Malcolm Turnbull has called for a conscience vote on this issue. What is impressive is that he is the first politician to have come out and publicly stated that in a secular society the state should not be concerned in dabbling in issues about what does or does not constitute marriage. The role of the state is to distribute the burdens and benefits from social co-operation fairly. To do that it needs to know how people define the relationship they have to one another. A couple that is living as a couple should be treated as such. Leave it to the plethora of civil celebrants and churches to decide what is or is not a marriage - all the state needs to know is the nature of your relationship.

Yes the desperate Turnbull. He got so close, but fortunately he was kicked out before he could do much damage. So much like Labor, he'll try to buy a vote anywhere he can.

That would be fine Baygon, provided you realise that the benefits given to married couples are to support "breeding pairs" mot just those living together.

If you are going to give the various government funded benefits to pairs that have no chance of breeding, you will have to offer them to all share accommodation people. That would surely be fair. After all, many "normal" people share flats for longer than many homosexual pair bonds last.

If you can't breed you have no point or right to any marriage benefits.

Dear Baygon,

Thank You for another interesting thread.
I think Malcolm Turnbull is great! I may not
always agree with everything he says - but
when he speaks he's coherent and makes sense.
In this case - his take on same-sex marriage -
I do happen to agree. As do most Australians.
It's only a small minority that insists on
imposing their will and beliefs on others.
It should be a consience vote in Parliament.

I see much more here than hasbeens dislike of the next leader of his party.
More than a dislike of same sex couples.
I suspect Church wedding is not the wanted out come, if it is start their own religion/Church.
After all it would seem clear existing thought is that is not the place.
However we have no right to judge them or in my view stop them.

Of interest attention hasbeen, if every party in the Parliament, say conscience vote.
Except Lib/Nats, and it fails by say ten votes.
Some who have never.
Not ever
Voted for other than Conservatives have reason for never voting that way again.
Same sex couples are not freaks, not all leftist,and Turnbull is aware Abbott should not wedge his party yet again.
Abbott's fall, Turnbulls rise is needed, by Australia, and the ALP it seems only that will see the end of Gillard.

The whole idea of a conscience vote is mysterious. People who support 'gay marriage 'already have had their consciences seared to what is right and wrong. Why could we not have a 'conscience vote' on the carbon tax? It would have no hope of getting up. Once again social engineers fooling those who already have seared consciences.

I wounder, truly, why even consider talking to runner.
But I have no doubt I too, have equal rights.
Rights to say Gods, the world is full of them, far different or much the same.
Are fables.
And that those who follow them judge in their name, have too much power, not enough understanding making laws based on one of the thousands of Gods is blindness.
Failing to understand, in the minds of all followers of every God theirs is the true one too is blindness.
As all Gods are different, and every one says theirs made us all, he/she made same sex couples too.

Obviously Belly, Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd agrees with my view unless of course they are telling lies.

Toni will agree with you Runner. I don't think there has been mention of marriage outside of the media, Julia was calling it a union. Could be wrong. Religion can-not come into decisions that effect individuals, we don't all hail mary. fairy tales.

Given that the claim that it is a religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman would it not follow that anyone who chooses to be married would need to demonstrate that they believe in a God? If they dont they cannot be married, if they do they will need to convince a church that they should be married in that church - kick this silly debate to where it belongs - in church there are far more serious issues about which we should be concerning ourselves.

BAYGON,

You raise a valid point however even heathens have benefited greatly by adopting biblical principles. The West would not have had the great blessings it has had if we had adopted secular or pagan practices as a national practice.

I wanna have 7 wives, can I join in?
One of my fiance's wants to marry her mother. (I personally don't like this idea, mother in laws and all that you know? :) )
My other wife to be wants to marry her dog, whatever turns her on I suppose.

After all the state should not decide how we partner off, just that we're all partners.

Hasbeen I don't think that there is or has been any mandatory requirements in the marriage act to produce children. Whilst for many it's been the assumption that people who get married will have kid's it's not been a requirement nor has society generally withheld or withdrawn marriage from those who can't or don't function as a breeding pair.

Couples don't have their marriage cancelled if one person in the marriage becomes unable to contribute to a future child nor if they have been married for a number of years without having kid's. Nor does marriage stop a significant number of children being conceived outside the bounds of a recognised marriage.

Benefits are generally paid on the basis of co-habitaion and the presence of kid's rather than on the basis of a marriage certificate as far as I'm aware.

I'd like to see the government butt out of the whole thing, keep their involvement to a basic registration for things such as an authorisation to act as next of kin during medical emergencies etc.

I can no longer be part of a breeding pair (well maybe with an expensive reversal and some luck). As I understand it if I was in a live in sexual relationship with someone who was heavily reliant on social security for their income their payments would be impacted by my income. No breeding pair but a financial impact never the less.

None of the arguments against gay marriage make sense while we continue to allow and support so many exceptions for non-gay couples, married or otherwise. They keep looking like excuses rather than reasons.

R0bert

It is important to recognize that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns and that above all, marriage like any
other social institution, must inevitably
change through time. All this fuss over same
sex marriage comes from a small minority who
believe that their version of marriage is
self-evidently right and proper (and usually
God-given as well). And because they believe
that there is only one "right" form of marriage,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.

Lexi sums it up

'It is important to recognize that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns and that above all, marriage like any
other social institution, must inevitably
change through time.

That means in a few years those who believe this 'social institution' must inevitably change could be polygamy or marriage to a horse.

The world is about to self implode financially and go to serious war,yet gay marriage is the most important issue we confront?Labor want more votes no matter what the cost."What ever it takes" these words will haunt Labor to their grave.

"yet gay marriage is the most important issue we confront?"

Why does it have to be the most important issue to get attention.
It's a silly piece of discrimination which can easily be fixed without much expense and with no harm except to those who find that marriage may not be all that they'd dreamed of.

runner if you can get a horse to have you and to give a credible consent then go for it.

Follow on from my earlier post.
As I understand the pension when paid to a heterosexual couple is less than two single pensions, would those opposing gay marriage be happy if openly gay couples in receiving the same benefits as two singles while their heterosexual peers got less because of different plumbing?

R0bert

Robert you write

'runner if you can get a horse to have you and to give a credible consent then go for it.'

actually their would be any number of Asian women willing to be the 2nd or 3rd wife in order to get to Australia.

Robert good comment.Perhaps Gay marriage will be good for for us tax payers.ie a gay couple now being catagorised as a married couple who will get a lesser pension.I bet they didn't think that one out.

How free is freedom.
Why do we think it is our right even duty too tell gays how to live.
Runner puts his/her religions views strongly.
Am I ?,truly, Am I? free to say in my belief no God ever existed.
And that while man,who invented each of them showed how brilliant his/her mind is, in writing the first ever.
Service Manual/Power Point presentation for life/living.
We no longer must have Children to defend our group.
I am not gay, not even happy some times.
But in my single life time we have seen the end of white Australia,a very real fall in Church attendance and influence.
I agree only with this, Church's should have the right to wed or not wed these folk.
But they too, should have the right to produce their own Church /God and we should let them.

Why do we think it is our right even duty too tell gays how to live.
Belly,
with all due respect but isn't it the gays who constantly dictate to us ? Isn't it them who keep flaunting their preferences instead of simply living their lives in peace & quiet ? I'm sure they'd cop far less criticism if they simply accepted their situation instead of pushing it more & more.
I don't believe in gay marriage but I accept a gay union. Marriage is between two individuals of different sex full stop.
We should not change the meaning of words.

Marriage is about commitment, not politics, nor
is it about anyone's religious beliefs other than
the couple in love. I believe that you should have
the right to get married when two adults are in
love and want to get married. Their sexuality is
irrelevant. There are lots of people making a
mockery of marriage. Marrying for visas, money,
and so on and no one says anything about that.

Murder is defined by the state. Superstitious bodies which follow the book of fairy tales called the Bible do not object to the state defining murder although some of them may show their vindictiveness in their support for the death penalty while others consider that murder by the state.

Nobody that I have heard of is suggesting that religious bodies perform any form of marriage they do not wish to perform. I do not see why they should object to a change in the definition of civil marriage that they are not obliged to follow.

The nature of marriage changes in the book of fairy tales called the Bible. Jacob was married to Leah and Rachel. King Solomon had many wives and many porcupines. Changes in the nature of marriage should not be restricted to fairy tale books.

The nature of marriage and murder are determined by the state. Neither should be a matter for superstitious consideration.

I would draw the line at marrying porcupines; I just dont see any point in it

BAYGON, I've heard that they can be real pricks.

david f, I don't know if it's still an issue but I have heard enough people in the past really upset because a church (or preacher) would not agree to a second (or latter) marriage being held in the church or conducted by the preacher. They may have liked the look of the church, they may have wanted the sense of their wedding being blessed by god and church although it was clearly contrary to that church or preachers understanding of biblical teaching. I suspect that to some extent the same issue would arise again.

Simplest to withdraw all special tax/rate breaks and other privileges from the churches and allow them to do what they want (or not) within their walls.

R0bert

RE - Marrying porcupines...don't knock it till you've tried it : )

(Although I've heard that they're notorious drink spikers)

"In a secular society the state should not be concerned in dabbling in issues about what does or does not constitute marriage. ... [The state] needs to know how people define the relationship they have to one another."

These two statements contradict each other.

The state should not be concerned to inquire into, nor to register other people's sexual relationships, nor to distribute favours and impose disabilities on the basis of people's sexual relationships. State registration of gay marriages doesn't solve any of these problems - it merely changes the categories a bit.

