been subject of rigorous debate, or as is the current politicians cliche, robust debate, and it's failed the get over the hurdle."

NO, it has NOT been the subject of ANY debate in federal parliament for nearly a decade, since "marriage" was re-defined as being between a man and a woman in 2004. That's the problem - the previous government avoided a debate and this one looks like doing the same.

"I see it as point scoring by a minority group. They can have civil unions, and all the rights that go with that, ..."

NO THEY CAN'T!! All they can do is "register" relationships at State level, despite the ACT passing a number of Civil Union acts - and by a bizarre twist, the Civil Union Act in the ACT was repealed automatically when the ACT (briefly) legalized same-sex marriages!

"Incidentally, Australia is not the only country to refuse homosexuals the right to 'marry', but they have the right to civil unions, and all the rights that go with that."

NO "THEY" DON'T!! (see above!).

" All these groups have a leader/spokesperson, and he/she's usually running an agenda, and seeking his/her 15 minutes of fame, basking in the limelight."

And who would you say is doing that in Oz? David Pocock? Polls in Oz consistently show that some 70% now support gay marriage, and there are no identifiable "leaders", just a lot of supporters.

"Close relatives are not permitted to marry; that's the law, and for good reasons. What about their human rights to marry?"

YES THEY ARE! In Oz first cousins are allowed to marry, as they are in NZ, Canada and nearly all European countries!

If you are going to claim to make "statement(s) of fact" please make them facts, not fiction.

..... and if you are going to promise that "This is going nowhere because I'm responding to the same words, so with one last comment, which I've made several times already, but obviously not comprehended by some, I'm out." please don't disappoint.

Ok, now you're going a tad too far in your assertions here. Allow me to correct you on a few of them, please don't take offence as it's simply just to give you and understanding of the laws...

If you've read my previous posts on this thread, you've seen me mention the "state and territory" scenario. Now, the thing to be mindful of here is that yes, the NT and the ACT have the right to do all the things that the states, however the issue here is that the Federal Government regulate how their laws operate and co-exist. So therefore, if there's a federal precedent in place that opposes the territory legislation (proposed or otherwise) it will get kicked back. This is why the High Court ruled the way it did. It had no choice. A state can legislate changes to state laws but, like all controversial changes to the constitution expect there will be a challenge in the High Court - sound familiar? - though the difference this time is that there is no precedent.

Regarding 'prohibited' relationships, federal legislation states that cousins can marry each other, however, states are entitled to amend this accordingly, I can't find - read: it's late and I'm knackered, perhaps I'll do it tomorrow - anything other than citations of NSW saying it's ok and QLD saying it's a grey area, I'm sure Tasmania's cool with it though

Though to be fair, F4UCorsair didn't define 'close relatives' so technically he's correct, "close relatives" aren't permitted to marry.

For perspective, under Federal (and the odd State) law a "close relative" is defined as a father/daughter, mother/son, grandparent/grandchild scenario.

They weren't "assertions", just "FACTS".

I made no mention of the State/Territory difference although it's one I'm not only aware of but have mentioned in this context before, so you're not actually "correcting" me but agreeing with me! ..... and Federal legislation is just that: legislation, not "precedent".

All States/Territories allow first cousin marriages. No amendments or grey areas - you will be wasting your time looking for any actual legislation or judgement that says otherwise, but don't let me stop you looking for uninformed opinions/"citations".

"Close relatives" is a bit of an ambiguous term generally, particularly where marriage is concerned where it may be taken to refer to first cousins, but references to it in Oz law are only really in the context of immigration and they are very specific: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/s1.03.html - spouse/de-facto spouse, parents/step-parents, children/step-children, siblings/step-siblings (not "grandparent/grandchild"). ..... So since you can legally marry a close relative (whether its a step-sibling or a first cousin) F4UCorsair is NOT correct whatever meaning of "close relatives" you choose. Though, to be fair, I think it may have been getting late and you confused "close relatives" with "immediate family".

I seem to remember there was a Cambodian consulate in the area behind Big C South Pattaya, with a sign advertising it nearby on Sukhumvit Road.

I won't be going past for a few days, but maybe someone else will be passing by sooner or knows the exact location.

Not sure how to put this, but is he the brush or the canvas?

