Dr Greg, just to fill you in: I am definitely not a post-modernist nor moral relativist. I have quite fixed views about what is right and wrong. As you can guess, I regard discrimination against gays as wrong. I also regard sexism, racism and other forms of bigotry as wrong. I certainly regard intolerance towards Christians, Jews and other religious groupings as wrong. That may even make me seem intolerant (I have been accused of black and white thinking at times - not on this forum) but while I hold certain principles, as far as I am aware I don't discriminate against groups or individuals.

I also think it is interesting that sometimes groups like AFA will accuse opponents of "political correctness" AND moral relativism. Say what you like about being PC, it is the complete opposite of moral relativism.

Finally, my views do not represent the gay and lesbian community as a whole - anymore than AFA's represent all heterosexuals.

Cat, the public have spoken in Belgium, the Netherlands etc where same-sex marriage is in practice. You are okay with that I take it?

David JS

So if you have a firm view on what you consider right and wrong, what would your view be on a consentual sexual relationship between myself and my sister, with no desire or ability (contraception or whatever) to reproduce? If it is wrong, on what basis? If we invoke the law, then homosexuality was once against the law (in some places), and laws can be changed.

Bill Muehlenberg is well known as a spokesman for the right-wing lobby group, the Australian Family Association. He should have left it at that in his by-line. However, Bill also tells us that he is a "PhD candidate Deakin University", presumably to add academic weight to his essay on the family. Sorry about this, but being a student is not a professional qualification, and is not worth mentioning really, unless the subject of study is somehow relevant to the debate. So now that you have mentioned it Bill, what exactly are you studying? Also intriguing is Bill's statement that he is a "lecturer" (salaried?) in "ethics and philosophy" (whose ethics?) at "several Melbourne theological colleges" (which ones?). More information please...

Ah, Dr Greg. The "slippery slope" argument. Interestingly, such relationships as you describe were sanctioned in less enlightened times. Marriages in Ptolemaic Egypt between the ruler and his consort were brother-sister marriages (no wonder they died out). Cleopatra VII, the Cleopatra of Shakespeare and Liz Taylor fame, was officially married to her brother (although she seemed to prefer her sexual liaisons with Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius).

Now that we know the consequences of consanguinity such a relationship is not approved by society by conferring marriage upon it. And I agree. Frankly, I would find such a relationship distasteful rather than morally wrong. However, I would unequivocally describe a relationship between parents and children or adults and unrelated children as morally repugnant. That is because they would be inherently unequal and would constitute a violation of a child's developing sexuality. Those marriages are rightly illegal.

Perhaps you could read Jonathan Rauch or Andrew Sullivan, two American and fairly conservative gay men, who argue for same-sex marriage but also address the "anything goes" argument in relation to this question. Again, they stress the point that equality must exist in marriage which, as I said, is absent in adult-child marriage or polygamus marriage. They also make the point that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. A preference for incest is not.

And I would like to ask you a question. What do you think of gay men who hide their sexuality and enter into sham marriages with straight women? I've asked this before but haven't had an answer. But having worked as a volunteer phone counsellor I know the terrible consequences of such a marriage. However, such a marriage is okay as per Commonwealth legislation. Something is seriously wrong here.

David JS

Thanks for your response. My question was not designed to invoke the slippery slope argument, although I can see that it is related. It was more a case of the basis or rationale on which we make such decisions.

To your question, no I do not support such a sham marriage. But I guess at the heart of this issue is really whether homosexuality is a given for some people. And here I confess no expertise whatsoever, but my limited understanding is that the jury is still out on the relationship of genetic and environmental factors. The material I have read, and it may or may not be truly representative of the research, is that there is a reluctance to exclude either from the equation. I also understand that gay activists are moving away from the genetic argument as they want to stress their free choice in the matter. So where does that leave us? I personally know a former gay person (who also had serious phychological issues) who on coming to faith in Jesus was transformed in many ways and is now in a fully functioning heterosexual relationship. Conversely, I know of others who also have come to faith and have not been able to do this. So where I'm at at present is that yes, some people have a homosexual predisposition, just as I have a predisposition to be a sexually promiscuous heterosexual. But given the faith that I hold and the marriage I have, that predisposition needs to be challenged and kept in check. Of course the key is the faith I hold, and as you will righly reply, not all share that faith.