Deuc,

You said: "You make the positive claim that [banning gay marriage] doesn't violate human rights -- so you must accept human rights and have your own criteria, or else your statement would have been pointless."

My statements assume - for the sake of argument - that human rights exist. If this is so, then there is no violation since the recognised international instruments make no provisions for same-sex marriage.

This does not mean or imply that I agree with all these rights or that they are legitimate. If human rights are legitimate, then I ask again - not to debate, but to clarify - what are human rights? If you think they are simply the rights codified in the various covenants then on what basis were those particular rights chosen and others excluded?

You ask: "I'm also interested in what Christian teachings you, David and others disagree with or have difficulty accepting"

I don't object to ANY Christian teachings. You appear to be assuming that because some liberal, so-called Christians accept homosexuality, that it is therefore a Christian teaching?!?! That's absurd! The Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexual acts are detestable and against God's law.

You ask: "how can you claim theological superiority, when you have no objective evidence that the Bible is perfect or that your intepretation is correct?"

This is now getting into the trustworthiness of Scripture and Biblical hermeneutics. There are many excellent books and online articles dealing with these issues. I don't have the time or space to discuss them in any detail. I would, however, be willing to discuss a particular verse or passage.

I have neither the time nor the the patience for a theological discussion - theology being so subjective for a start.

Rodney Croome asks whether the C M Act inadvertantly allows states to legislate for gay marriage - I guess time will prove whether that is true or not.

The issue I have is about active discimination against people because of who they are. I can no more change being heterosexual than I know my gay friends could change their orientation - just the thought of it is absurd - I just couldn't imagine a mate of mine making it with a woman. It is like discriminating against someone for having blue eyes.

Aslan asks what are human rights? - Once again trying to cloud the issue with semantics. Well, mate, if you were prevented from marrying a woman U loved because U R heterosexual - that would be discrimination - get it?

Aslan keeps ranting on about not being afraid - well Lady Macbeth, methinks you doth protest too much.

I found the following article in the NY Times - to quote an excerpt ""I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about," he said." This article shows just how afraid many christians are in the good ole USA, when they seek to influence a company as large as microsoft.

Read on: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22gay.html?th&emc=th

garra said: "It's their business, isn't it, rather than yours or mine?"

Whatever gays do in the bedroom is their business.

However, if gays do what they do in public toilets, then it is the public's business, and if gays want public and legal recognition of their relationships, it is also the public's business.

Ambo,

No-one is discriminating against gays for who they are. We are discriminating against THE RELATIONSHIP not the people. And, BTW, discrimination is not inherently bad. Everyone discriminates everyday. We choose where we shop, who cuts our hair etc etc. We rightly discriminate against convicted pedophiles by not letting them work in childcare centres. The question is whether the discrimination is justified. We obviously argue that it is justified. The Aust govt agrees, as has NZs Court of Appeal. Justice Gault noted that differential treatment existed but not discrimination and ‘to differentiate is not necessarily to discriminate. It is necessary to distinguish between permissible differentiation and impermissible differentiation amounting to discrimination.’ He added: "creating by law the status of child, adult, male, female is not discrimination though there may be discrimination in the law when rights or restrictions are attached to persons having such status. So too the establishment and maintenance of the institution of marriage is not itself discriminatory."

Sarantakos, a gay sympathiser, concluded (Alternative Law Journal 24/2 1999): "discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is as lawful as many other prohibitions of marriage, prohibitions which in principle restrict all people intending to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. For instance, women cannot marry already married men; and men cannot marry their sister; and women cannot marry a 12-year-old person. All these prohibitions are discriminatory but lawful nonetheless; as lawful as the prohibition that same-sex couples cannot be allowed to marry. Arguing, therefore, for same-sex marriage on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is neither logically convincing, nor legally acceptable."

BTW, gays can change their orientation, and many have. See:
http://www.idoexist.com

Your imagination is totally irrelevant in determining what is true and what is possible...

The link Aslan is referring to has been established by Dr Warren Throckmorton, who claims that he can reorient gays to start fancying the opposite sex. His program is very controversial, particularly for troubled people who are unable to change their sexual preference, refer to the following link http://covenantnetwork.org/resources&statements/reparative-reply.htm. Most gays can't change. They are who they are. Attempts to change have resulted in misery for those who couldn't.

