Hi Anthony,

Yes I thought it very interesting to have a clearer view of the actual numbers involved in said lunatic fringe. It made me think of a while back when the leader of the Democratic Labor Party here involved himself in a political discussion about gays.The DLP is now very small, would you consider this part of the lunatic Christian fringe in this country?

Below some of probably the most offensive post I’ve ever come across on the net, in that discussion (I was “smokey” btw). I would be interested in your dissection of it if you wish to.

Dale of the DLP post #50

About legislating morality, or legislating in relation to homosexuality. In general terms, the church in it’s mission is not into legislation. Christians, like Jesus, want to see people turn from sin, trust in Jesus, be saved from hell and go to heaven. However politicians, even if they are Christians must legislate and the execute legislated laws, and the only way to do this is by benefit (reward) and penalty (dissuasion). Specifically on homosexuality, it is helpful to get past the “recognize me and my relationship” concern the relevant social concern. DLP recognises that the real social concern is the overwhelmingly increased health risks (even fatal ones) and attendant social problems associated with anal sex and oral sex (gay, plus some hetero), so that it is best for people to be dissuaded from such practices. This is a matter of medical science and statistical analysis, yet it is twisted by pro whatever lobbies. All medicos know that compared to the vaginal the rectum is inherently more susceptible to infections (eg HIV, hepatitis). There is also a much increased risk of other veneal diseases such as gonorrheoa. Mechanical damage to the rectum will happen regardless of safe sex measures. While condoms are recommended to reduce risks, they are far less than failsafe and their effectiveness for AID prevention is much worse than for contraception. Legislation requires health warnings of for eg smoking, however it is only for political reasons that there are no warnings, and no legislation in relation to anal sex. As to attendant social negatives, it is worth taking at look at the Fair’s Fair report on violence and abuse in Sydney LGBT relationships, where a high level of anal/oral sex must occur. ACON chief executive officer Stevie Clayton said “the report showed the levels of domestic violence in same sex relationships were similar to those experienced in heterosexual relationships” (Glebe Newspaper, Thursday, June 7, this year or last), is complete political spin. Whereas 25% of those in heterosexual relationships are affected by domestic violence/ abuse (23% abs 1996), The fair’s fair report actually indicates that 61% of those surveyed in LGBT relationships report domestic violence and abuse. If the report is reliable it indicates that the level of violence and abuse is more than double. If it is not reliable why talk about it? This well illustrates, “homosexuality and the politics of truth” (also the name of a good book, by the way). Rather than trying to justify personal sexual prefernces, politically, it is better to gace, prevent and remedy the real medical social problems that exist. That involves good legislation.