There will probably be an number of justifications posted on this site in favour of the prohibition of same-sex marriage. I'd like to know why these people would prefer a gay man to marry a straight woman (deceiving her and possibly himself) over same-sex marriage.

Because that is exactly one of the consequences of the delegitimisation of gay relationships. Support groups for straight women (and men) whose spouses turned out to be gay are testimony to the havoc these sort of marriages wreak for all concerned.

And I'd also like to know why the anti-gay crowd assert that homosexuals are a tiny minority and then contradict themselves by saying same-sex marriage would threaten marriage generally.

Anyway, if your marriage is threatened by the possibility of two men or two women tying the knot then maybe you shouldn't be married after all. You're probably not mature enough and you're too preoccupied poking your nose into the business of gay couples.

Sorry to disappoint you David, but......

The only legitimate position I can see to opposing gay marriage is the one from the Church. I mean it's their party and if they don't want to invite you that's up to them. I know you're banned because the Bible says God doesn't like practising homosexuals, but then why did God make them like that? I understand that some say that people choose to be homosexual, but really.... can anyone seriously believe that? If you're naturally attracted to the opposite sex, why would you force yourself to be otherwise? It's not like changing from spray-on to roll-on. The sex urge is a very powerful thing and the idea of kissing a man makes whatever meagre sex urges I can muster up these days disappear quicker than BOAZ at the Madi Gras.

But seeing we live in such a secular society I can't see a problem with gay people getting married and having the same rights and entitlements as everyone else. I'm sure gay couples want to get married for the same universal reasons, to show love and commitment to each other. I feel uncomfortable with the thought that the love a gay couple has is somehow a degraded or inferior kind of love.

I'm sure our society won't fall apart if we gave same sex couples the same tools to work with as the rest of us, (no pun intended).

There are a few things which need to be examined here...

Homosexuality is a choice...

Consider this. If homosexuality was NOT a choice, then why didn't the gene/s responsible die out. One would think that after generations of peoples, the gene responsible would simply cease to exist!

Re Marriage...

I'm fairly certain it is only a minority of the gay/lesbian community which really wants marriage in Australia? Thus, there is a minority within a minority. I don't think that Australia should, for the sake of a small number of people, extend the special bond of marriage to homosexual couples. As I recall, only 2% of Australia's population (20,000,000) identify as being homosexual/bisexual. I wonder then how many within that small percentage would want marriage?

Marriage (2)...

Marriage predated Christianity and it is a bond that signifies one man and one woman's committment. Furthermore, marriage of 1 man and 1 woman provides a safe and stable environment for children to grow up in. Psychological studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples are more likely to be teased at school.

Inequality...

Inequality is not some modern day social construct. It is pure reality. Is a child at 5 years of age equal in development, language use, social skills etc to an 18 year old? Of course not. If we were to end all equality, we would allow children to do everything an adult could do. Put simply, that would be a disaster.

Discrimination...

Discrimination, like equality, is part of life. I discriminate in buying a chocolate bar instead of jubes. I discriminate when talking to one person and not another standing nearby. Thus discrimination can be a positive thing. It could also be negative. I would certainly not want to see a homosexual man or woman being abused in the street, for instance. That in my view, is real, negative discrimination.

Part 2 of my post::::

Homosexual relationship stability...

Many studies have shown that homosexual couples have very unstable relationships. I'll concede, they may be loving, but not particularly stable. And yes, in case you're sitting back thinking "what about normal marriage, isn't that just as unstable?" well yes, you would be correct, to a degree, normal marriages are also unstable at times. But to me, that is why we should be trying to improve the status of heterosexual marriage through lobbying the government for lower taxes and other economic benefits which will assist families to perhaps be a bit happier.

Discrimination (2)...

