...The author is either deliberately “snowing” the issue of gay marriage by emotional appeal alone, or simply naïve and takes the choice to ignore genuine concerns of the status-quo. Either way, the article fails the test of logic.

Diver Dan my boy, note that the author has a PhD in English and a diploma in Theology.
Thus giving her essay intellectual credibility

Kipp

'Diver Dan my boy, note that the author has a PhD in English and a diploma in Theology.'

Then she should be smart enough to know it is plainly wrong to deny kids a mother or father. She should also be smart enough to realise that she can love the sinner and hate the sin instead of using manipulative hogwash. Love is certainly not condonimg a sinful lifestyle. LOve actually speaks the truth which thankfully for a change the Anglicans have done on this occasion.

Jesus' most abiding message was tolerance.

Us mortals, including purported conduits of Jesus' message, are not qualified to contradict that message in the name of mortal intolerance.

Remember the example of tolerance set by such purported conduits of God as Henry VIII, and too many Popes (men only can apply BTW) who have ruled like absolute Monarchs.

I'm not sure why Christians care so much. They don't recognise ANY marriage performed outside of the church anyway, regardless of who it is getting married

@David

I think the old establishment Churches and most other religions have a tendency to impose their religious views on others and judge people on the basis of what are frequently sectarian, competing, reactionary and therefore narrow views.

They don't appear to understand that the secular majority are already following the ways of a Christianity based tradition of tolerance. Most churches are basically political beliefs in competition with other political beliefs, be they Christian, non-Christian, Marxist or secular majority etc.

The saddest thing is that Gillard has made a shrewd political calculation that Parliament will adhere to her surprisingly narrow views on marriage - from a person not married and with no kids. But, then again, perhaps she sees a political vulnerability in her personal circumstances.

And of course Gillard's homeground, the Union movement and Labor, are two other reactionary political institutions - with traditions of intolerance, for example, against those racially different - especially if they are potentially competing workers from overseas.

Gillard is banking on this trade union-Labor intolerance against gays. Grasping for at least one political win before our carbon tax winter of expensive discontent - but thats another failing.

No doubt Archbishop Jensen's soul -- assuming he has one -- is renewed when he reads:

Leviticus 18:22
New International Version (NIV)
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

and

Leviticus 20:13
New International Version (NIV)
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Which, after all, come the same authoritative source.

Your enthusiasm is admirable and your instincts are correct: but trying to support gay marriage by Biblical quotes is like using corporal punishment to teach non-violence.

Recent Articles in On Line Opinion assume that all objection to gay marriage is on religious grounds.

Regardless of the Scriptures, the institution of monogamous mariage, has been, for over a millennium, the fundamental building block of society in Judeo- Christian cultre.

It provides the basis for the nurture and education of children to bring them to the maximum of their potential.

It is the top of that potential which has given rise to inventions and adaptions which have lifted the productivity of mankind to its present heights.

The Reformation led to an explosion of enquiry and investigation and,after the bloodshed was over, to the Enlightment,to the English, American and French revolutions and to the great inventions which increased the productivity of mankind by ten thousand fold-- the steam engine, spinning jenny , powered looms, locomotives, steam powered steel hulled ships, telegraph, telephone,internal combustion engines, flight,television, radar, semi conductors, transistors, computers, internet.

All from that monogamy based and no other, culture.

Traditional marriage is a committment given to share wealth so that one partner,has some assurance that nurture of children can be the first priority without total sacrifice of the security obtained by maintaining a career as a first priority.

That relegation of a woman's career to a second priority creates the famous "glass ceiling"

As an old lawyer I saw that phenonenom in action on many ocassions when I have had to step in at the last moment to take over a case or negotiation at short notice because "little Johnny is sick".

Anyone who has to make a career a second priority cannot expect to command the same income as the people he or she has to leaan on to function.

That is why the traditional definition of marriage must be maintained along with all the illusions we use to maintain it-- romantic love, rituals.

The case for the traditional definition of marriage does not rest upon the Scriptures.

It is the core basis of the welfare created by our culture.

George Gell

Plantaganet,

The rhetoric I have heard from union leaders has been pro marriage equality. Granted I don't listen to union leaders all that much though.

I think Gillard's real reason for her position is to maintain support from the right faction within the Labour caucus. I'm pretty sure it is not her naturally held view.

Old Man George,

Unfortunately, with the cost of housing these days, in most families neither parent can afford to stay home and nurture the children for too long after birth. Those days are gone.

And while the basis of your comment is logical, I don't see where it precludes gay marriage. Actually, one could use your arguments to promote polygamous relationships in these times of expensive housing; i.e. two adults working to support a third adult to focus on the children. I'm not advocating that, however.

JonJ,

Unless you follow ALL the rules of Leviticus, don't be quoting any of it. If a body of text is predominantly ridiculous modern society (9 chapters on how to sacrifice animals for example), I don't think any of it is to be considered of value.

Do you eat seafood? Tsk tsk

Do you wear cotton/wool blend clothing? Tsk tsk

Onya David

I would have been on your side...

I have my own views - you have your trade union-Labor factional views.

And as to your attack on Old Man George regarding your straw man "polygamous relationships" your vision is quite lurid while intellectually dishonest.

Try again.

Planta

Well may we say praise the lord, salam and shalom, because sucessive census records chart the demise of faith based belief.

I thank God for the rise of reason and modern ethics.

If She exists in an nth dimension, our mother of multiple universes, puppet mistress of none, may enjoy the irony that athiests and humanists are best placed to usher in a new era of enlightenment on the third rock from the sun.

Certainly we deserve a new human culture that bases law and policy on truth and facts, closing the chapter on the history of vile, narrowcast, supersititious nonsence that has killed millions in God's name over the past 7,000 years.

The worldwide campaign for Marriage Equality is a defining moment between the old order thinking and new. In Australia, the latest census shows that most citizens are more visionary than Pell's muscular Catholicism.

Whilst a hit with Abbott and Gillard, they have lost support from most of the under 40's. So in the longer term, the outcome is emerging in this war of values.

Last bastions of the traditionally defined marriages by 2100 are likely to be Uganda, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia, the most homophobic countries on Earth thanks in all cases to an activist clergy that takes a fundamentaly literalist view of holy books.

Amen to that Quick

There are certainly observable generational differences with <50 (tolerance) and 50+(generally intolerant).

Males over 50 also appear to be less likely to tolerate male homosexual marriage.

I agree with the historical approach. Queen Victoria endorsed imprisonment for male-male sodomy while being unaware that lesbianism existed.

Meanwhile Alan Turing (I suggest people read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Government_apology ) probably did more to win WWII for the allies than all except Churchill, FDR and General Zhukov.

Turing was basically forced into suicide by Britain's selective intorance. And as to gay marriage then...imprisonment? stoning?

Planta