Ho Hum… More debate pitching Secular Ethics and Atheism against Religious Morality. And the delivery vehicle? Same sex marriage no surprise!

"As a retired minister of the Uniting Church I am saddened at the lack of compassion evident in organised campaigns in the name of Christ on this matter."

As a retired minister of the Uniting Church, you must know that the Bible is very explicit on this matter. If you believe in the faith that you claim to espouse, you must not only oppose gay marriage, but insist -- as Salvation Army Major Andrew Craibe did -- that homosexuals should be put to death.

If, on the other hand, you regard that as a barbaric Bronze Age atrocity and the book which mandates it as an appalling collection of lies and bigotry, then your course is clear: abandon the daft religion which produces such ridiculous attitudes, and endorse rational and compassionate decision-making based on the facts, rather than the expressed prejudices of an imaginary deity.

"For me, it is simply an ethical no brainer. Amending the Marriage Act would be evidence of the social compassion every society needs to survive."

I have been using my brain a lot over this matter and I find many flaws in your argument. One of the most obvious is the constantly used statement that we have accepted many other forms of relationship, therefore we have to accept this one. That is very flawed logic and, if carried through to its logical conclusion, will show that for itself.

How dare you question someone's compassion based on their view of homosexual marriage. How can you justify doing that? Ridiculous.

People have widely varying views on this matter and they should be allowed to express them freely (and appropriately) without being told they have no brain and no compassion.

I have said it before, but I think that it is worth saying again. The problem with this issue is that the legal/contractual aspects are being confused with the traditional/cultural.

A traditional marriage involves entering into a binding contract that imposes rights and obligations on each partner. Those legal aspects also apply to de-facto relationships (I think after two years) and so far as I know, apply as well to same-sex relationships. Certainly, if they don't they should.

The term 'marriage' has a long standing cultural and traditional meaning (perhaps a couple of thousand years or more) that reflects the views of the population. As for many other issues, the way that 'marriage' is seen is changing over time. And perhaps eventually, socially and culturally we will all become used to allowing the term to be applied to same-sex contractual relationships.

In the meantime, isn't the simple solution to separate the legal from the cultural, for example, by removing the cultural term 'marriage' from the Marriage Act?

Well, given sexuality is decided by nature, in the womb, there is simply no justification for any form of homophobia! Only the incredibly ignorant or the criminally callous, would continue with this absurd archaic practise.
Julia Gillard says she will allow a conscience vote, while Tony Abbott says, he will run true to form and simply say, no, no, no never.
So any move to further liberalise the marriage act, will likely be defeated on the floor, unless some very brave and "genuine liberals", cross the floor.
I think I smell the resurrection of labour's prospects here, if Julia simply allows Her conscience vote, to occur in caucus, and then take that position to parliament's floor.
There,s enough independent good will, I believe, to see the marriage act alteration pass, so as to include every committed loving consenting adult relationship.
If it gets through the lower house, it is almost certain to pass the senate.
Tony and co, would then be wedged by their own words?
Tony could be hurt politically?
Make no mistake, his endless political posturing and negativity, is beginning to register, with voters, [even rusted on liberals,] as simply self serving, partisan, power hungry politics?
And may well come back to bite hard in the only poll that counts!
You know, if Jesus walked amongst us today, still unmarried and or preferring the almost exclusive company of men, we might ask of him, "are you gay" and or, "is that why along with your peer group, you are exceptionally caring, humane and kind, and even willing to give your very life, so that others, might live free"?
It is time the remaining Homophobes amongst us, set aside their patent Nazi like belief system, and rejoined the human race.
And or, embraced genuine Christian compassion, for a minority, who have in times past, been persecuted from the cradle to the grave, for daring to be born different!
Rhrosty.

Very challenging article, Noel - and one which I sent onto others on my email list. Certainly we must do everything we possibly can to counter homophobia in Oz culture and society - and I'm pleased to note that attitudes are changing positively. Nevertheless, a just recognition of the civil rights of those living GLBT lifestyles does not automatically mean that one has to abandon more accepted concepts - such as the acknowledgment of the traditional definition of marriage - for a new reassessment of marriage BECAUSE we are living in a far more accepting age.

As one of my friends wrote regarding your article:

"RE: "Marriage as an institution in Australia and countless other nations has evolved significantly over recent decades. No longer is there a black and white template for what is meant by 'marriage'."

RESPONSE: The marriage template which I suspect the vast majority of Australians use, is very much black and white with the 'Adam & Eve' model as opposed to the 'Adam & Steve' model being predominant.

As for "countless nations"...hmmm, 11 out of 196. I hardly call that countless. Obviously all of these other nations are unenlightened and still evolving or perhaps they have drawn a line in the sand and are saying 'ENOUGH'!"

Yuri

The first thing that is needed to be said is that many people are sick to death of this subject, and that continual re-iteration of the proposal for homosexual marriage only serves to increase opposition. It is doubtful whether the Commonwealth government has powers in this direction, as the Buggery Act was still in force in 1901 (admittedly with the concession that the penalty for buggery had been downgraded from death to life imprisonment) so it is difficult to see how the term "marriage" in the Constitution could be made to include homosexual marriage. The solution that is most acceptable to all the community is civil union, and continuation of the push for homosexual marriage will be counter-productive.

Of course if you will believe this you will believe anything. The High Court has declared constitutional provisions "spent", discovered implied clauses (never approved by the people), and generally interpreted things the Commonwealth government's way. Such is life.

That kinda sums it up.

"Amending the Marriage Act would be evidence of the social compassion every society needs to survive."

Social compassion and Christianity have never been the most comfortable of bedfellows.

Hundreds of years of going to war against those who followed another religion, of burning "heretics", converting the "heathen" and more recently, separating children from their parents for the good of their soul, has left little room for compassion of any kind.

I dare say we will eventually find a way to survive without them. But in the meantime, their constant moaning on a topic that has absolutely no bearing or impact on the conduct of their own lives, is a form of mental tinnitus.

Its always amusing to hear people sprouting off about the moraltiy of people being so much worse 40 years ago than now. Forty years ago most people kept their word (marriage vowels), violence was nothing like it is today and people have not slept with 10 people before getting married. Aboriginals on missions were far better off than many enslaved by alcholol today and I suspect child abuse a lot less especially now that the perverted porn industry feeds the fallen nature of many.

But yet this new 'enlightened ' generation are so 'righteous ' that killing the unborn for convenience is okay and now denying kids of a mother or father is secondary to the selfish wants of 2% or so of the population. Aren't we 'blessed' to have such a 'compassionate ' generation.

Excellent piece, Noel.

Yes, more than 40 years. But the move is definitely on. The forces of conservatism, including in churches and parliaments, will not stay the reform much longer.

Noel, can you respond to some of the comments here?

Meanwhile, a couple of observations:

@John J: No, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures do not oppose gay marriage at all. The specific same-sex acts which are prohibited are all coercive, abusive, offensive or idolatrous, as the texts make clear. The fact that one passage calls for the death penalty is strong evidence that this is a specific idolatry offence, not a sexual offence.

Nor does Church history reveal continual opposition to blessing same-sex unions. Homophobia has waxed and waned. We are emerging from an unfortunate homophobic period now.

@Plerdsus:
Why do you claim “continual re-iteration of the proposal for homosexual marriage only serves to increase opposition”? It seems from most measures of opinion, support is steadily growing. And appears to accelerate as the debate intensifies. No?