Furthermore the state is no better at deciding what is fair in terms of the fruits of social co-operation, than is society itself. Society does a much better job than the state does, or can ever do, simply by its *voluntary* decisions. The idea that every decision should be made by government, just because "we live in a democracy" is absurd, because it doesn't explain why a given decision should be private and not political.

Rather than expanding the categories of state-sanctioned sexual relationships, the best and fairest solution to the gay marriage issue would be to abandon the governmental registration and regulation of sexual relationships - repeal the Marriage Act.

"Why do we think it is our right even duty too tell gays how to live?"

Actually we don't.

De-facto partners, whether gay or straight have the same rights under the law as married couples which are legally enforceable, and marriage is in reality different to de facto partnerships in name only. Gays are not excluded from any part of life that their straight cousins have access to.

While I personally support gay marriage, and feel that it is more a matter of when than if, I don't see it as one of the most pressing issues of the day, more a gesture than a fundamental change.

That Labor has done yet another spectacular back flip, and in only a year from making an election pledge not to change the act, to pushing it through parliament, does not mean that everyone else needs a synchronous rush of blood to the head.

There are some significant differences Shadow Minister some of these relate to rights people have regarding inheritance or being consulted when one's partner is seriously ill. Basically the problems seem to arise when the family does not approve of the relationship and so under cover of the law can basically reassert its authority. (The same applies to de facto couples.)
I agree that as a society we have far bigger fish to fry and I do wonder at the sort of priorities our politicians place on their legislative programme when this takes up so much time. The issue is not trivial to gay couples so lets get it out of the way quick smart os we can get back to the real business of government.

Don't worry, within 50 years, Islam will fix it.

Dear Hasbeen,

Things will get sorted very quickly when things
are put to a conscience vote in Parliament.

cont'd ...

Talking about porcupines ...
Leap-frog anyone?

I recall a comment made by an auteur on Q&A a while ago.

Rather than permit gay marriage, he suggested that we put our efforts into making heterosexual divorce illegal.

Now wouldn't that change a few perspectives?

I think the marriage aspect is more or less symbolic window dressing when the true goal is actually spousal equality in the eyes of the law.

Lexi I have never voted for anyone else to assume any right to be my conscience, & neither did I select a candidate to take that roll.

I will never accept any law passed by a conscience vote. It's actually an oxymoron to even mention conscience & politician tn the same sentence. Julia anyone?

When I vote, I vote for the policy of the party I am voting for. I do not accept any party's right top change any policy, without taking it to the people. Carbon tax anyone?

To suggest that we will find enough people with a conscience in parliament to form a quorum is a pretty novel idea mate.

Dear Hasbeen,

Whether you accept any law passed by a conscience vote
or not is irrelevant. All you are entitled to do in
a federal, representative parliamentary democracy -
is elect your representative in parliament. And if you
don't like the way the Australian government deals with
the challenges of the day - you can not vote for them
at the next election. However, the importance of a
conscience vote is that it does enable members of the
front bench to vote on way or the other and not put their
position on the front bench at risk. BTW: Most Members of
Parliament know how their constituents feel about certain
issues - and they are aware of what is expected of them
as their representatives in parliament. It seems that most
people on this particular issue are pro - same-sex marriage.
You may need to contact your MP and let them know of your
views before the next sitting of paarliament if this is
of concern to you.

The positions that parties put forth in their platform should be adhered to after election. However, votes on all other matters should be determined by a combination of the wishes of the constituents, the conscience of the legislator and the good of Australia and the world.

I am married to woman and expect to stay married to her until we are parted by death. I fail to see how allowing people of the same sex to marry threatens my marriage or anybody else's. I have heard that opponents of same sex marriage regard it as a threat to marriage. Please explain how it is a theat to marriage.

The real question is not of marriage but of the right to raise children.Gay relationships on average last far fewer yrs than hetro ones.Some are openly hostile to their opposite sex.How do both genders get a balanced view of their sexuality and identity in a homosexual relationship? The issue is not simple and big egos on all sides need to look at what is good for a child who may have the opposite sexual orientation to theirs.

In a hetro situation there is an option of yin and yang to seek advice and guidence.There is no ideal family environment but throwing open the doors to gay abandon may be courting disaster.

...Queer is as queer does, so allowing queers to marry, simply turns the institution of marriage into a queer agenda. Consequently, the marriage of heterosexuals in a redesigned queer institution of marriage, by association transforms normal heterosexuals into queers.

...So now, equality for homosexuals is achieved by transforming normal heterosexuals into queers. So, by extension, if all are queer than by association, all are normal.

Mmm, sounds logical, sure, lets all go for that!

Dear Arjay,

Gay Abandon is a great girl. She is always welcome in my house.

...Alice, Alice!...are you there? Alice!...Damn, Surely not, shrunk again!... Alice, your being called!

Baygon,

This minor issues can be resolved with a will and a letter of attorney.

I support the change in the law, but it is a minor issue compared the loss of jobs under the Labor government.

Things will get sorted very quickly when things
are put to a conscience vote in Parliament.
Lexi,
whose conscience ? Julia's ? gay Bob's ? goofy Peter's ?

Dear Individual,

Who is it who gets
to cast a vote in Parliament?
The Member of Parliament that represents you.
And, if you don't like it - you can vote them
out at the next election.

Dear Arjay,

I agree with David F., gay abandon is a great girl indeed,
and she is also welcomed in my house. How can you not
welcome someone who displays - "uninhibited enthusiasm,"
or "Jolly impulsiveness."

Dear Lexi,

Our member of parliament in general doesn't represent us. In the words of Sullivan in Pinafore over a hundred years ago:

"I always voted at my party's call
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all."

The Westminster system in that respect is unchanged.

Tossing out a rep because he votes the party line doesn't affect the basic lack of representation in the system.

The only reason homosexuals want to be able to 'marry' is to use it to gain a measure of respect.

If they simply want their union recognised by law they can do that withou the use of the word marriage, which has a defined meaning of a union between a man and a woman.

I do not care what they do, or how many legal partners they have, but leave the word marriage alone. They can think up another word or two to describe their union.

Why don't we make some suggestions. The gay have already used words without thought for any-body. Why not Gay union, and lesbean union, and if one got together with the other it could be a reunion.

To all you people that are up-set about another persons sexual preferences....its you that has the problem. Why are you sick bunch of whinges even thinking about what people do in the bad-rooms, and when it comes marrage....well......its just a contract between two people that your showing by taking the vowel.....that one will be faithful to the one's that agree to wear the rings of of fore-ever partnering with the one person you love.

Go and get a life, you bunch of Ezmay Watson's:) ( The old busy-body from a Country Practice )....lol....true!....some of you are that bad.

All right:).....here's a joke just to break up the bad vibes..............Ready:)

1..What is the definition of Lord of the Rings?

2..The leader of the gay mardi gra:)....boom boom!

Have a nice day:)

CACTUS

Dear David F.,

Yes, I agree with you. However that's where the
"Conscience Vote" comes into play. The MPs can
vote against the "Party line" and according to
their "conscience." That was the point I was trying
to make but perhaps I didn't express it very well.

And that Lexi was the point I was making. I have no way of reading the conscience of a candidate for an election, so conscience votes are a way of the electors loosing control, & handing it to parliamentarians.

The only good thing about the party system is that it gives the voter a chance to evaluate the policies they are voting for.

The only reason to want a conscience vote is if your preferred option is other than the policy of the parties elected, & you home to force individuals to your way of thinking.

As for homosexual marriage, [I refuse to let them co-opt a perfectly good English word in gay, they will always be poofters to me], I can only say I would never be stupid enough to marry again, if they want to, they are welcome to it, the fools.

I think there starting re-runs of a country practice:).....just in time to watch this old bat rambling on about the good old days, that by contrast, are days we never want to see again:), ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvMO56bdVT8

Must bring back some good memories for some:)

CACTUS

Try this for size. Its called the Slippery slope.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/three-in-marriage-bed-more-of-a-good-thing/story-e6frg6z6-1226218569577

Dear Hasbeen,

As I stated earlier - the importance of a conscience
vote is that it enables members of the front bench
to vote one way or the other and not put their
position on the front bench at risk (from either
you or the Party line).

As for how you feel about same-sex marriage. You are
fully entitled to your opinion. What you're not entitled
to - is impose it on others.

In any circumstances - sanctioned intolerance of opinions
such as yours should be no more acceptable than
anti-gay prejudice.

Enjoy your week-end.

Dear Banjo,

Same sex marriages are not the same as polygamous marriages.

However, as I stated I am married to a woman and expect to stay married to her until one of us dies.

I ask you the same question that I asked in regard to same sex marriages.

How will legalising polygamous marriages affect my marriage? I doubt that either of us will seek another mate.

Why is it that legaising sexual unions are more of a concern than the acceptance of deadly devices? Any form of marriage should involve consent of all parties. A person blown apart by a land mine has not given consent.

Bible bashers who object to same sex marriages have to admit that polygamous marriages were acceptable in their book of fairy tales in the past. There is even less reason for them to oppose polygamous marriges since the humanoid god they worship was, according to their book, the descendent of polygamous unions.

Of course there is such a thing as the slippery slope. Clubs and spears have led to depleted uranium, cluster bombs, land mines, nuclear weapons and other instruments of murder. I am concerned with that slippery slope and the acceptance by the Australian government of the use of those devices.

Polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands) occurs very rarely in a few isolated tribal societies. These societies include some bands of the Canadian Inuit,[citation needed] although the practice has declined sharply in the 20th century due to their conversion from tribal religion to Christianity by Moravian missionaries. Additionally, the Spartans were notable for practicing polyandry.