In addition Dr Throckmorton was fired from his advisory position with the Magellan Health Services due to the controversy of program and the negative results for many gays. The doctor claimed it was a gay conspiracy. Well I guess he would.

Furthermore, we do not procreate with our nearest and dearest relatives (mum, dad, sister, brother) for obvious reasons of genetic inbreeding. Even Aslan would be aware of that - I'm sure he overlooked that fact deliberately. And of course there is legislation protecting minors from adults, this is also commonsense.

There is no justification to discriminate against gays. Sexual behaviour in public toilets is not the sole preserve of gays, plenty of straight men get into a lot of action in public toilets.

If you are anti gay because of their relationships, then how would you feel about gays discriminating against you for being in a straight relationship. Clearly your relationship doesn't interfere with homosexuals' lives and vice versa.

If Aslan really doesn't care 'what gays do in the bedroom' what is his problem with them marrying?

Perhaps it time for Aslan and his ilk to simply BUTT out.

"My statements assume - for the sake of argument - that human rights exist. If this is so, then there is no violation since the recognised international instruments make no provisions for same-sex marriage."
And my questions assume that too, but if international law is your assumed source then your statement is still pointless because article 16 of the UDHR makes no provisions for hetero marriage either. It says that men and women have the right to marry but it doesn't say they have the right to marry *each other* or someone of their own choosing, so you can't use it for your criteria. Relying solely on the UDHR, none of my examples are violations.

"You appear to be assuming that because some liberal, so-called Christians accept homosexuality, that it is therefore a Christian teaching?!?!"
You have thoroughly misunderstood my post. If there is nothing in Christianity you have trouble with, don't you find it the slightest bit odd that your natural and learned prejudices & predispositions don't conflict with Xian teachings at all? (Not that you reject those Xian teachings.) Is it not more sensible to consider that each person's understanding of the Bible and God has been influenced by their views and vice-versa? That doesn't mean that you can't disagree with other people's views, or provide good arguments against them. But if they accept the basic tenets of Xianity and their differing understanding comes from personal revelation which you cannot discredit because you (and your books) lack contrary objective evidence, then it is mere arrogance to deny their status as Christians.

Are you sure you don't have trouble with any Christian teachings? If you were enslaved by a fellow Xian, would you obey that person sincerly or would you resist?

But Ambo is correct, this is a distraction - my point was that the Church is not unanimous on the issue so whether these people are "Christians" doesn't matter much, although it might relegate Christianity to the world's second most populous religion.

The discrimination passage is about legal challenges. Ambo has also said enough about "ex-gays".

Part 1

Ambo has said, “Rodney Croome asks whether the C M Act inadvertently allows states to legislate for gay marriage - I guess time will prove whether that is true or not.”

I think we can all agree on that though probably not DAVIDJS, who draws comfort from Spain legalising same sex marriage contra what is happening in the US and Australia. I wouldn’t draw too much comfort from Spain which is in what may well be terminal decline with a birth-rate of 1.3 vis a vis a necessary 2.1 to just maintain the population nor would I draw much comfort for that matter from anything out of Europe on this score where I believe the noted orientalist Bernard Lewis has predicted the Muslims will be the majority by 2100 – none of us will be around then but perhaps our children or grandchildren will be or at least those of us with children.

I realise I really shouldn’t get on any subject related to homosexuality – the homosexuals and there fellow travellers simply get too nasty. They cannot take any opposition and when their position comes under attack rationality goes out the window and hatred takes over.

I admit I was a touch provocative earlier in suggesting the tide has gone out on same sex marriage. None of us really know what will happen. Christians will remain vigilant. I know Deuc wants to wheel in liberal Christians who are soft on the issue, however I suggest the majority of pew warmers are quite conservative on the issue.
DavidJS is correct in suggesting religious “fundamentalist” (his term not mine) want the debate on same sex marriage to end but that on abortion to continue. I want DavidJS and others of his persuasion to know that we Christians will remain vigilant on the marriage issue (and we will be aided in this by the half hearted support amongst homosexuals for same sex marriage).