No people should tolerate Government, or any other religion, defining marriage and dictating its practices anywhere.

Humans can define themselves.

'To simplify, the next time you walk down the street and you meet someone or stranger, what do you see? '

A fallen human being in desperate need of a Saviour.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 12 September 2010 12:17:04 AM

LOL runner! You might want to bite your lip.

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

http://thelasttradition.blogspot.com/2010/07/catholic-priests-caught-on-film-having.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06022706.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ_endorses_same-sex_marriage,_largest_Christian_denomination_to_do_so

And the lists goes on,on,on runner.

Its a changing world my friend.

Runner! you know the best things about gay people, they don't breed.

Punt intended.

( remember what one believer said here....." we will just breed you non-believers out.

TTM

runner and think than move

"If we assume that all of the estimates are of equal validity, then about 33% of priests have a homosexual orientation -- about one in three."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

"It would seem that about 50% of present-day seminary students may have a homosexual orientation."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm

runner and think than move

think than move

obviously their is a large portion of Catholic priests who are also sinners in desperate need of grace. Unfortunately their 'religion' blinds them from that.

The author, as commentator, says:

>>60% of Australians is not, in my assessment a "focus group."

The word "weasel" was aptly applied. That was 60 per cent of a sample, not 60 per cent of the population of Australia. You're either deliberately misleading or profoundly ignorant.

And since I haven't seen the questions, I'd have to hold judgement on whether the survey was a valid one, anyway. Little things like sample selection and question format have a lot to do with the responses.

Jefferson, you sound really worked up about this, a little aggressive even.

I refer you back to the article, from which you seem to have strayed far and wide.

Most of the points to which you are demanding sound byte answers are at least of essay length, and many of them could be better answered someone other than me.

I am not really very interested in an argument about why the government "registers private sexual relations in the first place." I am working from what we currently have in place.

There is probably a case to be made for the abolition of government intervention, but I am not the one to make it, and that was not the object of my article.

I believe that you can answer most of your questions yourself, and you are being a little disingenuous in your strident efforts to make me accountable for the number of issues you've raised. Which of course I am not, and couldn't ever be.

I would point out to you that you are perfectly capable of writing an article for OLO in which you discuss the aspects of the argument you feel I have neglected, or inadequately addressed.

Questions such as "why can't gays make their own public record" are not , in my view, honest questions, they are more a petulant complaint that gays can't have ours, they have to make their own.

I suppose I could persist in this futile exchange with you,and I'm well aware that if I refuse to do this, you will interpret this as some kind of victory.

But when you make stupid statements such as "voting to make homosexuality illegal," which is not on anybody's agenda, except perhaps yours, then its hard to continue to treat your questions respectfully.

Jefferson, writing an opinion piece carries a certain degree of responsibility for responding to reader comments. I feel I have more than fulfilled this responsibility towards you, and I think you and I must now agree to differ.
Thank you for your engagement with my article.
Jennifer.