Societies which permit group marriage are extremely rare, but have existed in Utopian societies such as the Oneida Community.[citation needed]

Today, many married people practice various forms of consensual nonmonogamy, including polyamory and swinging. These people have agreements with their spouses that permit other intimate relationships or sexual partners. Therefore, the concept of marriage need not necessarily hinge on sexual or emotional monogamy.

Christian acceptance of monogamy

In the Christian society, a "one man one woman" model for the Christian marriage was advocated by Saint Augustine (354-439 AD) with his published letter The Good of Marriage. To discourage polygamy, he wrote it "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful." (chapter, paragraph Sermons from St. Augustine's letters were popular and influential. In 534 AD Roman Emperor Justinian criminalized all but monogamous man/woman sex within the confines of marriage. The Justinian Code was the basis of European law for 1,000 years.

continued

Several exceptions have existed for various Biblical figures, incestuous relationships such as Abraham and Sarah, Nachor Lot and his Daughters, Amram and Jochabed and more.

Christianity for the past several years has continued to insist on monogamy as an essential of marriage.

Contemporary Western societies

In 21st century Western societies, bigamy is illegal and sexual relations outside marriage are generally frowned-upon, though there is a minority view accepting (or even advocating) open marriage.

However, divorce and remarriage are relatively easy to undertake in these societies. This has led to a practice called serial monogamy, which involves entering into successive marriages over time. Serial monogamy is also sometimes used to refer to cases where the couples cohabitate without getting married.

So with so many guides to go by, its seems humans just make it up as time goes by, plus the hypocrites
of what some may call.........." a new page has turned "

Daivd.F......you always can see what others cant.

CACTUS:)

In 2009 Robinson was selected to deliver the invocation at the kickoff event of President Barack Obama's inaugural weekend. Despite his extended involvement with Obama during the campaign, his selection was widely discussed as an effort to counterbalance the role of the choice of evangelical pastor Rick Warren. Media outlets noted Warren compared the legitimization of same-sex marriage to the legalization of "incest, polygamy or 'an older guy marrying a child'".

Warren also supported California Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state. However, Warren took a conciliatory tone towards Obama: "I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen." The kickoff event was held at the Lincoln Memorial two days before Obama's swearing-in. It asked "the God of our many understandings" for seven blessings, and to help Obama, as President, in seven ways. Neither HBO's exclusive live broadcast, nor the Presidential Inauguration Committee's blog of the event included the invocation, but the prepared text was posted in full on the website of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, and video shot informally by attendees was posted on YouTube.

National Public Radio, which relied on the HBO feed that omitted it, broadcast a recording the following day with an interview of Robinson about its limited exposure; in that venue, Robinson described it as conforming to the four-fold Franciscan prayer model. According to the Washington Blade, it was the Presidential Inaugural Committee that made the decision for the prayer to be a part of the pre-show and not the show, itself, with a spokesman from that committee maintaining the prayer was dropped through an unspecified "error." Some gay activists maintain that this was a slight on the part of the Obama administration.

continued

In April 2009, Robinson made the Out magazine Third Annual Power 50 list of the most influential gay men and women in the USA, landing at number 7. In August 2009, Gene Robinson was a key speaker at the 2009 Greenbelt Festival, held at Cheltenham Racecourse, Gloucestershire, England. Here he delivered three talks, each garning an attendance in the thousands, based not only on his views of Christianity and homosexuality, but also on human sexuality in general and the rights of LGBT members of society.

The three talks were entitled "Homosexuality: What the Bible says & why it matters", "Keeping your cool in the eye of the storm" and "Sexuality and spirituality: keeping them together" As well as these three talks, Gene Robinson made a big impact on some gay and lesbian festival-goers by leading them collectively in prayer on the second night of the festival as part of a small group.

That word "hypocrites"
pops up alot with-in our human history, doesn't it:)

Maybe religion just needs to take a closer look at its self.

Thats all for today:)

Enjoy your Sunday:)

CACTUS

Part of a series on
Christianity and
sexual orientation


Christianity and homosexuality

Christianity and transgenderism



History of Christianity and homosexuality

The Bible and homosexuality
Queer theology
Blessing of same-sex unions
Ordination of LGBT clergy
LGBT-affirming churches



Denominational positions


Anglican · Baptist · Eastern Orthodox · Latter-day Saints · Lutheran · Methodist · Presbyterian · Quaker · Roman Catholic · United Church of Christ · Uniting Church in Australia · Metropolitan Community Church



v · d · e


Since the 1990s, the Anglican Communion has struggled with controversy regarding homosexuality in the church. In 1998, the 13th Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops passed a resolution stating that homosexual acts are "incompatible with Scripture". In 2002, the Diocese of New Westminster, in the Anglican Church of Canada, permitted the blessing of same-sex unions. The crisis deepened in 2003 when two openly gay men in England and the United States became candidates for bishop. In the Church of England, Jeffrey John eventually succumbed to pressure to withdraw his name from consideration to be the Bishop of the year.

Gene Robinson.....the one preist that understood.

CACTUS

The desperate attempt to legalise something that is bad for society is incredible. Looking at the life of Kind David with all the hassles caused by multiple wives should be an arguement against polygamy.

The reality is that the covenant of marriage is one of the main reasons that the Western society has prospered so much over the last 100 years. Most children have been blessed to have a caring father and mother. Generally it is those who have had bad experiences or have failed in mariage that now want to pervert the act of marriage. Instead of eating humble pie and seeing where they went wrong they want marriage polluted.

It was only 20 years ago the vocal homosexual lobby pronounced marriage as outdated and dead. Ironic that the same voices now demand the same recognition as a man and a woman. What is really being asked for is the acceptance of an abhorrent practice. Any simple biology lesson confirms it is not a natural practice.

Excellent suggestion, runner. A simple biology lesson. Homosexuality is not just a human practice. It occurs in many other species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in non-human species. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same sex animals. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[3] According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity — including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[4] Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom.[5] A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.[6] Homosexual behavior is best known from social species. According to geneticist Simon Levay in 1996, "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[7] One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[9]

There's more. Go to the url.

Runner <"It was only 20 years ago the vocal homosexual lobby pronounced marriage as outdated and dead."

Is that so?
I can't remember ever reading that, but I doubt most homosexuals believed that, as I am sure many of their own parents and other close relatives were married.

Tell me again Runner, exactly HOW will allowing Gay couples to marry affect anyone else at all?

Marriage was around long before Christianity, so you can't continue to use the old Bible 'abomination' argument.

david f

Your attempts to justify homosexual behaviour on the fact that some animals who have no conscience display aspects of that behaviour has nothing to do with biology. Look at what the body parts were designed for and the disease rates among those violating that design and you will be a bit more scientific in your logic. Animals goring each other does nor prove that its okay for humans to do so.

Susi

Marriage does outdate Christianity but not Adam and Eve.

Dear runner,

Adam and Eve have no more reality than the rainbow serpent, the Japanese sun god, the Greek chronos or other primitive creation myths. At some point god was invented. At another time marriage was invented.

Nothing that happens in nature is unnatural. I neither justify nor condemn either homosexual or heterosexual behaviour. They both are practiced by humans and other animals.

If you can argue rationally do so. Citing primitive stone age myths like that of Adam and Eve proves nothing except that you are a gullible believer in superstition.

Dear runner,

What other people do sexually as long as they are consenting adults is none of my business. It is none of your business either. It only becomes other people's business if they spread disease by their acts. If they take precautions and everyone involved is a consenting adult it simply is nobody else's business what they do.

What the science realists and religious community must do is identify the actual act of lifelong commited hetrosexual intercourse to a term like "human unit" as defined scientifically, or "one flesh" as defined religiously; so as to identify the act seperatly to sex with the same gender, and register it differently. The term "marriage" has been perverted to merely mean platonic love, and does not identify the intention to bond to breed.

Davidf,
I haven't considered the detail of the link I posted. I glanced through it and posted because I thought it may interest other posters here.

As for your question, any legal union between homosexuals will not affect me in any way what so ever.

My objection is simply the use of the word 'marriage', which now has a definate meaning of a union between a man and a woman.

Same sex unions are different enough to warrant a seperate word or words to describe such.

I think the use of the word marriage for same sex unions is simply to gain some public respectability.

Philo <"The term "marriage" has been perverted to merely mean platonic love, and does not identify the intention to bond to breed."

So, unless you intend to 'breed', one should not be allowed to marry then Philo? Life looks good for infertile people doesn't it?

Sigh... we just seem to go round and round in circles on this debate.
Luckily, like the issue of abortion, common sense will prevail over the hysterical objecters, and Gay Marriage will be allowed eventually.

And guess what? The sky won't fall in, and it won't affect anyone else nearly as much as they imagine it will.

Dear Suse,

How right you are! Remember mixed-marriages. When a woman marrying
a black man was considered "shocking." Today, nobody
cares. It truly baffles me why there is so much opposition to something as natural as wanting to be married to the person you
love with your entire being. Who on earth is it harming when
two adults who are in love want to get married? What are people
afraid of?

Dear Banjo,

There is no reason that any word cannot change in meaning as long as the change is not so fast that we cannot communicate. Words come into usage, become archaic, go out of usage and change in meaning.

The word, girl, is a word whose meaning we think is well-defined. You and I know what is meant by the word. However, several hundred years ago the word meant a child of either sex.

