WWG asks

'So what do same sex couples want?' Like all those that deny their Creators right to determine right and wrong, they themselves want to be god. They are not really any different from those who live in defaco relations or those who watch porn and claim it is harmless. The fruit is clearly seen but their 'rights' is more important to them than common decency. The author pulls out the 'we are the compassionate ones' garbage not giving two hoots about the good of society.

In 2004, that is, 2004, the Howard government passed an amendment to the Marriage Act that defined marriage as a union between a man and woman. Therefore it would seem that the Australian government did indeed define marriage, and very recently.

Prior to 2004 there was no such definition of marriage in our Marriage Act. It was amended by the Howard government specifically to prevent same sex marriage.

I have no wish to deny Christians or anybody else the right to express their views on marriage, or to conduct their marriages as they see fit, and I believe I made that clear in the article.

What I do object to is those views being imposed on the lives of non Christians via government legislation. As happened in this country in 2004.

We have never had a legal definition of marriage that had reproduction at its centre, and I very much doubt that we ever will. It is a bizarre and reductionist concept of love.

Anything written that queries the Christian position is immediately determined to be church bashing. Is there some reason I don't know about as to why the churches should be exempt from critical examination and commentary?

I think that if churches seek to exert such enormous influence over the lifestyles of non Christians, then they had better man up and get ready to be questioned and challenged. The days when we took our direction, unquestioning, from the village priest, have long gone.

Whether or not the Hindu god would overlook Mother Theresa's intrusions, I cannot know. But that is beside the point. This is only given as an example of the lengths Christians can go to in their unrelenting determination to impose their beliefs on others.

Jennifer Wilson.

Jardine,
The government only interferes when it is necessary to protect the individuals in a sexual relationship. This had to do with property justice, not sex. It is indisputable that when a couple set up home together that their relationship ceases to be private and becomes public whether there was a marriage ceremony or official registration of a marriage. This relationship the law holds has certain responsibilities, like if one individual is the breadwinner and the other the housekeeper then property accumulated during the relationship is held to be in common.

So I deny that government interferes in sexual relationships, rather its only purpose is to protect the vulnerable.

Jennifer Wilson asks, "Is there some reason I don't know about as to why the churches should be exempt from critical examination and commentary?". The answer is yes — it upsets Runner.

There is no reason churches should be exempt from comment but let's remember they also deserve a right of reply.

I am still looking for an answer to my question. What do same sex couples actually want?

And Jennifer I apologize for being a bit personal in my comment. Just took umbridge at the Mother Theresa comment. Surely there is someone who is still alive that you could have used as your example. That person could defend themself

Sells - when the government passes legislation that states marriage is a union only between a man and a woman, then the government is interfering in sexual relationships. It should be of no concern at all to the government if same sex couples marry. It is none of the government's business.

You write: "I worry about how easy it is to take the worst examples of church polity and behaviour and then draw the worst conclusions. We can use that exercise to blacken the name of any social entity. When it is applied to the church it simply becomes hysterical and insulting"

I'm at a loss as to know what other conclusions can be drawn from the global revelations of child sexual abuse in the churches. Is there something worse yet to be revealed?

Your attempts to minimise these crimes, and your attempt to denigrate those who object to them, are sadly typical Christian reactions.

Let me repeat again what Jesus said: “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones”.

It would seem that your Christ took crimes against the little ones extremely seriously.

Or was he being hysterical too?