If discrimination was inherently wrong, why should we prevent a man marrying his horse? I'm not kidding! There was a case recently, where a man wanted to marry his pet horse. After all, who would deny they could have a loving relationship? Logically, this question has to be asked. What path then are we heading down if we were to allow homosexuals access to marriage? Logically we would have to open marriage up between any two items, living or dead. I'm not accusing homosexuals here of wanting to marry animals or inanimate objects or that they deserve that status. I'm just trying to illustrate that logically this sort of thing could be the conclusion.

Is it natural?..

Indeed, until the 1970s, psychiatrists were treating homosexuality as a disorder and were assisting homosexuals to learn new behaviours and discard homosexual traits. Furthermore, homosexuality has been linked, in males, to boys not having an adequate father role model. It is really a sad indictment on our society and other societies around the world, that fathers are so commonly disregarded, whether by feminists in government departments, judges in Family Court and today, even in the education system.

Finally, in saying what I have said, above, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I DO NOT hate homosexuals. Their sexual acts I do not agree with, as is the case also with the social agenda they are sponsoring.

My Dear Friends Down Under:

I am an American, and I agree that George W. Bush is sticking his nose in, and influencing your policy. My Aussie friends and customers have told me ALL about it.
I have always had a special place in my heart for Australia. I stumbled on your website and I love it. George is using this issue to get his party elected again and again. (Remember the differences between our and your system. I like yours better for the record!) Dinahan, please get a clue about the realities of being a despised member of a minority. People like you are a dime a dozen here in the US, and you would not believe the ugliness and bitterness of the political agenda against gays. Kids raised by gay parents may be teased, but so will ones by fat, jewish, ugly, stupid, interracial, etc. I was teased for being protestant (an unfortunate, immoral choice made by my parents):) and fat. I got over it. Discriminination against gays and inqeuality cannot be compared to chocolate bars or being 5 years old.

I think an important issue raised in this article is the question of legal rights. If two people live together, pool their resources, perhaps one is financially dependant on the other, if one dies without a will their partner automatically receives the estate - there exist legal rights and obligations, tax and investment benefits for couples AS LONG AS THEY'RE STRAIGHT.

There is a human rights argument here that gay couples are discriminated against and cannot easily access the rights that other couples enjoy.

Howard has attempted to legislate a 'moral' law that is only a law to a certain part of the community. I'm straight, I live in a democracy, I want everyone here to have equal access to justice, whether they be a person of colour, living with a disability, an immigrant, a man, a woman, or homosexual.

And Dinahin, the gene pool is larger than your comrehension of the biology of genetics. Homosexuality is not a choice! Otherwise, who would choose to be gay in this world.

Religious fundamentalists won't like to hear this but they are not having it all their own way regarding the same-sex marriage issue.

Firstly, gay couples have appropriated the language. I referred to my last "boyfriend" as my husband. I mean I was 37 when I met him and he was 3 years older. "Boyfriend" was a bit inappropriate. And gay couples often refer to their "marriage". So, you can say what you like but we are using the language of marriage regardless of what people think.

Secondly, gay couples are having their marriages blessed by the Metropolitan Community Church, the Quakers or any other gay friendly religious denomination. They are already having weddings with the requisite formality.

So, we are calling ourselves "married" and we are having religious services to formalise our marriages. What is left? The legal content. That is, the rights AND responsibilities conferred by signing a contract underpinned by the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 and other related legislation. Religious conservatives and their allies are fighting us on the battleground of government legislation.

I think opponents of same-sex marriage would be better off defending their religious institutions. After all, it would be unreasonable for gay couples to try to force the churches to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies. And I would oppose anyone who wants to force the churches to such a thing. We already have our own religious organisations who can do this. But it is also unreasonable for religious conservatives to try to maintain legal inequality - they don't "own" the Marriage Act 1961. Nobody does. It is a Federal Act which should not be exploited by same-sex marriage opponents who can't even argue on religious grounds and who try to conceal their religious bigotry by shifting to spurious social "arguments" to bolster their cause.

