So there are serious enough question marks on both terms in use- "right" and "religious" - that this rhetorical phrase should be cast into the bonfire, to be replaced by terminology and discussion that will actually be constructive.

runner
It doesn't say anything.

These are not "homosexual" acts, they are pedophile acts. Have you also thought that pedophiles are attracted to jobs of authority where they have contact with children, hence the attraction of the Church. They clearly aren't men of God.

Does that mean we should ban heterosexual marraige as well because pedophiles also target opposite sex victims?

Makes no sense. It is bigotry which causes harm by marginalising homosexuals and adds to the increased suicide and attempted suicide rates among young homosexuals. In 100 years time society will look back on this period appalled at the way society treated homosexuals as second class citizens.

The question that is just sitting there on the tip of my tongue, Pelican, after reading your post is this:

What specifically is it that means Homosexuals are being treated as "second class citizens"? Does support for the current definition of marriage imply treating homosexuals as "second class citizens"?

I certainly oppose 'gay marriage'

Not for religous reasons but simply because the word 'marriage' has a definate meaning. The legal union of a male and female.

If homosexuals want to have a legal union, that is fine but create a new word, or two, meaning just that. There is no need to alter of an already existing word. I am sure wordsmiths would love to create a word.

We have already allowed the general meaning of the word 'gay' to be changed, that is compromise enough.

The only reason they seek to change the meaning of the word is because it projects a more acceptable image

the religous right is so influential that we have a lesbian finance minister, a feminist atheist pm and a godless cabinet. We also have a homosexual in charge of Qantas and many working for our National Broadcasters. Not bad for a very small percentage of the population. And conservative Christians we have? The homosexual lobby is good at lying.

Chris C... there's a helpful icon below a post to copy the comment URL to the clipboard for pasting in future references… This could help avoid unnecessary repetition.

And I still think the people most likely to regard your comments as bigoted are the majority of heterosexuals in legal marriages that they think are legitimate but which cannot be according to your definition.

Travis I think you're on to something… The terms of right and left are confusing enough when used about political ideas and more so when applied as descriptors of religious positions. What do you suggest instead?

Not sure about 'highly religious people' either as it implies the opposite is 'lowly' when some people are simply capable of being privately and devotionally religious.

By the same token, I find the use of the phrase 'moral framework' inappropriate when applied to the policy promotion of groups like the ACL. I suggest 'social prescription' as an replacement term.