Manik, I would dispute your view that we’re discussing a binary issue here: there are a range of possible views. However, let’s just say it is a binary issue – in that case, having endorsed the Vatican’s position against same-sex couples, you have no basis for a claim that you are “in neither camp.” You’ve joined the forces of discrimination.

Nice attempt at patronisation, too, but it doesn’t work. This is not Online Non-entrenched Opinion, or even Online Mild Opinion. Yes, I have a view, one that is well-founded in the principles of fairness, and respect for individual human rights. It’s an opinion I am prepared to defend, but I’m also ready to modulate it when presented with a better view.

What about you, Manik? You say the Vatican’s sentiments are sound. Why?

And why are you prepared to accept the consequences for innocent third parties? (please read my posts again before you respond that, in Prendergast’s example, the child’s parents are responsible for any disadvantages that flow to her)

Being unwilling to defend your view arouses the suspicion that you are here for nothing more than to make mischief.

Finally, Manik, sitting “in neither camp” as you claim, does not mean that you are morally sound, or even neutral. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Not to mention Sir Joh Bjelkie Peterson's famous quote that any farmer knows: you can't just sit on the fence. If you have one foot in one paddock, and the other foot in the other paddock, someone is going to pull up the barbwire fence and castrate you.

There are gay friendly members of the Coalition including one who represents Cairns ( I don't remember the names of all Queenslanders ), Senator Amanda Vanstone, and former Liberal Premier of NSW John Fahey ardently protected the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras from threats of legal challenges, as a close friend of John Marsden. We currently have a gay Liberal Councillor on the Sydney City Council: Shane Mallard. The only member of the council who rides a bike to work and actually practices environmental responsibility.

Former Liberal Premier Dick Hamer in Victoria decriminalised homosexuality in their State, years before ALP Premier Neville Wran did. They didn't sit on the fence. They made a brave stand and took a risk with their peers. I admire these members of the Coalition more than the ALP NSW Government that cowardly does nothing. In fact some members of the NSW ALP are more homophobic than Fred Nile. They ironically have Penny Sharpe in the Upper House in the ALP in NSW who is a lesbian mother.

In response so some religious nut up the page somewhere, this agenda is not the property of the Greens and the Democrats. It never was. Take a look at Parliament. Take a look at history. The line in the sand is not necessarily drawn between the Political Parties in Australia. Nor is this a left or right wing argument. Some left wing people are more homophobic than some conservatives in this country.

I would hardly call gay High Court Justice Michael Kirby left wing. I doubt he ever voted for the ALP in his life. But he is moderate and fair and very well respected for this. The political geography is not what it seems on this issue.

BOAZ_David, sorry, but I can't let your last post go through to the keeper. In it you stated..
"On the Church's being Tax Free. For goodness sake man, most are struggling to pay their pastor even a semblance of a living wage."
Some years ago whilst undergoing some major changes in my life and feeling rather vunerable, I was "persuaded" by a born again Christian to attend an evengelistic church. The first thing I noticed was the pastor who drove a brand new European car. He had his hair slicked back in true American TV evangelistic style, he wore the finest suit which was obviously well cut and expensive. Later, I asked my friend just how all this was payed for. He replied that in his church, you have to pay a tithe of 10% of all your income to the church. The church was pretty flashy too I might add. Once I witnessed "talking in tongues" I quickly backed away from there as fast as I could. A few years later, I was taken under the wing of a member of another evangelistic church, no tongues this time, but the same extremely well dressed pastor who also drove a brand new European car, same flashy hairdo and suit to go with it. I also noticed a couple of expensive looking rings on his hands. Then I began to take notice of other evangelistic cult churches and found them all to be the same. The pastors seemingly dripping money, while the poor dumb congregation offers up one tenth of their income each week to help pay for it all.

Part 2
As for doing good deeds in other countries, yes, both the above mentioned churches build schools and churches in third World countries, but their motives are vary transparent. Their aim in building these churches and schools is to preach their brand of evangelistic nonsence to the poor and desperate inhabitants of such places with the further aim of converting them and setting up another money making machine. Unfortunately, in the process they destroy local culture and customs and create another mob of sheep to do the churches bidding in attracting more locals and more money, so David don't tell me your church helps the inhabitants of third World countries out of the goodness of it's heart. Evanegistic churches don't have a heart, so why not tax the heck out of them? The more tax our Government could glean from the churches, the less damage might be caused to the fragile, diverse, but unfortunately ignorant third World cultures.
Just for the record, all that bible thumpin' turned me off religion for life. Wildcat.

To say that Christians discriminate against sinners is not sensible. From the Church’s side everyone is a sinner. It seems our fellows gay and lesbians have not yet reached that stage of humility and surrender. To belong to a church, you must leave your past sinful life at the door and never collect it on the way home.

The issue at hand is the homosexual lobby sinners wanting an ever larger slice of the cake by claiming their rightful acceptance to God’s family: the Church. Last time it was a piece of the marriage institution (legal union).

What many posters don’t realise is the meaning of God’s plan for His Church. He doesn’t frown at sinners seeking to join His family; He welcomes them with open arms (the prodigal son) BUT He doesn’t leave them in their state of rebellion – He changes them.

As I said before to join a believers group – unlike a club or an office - one must be born again, renewed, cleansed, with a new slate.

The opportunity for homosexuals to be accepted by God is wide open BUT they prefer not to accept it. Instead they expect the Church and God himself to come to their level and accept them in their sinful status. This will never happen of course.

Some churches have adopted a more liberal approach with gay clergy and gay congregation. They are doing themselves an unspeakable damage, by believing that God is accepting their worship. They are only fooling themselves.

Contrary to the mardi gras depravity that is imposing and exposing its filth on society, the church will never force people to endure its teachings. Belonging to God’s family is a privilege not a social right.

A church door remains open – those who can’t take the heat should get out.

God-the-Son Jesus came to heal the sick – but every time He performed a healing miracle He asked the sick first if they wanted to get better…

Among other accolades, Jesus was called “friend of sinners”.

So do you want to be healed

This quote below from Rita Carter's book "Mapping the Mind" might help you people think a bit more rationally about this issue.

Is there a gay brain?

"In 1991 the prestigious journal "Science" published a study showing that the brains of a group of homosexual men who had died of Aids were structurally different from the brains of hetrosexual men. The nucleus in the hypothalmus that triggers male-typical sexual behaviour was much smaller in the gay men and looked more like that in the brains of women. The author, Simon LeVay, then Associate Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the University of California, was immediately attacked by gay activists who feared the recognition of homosexuality as a physical-based condition might lead to it being re-stigmatised. LeVay, who is himself gay, then went on to discover that the corpus callosum differs between gay and straight men, too - in gays it was to be found to be bigger. Three years later a study led by molecular biologist Dean Hamer of the National Institute of Health in Washington, DC found evidence to suggest that a specific gene - carried on the maternal line-influenced sexual orientation in men. Put together, these studies provide strong evidence that homosexuality is rooted in biology-and hostility to the idea has largely disappeared."

No doubt God has just noted that down in this log and I guess Rancitas is one step closer to HELL.

I think the pope is an idiot. If he can't see that to abstain from sex, to abstain from expressing your particular sexuality, especially in a loving relationship, is unnatural and thus, according to Catholic thinking, which in turn is based on Aristotle's ideas, goes against God, then he is evidence that the Catholic anti-gay love stance is based on falliacious evidence rather than his mythic Papal infallibility (which in itself demeans God).

Go to a punk gig, they accept everyone and are far more moral than the Church will ever be.