Paul 1405,
I'm pretty sure the Pope sees the bible as a collection of allegories and parables like any sane, intelligent person does, only people with low intelligence take the bible literally and those who sneer at them only show up their own weakness of character by mocking those less fortunate.
That said, the Christian reason for opposing same sex marriage is stupid and mostly irrelevant, it's a dumb place to draw the line.
What a lot of people want to know is what's next for the progressives?
Their agenda is open ended and thus far I've got no reply on what the next step will be for "Gays" once they have the right to marry, to have IVF and to adopt? We also want to know will married men, fathers and their children then be treated equally under the law or will the same negative presumptions about masculinity apply?
What happens for example when Police are called to a domestic disturbance involving two men and their children?
How will male married couples be treated in custody disputes?
I see a lot of positives for men and boys in general flowing from Gay marriage, our human rights will no doubt have an elevated profile when militant gays and their kids are being dragged through the family court meat grinder, but a lot of trouble is on the way for Lesbians and Feminists, particularly the ones currently in power.
Under the present system men and boys are second class citizens, that's all going to have to change if increasing numbers of men are going to be marrying and raising families of their own.

"the bible as a collection of allegories and parables" That is the way I see it. As for those who take the bible literally, I don't think it necessarily flows that they are of "low intelligence" its more likely they have developed a steadfast belief that it is all literally true. I don't know what the pope thinks, nor do I care.
Father Jo said; "It was Noah his wife, his three sons and their wives that entered the ark 8 homosapiens. No homosexuals are mentioned entering the ark." I'm sure if pressed Father Jo could even give us their names." Yes Jay I am guilty of that sin, I did throw a bit of bait at Father Jo "Moses and his ark." and he took it hook, line and sinker, it was rather flippant of me to have done so.
I could pose the question are those who believe in astrology of "low intelligence" maybe naive but I don't think it reflects on their level of intelligence.
Jay you said; "gays and their kids are being dragged through the family court meat grinder," Family break up regardless of who the "parents" are can often be a bitter affair particularly when children are involved. I don't think by legalising gay marriage that we will see "increasing numbers of men are going to be marrying and raising families of their own."

We have visited this issue many times, but this is by far the poorest discussion so far.
Paul1405 is content to attack the messenger, and the Catholic Church, and to show utter disdain for all persons of religious conviction (whilst totally disregarding the views of the vast majority of humanity regarding 'marriage').
And the only factual commentary on the actual subject Paul1405 can offer is:
> I don't think by legalising gay marriage that we will see "increasing numbers of men are going to be marrying and raising families of their own."<
B marvellous. After all the puffing and blowing, that's it - "I don't think"... Damn right.

It is telling that with all the real problems facing the world, including our own future national integrity, we should be wasting our time, our leaders' time, and our resources debating such an issue. A true sign of Western 'decadence' for all those fighting real survival battles to scoff at.
What would the imams or mullahs make of it, I wonder?

We profess to pursue a viable and vital multicultural society, and the reasonable assimilation of peoples of many cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds, but with this issue we spit in the face of the views and sensitivities of so many new and prospective arrivals, including those just visiting.
Two-faced? (Or just insensitive and idiotic?)
Who is actually pushing this barrow? Anglo-saxon xenophobes, or free-love fruit-cakes?

The integrity of a society is determined by its majority adherence to reasonable, if not high moral and ethical values, and with this issue we are addressing a serious challenge to acceptable majority societal structure. It is clear that many in our society have little if any moral conviction, but that does not mean we should drag our whole society down to the level of the binge-drinkers and football idiots.
It may be of no consequence for NZ, California or the Netherlands to set themselves apart from the bulk of humanity, and be a laughing stock, but we should have more sense than to follow their arrogant and foolish example.

Saltpetre; Those that don't think are those that allow themselves to be lead blindly by the criminals behind organized religions.
So with your comment;
"It is clear that many in our society have little if any moral conviction, but that does not mean we should drag our whole society down to the level of the binge-drinkers and football idiots." is that haw you see a debate on gay marriage, binge drinkers and football idiots.
Then you say we should only debate important issues "we should (not) be wasting our time, our leaders' time, and our resources debating such an issue (gay marriage)" who should be determining what is and what isn't an important issue for debate? How would these lesser issues be determined without debate, from the bible as passed to us all from on high.
So the debate is being pushed by Anglo-Saxon xenophobes, or free-love fruit-cakes?
If we can't rely on the Anglo-Saxon xenophobes opinions on gay marriage, pray tell me who's opinions can we rely upon, pedophilic church leaders, and/or other religious fruitcakes with their holy book? The group in society opposed to gay marriage seems mostly those with some kind of religious conviction, should it be that on all so called moral issues, it is the view of the religious that should prevail?

.

Homosexuality & Marriage ...

.

The terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were coined by Karl-Maria Benkert in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behaviour in humans. He was born in Vienna, Austria and became a Hungarian journalist, memoirist, and human rights campaigner.

Benkert had a close friend who was homosexual. This young man killed himself after being blackmailed by an extortionist. Benkert later recalled that it was this tragic episode which led him to take a close interest in the subject of homosexuality, following what he called his "instinctive drive to take issue with every injustice."

Twelve countries, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden, allow same-sex couples to marry nationwide. It is currently being legalised in France.

The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. It did so on 1st April 2001.

In March 2006, Statistics Netherlands released estimates on the number of same-sex marriages performed in each year: 2,500 in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005.

The Protestant Church in the Netherlands permitted individual congregations to decide whether or not to bless such relationships as a union of love and faith before God, and in practice many churches now conduct such ceremonies.

Most major religions oppose same-sex marriage. However, a number of progressive and liberal Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus, as well as modern Hindu communities and Buddhism in Australia support it.

A question many of us ask ourselves is ... is homosexuality socially constructed or given by nature ? Is it natural or unnatural ? Here is some evidence :

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Josephus wrote (bottom of page 6 on this thread) :

"That some men wish to lifelong insert their penis into their lovers bum and call it marriage degrades the term to defecation".

Which raises the question: "Is the act of sodomy practised exclusively by homosexuals or do heterosexuals also practise it ?"

Unfortunately, I have no statistics on that.

.

The marriage ceremony and celebration contains many symbolic examples of the female been given to the male by her parents of whom her father is the consenting representative for the purpose of forming a lifelong sexual union. Opportunity is given for anyone to challenge the union as she may already be in a union with someone else of carrying someone else's child unbeknown to the proposed husband. The lifting of the veil of the bride for her husband to kiss her is symploic of the opening of the vagina to form the marriage union. They are publicly announced as husband and wife by the person officiating so no one can now make a claim against them and celebrate with them their decision to unite as one human body.

If it is the ceremony and celebration gays want in their union call it somthing else; but it is not marriage forming one human body with all human biological potential to give birth from within the union.