Childish, superstitious, cowardly, immature fascists.

aka: People that spend any time at all worrying about what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room.

You've missed the point entirely.

(edited)

So many errors of basic FACT that there isn't room to "quote" them all here, so since you seem to delight in questioning other's IQ because of their grasp of "facts" I'll try to go through some of them for you:

"It's not a matter of 'what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room'.......that's just homosexuality, something to which I'm not opposed, not for me,"

Thank you for your lack of opposition, but "what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room'" is no more "just homosexuality" than it is heterosexuality - its just sex.

"... currently the law states that marriage is between a man and a woman, not another man who thinks he is/pretends to be a woman."

Gays do NOT think they are or pretend to be women. End of story. Men who think they are or pretend to be women are transexuals, not gays, and some are heterosexuals.

"The process has been subject of rigorous debate, or as is the current politicians cliche, robust debate, and it's failed the get over the hurdle."

NO, it has NOT been the subject of ANY debate in federal parliament for nearly a decade, since "marriage" was re-defined as being between a man and a woman in 2004. That's the problem - the previous government avoided a debate and this one looks like doing the same.

"I see it as point scoring by a minority group. They can have civil unions, and all the rights that go with that, ..."

NO THEY CAN'T!! All they can do is "register" relationships at State level, despite the ACT passing a number of Civil Union acts - and by a bizarre twist, the Civil Union Act in the ACT was repealed automatically when the ACT (briefly) legalized same-sex marriages!

"Incidentally, Australia is not the only country to refuse homosexuals the right to 'marry', but they have the right to civil unions, and all the rights that go with that."

NO "THEY" DON'T!! (see above!).

" All these groups have a leader/spokesperson, and he/she's usually running an agenda, and seeking his/her 15 minutes of fame, basking in the limelight."

And who would you say is doing that in Oz? David Pocock? Polls in Oz consistently show that some 70% now support gay marriage, and there are no identifiable "leaders", just a lot of supporters.

"Close relatives are not permitted to marry; that's the law, and for good reasons. What about their human rights to marry?"

YES THEY ARE! In Oz first cousins are allowed to marry, as they are in NZ, Canada and nearly all European countries!

If you are going to claim to make "statement(s) of fact" please make them facts, not fiction.

..... and if you are going to promise that "This is going nowhere because I'm responding to the same words, so with one last comment, which I've made several times already, but obviously not comprehended by some, I'm out." please don't disappoint.

Personally, I think we should just ban marriage altogether. It has proven to be a sham time and time again. I speak out of bitter failure and envy of the few success stories I have ever seen--namely couples that were codependent and their "secret" to living together for 30 years, was the occasional affair and/or not talking to each other.

How many hetero women marry men for their money? Or marry men on their death bed to steal their kids inheritance (Anna Nicole Smith), or stay on the payroll just long enough like a jaded cop waiting for their pension so they can file for divorce after hitting the 10 year mark so they can take half the guys/girls stuff? Don't even get me started on fake marriages for immigration, or in the military so they can get better pay.

Yeah, marriage, it's truly a "sacred institution". I can see why they want to keep gays from marrying.

Besides, their might be an invasion of ladyboys into the Western world if all the punters start bringing them home on fiance visas.

--rant over--

*going to go Skype with my future ex-wife now*

.

"fake marriages ... in the military"

I was a bit surprised by that one, but you are technically right with separation allowance. To be fair, though, that's balanced to some extent by field conditions and I've never come across anyone in the military who got married to get "better pay" ..... and that includes anyone in the Oz military, gay or straight (and gays have had equal rights, including to "married" quarters, in the Oz military since 1992)

Perhaps I suffer from over exposure to nature shows on televisions but it seems to me that nature has something to do with this issue.

The female of the species is the human in a heterosexual coupling who, by nature, are driven to select males who would have the perceived best genes for procreation. Thus the truth behind the assertion that women are more carefull, usually, in choosing a mate.

Further the female psyche seems to be much more emotionally involved in the sex act by nature as well for underlying procreation reasons as well. Of course, generalities are dangerous by their very nature as well.

In nature the male of most species is ready to mate at almost a moments notice while the female only becomes agreeable to sex when she is fertile. Sometimes referred to as the "Guardian of the gate" or words to that effect.

