Dear david f, I deliberately omitted any reference to 'ratsakh' lest it be misconstrued as a reference to a popular rodent poison. Thank you for recognising one of the points I was making and extending and amplifying the example. My experience has been that an open minded conversation is impossible if a participant doesn't perceive the difference between connotation and denotation and I was attempting to model one method of logical thinking and analysis. Unsuccessfully, as the later-posted sentence "Again though we don't need 'scholarly exegesis'on what the Scriptures plainly show" demonstrates.

Dear Alan (and others), social policy development has to cope with the baggage of society's history… much of that having been imposed and controlled by religion. So how best in modern liberal democracies to accommodate the religious on questions of public policy?

My glib but considered answer is not to. That is, social policy should be decided without religious input or presumption. Rational and considerate reasoning should be the basis of social consensus. If the resulting policies accord with particular religious views. Good. If not, then tough. Alan, it appears from a distance that the French have been following this approach for a while, does it seem to work? Are there better social policy models?

One candidate which might be acceptable to most people claiming to be religious, as well as to those who are not, is the ethic of reciprocity – the golden rule. Been around for a while (longer than most religions), mentioned or incorporated in many texts believed sacred, independently extant in many locations around the world and inherent to most secular philosophies.

Dear Wm Trevor,

The ethic of reciprocity and the Golden Rule are not the same thing. I think the ethic of reciprocity maintains one should return to someone what is done to you.

The Golden Rule is stated in different ways. One statement is 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' That differs from the ethic of reciprocity since the other is really not involved in your action. You have not paid attention to what they actually have done - just what you would like them to do unto you. They may not want the same thing done unto them that you want done unto you. In that sense practicing the Golden Rule is a selfish act since it does not consider what others want.

The ethic of reciprocity also is not always a good guide to behaviour. Someone may behave in a mean, spiteful way to you. If you behave in a similar manner to them you have demeaned yourself and have possibly hurt yourself.

Neither the ethic of reciprocity nor the Golden Rule is an adequate guide for behaviour in all cases.

Dear WmTrevor,
By all means advances in social policy should be pursued without religious input if they cannot be achieved with it. This seems to have been the experience in France which moved five years ago to recognise gay relationships with civil unions. Consensus here is the nation is much the better for the change.
There is still hope, however, that religious bodies in Australia can contribute positively in this area. After all, much social policy which currently benefits all Australians has been driven by religious conviction, particularly but not only, Christian. In addition to those reforms referred to in my post of Friday, 11 March 2011 6:05:04 PM, above, we could add the current social security system, most amendments to gambling legislation, most of the support for Vietnamese boat people in the 1970s and many refuges for asylum seekers today. There are others.
Does the French system work? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The strikes here last October were extremely divisive, extremely costly and ultimately futile. So, yes, WmTrevor, I am sure there are better models.
Australia is actually pretty good, now I view it from this distance. You have a culture of accessible local members, responsive political parties, relatively respectful discourse (with the exception of a minority of extremist media and political players) and generally positive working relationships between mainstream churches and governments. (Substantiation: http://crosslight.org.au/2008/05/25/uniting-church-in-parliament/)
On the issue of same sex unions I agree the churches are lagging. But change is coming. Fr Frank Brennan SJ called for same-sex unions in Eurekastreet.com.au last week and has not been excommunicated. Well, not yet.
Golden rule? Absolutely.

Dear WmTrevor,
Regarding your mention of John Boswell's academic work, and his excellent scholarship - yes, Boswell's writings are indeed impressive. And he himself was stunningly beautiful. He was, as I recollect, given a professorship at Harvard as a very young man - maybe while still in his twenties, but certainly not out of his thirties.It's quite a while since I read his magnum opus on Christianity and Social Tolerance, so forgive any minor factual errors in this. The general picture is accurate. How tragic then that very early in this extraordinarily talented intellectual life and career, he died - of AIDS! His bio is provided on the back of the paperback edition of the book, excluding the mention of his death, which occurred shortly after publication.

Dear Rhian,

You said; "Jesus had not a single thing to say about homosexuality".

I offer Luke 17:34 "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

I am not trying to be flippant. It is obvious to me the writer of Luke was attempting to portray an unjudgemental Jesus.

Thanks, csteele. Most intriguing.
Are you aware of any other references to same sex relationships in the Judeo-Christian Bible?