Thanks Rodney, for a thoughtful article on a complex and emotive topic.

Trav wrote: 'I am highly sceptical about the so called disproportionate influence of the religious right" '

However you want to label it, we need to be aware that when it comes to so-called 'Christian opinion' expressed in the media there is indeed a disproportionate representation.

One group that receives a lot of media attention (and to which Rodney referred in his article) is the 'Australian Christian Lobby'. Please be aware that Jim Wallace and the ACL definitely do NOT speak for all Christians on this, or any other topic. The ACL is a very media-savvy and well-funded lobby group, with particular views (that are not necessarily shared by all Christians or church organisations, because within the whole breadth of the Christian church there is a huge diversity of opinion).

The ACL and similar groups certainly have a right to be heard, and I'm not complaining about that. What I AM complaining about however, is the fact that the ACL is often viewed by the wider community as being representative of ALL Christians, which is simply not the case.

The ACL has become the ‘go-to’ group whenever the (lazy) media are seeking a quick and expedient soundbite of ‘Christian opinion’. All this, despite the fact that more moderate Christian groups are shouting their arses off to be heard in public forums, but still never manage to secure any media coverage because their views are not sensational or extreme enough.

Runner: So the world-wide phenomenon of priests molesting children is *homosexuality's* fault and not the church? What about the culture of silence in the face of this behaviour? Why is it that these priests do not extend their homosexuality to adults?
It appears that within the church(s) dobbing in a fellow priest is far more heinous than the act itself or we wouldn't see this consistency in global behaviour.
We may never agree, but to offload the failings of the church on homosexuals is a bit of a long shot!

runner
Full of the milk of human kindness as usual. What is wrong with a feminist or lesbian or atheist anything? Why is your soul so full of hate. Take a breath and embrace. What is this nonsense about feminists? I am sure Gillard and her female counterparts in the ALP and the Coalition are not planning a female takeover - in fact there are more men in parliament. I see that fact does not disturb you at all, it doesn't worry me either. I don't give a tinkers if there are more men or women in politics as long as they do their job properly.

Sheesh what are you people drinking. What makes a lesbian finance minister any different to a heterosexual one. All I am reading is hate, hate, hate. If that is your religion you can have it. Look at the record of the Howard Government of which many were Christians. It is not what people say but what they do that matters. In the US the right-wing religious fanatics liken universal health care to communism. This is the nature of some of these radical religious extremists. Thankfully most are not like this in Australia.

Trav
The sorts of threads and reactions that one reads on OLO is not enough to persuade you. Just read runner's comments above.

Firstly denying marriage rights to two consenting adults is paramount to arguing that a same sex partnership is not the same as any other partnership. That it is somehow wanting. Love and commitment are not exclusive to heterosexuals.

Secondly, I have not seen any case where heterosexuals are bashed for their sexuality.

Thirdly, homosexuals are branded by some as nothing worse than pedophiles. Even runner has avoided the question about heterosexual pedophiles - he just wants to put his head in the sand and pretend they don't exist because it might ruin his anti-gay perspective.

Attitudes will change but it is taking its sorry time, but thankfully the younger generations are proving to be more inclusive.

Pelican,
You said, "Firstly denying marriage rights to two consenting adults is paramount to arguing that a same sex partnership is not the same as any other partnership"

There is not'any other partnership' it is either same sex or opposite sex. Yes there is a difference between the unions. Need a word to define same sex unions.

If one reads the case histories of sex abuse documented by 'Broken Rites' You will see that they are almost entirely about priests abusing boys. What does that say about homosexuality and paedophillia. It suggests there may be a connection. Google Brokenrites.

I'm not sure that I understand your point about influence in government, runner… It was you in another thread who said:

"That is a little hard considering at the end of the day God is the one that appoints and brings down Governments."

I can only support Banjo when he says that marriage means a union of a man and a woman. More importantly, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, their power under the Constitution to make laws on "marriage" must mean what "marriage" meant in 1901. Considering that in 1901 the Buggery Act was still in force, (even though the penalty for buggery had been reduced from hanging to life imprisonment) it would be hard to maintain that "marriage" could include homosexual marriage. This definition can only be changed by the people at a referendum.

I find it very hard to accept the idea that the non-acceptance of homosexual marriage constitutes discrimination. In our society we have male and female toilets. Being male, if I were to enter a female toilet I could well be subject to penalties. Is this discrimination? I hardly think so. The whole basis for community regulation of marriage is that it can produce offspring, and a homosexual relationship cannot do that, and therefore it is fundamentally different. I fully support the idea that people in homosexual relationships should not suffer any sort of discrimination, but trying to call it something it is not is not the answer.