David JS says, "..it is also unreasonable for religious conservatives to try to maintain legal inequality - they don't "own" the Marriage Act 1961. Nobody does. It is a Federal Act which should not be exploited by same-sex marriage opponents who can't even argue on religious grounds and who try to conceal their religious bigotry by shifting to spurious social "arguments" to bolster their cause."

Religious folk (the dreaded fundementalists) exploiting the Marriage Act? Nonsense. They are defending marriage as a voluntary union between a man and a woman entered into for life", an understanding that's been around for quite a while I believe. If homosexuals cared so much for marriage how come only a few hunded wrote in to the recent Senate enquiry compared to 15,000 supporters of marriage as traditionally understood.

And I wonder about a concept of marriage that seems to derive its impetus from legal considerations - my wife and I entered into marriage 37 years ago for life, "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health", with every expectation of shared love, companionship, children.

What is your concept of marriage David JS?

I absolutely agree with David, marriage is something that is being defended by religious groups and indeed, many atheists, because it is a special bond which as the Marriage Act states, is a "union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others".

If DavidJS would like to rebut my points (see above), point by point, then he is welcome. However, his attitude (and hence, approach) seems to be that I and other supporters of marriage are just religious zealots out to oppress and demote homosexuals as sub-human - WRONG.

And as David points out, that is a complete nonsense.

Furthermore, as David points out, why did only a small number of submissions of the 15,000 or so in the recent marriage amendment bill, support gay marriage? Perhaps DavidJS could point out why the majority of Australians who placed a submission to this bill were, in fact, against altering marriage for the sake of a minority group and were in fact supporting the status quo - that is that marriage is a special union between one man and one woman to the exlusion of all others?

"submissions of the 15,000 or so"

It's highly likely that the majority of these 15,000 submissions were the result of a church-based campaign.

One reason for the small number of submissions supporting gay marriage is that Christian church members are the ones who seem to be the most-interested in what goes on on in OTHER people's bedrooms.

So the homosexuals are not into campaigns Ron.......!

Who are you trying to fool.

The truth is, not enough of them cared sufficiently to bother writing in. Apart from the very few, they prefer their promiscuous lifestyle.

And no thanks - I don't care to think about what goes on in homosexual bedrooms.

Bye for now I think I've used up my quota.

"Bye for now I think I've used up my quota"

Let's hope your hatred too, David.

My concept of marriage is two adults entering into the contract. They could either be a woman and a woman, a man and a man, a man and a woman, or two transgendered people (whatever their gender may be). Whatever form of duality (is that the right word?) it may be, a same-sex marriage would be qualitatively different to an adult-child marriage or a polygamous marriage in that it would start off on the footing of equality.

It is true that only a minority of homosexuals want marriage for themselves. However, that may change as it did in the Netherlands, Spain and so on. And if only a minority desire same-sex marriage, then same-sex marriage won't matter one iota to traditional marriage. I've said before that same-sex marriage opponents contradict themselves. They assert that gays are a tiny minority then in the next breath scream that same-sex marriage would be earth shattering.

Homosexuality is a choice? I don't believe it is genetic. However, one's sexual orientation can't be altered at will. And besides, you could say being Jewish is a choice, being a Christian is a choice - so what? Should people have to hide their Christianity because others might be offended? Should they have to change their religion because their family mightn't approve? Religious types should think about that before they open their arrogant mouths.

As for the cliched "slippery slope" argument I'll ask a question. If we allow a man and a woman to marriage won't that inevitably lead to man wanting to marry young girls? You see, to say same-sex marriage will lead to adult-child or polygamous marriages gets history the wrong way round. Those sort of marriages either exit now in some countries or were part of tradition dating back centuries. Besides, one policy change doesn't necessarily lead to another - apart from in some people's lurid imaginations.

