"Shifts in churches and synagogues toward accepting gay unions are accelerating."

The author is fanciful in believing that repetition of this assertion will increase acceptance of gay unions.

Mohammed practiced polygamy. Moses practiced monogamy. Jesus practiced nogamy.

Dear david f,
>>Whether or not same sex marriage is legal religious groups can limit marriage to those they wish to marry. I don't see why any religious bodies should have the right to control marriage under civil law.<<

I agree. However, there is a difference between e.g. the Catholic Church restricting their sacrament of marriage to only hetero-pairs, and it entering the general discussion about marriage under civil law with its views - that we might or might not agree with - on what is more and what is less beneficial for the society as a whole. Like there is a difference between how I invest my money, and when I ADVISE you that this or that investment might not be beneficial to you.

I concede that many (most?) religious leaders don’t - or don’t want to - see this difference. However, after separation of church and state, no church can CONTROL civil law, whether they like it or not. Religious leaders can only INFLUENCE their followers the same as e.g. Richard Dawkins can. And, of course, the more followers, the more weight carried by the influence.

Interesting discussion. As always. Thank you.

Some brief responses:

@CedarJ: “If you are a true follower of Jesus and believe the Bible then you would never make such statements”. No, not really, CedarJ.

One of the four key discoveries – or rediscoveries – underlying the current shifts on this issue across the Christian and Jewish worlds is that the Bible actually doesn’t say what many Christians believe it says.

There is discussion of what the Bible actually teaches about marriage here on OLO:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13758

And discussion about same-sex unions in the Bible here in The Drum:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4143802.html

@Aga: Not sure why it is “almost libellious against the Catholic Church” to assert that most Catholic priests in the western world are homosexual. It would only be libellous if you believe the claim is untrue, or if you believe being having GLBTI orientation is a bad thing. Neither belief is valid any more, Aga.

Just on accuracy, Aga, I haven’t claimed ‘most’ priests are gay – just ‘a majority’. I don’t think it is most and, so far, it is impossible to be sure.

There are now two John Jay reports, Aga, one from 2004 and another from 2011. Have you read them both?

And just one more query, Aga: Why are you bringing up child abuse? Homosexual orientation and paedophilia are quite different categories, aren’t they?

@Raycom: Re “The author is fanciful in believing that repetition of this assertion will increase acceptance of gay unions". [assertion: "Shifts in churches and synagogues toward accepting gay unions are accelerating."]

Correct, Raycom. It is not repetition of any assertion that will foster acceptance. Rather, it is the religious communities coming to understand that in recent centuries they have misunderstood some critical issues, which they are now rethinking.

@George: Yes, that is an important distinction. Many prominent Catholics now favour same-sex civil unions. But they are a long way from advocating same-sex marriage in Catholic churches.

Cheers, AA

Dear George,

As usual you make good sense. Unfortunately there is a trend for churches (the Catholic Church is not alone in this.) to claim when laws are made that are not to their liking even though it does not affect them to claim that their religious liberty is somehow infringed.

There must be, at the very least, tens of thousands of couples living together without marriage status. Can anyone tell me if there is an advantage financially, or in any other way, for people of the same gender to be officially regarded as married? Why bother? Live any way you like folks.