Martin Ibn Warriq, “ Rex, there are no arguments in your post.” thats because Rex was not trying to argue. He was putting forward a very good expression of how the vast majority of intelligent people feel regarding this subject and relationships in general.

The only objection that people have to the subject of homosexual rights, is child adoption and parenting. This purely boils down to most feeling, that a balanced upbringing requires both a male and female biological parent who is a part of the child's life. Other than that, its their business.

We fully understand how inadequate the religious blanks are when it comes to understanding life, we see that in every aspect of your lives. Sadly you persist in constantly repeating tired old religious rhetoric, which is total fantasy.

You that trembles in fear, of being wrong. Whilst real people are willing to sit down and work out a responsible and acceptable outcome, for these sort of requests by minorities within society.

Unlike religious societies that are mono cultures, secular societies cater for everyone. Even the brain dead religious are catered for, under sufferance.

The problems secular societies face, is how much acceptance they give minorities without causing adverse conditions. Religious societies suppress and condemn those minorities that don't fit into their bigoted mind set. We understand your fear of difference, just won't accept it.

Our heritage is not christian, but developed by people transported here by religiously controlled countries, against their will. Sadly after more than 100 hundred years of a decent, growing more tolerant culture, we are faced with the religious from all sides, trying to force us back to their despotic ways.

To Mr Bosk.

You are using the concept of universal equality as a moral absolute. Could I advise you against using any argument based upon moral absolutes because it makes you easy meat. Moral values conflict, and moral values change with the times. The best way to shred the argument of a person who insists upon basing their arguments upon moral absolutes, is to think up a scenario which takes that moral absolute to it’s most ridiculous length, in order to make a mockery of it. That is usually very easy to do.

Inequality already exists within all Western societies and for reasons which may be good or bad. The primary role of governments is to create laws which promote the peaceful co existence and continued prosperity of their nations people. It is not to promote equality or defend individual rights to the point where it endangers social cohesion. Good governments weigh the effects of granting individual rights against the effects upon their society as a whole.

Aboriginal descended people have many more “rights” than other Australians descended people, but few people begrudge them that privilege. Insurance actuaries openly discriminate against young people when assessing motor vehicle insurance, and they also discriminate by postal address. Most people would agree that this “inequality” makes sense also. The system of “licensing” is also a form of inequality and discrimination, which prevents unqualified or untrustworthy people from engaging in defined social activities. Religious orders are also usually exempt from any legislation demanding equality for all.

So, Mr Bosk, it appears that your argument that maintaining equality is essential, does not bear examination.

Hi neckie
Where do I start with your post? Well let's start at the beginning. Quote "You are using the concept of universal equality as a moral absolute" Wrong! Legal precepts have NOTHING to do with morality. They are the aim or goal if you like that law strives towards.

Example: Let us suppose that the vast majority of heterosexuals are debased morally. As far as the principle of "equality before the law" their lack of morality would be irrelevant. Everyone must be treated equally before the law OR it endangers everyone because of the precedent that has been set.

2)Your second argument seems to suggest that since we've allowed discrimination before we can do it now. Why? Our anglo-saxon ancestors once burned witches - should we do that now? How about burning catholics & protestants? Australia used to be used as a dumping ground for Irish political prisoners. Should we start that again?
Really! All you've done is prove my point. Once a precedent of bias has been established in the law there are always people who seek to extend it because there are people they don't like that aren't included but are equally hateworthy, at least in their eyes.

If I were a member of a minority - a fundamentalist christian for instance - I would feel far more threatened by such precedents than I would by homosexuals gaining equal standing under the law. Why? Because I might be next! Sorry to demolish your arguments like this. Better luck next time neckie. :)

Alchemist. No. There are lots more objections to gay marriage than the ones you mention, didn’t you read the links? No it doesn’t boil down to one opinion alchemist, did you bother to read the professor's article?

Where do you think the idea of the secular comes from?

Jesus answered, "My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn't be delivered to the Jews. But now my Kingdom is not from here."
John 18:36.

The separation of the earthly and the spiritual by the Holy Roman Church compared with the political goals of Islam is explained in an article by ‘Spengler’. It’s a good read. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA10Ak01.html

In it he writes: Pope Gelasius I (492-496) taught that "because of human weakness (pride!), they have separated the two offices" of king and priest.

Insofar as any country is secular is because the Catholic Church was true to Christ’s teaching, and produced citizens who understood and could reason from this. The Church has, at times in the past, foolishly tried to establish a theocracy of a kind but nothing like Islam, read Spengler and get the gist.

What Christians emphasise is that honest dialogue has to occur if secularism is to survive which is in both our interests. But the idea of a purely secular civilization is a contradiction. It requires the sacred to define itself against. Yet we throw out the sacred at the first opportunity at the cost of so much nihilism and depression and other societal ills.

As for your last paragraph Alchemist. I’d be interested to see you make a case for Australia developing in isolation from Christianity, besides the fact that secularism itself is dependent for its proper understanding on Jesus and Christianity.

Remember even your screen name is meaningless without reference to Christianity.

Redneck writes..
"Senator Greig admits that neither side of Parliament is keen on giving gay marriages the green light. The reason why, of course, is that it would be electoral suicide for any party which openly supported it. Mr Greig”s fanciful claim that the majority of Australians support gay marriages is obviously not a view held by either the Coalition or Labor. Most people grudging conceded that homosexuality should be decriminalised, but that did not bestow respectability on the practice"

In fact, this has been proved NOT to be the case in the ACT. At our last local government elections, the ACT Labor party made it clear that they would introduce rights for same-sex couples, including some kind of relationship scheme. It was a major part of their election platform.

That party won a majority government...the very first time that any political party has won a majority government since self-government was introduced in the late 80's.

The people of Canberra have shown that they do not feel "distaste or hilarity" or have "low regard" for homosexuality. Indeed, they have shown that they support unions for same-sex couples.

Martin Ibn Warriq, Secularism goes back to at least the Hittites, some time around 2000 BC. When they conquered they accepted the local religious beliefs into their empire, unless they caused social problems, then they removed them. They removed most of the violent laws of the Hebrews as well. They are mentioned quite a bit in the old Hebrew bible. They were Germanic.

Alchemy goes back a long way and was present in many civilisations, The Egyptian adept king "Hermes Trismegistus" who lived about 1900 B.C. Is a recorded alchemist. Alchemy was also present in china round 650 AD as recorded by Taoist's. In India, Hindu alchemists were recorded about 2500 BC, just a tad before your pope who had a few women in those days.

As John was written sometime in the 2nd century, by scribes and was probably dictated by a woman writing a letter to others describing her life with Jesus and what he talked about. Whilst anointing all around with cannabis laced oil. Plus it didn't receive the name John until about 650 AD, I would learn the actual lineal Greek wording and a bit of history, before relying on and quoting a fallacy.

Basically its your fear that puts you against those who are different in their life expressions. The religious are so insecure and fearful, that they must destroy everything so that their iluusions won't be pointed out to them.

There can never be equality, only difference. It is equality of opportunity that works. Religion seeks to equalise us into enslaved clones of their example. Thats why they object to people with different sexual orientation, difference frightens them.