I object to people saying 'very unique' as unique means one of a kind, and there can be no degrees of being one of a kind. Either something is one of a kind or it isn't. However, if the usage of 'very unique' becomes accepted the word, unique, will have a different meaning, and the original meaning may become archaic. I think I feel about the word, unique, the way I think you feel about the word, marriage.

The meaning of the word, marriage, has changed in the past and can change in the present. Inscriptions are fixed in stone. The meaning of words can and does change.

Toni mob are not having a conscience vote. That puts Turnbull off side again.

davidf,
I agree with you about the word unique, I dispair when I hear some one utter 'almost unique'. Something may be rare but cannot be almost unique.

I do not think the meaning of words has to change. Take the words widow and widower, everyone knows exactly what that is, so why change the meaning?

Everyone knows the meaning of the word marriage so why confuse the issue by making it have a double or triple meaning, requiring further explanation.

It is not neccessary, create a couple of new words.

Dear 579,

Most people are getting tired of Mr Abbott's negativity -
they've even given his Party the name - "Noalition,"
and rightly so. He's slowly becoming irrelevant in the
scheme of most people's lives. Unless his party gets
wise - they may learn that the voters at the next election
will take a page out of Mr Abbott's book and say - "No,NO,No!"
to his becoming PM. With Turnbull the party may stand a chance
at the next election but with Mr Abbott - as long as he keep
on singing from the same hymn book - not a chance!

I'm with Peter Hume - just repeal the marriage act completely. No-one gets married in the future. If you wish to, you can have a religious ceremony (if that floats your boat), but it has no legal impact. Anyone can change their name by deed poll, so we dont need marriage for that anymore. De factos now have the same rights as married partners, so why do we still have marriage. Waste of time for everyone

Suseonline,
Marriage was initiated to raise and protect a family from the union. That was identified in Hebrew and Western culture 5,000 years ago. All your exceptions does not the rule make. They are mal-functions of the normal purpose of the act. In every healthy hetrosexual union there is children, unless natural disfunction, chemical or mechanical interferrence occurs. That of itself does not negate the sexual union.

There are women around that still like the ceremonial impact of marriage instead of shacking up. A marriage certificate gives a legality, for the pending off-spring. Marriage is for life, shacking up will be just that.
I do not believe in gay, or lesbian, it's best kept under wraps.

Mr NO Abbott is told his side to his will, no free vote just vote NO.
This now says it will fail, it in all probability always would.
Why? Christian values!

A Religion born out of and after the Jewish one, followed by the seemingly worlds biggest Islam.
In the company of every religion we ever knew on earth, is standing in the way.
What other reason, why is it of concern to us.
We know those Churches, probably every God ever invented , saw pedophilia and more within its walls.
We not so long ago learned at childhood the very act of sex was the first sin?
how many? of those teaching us that committed sex crimes?
We will see floods of denials that three religions came from the same roots.
We will likely hear only one is the true one.
Some will take me to task but only Islam is growing.
How long will humanity be tied to fables in matters of sex or any thing.
Question, do non Christians, non religious have rights?
Tell me will the world die if same sex are free to do what most do now wed in a registry not a Church.
Have your views but why impose fables on the rest of us.

Belly,
Sex was not the first sin of man as you claim. They were husband and wife so no sexual sin happens in that relationship. Man's first sin was thieft, pride and defiance against the pure character of God.

Belly,
Abbott is standing by his parties committment made prior to the last election to maintain the status quo. It is Labor that is changing their tune and cowtailing to the Greens.

First the lie about the carbon tax and now another lie about homosexual marriage. This mob make blunder after blunder. This time it is not Gillard alone with the lie.

One wonders what will take place with the pokies issue. Interesting

Dear Philo,

The pure character of God? He sure isn't a pure character in the Bible. In Joshua he orders genocide. He submits his son in the New Testament to great torture. He wipes almost all life on earth in the flood because he is annoyed with humans. The God of the Bible is a bloody, unreasonable, sadistic monster. Maybe you're referring to some other god who is benevolent.

When I was a child I heard the story of God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a command from God to sacrifice me. Dad said he would see a psychiatrist.

I loved my father, but the God of the Bible is worthy neither of my worship nor my love. I don't know why the humans who invented the God of the Bible made him such a rotter.

david f

amazing how much you hate someone so much you claim not to believe in.You do twist things however. An honest look at your own character shows really how much undeserving of God's love you and I are. You seem to have it the wrong way around.

Dear runner,

I don't hate any non-existent beings. I admit to a great lack of enthusiasm for the Crusades, the Wars of the Reformation, the Inquistion, the genocide of the Indians of the Americas and all the other miseries inflicted on humanity by people who believe in that non-existent being.

I don't expect you to abandon your superstition, but I hope you will accept that other people have a right to believe something different from what you believe and live their own lives.

Banjo hope you enjoy the humble pie.
By now you have heard about every world government agreeing on climate change.
admire your blind defense of doc NO but he is just being him.
Hope his wife has worked out away around his standard answer.
David f we tilt at wind mills.
Always ready to judge based on these fables and set rules of conduct for us all but blind to the truth.
Truth is in just our life times Church's role is decaying.
Original sin, theft?
It highlights at least, the differences Church to church.
Superstition fear control are all part of religion.
And it seems true a need to be at war with every other creed.
Only Islam grows.
One fine day we can set our own standards free of bribery of life eternal or horrible deaths.
For not obeying idols.

Belly,
The homosexual marriage thing may not even get off the ground if the government can see it defeated and few votes in it for them, why bother?

The carbon tax issue is another matter and will cost Labor a large number of votes. This government has committed to half a billion dollars in aid to other countries on carbon tax alone.

No benefit to the world but costly for us. Think what practical uses half a billion could do here in our own backyard. One more for list of Labor stuff ups.

Mate, i will willingly eat crow when it is proven that human induced global warming exists. Your so called scientists predicted that UK kids would not know what snow was by now. Record falls last year and watch this coming winter. Flannery's predictions are a joke.

Abbott confirmed what I thought would be a predictable response. In choosing between breaking an election promise and supporting a conscience vote, or waiting 2 years to the next election Abbott has suggested that the coalition will keep its faith with the voters.

A concept that is obviously alien to Juliar.

Belly,

You and labor should be eating crow. We predicted nothing of substance would come of the conference and The Durban conference came out with the result that everyone agreed to negotiate an agreement.

But what the hell has everyone been doing for 20 years? This is like a scene out of "Yes Minister".

The main parts of this agreement is that no one is going to put pen to paper before 2015, and even in the unlikely event that this happens and we get anything more binding than Kyoto, nothing happens before 2020.

This looks to me like an agreement by everyone to do nothing and postpone any decision for 4 years. This "agreement" is the fig leaf of respectability for abject failure of the conference.

Philo and Runner, I was just wondering if you could clear something up for me?

I once asked a nun how mankind was propagated from just the two 'first' human beings, Adam and Eve.
I was always told that brothers and sisters (Adam and Eve's kiddies) couldn't make babies together?

The nun gave me a good slap, and told me to go away!

So, how did we end up with the human race starting from this first 'marriage', and not from evolution, as is the far more believable method?

Banjo, Shadow Minister, I am content to hold my ground and opinions.
Banjo first I from the same childhood as you am no Gay.
They are however as human as you and I .
It is wrong, forever, that based on shrinking religions beliefs, show me another reason, we continue to control others.
History tells us it was our religion born out of the Jewish one, that gave birth to the hate against those we call Gods chosen.
SM understands, some may not, the issue he fights on.
He will not admit great achievements,any combined move here is that,
Decry the NEGATIVITY, indeed careless handling of truth by his lost tribe.
A factory floor exist some place, full of Abbott's non core promises, his written statements, and those made on the run.
His government is doomed already so very many non core even more unachievable.
Honesty once meant far more to us.

Susi you can not be serious. You write

'So, how did we end up with the human race starting from this first 'marriage', and not from evolution, as is the far more believable method?'

No thinking person can believe a fish jumped out of a pond and then back in and then back out and then became a land animal. Evolution is a fairytale. Far more logical that Adam and Eve had intercourse, had a number of children and those children inter married. ONly the very gullible believe the evolution myth.

Runner my friend, you are totally wrong. Here in Queensland ( the land of true thinkers )....we have a transitional fish which I think I just discovered (highly unlikely)..but my children and myself went under the Mantra Resort in Hervey bay, and while on a parent sea life discovery (ages 11 to 14)....we found by looking under some rocks, and to our astonishment, there was this little fish living at the high tide mark.....and this runner is what we found.

There was no water keeping it alive?

Q....what was that fish doing out of water?.....and why was it alive with the amazing ability to jump when disturbed?...true the environment was damp, but NO water to achieve the O2 that salt water gives all but just a few.

I myself have never seen anything like it......but it lives high about water under rocks with only the moisture that high tide left it.

I swear!.....its only 1 inch long, with the incredible ability to flick up to 1 meter.

Care to explain that runner, or will you just run away as usual?

This fish creature lives.......how:)

CACTUS

No Runner, I'm afraid I would far rather believe in evolution than what you are suggesting!
So you believe the human race was founded on incest?
Why has incest been so taboo since the beginning of time then?
Any children born of incest are far more likely to be malformed or intellectually handicapped.
You can't be serious?

Susi

YOu sum up the belief of evolutionist

'No Runner, I'm afraid I would far rather believe in evolution

You would rather because it means you are accountable to a Creator if you acknowledge the obvious rather than some pseudo science fiction. At least you admit you would rather. That does not change the obvious and sums up the idiotic evolutionary belief system.

