>> ""religious groups should concentrate on religion, not waste their time and energy on politics!"" <<

except religion is >50% politics

Bill wow! Your conclusion really makes sense:

" what do we expect from the moonbats in the Greens party? What do we mere "earthians" know about anything? Obviously our mental and moral reasoning abilities are in a different league from theirs. And maybe that's a very good thing too.'

ROFL, moonbats?, earthians? Are you okay, Bill? It sounds like you are losing it; practically frothing at the mouth you are.

I bet you read Murdoch's loss-making broadsheet (circulation 128,000) which "exists mainly to scratch the itches of grumpy menopausal men and bitter old culture warriors with intellectual inferiority complexes (which is not a bad description of the paper's editorial management BTW.)"

This wonderful quote is from http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com.au/

The amusing thing is that your attempt at an outraged satirical diatribe actually sounds quite reasonable: because as proponents of gay marriage keep pointing out, there is absolutely no reason why a modern secular state should preferentially recognise one form of consensual relationship over any other. Personally I agree with Yuyutsu, that the state -- and the church -- should keep their noses out of our personal affairs altogether; but as long as politicians claim to have a legitimate interest in our private lives, then they should be held to their declared policies of equity and justice for all.

I think Jon summed it up pretty well. It would be better for the state to get out of the marriage business but if they are in it then relationships between consenting adult humans (that rules out kids and dogs for the benefit of some of the religious fundies who have leanings in those directions) should be part of the mix.

One of the great failings of many who make an issue of social justice is that they have a habit of determining who they think is worthy of justice and are quite happy to trample over those who don't make the cut.

R0bert

Well said Bill. Looks like being 'progressive' only goes so far with the Greens. I think the unconscious link between polygamy and Mormonism is too much for them. To be seen as supporting something which could be associated with a Religion gives them the hot sweats.

Its also interesting that one poster thinks this anti-Green attitudes has something to do with Rupert Murdoch supporters. Looks like the Greens top the list in paranoia as well.

Funny how Green supporters are blind to the gaping holes in their belief system and get angry and abusive when you point them out.

There is actually a positive element in this essay, which unfortunately will probably be lost on most of brother Bill's fellow-travellers.

The Judeo-Christian Scriptures - which Bill claims he reads and follows - actually do permit polyamorous unions. From beginning to end. The only teaching anywhere in the Bible about monogamy is where elders or overseers in the early Christian church - episkopEs in the original Greek - are required to be the husband of just one woman.

Nowhere else is there any requirement for monogamy, although it certainly occurs quite frequently and is clearly one of the acceptable options.

The negatives in this essay, of course, pretty much overwhelm this one small positive.

Why does Bill expect the secular Greens to pursue Judeo-Christian theology consistently? Huh?

Now he acknowledges the Scriptural permission for polygamy and other child-rearing arrangements, why does he still claim Scripture forbids gay marriage? It just doesn't.

And the continual falsehoods. Such as:

"The reasoning for polyamory and group marriage is 100% identical to the reasoning for homosexual marriage." Not true.

"Once you throw out the fundamental core criteria of marriage (proper gender, proper number, etc) then of course anything goes." False again.

"And I even have to abide by their [Greens] Charter and Constitution? I can't believe it. This is just so blatantly wrong and discriminatory." False. Nothing wrong with organisations having membership requirements.

"I deplore the Greens, I do not believe in anything they stand for, and I am happy to align myself with other political parties. So they won't let me become a member. How intolerant is that?"

Just embarrassingly stupid nonsense, Bill.

And why, when he is asked genuine questions about his position, does he seldom, if ever, have the courage to respond?

Actually, there is one true statement towards the end: "Obviously our mental and moral reasoning abilities are in a different league from theirs." Now, this is correct.