Pelican

'runner
There are still more Christians in parliament than atheists and lesbians so if you are so concerned about uneven influences, using your logic we should balance out the equation and get a few more atheists and homosexuals, and what about Buddhists, Hindus and other groups?

You miss the irony of your own post. It was the author of the article who claimed an inbalance of influence by the Christian 'right'. You should be making your comments towards the homosexual lobby as they are the ones claiming the victim status. I was pointing out that if anyone had an imbalance in power it was feminist and homosexual lobby of whom you always seem quick to defend.

'Really? According to who?

I thought the Bible could not be taken literally.
It was symbolic , and - was written by some men ages ago -
and we only have their interpretation of what did
or did not take place or what was said.'

Oh doubting Lexi. For me the words of Jesus are much much more reliable than yours.

Ah, but that's the whole point isn't it.
The words are open to interpretation - even
theologians disagree in so many areas. And
as I cited earlier:

"It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so!"

'The words are open to interpretation - even
theologians disagree in so many areas. And
as I cited earlier:

"It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so!"

Yes a very convenient way for those who choose to remain willfully ignorant. No wonder it was largely the uneducated that believed. Nothing has changed.

runner, I am so glad there is a limit to the number of posts permitted in a 24 hour period. Why don't you start a blog and rant your tripe from there instead of trolling here?

Advice to all, don't feed the troll.

The most compelling argument on this thread for treating the marriage question very carefully is JBR's erudite post (Sunday, 6 May 2012 3:56:34 PM) and the link he provides. It's not going into marriage that is at issue, it's the legalities surrounding the coming out of it concerning women, particularly, that need consideration.

It is only by defining "marriage" as between a man and a woman with the purpose of procreation that these considerations can be addressed. If, as a consequence, this affects those wishing to enter into barren elderly heterosexual relationships then so be it, a term other than "marriage" can be applied.

Simply put, there is a good deal more to "marriage" than love. What is it about the word that is so craved when a relationships can have love and legitimacy without it, or with a different term applied?

Thank you, JBR.

I doubt the religious right will vanish overnight. The 30-40% block that opposes gay marriage could easily contain the religious right. I think that gay marriage as a concept has entered the main stream and most people don't feel too threatened by it. Specially since it is still officially opposed by both major parties.

The RR must be having bigger fish too fry at the moment - though I am not sure what. Even if gay marriage gets through there is still plenty to fight for; asylum seekers, the mysteries contained in Sydneys Western suburbs etc etc. If that fails to excite there is always the true nature of the Eucharist or whether icons can be classified as graven images.

I often wonder what Julia Gillard was playing at during the labor conference. I find it hard to believe that the real Julia would oppose it. Accidentally allowing a conscience vote could have had some interesting side effects: as the liberals never have to tow the party line it could well have come close. That would have been some interesting politicking.