What goes on in homosexuals bedrooms? Not very much lately in mine. Every gay except me seems to having a promiscous lifestyle. But that's too much information I'm sure :-)

I would like to ask why heterosexual opponents of same-sex marriage need to be married themselves. You don't need marriage to have children, you don't need it to stay together, marriage can't prevent your spouse from leaving you, you can provide a stable environment for children by loving each other and remaining together. Why do you need a marriage contract?

If you choose to think about those points and answer the question, the reasons why gay people like myself want same-sex marriage recognition may actually dawn on you.

I see that Ron, presumably running out of any coherent argument, accuses me of hatred. So, when in trouble, resort to ad hominem attack?

Thank you DavidJS for willingness to debate with me. I will be upfront. I choose to argue from the principles that I have sought to base my life on for many years now, ie Christian principle derived from the Bible.

1. I have never thought of my marriage of 37 years as a contract but as a commitment we made together “so long as we remain alive”, before God in the presence of many witnesses most of whom are still alive. This gives enormous strength to our marriage – its not about what we individually get out of it but the melding of two people in a “one flesh” arrangement of mutual love, obligation and enterprise. Because of this, our relationship is quite resilient and able to take the rough and tumble of life.

2. I don’t agree with your point about marriage being open to two women/men. Back in Genesis 2:24 with Adam and Eve, we read “therefore a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and they will become one flesh”. Whilst one flesh means more than children, at the very least it does mean that. If Adam and Eve had been Adam and Steve, then we wouldn’t be debating the topic. Male and female beautifully complement one another, physically, emotional, every which way. To the extent that they don’t, is because of the “me first” principle.

3. I’m glad you agree homosexuality is not genetic and I’m sure you are correct that it is very hard to break out of that lifestyle.

4. I agree that Christians, Jew, homosexuals, evolutionists/creationists, etc should be open about their convictions/ lifestyle choices – you say it is not easy for homosexuals and I believe you. I ask you to consider how easy it is for Christians – straight away we are verbalised as fundamentalists. Something like 300,000 Christians lose their lives each year through persecution some place or other.

5. More tomorrow why marriage might be better plus I’ll have a go at your last para.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in what Genesis has to say. The Bible (nor the Iliad for that matter) has much use in terms of how I conduct my life.

In terms of your relationship - as you've described it you don't appear to need legislation to endorse it. As you believe in a god, isn't that authority enough? Why do you need the Marriage Act 1961? If your relationship is strong enough (if you and your wife are indeed "as one") then why do you need acts of parliament?

It would be hard for me to breakout of the homosexual "lifestyle" as you quaintly put it since I have no desire to change my sexual orientation. Would it be hard for you to breakout of the Christian lifestyle? There are ex-Christians who have managed to breakout of their former lifestyles. I personally know a few. It can be done.

A slightly different angle - a writer to the Sydney gay press suggested having a civil unions act to legally protect same-sex relationships could be the way to go. They already have one in Argentina. In Australia that would mean identical rights to marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 but it would be covered by different legislation. Would do you and others think?

DavidJS

Part 1

I didn’t really think you would be interested in Genesis or the Bible if only because it goes so strongly against the homosexual lifestyle, though the way you conduct your life has been shaped by the Bible if only because of the way it has influenced the development of Western civilisation, assuming of course you are of European ancestry.
I quoted the Bible simply so that you understand the basis on which I engage with you.

You say “you don't appear to need legislation to endorse it. As you believe in a god, isn't that authority enough? Why do you need the Marriage Act 1961? If your relationship is strong enough (if you and your wife are indeed "as one") then why do you need acts of parliament??”

I think you are right up to a point.

As far as I know every culture (there may be the odd exception?) in human history has had a recognisable form of marriage (between a male and a female), certainly marriages existed before States acknowledged or regulated them. The relationship of a man and woman in marriage is always a fragile thing, especially when children are involved. Such relationships need every bit of support and assistance that they an get. A formal marriage, regulated by Government is seen as one way of achieving this end.