You are right that incest leads to a higher probability of deforminity. That is why God forbid it after a few generations. You are the one that can't be serious. Just read Cactus justication for believing evolution. You guys sure do have a lot of blind faith.

Notice how he doesn't Address me directly.

Oh dear:)

CACTUS

Ok runner.....GOD made it all. Thats fine mate..however...its by your and billions of others, the simple way out......yes now we understand, I think:).....we as simple people, just don't know, and its a guess?..........All I can say runner, we still love you....and we mean it......you have your GOD....now be at peace.....the sun will still come up tomorrow, no matter what.

Dont think about the universe, god made that too. Yes! you might be right, and Iam all that makes an effort somehow(with god looking over my shoulder)....he still gives me time to think.

Runner. If this is the plan for everything, It might not be so bad in the eyes for a child.......but the parent will have to deal with a changing world, no matter what we believe in.......its just in our..............well.......I have my side, and you have yours:)

For now, lets keep it that way:)

The score is!....evolution 5......God people 0.

Runner....wish I had better news.

But all put up your tree's and for god sakes....spend some money, you tight arse's (I dont know what to buy my loved one's crap) that you think you haven got.

Your friends will know much your've got:) So if your C-tree is full of bullsh!t......you dont understand the meaning of christmas.

Now go! and show whats in side of you.

CACTUS

Runner thankfully, is not your average Christian.
Most are quite ok and try not to offend or harm any one.
As followers of almost every God do not either.
I have seen one, Aboriginals rainbow Serpent.
Several times today in fact, rare breaks in the rain saw him/her head in the mountains feet in the River digging as we are told yet another stream.
Some of the Gods would let any sex act take place, some demand it,who are we to say any of them is excluded from being the true one.
What other reason than bigotry or a God say why some are wrong to want rights we have.
Once Christian Churches agreed colored humans it said are lessor beings, Jews unclean because they killed Christ?
The one who said they are his chosen people.
Just as we paint portraits of Christ , a little Brown skinned Jew, as white.
We tend to bend his teachings to fit any needed out come.

Cactus

Does eating fish and chips make you or me a cannibal? If not why not?

Dear runner,

I do not believe in evolution. I accept evolution because it fits the evidence better than any other explanation. It is an integral part of medical science, biology and geology. The fossil record, development of drug-resistent strains of bacteria and the distribution of life connected with the movements of tectonic plates are only part of the evidence which impels one to accept the reality of evolution. You have probably benefited from the knowledge of evolution if you had medications.

Faith is required where there is no evidence. One may believe in the legends at the beginning of Genesis. I see no reason to accept those legends since there is no evidence to support those legends. There is a lot of evidence that they are variants of older legends of the Sumerians and other people living in the Middle East.

Reason's Greetings.

david f
I suggest you are in severe denial if you don't believe you need faith to accept evolution.

I like what one Professor said

'Bioligist are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts that conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoveries will undoubtably be deprived of continuing research grants.'

Your acceptance in contrast to what you call faith is simply taking facts to fit the evolution fantasy story.

Dear runner,

What was the name of the professor you cited, and what was his field? I doubt that you have had any interest in exmining the evidence.

What evidence is there that the beginning of Genesis is anything other than legend?

I might be able to assist, david f and runner…

FACT AND VALUE JUDGEMENT IN SCIENCE, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, Volume 49, Issue 3, June 1979, Pages: 293–299, M. J. WHITTEN (Department of Genetics. University of Melbourne Parkville. Victoria 3052)

But I'm not prepared to pay the money to see the PDF of the article so I can't check the accuracy of the quote in context – plus considering how much has happened in genetics and biological sciences since 1979. I'd be more interested in what Dr Whitten thought now.

Dr M. J. Whitten was also Chief of the CSIRO's Division of Entomology for 14 years (haven't been able to track down which 14 years, but I think it was about 20 years ago).

I suspect though that runner had read the reference in this year's Bible Believers' Newsletter 689 which reprinted an article by journalist Robert Roma from 1999, entitled "Order out of Chaos" in which he says that he quoted Whitten from "his 1980 Assembly week address".

Strangely, I couldn't find any comments that related to the topic of this thread…

WmTrevor

I suspect strongly if he held to his honest view his prophecy of funding drying up would of well and truely taken place. It is quite ironic that those defending the 'science'of evolution and refuse the junk science of global warming are reaping what they have sown.

Dear runner,

I still would like to know what evidence there is for the legend of creation in Genesis. I would also like to know why one should accept the Bible and not the Koran, the Hindu Mahabarata or the Buddhist Tripitaka. They also claim divine inspiration for their sacred books. I think the reality is that all sacred books merely contain legends created by human story tellers.

Evolution is real.
The evidence if we wish to look is every place we look.
Not just animals birds and humanity.
But in our thoughts beliefs even actions.
We Evolve.
Christianity, its own teachings and writings, tells of its evolution.
The St James Bible was evolution.
Christianity was undeniably born from the Jewish faith.
What Christian with under standing would not know this is true.
Islam, came clearly from the same book, after the other two.
We see GREATNESS in each of those Holly books.
We see too, such GREATNESS in other books written at that time.
If it had not been for the bigotry of EVERY RELIGION in burning others books, or even others thoughts.
EG the great Library of Alexandria.
We would come closer to under standing, the greatness of humanity in inventing a hope that we are not alone.
In saving us from the dark.
If we, just read, without bias the history's of the three biggest religions.
See how they are one with different story's.
See how they need to confront one another yet are doomed to be like one another.
And if, only, we can look even at the smaller religions, or branches of the big.
That are homes /fronts for some despicable practices.
Child molesting then placing the robes and telling us how to live.
Give me a reason other than bigotry or religion for standing against other humans.

What is it about Abbott. In his uni days he was accused of sexually assaulting a political opponent (not Julia). Then accused of being a right wing thug who used sexist tactics to intimidate opponents. At 19 Tony's girlfriend become pregnant claiming he's the father. later proved wrong, nice girlfriend.
Abbott has attended St Aloysisus, St Ignatius, St John's and St Patrick's, is there a trend here? Enough to make a fellow become a priest. Oh, Tony has been to Queen's Collage, that may sway his vote.

Dear Wm Trevor,

Thank you for your reference. You wrote: “Strangely, I couldn't find any comments that related to the topic of this thread…”

The topic of this thread is “gay marriage.” It seems to me reasonable that marriage should include any consenting adults regardless of sex’

However, runner has brought in his religious condemnation of homosexuality. At that point we are no longer dealing with reason. We are dealing with faith which is opposed to reason.

In Christianity and the Bible there is a war against reason. The war starts early in the Bible. In the creation myth God forbids Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Why not? Just believe. Don’t learn! For goodness sake, don’t ask questions.

The war on reason continues in the New Testament.

Matthew 17:20 “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

There is not a bit of evidence that anyone ever moved any quantity of matter, much less a mountain, by faith. Nevertheless that bit of biblical silliness is repeated ad nauseam by Christians.

After Rome adopted Christianity the war against reason moved into high gear and included science.

In 415 Hypatia, a brilliant mathematician and philosopher, who charted the motion of celestial bodies was brutally murdered by Christian monks because she would not subscribe to their superstition.

In 1553 Michael Servetus, a brilliant doctor and scientist who discovered pulmonary circulation, was burned at the stake in Protestant Geneva for heresy.

In 1600 Giordano Bruno, a brilliant scientist who realised the sun is a star and our solar system is just one of many, was burned at the stake in Catholic Rome for heresy.

In 1722 Rev. Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation.

Although there is overwhelming evidence for evolution the Christian war against reason continues, and runner is a faithful soldier.

david f you ask

I still would like to know what evidence there is for the legend of creation in Genesis.

Actually the same evidence that evolutionist twist to fit their story. Darwinism has crap all over its face but despite that evolutionist (you could not really call them scientist) continue to interpret everything in light of the theory. This is the only way to keep the funding coming. Really quite shameless. Strangely enough large numbers of medical doctors who study biology can see through the game. They believe in their Creator. Must be all pretty gullible ay!

The religion of evolution is used to justify abortion, homosexuality and many other abhorent things. Its no wonder the latest scam of billions being stolen and wasted via gw is justified by you guessed it. Yes the earth worshippers who adore mother earth.

btw Davidf

it was not just scientist who were burn't at the stake by the corrupt church it was large numbers of bible believing Christians. Don'y forget in your cherry picking to include them.

Dear runner,

In Geneva it was Bible believing Christians who were doing the burning. Protestants, Catholics and other Christians persecuted and murdered those who questioned their superstition.

Oh we know "christians" burned, killed and turtured other "christians".

The point is that precious "christianity" did not make this less, and indeed highlights the additional vileness in that the "christians" supposedly knew it was "bad", yet did it anyway.

Christians and their "churches" do *not* en masse refuse to kill, or to support governments that do. They do not excommunicate or deny communion to killers, even those employed and trained with forethought to do so.

Since "christians" regard the "commandments" as no more than suggestions to drop at convenience, for an excuse, expedience or vested interest, why shouldn't the rest of us?

Even "moses" allegedly killed children, so I am completely sanguine in stating that I do not believe "christians" have any moral authority to be other than embarrassed and silent while their betters get on with things.

Rusty

A thought for consideration:

"Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire
in jail. Somebody in Franco's Spain sent
Lorca, their greatest poet, to death
before a firing squad. Somebody in Germany
under Hitler burned the books, drove Thomas Mann
into exile, and led their Jewish scholars to the
gas chamber. Somebody in Greece long ago gave
Socrates the hemlock to drink. Somebody in the
USSR banned Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak. Somebody
at Golgotha erected a cross and somebody drove the
nails into the hands of Christ. Somebody spat on his
garments. NO ONE REMEMBERS THEIR NAMES."

