Robert,

Before replying to the comments you directed at me I'll just comment on the homophobia thing. Are you absolutely sure that someone like Jack the Lad is Christian, insecure or struggling with personal issues? I suspect not. If you take such rhetorical argument too seriously the Jack the Lads of the world will only have their views affirmed.

You do tend to sound pretty middle of the road and attempting to be fair that is why I made the comment. Certainly if a Christian poster lives by the sword they will get obvious consequences. But being human you might not always get the balance right.

I've seen attempts to have prayer banned in parliament in a country with Christian heritage. I've heard and read comments that Christian leaders shouldn't comment on moral issues in public even in a political arena.

In here (and out of here) I've seen many attempts to link Christians with paedophiles. Indeed any Christian pastor who even has sex with a 17 year old boy gets labelled a paedophile and gets huge publicity. Paedophiles go through courts every day of the week but you would think from the media that only the Christians that get done once a year were prosecuted paedophiles. There hasn't been any of that in this particular thread but give it time.

"Most are innocent but your own house is not in order."

True but as far as houses any disorder of this kind is not good but the house has done better than most.

"We have a some christains on the site who understand something of Jesus character and teaching and do credit to their faith. We have the capital J christains determined to bash everybody else with their faith who do a great disservice to the christain message."

I won't rule out this possibility but don't fall into the human trap of viewing everything through your expectation. People have a habit of looking for evidence of their beliefs rather than viewing things objectively.

Breathtaking hypocrisy: how can you possibly object to "attempts to link Christians with paedophiles" when you are doing this same thing yourself to homosexuals?

Does it strike you as a little arrogant to expect standards of others that you don't bother to apply to yourself? Obviously not.

As you admit, the associations you object to haven't even taken place in this discussion. As I and others have pointed out, the most despicable things have been said in this discussion about homosexuals, and you're prepared to defend this on the grounds that at some time in the future similar things may be said about christians here: "There hasn't been any of that in this particular thread but give it time."

If you truly object to smearing one group of people by associating them with criminals then you need to condemn the behaviour vigorously and cease doing it yourself. Otherwise you're nothing less than a base hypocrite, using your beliefs the same way a drunk uses a lamp-post (to borrow a line from Mark Twain).

In fact, your beliefs don't even belong in this discussion. The topic here is the civil rights of a group of law-abiding human beings. Instead you and others are trying to derail it with references to belief. You're even attempting to widen it now by introducing other faith-based issues. If you want a discussion about prayer in parliament, start one somewhere else. It's not relevant here.

If you have a contribution to make to this discussion, mjpb, then please do so. Take a position and argue for it - make a relevant point FFS. So far all you have done here is attempt to divert the discussion with loaded rhetorical questions and irrelevant distractions.

Apparently it's the fundies and other homophobes who are out of step with both sides of politics on this issue:

"New Liberal Party leader Brendan Nelson has declared his support for more equitable legal arrangements for gay and lesbian couples."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/02/2107227.htm?section=justin

mjpb: "Are you absolutely sure that someone like Jack the Lad is Christian, insecure or struggling with personal issues?"

Well, he says he's not Christian, but on the basis of his comments in this and other threads I think the latter descriptions apply. He also seems to be unaware that anal sex is engaged in by heterosexuals too. I think he's a classic homophobe with limited sexual experience.

jpw2040: "So far all you have done here is attempt to divert the discussion with loaded rhetorical questions and irrelevant distractions".

That seems to be mjpb's standard approach to debating. Probably works quite well at church fellowship but it doesn't wash here. Mjpb's homophobia is quite cleverly disguised, but ultimately it's still knuckle-dragging bigotry. I don't believe mjpb's claims to have gay friends - if s/he did, they certainly wouldn't need enemies.

The use of the term "homophobia" is an attempt to vilify those who oppose these unnatural sex acts.

Normal philial same gender relationships are encouraged in society and the Church; however if they are jumping into bed with each other then it has crossed the boundary of decency and morality. The supporters of these acts feel by the constant use of this term they will gain some moral high-ground. The term "phobia" means to have some unnatural fear.

By their constant use of phobia they are hoping that the term sticks. The truth of the fact is homosexual males have developed some infantile fear of having a long term relationship and normal sex with a woman. Similarly two woman in a long term sexual relationship have some unatural fear of men, that probably stems from a poor relationship with their father, or the man in the home during their pubity.

When shari'ah laws are introduced to Australia in 2040 then we will see this practise almost eradicated.

mjpb, Jack the Lad has already declared himself to be athiest.

I listed what I found in the material I've seen to be the main causes of homophobia. I don't know which if any applies to Jack.

R0bert

The only objections to gay marriages are based on either bigotry or religion.

The issue of age of consent "which is sure to follow" as a result of the approval of gay marriage is a separate issue which needs to be resolved outside of the marriage issue.

With the way relationships are progressing, I see little relevance in marriage recently. The real debate is that the church wishes to retain it as its preserve. The claim of "holy" is more a copyright issue than one of morality.

I can see no negative effects of gay marriage, other than ruffling feathers, and can therefore see no reason to deny it to anyone capable of consent.