Contra, living together, marriage is never only personal and private, though it is certainly that. Marriage as an institution, acknowledged and regulated in law is the public recognition and regulation of human sexuality between a man and a woman as a socially recognised means by which children can be brought into the world and cared for – and don’t demean and trivialise this aspect of marriage! And as marriage confers benefits to the rest of society so
societies have reciprocated for married couples.

End of Part 1

Part 2

Another point, marriage is not just about love between people: I love my parents, my children, marriage however is a special kind of love, an “until death do us part” kind of love, a love that binds two into one in the face of adversity, a love that finds expression in the birth of a child, the only know mechanism by which life can continue.

So why not marriage for homosexuals?

Well why not for polygamy, incest, bestiality? Why stop with two men or two women, why not a woman and two men, or a man and three women, and why not throw in Mum as well, now she is a widow, or the dog as well? Let’s be clear about what we are talking about.

I come back to the point about the recent Senate enquiry into Marriage and ask why only a few 100 letters in support of homosexual marriage and why the absence of any outrage (outside the homosexual community and there you must admit it wasn’t wholehearted) when the Government with Labor support passed the Marriage Amendment Act? Australians as a whole want Marriage to be understood as between an male and a female, full stop. Presumably the facts concerning the lack of fidelity (promiscuity) in homosexual relationships, and the overwhelming short life of such relationships do nothing to engender any confidence that such relationships are entered into “until death do us part”

The Bible may appear to be against homosexuality. However, the concepts of being gay, being straight or sexual orientation do not appear anywhere in it. This is because the authors had no understanding of such things which would only be conceptualised nearly 2,000 years later. If a doctor was using a 2,000 year old work as a guide in his/her profession I would be seriously worried. Similarly, I cannot see how such an ancient work as the Bible, well written though it may be, is any use when it comes to issues regarding sexual orientation.

Let's get this clear - many heterosexual relationships, married or otherwise, are not "til death do us part". Moreover, it is illogical to compare marriages with same-sex relationships because the latter are not legally marriages. And quite frankly, I don't have alot of faith in many straight relationships. Statistics support me in this.

Also illogical is your "slippery slope argument" about where marriage would end up down the track if two men or two women married. Get it into your head - any form of marriage, however weird, can be promulgated RIGHT NOW. I am saying look at each idea on its own merits - preferably on the basis of equality. And some undesirable forms of marriage, such as between adults and children, are history. They've already been and gone - except in some developing countries where they are regarding as traditional. Marriage has not always been between adults. But now it is because our society promotes equality in marriage (as much as possible). And so do I.

Part 1

Dr. Laura is a fundamentalist (Orthodox Jew inthis case) who has a very popular radio show. She is quite vocal that homosexuality is a very bad and dangerous thing and this is a letter sent to her:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Part 2

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

---------------------------------------

Religious people are very selective about what parts of the bible they use to attack people, particularly homosexuals.

Ron
Love your work

Ron, that was doing the email rounds a few years ago but it is still extremely funny. But you're right about some Bible followers picking and choosing Biblical injunctions which conveniently suit them. As you'd know, Leviticus clearly states that adulterers should be put to death. If that was applied in Australia, Tony Abbott wouldn't have a snowball's chance.

DavidJS,

I have no idea how you gained the impression the Bible wasn’t for male female sexual relationship within the bounds of marriage and against all forms of promiscuity (and adultery) whether between homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Do you really want me to take you through the Bible on this as well as 2,000 years of how the Church has understood these texts?

When you say you would be concerned about a doctor using a 2,000 year old guide, what are you talking about? If you mean the treatment of myelofibrosis, a condition I have - of course not! But if you are talking about the more important issues, such as about the way to conduct my relationships with others, I’ll go to the Bible and the tradition of the Church based on that Bible every time, thank you very much.