Herterosexual men necessarily must woo a woman or romance her or seduce her in most cases while men on men sex is much less complicated and can occur with limited foreplay for the foregoing reasons.

My obvious point is that humans are driven by nature when it comes to sex, however societal attitudes do temper that activity.

Thank you for posting something that while not "new" is at least not based on something from CARM or the FRC! This has already been discussed in posts #14, 20, 25 and 26, with links to a number of studies of varying reliability, but there are a number of other flaws in your argument:

"The female of the species is the human in a heterosexual coupling who, by nature, are driven to select males who would have the perceived best genes for procreation."

Correct - IF women only "couple" "for procreation" rather than for pleasure. No recent studies support that view, and all those I am aware of take the opposite view.

"In nature the male of most species is ready to mate at almost a moments notice while the female only becomes agreeable to sex when she is fertile."

"nature" very obviously does NOT apply to the majority of women! That is one of the dangers of studying fruit flies rather than people and concluding that their motivation is the same - if we followed the same mating pattern as many insects, I'd definitely choose to be gay! http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/what-males-will-do/meet-the-mate-munchers/953/

"Herterosexual men necessarily must woo a woman or romance her or seduce her in most cases while men on men sex is much less complicated and can occur with limited foreplay for the foregoing reasons."

If the "foregoing reasons" are incorrect (as every recent study shows them to be), so are your conclusions.

"My obvious point is that humans are driven by nature when it comes to sex ..."

Your obvious point is obviously incorrect according to all the studies - women do NOT only have sex to procreate (far from it!) any more than men. When it comes to sex humans are generally driven either by lust or by love and procreation is a comparatively minor consideration.

The sources of information is the research that was done. The links simply point to the existence of the research because much of the research isn't available on line.

Even your sources point to the fact that gays are more promiscuous, the only difference is how much more.

I disagree on both counts.

"The sources of information is the research that was done."

If the "research" is unavailable all we have from the "sources" is what they SAY the research said, which is no more reliable than what one poster here may SAY another said.

You may accept what CARM and the FRC say as being a fair and objective report of what the original research says; given their "agendas" I do not.

"Even your sources point to the fact that gays are more promiscuous, the only difference is how much more."

NO, "my" sources/links do NOT "point to the fact that gays are more promiscuous", only that a small minority are which is a totally different issue and which could be a reflection not only of mean and median differences but of radically different sampling methods (random samples vs samples from gay bars, etc). As I have also emphasised (and as all objective studies conclude) these are also at best indicators NOT "fact"s.

I have re-checked all my posts and links here, though, and this is quite a good example of why one interpretation / report of what was written may be a less than accurate reflection of what was actually written.

My last two visits - 90 days and certificate of residence for m/cycle licence - were a pleasure. Couple of younger women manning the entry counter and that really nice and efficient foreign volunteer. Smooth as silk - hehe, THAI should send their staff to take some lessons. Did my work permit up in Bangkok - Jamjuree - last month, and that also was smooth and relaxed. One official, a lt-col rank, even gave me a wai. Holy hell! I'm important. Going to Jomtien again on Tuesday for my next 90 days.

If you're talking about the farang "assistant", presumably you jest. He's not a "volunteer", he's a paid member of staff and as he told me last month that I could only do my extension 30 days in advance and that any embassy documentation (not needed) had to be less than 30 days old he's apparently not very "efficient" either. "really nice" .... well, let's say that with one notable exception behind the info desk I'd apply that to all those there except him.

What has always impressed me most about Mandela wasn't that he "led his people to freedom" (others have done that), or that he "forgave his enemies" and jailers of 27 years (others, albeit fewer, have also done that), but that he rose above all that and ensured "freedom" for those whom he had never had any reason to even notice and nothing whatsoever to gain from, such as gays and other minorities. That puts him in a league of his own in this century or any other.

.

2 steps forward, one step back.

'Cos opposites attract, isn't that what the great Paula Abdul sang

Unfortunately, the Court can only rule on the law.

Tasmania's still got their bit of legislation which only failed at the upper house level, but it seems the ACT was always going to fail in the High Court as the legislation was based on the federal legislation that had been shutdown last year. Thus giving the High Court precedent.

