Jesus, in dispersing the crowd that was trying to stone a woman caught in adultery, told them that the one without sin should cast the first stone.

Then he said, interestingly, "I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more."

The point being that Jesus did not say that she was guiltless of the sin of adultery, instead he told her to 'sin no more', that is, not to continue in sexual relations outside of marriage.

As marriage at the time in Israel could only be between a man and a woman, Jesus injunction was against any sexual relationship outside of that of marriage between a man and a woman. Gay sex could only have been outside of marriage, and therefore was by definition a form of adultery.

Nowdays, in our secular society, sex outside of marriage is not frowned on, therefore, the secular world should have no problem even with the concept of adultery. Maybe those secularists who preach the importance of marriage should realise that they have been overwhelmed by reality.

Religious believers should however also have the freedom to decide, for themselves and their co-believers, a view about marriage, which should not be imposed on others.

Bosk, I don't know what your hang up is, I consistently aknowledge the right of gays to civil union, that is, that is not to have the religious part of society intrude on your beliefs and behaviour.

Why do you insist, apparently, on thrusting your interpretation of faith in the faces of those who want to feel differently to you about their own lives?

Boaz-David,

hmm, maybe I am missing something but it seems to me the "gay lobby" as you call it has a very easy way to differentiate themselves from phedophiles.

They are consenting adults. They do not harm anybody by their behaviour. We have no right to prevent them from engaging in this actions and no right to discriminate against them on this basis.

Phedophiles impose their actions on people who, by their age, are not yet capable of informed consent. They harm children. That is why we rightfully make pedophilia illegal. And rightfully discriminate against them (e.g. we do not let them apply for jobs as primary school teachers!) (and this goes for sheep and dogs, too, unless you think these animals are capale of informed consent...)

We are entitled to limit the freedom of individuals only when their behavior is harmful to others, this should be the basis of coercive actions on the part of the state, not arguments about something being "innatural" or "abnormal". Nature and normality have nothing to do with right or wrong. Invoking the power of the state to limit somebody's freedom is a very serious thing, and it needs very sound justification.

And, no, the Bible is no such justification. Many people do not believe in the Bible, you may think it is their misfortune, but you are not entitled to force them to live by its precepts, as long as in their un-Biblical behavior they harm no-one. You are free to dislike them, for sure, pity them, maybe, but not to enlist State coercive power to limit their freedom and actively discriminate them.

Separation of State and Church is a fundamental liberal principle and a gurantee of freedom for all (should it not be YOUR church that is in power... think about it!)

Pedant. It is not just about my partner and I, in wanting civil rights that you enjoy. Its about all same sex couples, many who do not have the security of tenure over their relationship.

You say go to a good lawyer, have you gone to a good lawyer, to protect your relationship rights and your joint assets. Why must same sex couples have to have the expense and involvement of a lawyer in their lives.

A Civil Union is about keeping third parties out of the relationship, and allowing same sex couples the right to live their lives with peace of mind.

Jpw2040
Wow…you are slow, I provided links to posts on my own site which contained links to sources if you bothered to check them out. These highlight that your comments are just plain wrong. It’s too bad you don’t have the integrity to admit that and instead continue with the obvious false self-referencing complaint.

It is curious that you continue to show your complete ignorance of logic. I am not insisting that what I believe is right simply because I believe it (that is the irrational nonsense of moral relativism that you continue to peddle). In fact, if you bothered to look, my arguments do not talk about whether same sex marriage is wrong or right morally, but simply that society should encourage the family structure that works best and is not duty bound to provide the same encouragement to something doesn’t work as well.

That you try to bring up your malicious brand of ‘compassion’ where you encourage people to hurt each other is just more evidence that you have no rational argument, just a continued stream of catch phrases that you use to try and shut people up instead of rationally discussing the issue.

Lets see….summarising the arguments here (e.g. by John Wilkonson, ena, jpw2040 etc)
1) People who oppose homosexual marriage are not ‘fair-minded’, but instead are nasty and mean. (including various lame efforts at implying it is a negative psychological condition)
2) Marriage is a civil right.

Both of these are wrong. The first is just an insult, not an argument. Those who are calling those opposed to gay marriage mean are trying to encourage a harmful activity. Perhaps they should take a good long hard look at themselves before they find out that those comments apply to them more. Compassion is not about encouraging people to harm each other.

Secondly, marriage is not a civil right. Marriage has two aspects, one is religious, the other is civil. In the civil sense, society can bestow privileges to encourage institutions and activities that benefit society as a whole. These privileges are not rights. It is the same as society giving tax breaks for research and development and charitable organisations, but not for all other activities. It isn’t a right, it is a benefit or privilege given to encourage things that are of benefit to society. Complaining that there are extra costs in achieving the same legal status is irrelevant. This is why civil unions are also a bad idea.

That the homosexual lobby continues to try and radically redefine an institution that has existed for thousands of years without any real argument for it shows it is a hollow issue that only gains ground by insults and ignorance of this lack of argument.

Alan,
Can you please introduce evidence that same-sex relationships are harmful – either to an individual or society?

Otherwise, could you also address my questions specifically?