Re the longevity of marriages, of course I understand about divorce, but surely you recognise the distinction between the ideal “until death do us part” and the reality which can include failure! Thankfully even in these depressing times for western culture, 2/3rds of marriages do survive “until death do us part”.

You are more optimistic on the non appearance of alternative forms of association for marriage – let’s wait and see.

I suppose Ron with his Dear Dr Laura letter ejoyed a chuckle and thought he’d scored a hit. Ringtail certainly did.

For this Christian, he looked foolish. For 2,000 years Christians have recognised texts like Lev 1:9, etc belong to the old Jewish covenantal laws, now superseded with the coming of Christ. Gosh, how many of us have sold our daughters into slavery, and as far as the women with their monthly menstrual uncleanliness – you would know Ron, wouldn’t you, because according to that same Bible, you'ld be her husband!

Amazing when you look at it, how foolish the Ron’s list looks – bit a laff really.

And that bit about the old Jewish laws being superseded with the coming of Christ - see how Christ deals with all this old Jewish legalism in Matthew 15:1-20 – go on, look it up and think about it!

What distinguishes homosexuality from the other items on Ron’s list is that unlike menstrual uncleanliness, etc, etc, the prohibition of homosexuality is taken over from the Old Testament, bit like the 10 Commandments, and reinforced in the New Testament.

If you want to argue against the Christian position, at least make some attempt to understand what it might be.

And come on, give Tony a break. He’s done enough mea culpa’s on that one. And technically you haven’t got it right anyway, he acted promiscuously, not adulterously

Unfortunately, Biblical cherry picking is a major growth industry and David, your last post reveals you as a classic case of someone who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible are important, which parts are not, and which parts have been "superceded". This is part of the reason why many people can't take the likes of Fred Nile seriously. He's regarded as a hypocritical time server who selectively uses the Bible for his own ends. Do you really want to be like that?

DavidJS says:

"Unfortunately, Biblical cherry picking is a major growth industry and David, your last post reveals you as a classic case of someone who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible are important, which parts are not, and which parts have been "superceded". This is part of the reason why many people can't take the likes of Fred Nile seriously. He's regarded as a hypocritical time server who selectively uses the Bible for his own ends. Do you really want to be like that?"

No, this is where you are wrong. You are flying a large kite and the string has broken. In contrast I have 2,000 years reflection by Christians behind me.

As I said in my last post, if you want to argue against the Christian position, at least make some attempt to understand what it might be.

But I can see that you are not interested, though you are quite happy to trample over it, without any comprehension and looking somewhat foolish as well. But then if you were convinced of the truth and applicability of the Christian position, then indeed you would have a problem, but also the solution too.

David, I was brought up on bible studies and raised as a christian. At age 12 I began to question the logic and rationale behind these stories - there were too many inconsistencies. No doubt Ron and DavidJS are equally well informed. The problem is this: the bible is a collection of stories written by a variety of men with a variety of agendas many centuries ago concerning tales alleged to have occurred even further back in the past.

While I freely acknowledge there are some philosophical gems in the bible the same can be said of many ancient texts. The stories are about the times in which they were written and their relevancy today is questionable if not completely at odds with comtemporary knowledge and culture. To base arguments on selections of the bible is the same as me quoting from the Iliad to prove a point.

Dear Ringtail, thank you for your kindly post.

I don't think Ron and DavidJS are at all well informed as to the structure, contents and theology of the Bible. And I really think you have far too pessimistic a view of the Bible. I think it has stood up remarkably well - it is certainly spot on as far as the human condition is concerned.

I see the homosexual lifestyle as extremely destructive and sad. But having said all that, I think it is time to leave this issue.

David, when you say homosexuality is a "sad, destructive lifestyle" it reveals an ignorance and arrogance that, coming from someone of your obvious intelligence, appears quite sad and destructive. And it is out of step with the thinking of many Christians as well. Have your read the works of John Spong? If not, give them a go.