(Milton Meltzer, "Four Who Locked Horns with the Censor.")

In a tolerant society - sanctioned intolerance should not
be any more acceptable than anti-gay prejudice.

Runner <"You are right that incest leads to a higher probability of deforminity. That is why God forbid it after a few generations. You are the one that can't be serious. "

Is that right?

Where in the Bible does it say that God started his human race by using Adam and Eve's children to have kids with each other, but then 'after a few generations' he forbade incest?
What happened? Did God see the malformations in the children of siblings, and then change his mind?

Lol!

Surely your God knew all this prior to his 'creation' of Adam and Eve?
Nope, this rubbish is still far more unbelievable than evolution.

And thus any religious objections to Gay marriage, taken from a Bible who calls homosexuality an 'abomination', are just as silly.

I want to remind posters runner is not Representative of Christianity.
And too I make no claim followers of any creed are other than normal.
I ask this, am I committing a sin/crime/or anything bad by holding my view?
Can it be wrong to claim, an honestly held view.
*Religions are fables, that to judge others on the teachings of the dark ages should not control our laws governments sex life or anything else*

Superstitions, we westerners with so much ease charge others with, in saying their God is untrue.
Infects us, try to stop us asking questions that must be asked.

Dear Belly,

We westerners? Scepticism is not restricted to westerners. India and China have a long tradition of scepticism which may be older than that of the west. From an Indian website:

http://www.indianskeptic.com/

Reason it out, say freethinking techies

Rationalists of the world, unite, was the call of the day as young techies gathered to encourage the spirit of free thinking and scientific temper through information technologyat the two-day workshop of Bangalore Freethinkers and Karnataka Rationalists Association held at Vignan Bhavan, Banashankari.

Technologists and freethinkers, Pankaj Kulkarni, Anil Gulecha, and Varun John came up with proposals for social activism for the cause of freethinking.

They said that at a time when religious fervour and indoctrination were leading to dangerous consequences, such as terrorism, rationalists and freethinkers should go beyond the dialectical mode of rational thinking and get directly involved in social activities and humanitarian works for the sake of rational thinking and scientific enquiry.

They wanted the movement to take advantage of mass media and secular non-governmental organisations to spread the message that freethinking liberated them from the shackles of religious fanaticism and dogmas. The argument that the movement should leave the concept of god, and attack the priesthood and religious institutions to remove superstition and intellectual slavery were also raised.

David f yes I am aware of that,as you know my education was not the formal way but self taught.
What I want to say often is not quite what I say.
I wanted to tell of my very real difficulty in understanding how followers of any God, can so easily say, only theirs is true.
As an ex believer, I have much company there,I constantly research history of Gods all of them.
A fence? yes they gave rules to live within.
But control is far more evident.
I can not, fully say what I think.
But superstition is behind every one.
In no way different than a primitive medicine man.
Promises of health wealth every thing.
And without compliance ? the reverse.
I am unsure we need those fences or compulsions.
Maybe some do.
But if one,any of those Gods, did make us all, why did he/she let the others exist.
Why has every race built in the conviction it and its God/Gods is Superior?
One day man will write again a book of rules to live by ,for all of us.
But yes fables are no way to live.
I think we may just invent one God, for every one who needs it

I would have considerably more respect for the religious convictions of people whose opinions I might disagree with if they were couched in terms of "my God" and "my Christianity" et cetera.

Given the pluralist nature of our society – especially the fact we are not a theocracy – it requires compromises from all of us in how we agree to get along. Strongly held views for oneself are precisely that: for the individual who holds and presumably abides by them.

Out here in the shared world opinions have to be convincing before other people will adopt them as their own.

This is doubly difficult because it includes established as well as new ideas – be they political, economic, social or religious.

Isn't the forum of OLO evidence enough that people have difficulty in agreeing about 'facts' let alone opinions?

I'm still optimistic enough to believe that good, sound, valid ideas for social cooperation (I nearly said social intercourse but given the nature of this thread that may have been misinterpreted) will eventually, if too slowly, win out.

Dear WmTrevor,

I think most decent people, are hoping that eventually
reason will prevail and that we shall learn to live
in a tolerant society that is inclusive for one and
all.

Dear Lexi and WmTrevor,

I question your optimism concerning the victory of reason. Please consider the power of irrationality. The test of faith is generally to accept what reason rejects. It is an atrocious act to murder one’s son yet Abraham passed the test of faith when he showed he was willing to do it. Apologists argue that Abraham didn’t actually murder Isaac, but later in the Bible Jephthah (Judges 11) murdered his daughter to keep a stupid vow.

I don’t know the motives of Theodosius when he made Catholic Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380. However, it could be that he recognised that the exertion involved in accepting virgins having babies, dead people returning and other Christian nonsense would leave people too mentally exhausted to question arbitrary rule.

The test of faith in the irrational was explicitly expressed by Tertullian whose De Carne Christi defence of the tenets of orthodox Christianity against docetism reads in the original Latin:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)

"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

The Nazis were well aware of the power of the irrational.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/12/the-education-of-peter-drucker/4484/

from ‘The Education of Peter Drucker’

“Germany had entered the nightmare years. Millions had lost jobs in the Great Depression. Black-shirted Nazi thugs paraded in the streets. Unreason ruled. Peter witnessed a "wildly cheering rally" at which a Nazi logician displayed the "abracadabra of fascism" with this burst of irrationality: "We don't want lower bread prices, we don't want higher bread prices, we don't want unchanged bread prices—we want National Socialist bread prices!"”

I would love to live in a tolerant society inclusive for one and all, but I appreciate the power of the irrational to deny me that pleasure.

Dear David F.,

The antidote to what is fundamentally wrong is the
cultivation of what is fundamentally right.
And the fact that we may not succeed should not
stop us from continuing to try.

I have spent my life looking for such a world Lexi.
What human would not want it?
But even that question could be answered with these words,too many, too many care now and forever for them selves only.
I am aware my words convict me, in some eyes, no one can re live my childhood, both the very best people, and they very bigoted come from Church's/faiths.
We, I was born WASP are a minority religion, yes we are, Islam maybe Buddhist out number us.
And I do feel, absolutely, every creed I know of, in the end stands in the way of humanity being one.
Fear superstition many reasons exist for the straw of religions.
And a fine list of ways to live/not to live.
Given this task, writing a new religions Holly book.
For a new God, some known authors have already done it, we could craft a single God.
For all humanity.
But in the wrong hands, and that is what would take place, it too would inflict needless pain on them, the others, those, maybe the me,s
Those who look in wounder at evolution and ask how can any one not see it is the truth?

Dear Lexi,

The antidote to what is fundamentally wrong is what is fundamentally right. However, although I have many decided opinions I cannot be sure what is fundamentally right. I can only express what I think. Therefore I must allow those who I think are fundamentally wrong to express themselves. At one time I was sure there was a God. Now I am equally sure there are no supernatural beings of any kind.

I recently had a long argument with my son who thinks Marx is the most wonderful person in recent history. To me he was a brilliant bigot who inspired a vast murder machine. Usually we just have pleasant conversations, but when we touch that subject our passions explode. I am reasonably sure we will have a pleasant converstion next time we talk.

I wish I could have a pleasant conversation with runner, but I don't expect that I ever will.

Dear David F.,

I still have a lot to learn but I am slowly
learning that the art of reasoned, intelligent
argument is a skill that's not easily acquired.
However, I find that if I don't sound too
dogmatic and do concede a minor point - it helps
the other person to be more receptive. Of course
with emotive issues - it doesn't always work.
Still a minor admission, should not make one sound
weak, rather a little less obstinate.

Good luck with your son. Brave man to take you on. ;-)

As someone once said, david f, though probably not in Latin… Time heals all wounds but not necessarily before you bleed to death.

My limited optimism might just mean that 'eventually' is before the sun goes nova… Have you ever noticed that the "power of the irrational" you so-correctly exampled does not include the power of a sense of humour? Did Peter Drucker mention in the midst of all the Nazi discussion about bread prices, whether or not there was any bread?

I suspect, and Lexi and Belly may agree, that the hard part is having irrational people realise that the biggest threat to themselves are other irrational people and ideas.

Though I don't think it is an irrational idea to say that the glass is always full - even if half of it is air. Others may disagree, but it sounds good and there's no aftermath (touché with that one, by the way david).

For the Gilbertians amongst us, does this from Iolanthe relate to the original topic of the thread?

"Iolanthe: No matter! The Lord Chancellor has no power over you. Remember you are half a fairy. You can defy him - down to the waist.
Strephon: Yes, but from the waist downwards he can commit me to prison for years! Of what avail is it that my body is free, if my legs are working out seven years' penal servitude?
Iolanthe: True. But take heart - our Queen has promised you her special protection. I'll go to her and lay your peculiar case before her."

Dear WmTrevor,

Sometimes the greatest threat to the irrational is not other irrationals but the rational. Hypatia, Michael Servetus and Giordano Bruno were perceived as threats by the Christians who murdered them.

The Christian perception was correct.

We want to preserve ourselves as individuals, as a group and as an institution. If anything threatens the existence of an individual, group or institution it is a real threat. Christianity depends on accepting the irrational.

Look at the Apostles Creed:

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

It contains a concatenation of improbabilities. Subjected to rational analysis it must be rejected, and any institution which requires accepting such irrationality must also be rejected. The rational is a real threat. To preserve the institution those encouraging its adherents to subject the Creed to rational analysis must be destroyed.

