Author, David Swanton writes:
“Respecting equality requires that if heterosexuals can marry whomever they want, then everyone should have that right.”

Nope.
Heterosexuals are also unable to marry someone of the same sex.
Equality preserved - crisis averted; cancel the survey.

AJ Philips writes:
“Equality isn’t something that should be dished out willy-nilly.”

Priceless.

Dear Dan,

«Christians rolling over to gay marriage, are of the modernist faith; immanentists. No Westminster Confession of faith in their life.»

Thank you for the information - it's always good to learn new things!

However, while some theologies can accommodate homosexual marriages and while I view it positively, no Christian, indeed no religion, should conduct gay marriages (as opposed to homosexual marriages), because that's a contradiction in terms:

The marriage sacrament (as opposed to the the fact of marriage) is designed along a life-time chain of sacraments, from birth to burial, to uplift one's life above their animal-urges and remind people that whatever they do should be aimed toward God. In contrast, the concept of being "gay" is to be proud of one's sexuality, thus refuse to transcend it. The fact that one's sexuality happens to be directed towards the same gender is insignificant, but the fact that one is proud about it goes against the grain of what the marriage sacrament tries to achieve. I would similarly refuse to conduct marriage sacraments for heterosexual couples who are proud of their sexual urges and use their wedding to celebrate them.

---

Dear Graham,

«I'm not sure why the No side of the argument hasn't raised this, but it is not illegal for homosexuals to get married in Australia.»

I have raised it time and again on OLO.

«I think if marriage really meant something»

But marriage does mean a lot. What doesn't mean anything is the bad joke called "legal marriage".

---

Dear Hasbeen,

«Graham, I believe it is all about money»

Had this been the case, then homosexuals could have long ago received the same status as "legally married" couples (albeit under a different name). You know my views that no one should have such a stupid status to begin with, but they could have had it if that's what they wanted.

Graham,

Perhaps *even* the no side know it would fall flat.

There are manifest distinct differences between de facto and legal marriage, and there are further differences when the couple are same sex. Similarly civil unions are not remotely equal.

As it stands at the moment, an estranged "next of kin" that you have not seen in years can be at your deathbed, decide the disposition of your body, refuse organ or cadaver donation, arrange your funeral and access your estate in short order. If they are vindictive, they might exclude your intimate partner of many years. Now, one *could* formally divorce all relatives in an attempt to prevent this but an opinionated clerk might just keep out your partner anyway, because there is no marriage certificate. Rather than such circumlocutions a marriage certificate confers real rights that are not conferred by civil union or de facto status and are *immediate*, which is the only sort that are useful in extremis.
I'm not sure why the "no" camp think it so important to continue this situation, or even the legal possibility, however remote.

What I think more odd is the insistence on enforcing one johnny-come-lately part of the current marriage definition while failing to police the other very clear prerequisite of "exclusivity". The registry would need a whole new rapid-fire "cancelled" stamp if people were *genuinely* serious about "traditional" marriage rather than having one last go at gays "because they can".

Rusty.

The author should have just been honest to begin with instead of trying to invent a hypothetical religous mantra by combining different religions together.

If you can't be honest and quote the verses you mean directly then something is wrong. If you have to invent beliefs to make your points on religion, then you actively minipulate and then sow seeds of hate. Be honest or all you will reap is violence and opression of those you speak against (if successful) or more likely you will reap a negitive reaction to your schemes, possibly at your own doorstep if the group finding your lies feels justified in doing so.

By being honest the other side has an respectable chance to correct you, or see the error that is pointed out. By fabricating a lie or a "what if" senerio you rob those chances.

Be honest man. Even if it doesn't work towards your interests and goals, it's still the better option then anything else. If you can not be honest, then be silent. That is the best route.

//If you can't be honest and quote the verses you mean directly then something is wrong.//

Yeah, most people have a bible or know where find one:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

So they can look the verses up for themselves.

The ones referenced in the article were:

Genesis 6:7
And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Exodus 12:12
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

Exodus 12:29-30
29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

Exodus 35:2
Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 17:12
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.

1 Timothy 2:11-12
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

A few observations:

* Clearly not everything in the bible sets a good moral example - a bit of violent persecution unbelievers is par for the course for any respectable religion, but the ethnic cleansing of the Egyptians (and their cattle) is a bit over the top.
* WTF did God have against Egyptian cattle anyway? Were they enslaving the Jews too?
* It's always entertaining to see how staunchly some Christians support anything in the Bible that can be interpreted as being anti-homosexual, whilst also being so completely relaxed about people working on Saturdays. Shouldn't they at least be condemning them, even if actual stoning is unfashionable these days?