Tassie's version is apparently different. Given they are a state and not a territory the legislation doesn't follow the federal version and thus precedent is not set.

So all is not lost...

Agreed.

The thread title is incorrect: the Court didn't "ban gay marriage" - they deemed the ACT law contrary to Federal legislation, which it obviously was. It looked doomed from the start ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/647961-australian-senate-vote-to-not-recognise-overseas-gay-marriages/ ).

The Tassie law (or any others) could be treated differently, but it looks unlikely and as if a Federal solution/vote is going to be needed - correctly in my view. What the ACT law and its overturning has done is make this more of an issue, and put pressure on there being a Federal vote on it.

Why do they have to get married, can't they live in a defacto relationship, or just live together.

The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship is that it would still not be recognised in the eyes of the law.

In other words if you say on a legal document that you are in a defacto relationship with a same sex partner, ie a stat dec.

I dont believe it would be recognised, if they don't recognise the marrige as of the courts decision.

Because in most places there are a host of rights that are assumed in marriage and not in de facto relationships. Rights regarding visitation and decision making in hospitals when one partner is seriously ill. Rights regarding inheritance and property jointly owned. And quite often tax considerations given couples that are legally married but denied de facto partnerships. And even the rights associated with divorce that a de facto relationship would not guarantee.

As JT says, if the option is available to breeders, why is it denied to others?

Oh, how positively DWEDFULL!!! This will cause a bit of flouncing about and finger pointing....reckon all those who "tied the knot" will have to Live In Sin while someone gets the Oz High Court to play ball.

"This will cause a bit of flouncing about and finger pointing ..."

Not to mention a bit of moronic drooling and pavement-scraped knuckles amongst the open-mouth-breathers.

As pointed out above, Oz isn't "most places". We've already got that "host of rights". What Oz gays want is to have our right to them recognized.

Why do they have to get married, can't they live in a defacto relationship, or just live together.

The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship is that it would still not be recognised in the eyes of the law.

In other words if you say on a legal document that you are in a defacto relationship with a same sex partner, ie a stat dec.

I dont believe it would be recognised, if they don't recognise the marrige as of the courts decision.

Incorrect.

In Oz a gay "defacto relationship" IS "recognised in the eyes of the law" for virtually all the same rights as marriage: immigration, adoption, pensions, etc, etc.

"The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship", at least for gays who want to formalise their relationship, is that it isn't a marriage.

So, your defense is that you don't like the links? Well, I don't either, but they are as close as it is possible to come to the sources of information where the actual research has been done. Much of the research is not available on the internet, so it is referenced in other links. Some of the information I have from books and papers I have written, but I need to find you a source, so I have. All you can do is attack the link. Well here's one again, in case you missed it. (edited)

"So, your defense is that you don't like the links?"

No, I DON'T like the links - I don't think there is anything to "like" about anything CARM or the FRC write.

"All you can do is attack the link."

Well ..... I hoped I had done rather more than that. I had thought that I had provided links to recent studies and surveys that anyone could access and read (although some are more "readable" than others). I had thought that some of those links were well researched and objective, whether they were national questionnaires or the GSS survey, which are generally recognised as authoritative, or data from over 3 million on a dating website (with the caveats given). I realise that my own experience is limited (and covers a survey of one), and as I have never had some of the experiences recommended here I freely admit that I am reliant on studies and surveys done by others who are far better qualified than I am - and I can only really judge those surveys' reliability if they are available, rather than judging them exclusively on what someone else has said.

I find some sources credible, others less so, but I only really believe that someone has said something if I can either read it myself or if it is quoted by an objective and reliable source. I don't consider CARM or the FRC either objective or reliable, I don't trust anything they say, and I think they have probably been "economical with the truth" in their editing - particularly when all their quoted sources unfortunately seem to be unavailable, as here. You seem to have a different view of them, and obviously you are entitled to that view.

I really don't think much more is to be achieved on topic by "defending" or "attacking" the likes of CARM and the FRC. I don't think they deserve the attention on a Gay Forum. I think it's an interesting subject, particularly given the topicality of "gay marriage", but I don't think CARM and the FRC have much objective to contribute so I don't see much point in my commenting further on what they say.

Hopefully (if anyone's still interested) there are alternative sources and "authorities" to quote, and other views.