Dear davidf,

Glad to see you are still dipping the lance on this one.

You know I am a fellow lover of the rational, perhaps not as devoted as your good self, but still a defender.

And you may well be right about the Apostle's Creed containing “a concatenation of improbabilities. Subjected to rational analysis it must be rejected, and any institution which requires accepting such irrationality must also be rejected. The rational is a real threat. To preserve the institution those encouraging its adherents to subject the Creed to rational analysis must be destroyed.”

But could I invite you, as you have invited us, to look at it again.

It is a ripper.

A quote from the Psalter Hymn book speaks of its "sublime simplicity, unsurpassable brevity, beautiful order, and liturgical solemnity."

I tend to agree. And all accomplished in appropriately 12 lines, though traditionally I do believe the Amen is on its own line but not numbered.

Instead of just looking at the holes perhaps an appreciation of the lace should not be beyond us. Or am I just too much of a romantic?

Finally if you would permit me the presumption, if there weren't things you and your son could , on occasion, vehemently disagree over then, in my opinion, you would have failed as a parent.

Dear csteele,

I agree. The Apostle’s Creed has “sublime simplicity, unsurpassable brevity, beautiful order, and liturgical solemnity." Those are things I can appreciate aesthetically. However, it is not reasonable to believe in it, and that’s what I was talking about. I think Kublai Khan is splendid in the images it evokes – a damsel with a dulcimer – for he on honeydew has fed and drunk the milk of paradise. I think some of the Greek myths are grand in concept – Prometheus defying the Gods to bring fire to mankind. However, when one looks at these things with the cold light of reality the visions disappear like so many phantoms. I am a fan of nineteenth century English Romantic poetry and was just reading Wordsworth before I saw your email.

Speaking of Prometheus there was a very large painting of Prometheus in the Philadelphia Museum. Prometheus as punishment was bound to a rock and a vulture tore at his liver. Each night his liver would grow back, and the vulture would tear at it again. When my son who I mentioned in an earlier post was about six I took him to the Philadelphia Museum, and we saw that painting. When we got back home his mother asked William what he saw. With a marvellous exhibition of reducing matters to essentials William said, “We saw a bird eating liver.”

A requirement to believe in the Apostle’s Creed, the myth of Prometheus or Kublai Khan is outrageous. Of course no one currently is asked to state a belief in the latter two.

One day I remember a co-worker coming to work looking all bleary eyed. I asked if he had trouble sleeping. He told me he proposed and was accepted with the proviso that he must subscribe to the Nicene Creed. He told me he couldn't sleep thinking about it and finally decided he could accept the creed. I later met the young lady. She had exquisite features and a shapely bosom.

It’s great to hear from you.

Lexi I understand your views but doubt any one can truly understand mine.
My school is and was my own life, it educated me.
In a tiny country township the retirement village for over seas missionary's I saw a bigotry in a Church.
My family Christian, and strongly, became its victims.
But we continued to dream the dream.
I think, maybe I am wrong, as I grew the Churches shrunk.
Word got out about sexual abuse of Children, in our strongest Church's, in our strongest Christian centers.
I had been on my knees in that not Catholic Church, before the one who committed those crimes.
I see , again I may be wrong, a decline in Christianity, an increase in its cash for comfort style.
But no matter.
My fear is we humanity can live without constructed idols that are control mechanisms in the end.
Remember this,if not religion what drives the fear of gays? what drove the Jewish Pogroms?
We humans should be united not driven apart by the one God, every one of the tens of him/her

Dear Belly,

I couldn't agree with you more.

As I've written so many times in the
past:

Secularized organised religions have become,
in many cases, as calcified as other
institutions that form the structure of our
modern world. That's why in many cases they
are rejected. Our religious institutions
have far too often become handmaidens of the
status quo.

I used to think that I was not
religious, and perhaps I am not. I don't like
what organised religion has done to the world.
I have come to see however, that true religion
is internal, not external. The spirit within us
cannot be blamed for the blasphemies carried out
in its name. What some have done in the name of
religion, projecting their neuroses, even
perpetrating evil on the world, does not make
religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid.

"What some have done in the name of
religion, projecting their neuroses, even
perpetrating evil on the world, does not make
religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid."
Lexi not wishing to put words into your mouth. Are you say organised religions are inherently good. The argument of many religious is 'religion is good, its just there were a few bad eggs, here and there." If that was a legitimate argument, could I not use the same argument in defense of National Socialism, being good, its just there was a few bad eggs, here and there. I'm sure there are 'good' Catholics about, but I don't think being Catholic makes them 'good', they would be 'good' even if they were not Catholic, some people are inherently 'good' others inherently 'bad'. Then defining 'good' and 'bad' is a whole new topic.
Praying, going to church and reading the bible etc might give one some psychological comfort, but that's all it does. In its self it will not make a person good by nature, nor will it most likely make them bad by nature, its neutral.

Greeting david f… I'm sure you thought when:

"He told me he proposed and was accepted with the proviso that he must subscribe to the Nicene Creed. He told me he couldn't sleep thinking about it and finally decided he could accept the creed. I later met the young lady. She had exquisite features and a shapely bosom."

It was nothing more than a bit of tit-for-tat.

I feel that we are in 'furious agreement' on most of the themes raised so far. It still fascinates me the way different people "think". It seems a constant throughout human history that the less credible the claims made by the religious the more credulous they 'require' the rest of us to be?

It's like a form of reverse peer pressure – validating their position by mandating our adherence.

One current line of thought I'm contemplating is… An attitude of closed-mindedness has never resulted in any advancement in human history. By way of testing this I've not yet come up with any exceptions to the statement. But to avoid hypocrisy, I'm open to suggestions.

Thanks for sharing the stories about your son, brilliant name by the way. Perhaps you've offered a line of reasoning to be used the next time you have a vigourous chat about Marx… "When we got back home his mother asked William what he saw. With a marvellous exhibition of reducing matters to essentials William said, “We saw a bird eating liver.”"

Is this not precisely the problem with Marx? The correct answer should have been, "I saw a bird eating liver." Since you obviously saw the painting, the myth, the history and the insight. Marx always assumed the 'We'.

Dear Paul,

Perhaps I didn't put it properly.
What I was trying to say was (and
my apologies if I'm being repetitive),
Our religious institutions have far too
often become handmaidens of the status
quo, while the genuine religous experience
is anything but that. True religion is by
nature disruptive to what has been, giving
birth to the eternally new. It's a force
by which we burst out from what is old
and calcified, into a higher mode of being.

Religious institutions, as such, are not
the only arbiters of religious experience.
They don't own the Truth. Nor should they
think they hold some franchise on our
spiritual life. They are consultants and
frameworks, but they are not God Himself.
We should not confuse the path with the
destination.

Organised religion will have to change in
order to survive. Many changes have already
taken place and will continue to do so.
They have to transform, for the simple reason
that many people have become religious in spite of
them.

Spirituality is an inner fire, a mystical sustenance
that feeds our souls. Religion means "to bind back."
As I see it, its purpose is to turn us back into
ourselves, to the well inside from which we are
endlessly creative. A friend of Abraham Lincoln
once remarked about him, "He's so religious
he's beyond religion."

Dear WMTrevor,

Thank you for the laugh.

Actually davidf's paragraph was a kind introduction to my shtick.

I have often argued that religious love and romantic love can be as destructive as each other but also as creative and fulfilling.

That those with little patience for the irrationality of religious love often have a great unquestioning capacity for romantic love. They are more than willing to dismiss the truism that the pillars of love have their feet deep in human secretions.

Surrendering to either or both types for a period in ones life is a deeply visceral rather than aesthetic human experience, one we should not be denying anyone. Society's role is perhaps to curb the excesses and to mitigate the impacts on others, but not to forbid.

David's co-worker, to the unromantic, was simply engaged in the rituals of insemination. To the rest of us he was prepared to surrender part of himself to share the rest of his life with someone for whom he felt deep love.

Irrational, but human.

I rather rudely haven't addressed the thread topic.

I have a bit to do with some students at a prestigious conservative private school. When the subject about gay marriage is broached there is universal support for it. I have not heard a single student express the slightest equivocation. The most frequent explanation is that it's 'just the fair thing to do' and 'what is the big deal, they should be able to marry if they want to'.

The curious thing is when told that neither Julia or Tony are for gay marriage there is often real puzzlement and even a degree of derision. When I ask would a this be an issue they would feel strongly enough to change their vote over. Very few say no.

I think the next generation often has a far better handle on what is fair, and right, and just. I want my generation to settle this issue now rather than adding to the gathering pile of issues not tackled contributing to the scorn we will undoubtedly earn from our youth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/8957667/Virgin-Mary-billboard-sparks-outrage-in-New-Zealand.html
I recommend the link.
As it says in the link it tells about a bill Bord ,and another like it last year in a Church in NZ.
Some of the things suggested, on a Church website, would offend Some.

But it to me says for Some Christianity is still evolving and Changing.
In to what?

What resemblance will Churches 100 years in the future have to todays.
What we see of todays, compared to that period ago, leaves me to think.

Lexi, just to fill you in on a couple of Australian political tough men, Askin and Hinze. Robert Askin formally Robin Askin, he thought Robin was too girly so changed his name to Robert. Askin was a long serving Liberal premier of NSW 1965-75. A boots and all type, Askin is famous for his "Run over the bastards" quip to US President Johnson when their motorcade was stopped by Vietnam War protesters in Sydney in 1966. Johnson reply was said to have been "a man after my own heart." People were running around at the time yelling rubbish like "All the way with LBJ" and "Mr president make us your 51st state."
Russ Hinze, known to some of us as Puss Hinze, was a grotesque National Party minister in the Joh Bjelke-Petersen government of Queensland in 1970's-80's. Hinze was referred to as the 'Minister for Everything' noting got done in Queensland without the okay from Big Russ.
Both Askin and Hinze were members of corrupt governments and both made sure they didn't miss out. Politically they were both the same,right wing bully boys. The difference was Askin preferred his payola be delivered in a brown paper bag. Hinze didn't care how it come as long as it came.

Paul you replied in the wrong thread.
But yes you delved well back in to history to kick the ALP.
I was there, part of a crowd that reminded Sir Robber/Robin/Robert he was unloved at Harold park raceway.
In the end party's have such, my Nifty Nev was not an inch better.
Time heals all wounds and I hope wounds all of them.
We can talk openly about only the ones who got found out.

Thanks Belly, wrong thread, that's what beer does to you. This is the gay thread, I like to recount a story of mine about being called gay and my days at a Catholic school. Although the word gay had a different meaning in those days, nothing more than being happy ( just listen to the Flintstones theme song "have a gay old time").
In my 2nd year of high school about 1967, Sitting in class when Brother Dick, Master of the Cadet unit come marching in, looking for 'volunteers' for the unit. Volunteer had a different meaning to Brother Dick than it did to everyone else, It meant 'your in, no ifs or buts' Long story short, being very anti (Vietnam) war as I was, even then, I refused to volunteer along with one other kid, I think he was gay. Even longer story shorter, a couple of days later I'm in the school corridor when along comes Brother Dick, he pushes me up against the wall, the conversation goes like this: BD "Son you wont join the cadets ha." ME "no brother' BD "It ill make a man outer ya,...go na join?". ME "no brother" BD " ha, are ya one of them?" ME "One of what brother?" BD " A fancy boy." From then on Brother Dick only spoke to me through his cane, although he did like to speak to me often. The irony of it all is years later Brother Dick was done for being a pedophile.
p/s Belly you must admit I don't just heap crap on the Labor Party (just your in power at the moment) I do like to spread it liberally and nationally. There are many I admire in the ALP Penny Wong for one, there are others to. when I think of their names I'll let you know, only joking.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for filling me in on some "interesting" pollies.
As for Catholic Schools - my husband attended Christian
Brothers in North Melbourne and I still have nightmares
over a certain nun who took a great delight in her
version of discipline, which she thought was
"character-building." It resulted with my father
taking me out of that school. Need I say more?

As for our politicians? If they don't stop clogging up
our public discourses with the proliferation of
irrelevant, unimportant, total crap issues - we may
stop paying attention to them altogether.

I was C of E and never understood why the Catholics next door chanted hate rhythms at us.
It gets to the heart of my views.
In the link above fun is made in what surely must be a Catholic Church, of the virgin birth.
Mary is seen saying how will I tell my parents I am in child.
Remember Catholic Church.
Another cartoon has Mary in bed with her husband.
Caption reads poor Joesph hard to follow God.
You would be burned at the stake 3 hundred years ago flogged just 100.
A Catholic Church?
Well aware of the floggings in that Church, and the one of my birth.
Those same people told us what was evil!

Dear Belly,

Remember words like - wog, boong, dago, bloody balts, and so on.
There were many little ditties not only religious ones that
were in vogue way back when. Even as recently as the Cronulla
Riots t-shirts were embellished with - "Ethnic Cleansing Unit,"
and "You flew here , We grew here!" and so on. I remember
our Italian neighbours singing things like:

"Aussie, Aussie, born and bred
Long in the legs
And short in the head!"

However, hopefully these "outmoded" words are no longer
acceptable to most people.

Belly and Lexi, maybe I can enlighten you as to why the hate for C of E from us Tykes around those times. I recall one of my 'favorite' clergy being my primary teacher the old Irish nun Sister Mary, I do believe Sister was a 100 if she was a day, well so she seemed to a little lad of 7 or 8. Sister Mary's religious philosophy was very much based on hate, yes hate and lots of it. Sister didn't discriminate all that much when it came to hating others. Sister firmly believed the heathens, that's your Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, black fellas in Africa, Jews, etc especially the Jews, their fate was to be cast into the ever lasting damnation of the fires of hell. Sister also believed strongly that God had reserved an especially hot place in hell for you protestants, particularly the C of E's I think that may have had something to do with sisters Irishness, Sister didn't discriminate she also had most of us Catholic boys burning in hell along with most others. In fact I do think to Sister Mary the only people going to Heaven were Our Holy Father in Rome, good Father O'Riley the parish priest ( I think she had a thing going for Fr, O'Riley) and herself, probably wasn't all that sure about herself getting in, most likely seen herself as some kind of sinner. Lexi like your nun Sister Mary was also a strong believer in 'character-building'. When I left the nuns and went to the brothers, it was very much a case of out of the pan and into the fire, when it came to 'character-building' the brothers loved to build your character.

Dear Paul,

You've probably heard these old jokes - but I'll
risk it anyway because I think they sum up the
"good old days," rather well:

1) Mother Superior was giving her usual "inspirational"
speech to the girls during Wednesday morning's school
assembly telling them about the evils of sex - and that
one hour's pleasure would damn them all to hell - and
to consider the consequences of that action. She ranted
and raved, when all of a sudden a young girl's voice
from the back of the hall cried out,

"Sister how do you make it last an hour?"

2) Sister Mary Virgilius went around the classroom asking
the girls what they wanted to do when they left school.
The answers were fairly tame - teacher, librarian, nurse,
and so on. However one girl smiled sweetly when asked,
and replied,

"I'd like to be a prostitute!"

Sister was shocked.

"You want to be a what?" she cried.

"A prostitute," the girl replied calmly.

"Oh Thank God my dear, " the nun exclaimed.

"I thought you said you wanted to be a Protestant!"

Loved that Lexi, and Paul confirms it was true.
I spent a time as a kid in Sydney post ww2 and dad had to get settled.
23 houses all new fibro housing commission.
Ruled over by the Irish Catholic family next door.
They had tea and cakes with the Child welfare people.
And a list of the wrongs/ crimes of us, the rest of the non Catholic street.
On leaving and going back to the bush they passed me on the road in the bush town, stopped and in the style of Mrs Bucket questioned me.
I was no more than 8 but had my dad in me.
I informed them I was not to talk to strangers and they had always been the strangest I ever knew,
Father, 3 sons, and only daughter all served time in prison, so much for the self righteous.

While I'm in the story telling mode I would like to recount this one. I'll call it 'The Revenge Of The Student'. When I was in the 3rd year of Catholic High School, there was a certain hefty sized lad, Andrew Mont, Andrew was big, very very big, and oh so placid, Andrew wouldn't hurt a fly. Unfortunately for Andrew he was dumb, very very dumb. So Andrew was the biggest by far, and dumbest by far in our year. Since Andrew couldn't add 2 and 2 a certain maths master Brother Athernatious took great pleasure in building poor Andrews character. Br. Atho built Andrews character often, so often Andrew expected character-building from brother in every maths class and brother certainly obliged the lad. One day Atho was in an extremely foul mood, fouler than usual and after poor Andrew had scored 2 out of 20 in an Atho test, brother decided Andrew needed some major character-building. Andrew was no scrib and could take corporal punishment with the best of them, a 'sixer' was no problem for Andrew. Atho gave Andrew 6 of his best on one hand, and then another 6 on the other. But since Andrew had got 18 wrong Atho thought the lad deserved 18 not 12. Atho ordered Andrew to put out his other hand once again. Andrew refused crying "enough brother, enough", Atho was in a rage, he tried to belt poor Andrews hand into position. As Atho raised his cane to full height, big Andrew let go with a right jab to Atho's mid section, the punch contained all the power big Andrew could muster. Atho went down like a bucket of S###. Andrew got expelled and left school to work in his Dad's Tyre Business Atho continued on spiteful and nasty as ever, but we all kept fond memories of the day Monts took out Atho. Years later I met up with Andrew Mont, he was as big as ever and doing very well, seems he had natural ability when it came to tyres.

Dear Paul1405,

One can wish Andrew a happy retyrement.

Dear Paul,

How on earth did any of us survive those horrible,
narrow-minded influences? I guess it must be true -
what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. But my
goodness - how many scars still remain, I wonder.
They have a lot to answer for that's for sure.

One thing a Catholic childhood can do is provide a great inspiration for literature. I am reading Joyce's 'Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man." From that work a child's view of God:

“It was very big to think about everything and everywhere. Only God could do that. He tried to think what a big thought that must be but he could think only of God. God was God’s name just as his name was Stephen. Dieu was the French for God and that was God’s name too; and when anyone prayed to God and said Dieu then God knew at once that it was a French person that was praying. But though there were different names for God in all the different languages in the world and God understood what all the people who prayed said in their different languages still God remained always the same God and God’s real name was God.”

I am very much enjoying the company and thoughts of some very well balanced people here.
I do not base this on a deep dislike of my former home Christianity.
I feel nothing like that about any God.
Understand, think we all do, those times we spoke of while Catholics suffered more than most, we all did to some extent.
Underlining these true nibbles at the life we led is this.
How much control did/does the Church have?
Is it understood the Catholics even today seem at times to control Labor.
I fear, a true deep fear driven by my belief it is to come,
Religion is about to bring us to a war or some thing like it, more terrorism, that will one day impose on us all governments of less freedom.
Why did so very many stand and let kids be treated as seen here in the name of a God?