I was interested to see that the poll on Yahoo, my home page is only 57% in favour. I would have thought it would have been up there with the mistaken fans of euthanasia.

Gay marriage is currently my favourite oxymoron.

I will be impressed if someone say yes in here.

Another example of Satan undermining the work of the church :

Canada to ordain first gay pastor

Article from: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Ottawa
May 17, 2008 08:05am
A CANADIAN Lutheran church said it was to ordain its first gay pastor, who is married to another man, despite likely sanctions for breaking church teachings.

“The people of Holy Cross have issued a call to Lionel Ketola to serve as associate pastor,’’ the Toronto-area church said on its website.

It said the ordination is “in violation of the ELCIC (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada)’s discriminatory policy of excluding ‘self-declared and practicing homosexuals’ from the office of ordained ministry.’’

But regardless, the church said it would ordain and hire Ketola.

The ordination of an openly gay Lutheran pastor would be a first in Canada, following more than a dozen such ordinations in the United States, said reports.

The Lutheran Church of Canada narrowly defeated a bid last year to allow the blessing of same-sex unions, and prohibits the ordination of openly gay pastors.

In a letter last month, posted on the church’s website, Bishop Michael Pryse warned Holy Cross it would face disciplinary action if the ordination and hiring of Ketola went ahead.

“I am fearful that your actions have the potential to do irreparable damage to the already fragile connecting fabric of our church,’’ he wrote in the letter.

Secular marriage simply means that you will not divorce for at least 12 months. Any other privileges or responsibilities are shared with de facto relationships. As such why hold on to the distinction.

It is only within they church that marriage has any valid meaning.

Secular marriage simply means that you will not divorce for at least 12 months.

I have never heard of this definition. It sounds a rather negative philosophy to have - as it includes a ‘not’ clause - and anticipates divorce as an option.

Whatever happened to words of long-term commitment such as “until death do us part “ ?

Also, what is “secular marriage” anyway ? I only know of ‘marriage’ - and that between a man and a woman.

I’m using secular to denote the marriage sanctions by the Australian Government alone. It has no aspirations to being life long and does not purport to be Christian. While I would prefer it not to be inclusive of gay unions, I don’t think it is the end of the world if it eventually does, because it not representative of the Christian notion of marriage as it stands now.

Friends,

The Marriage Act 1961 unequivocally defines marriage this way:

“marriage” means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. (Sect. 5 Interpretation)

This means quite clearly that all marriages should be entered with lifelong intent! And they should be only between a man and a woman.

FYI, for marriages solemnized by an authorised celebrant who is a minister of religion, he or she must use a form and ceremony acceptable to that person’s denomination.

For marriages solemnized by authroised civil celebrants, the Acts says the following form of words is sufficient:

“I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. ( or C.D.), take thee, C.D. ( or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded wife ( or husband)” (Sect. 45 Forms of Ceremony)

Once again, the relevant words are clearly gendered.

It is only within they church that marriage has any valid meaning.

Whilst it appears that matters might be heading in this direction, this statement is simply not true. Marriage as we know it, though not necessarily with the same religious and cultural settings, is found in every place in every recorded society across all recorded history.

Marriage is worth defending as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. (Marriage Amendment Act 2004)

It (the marriage sanctions of the Australian Government ) has no aspirations to being life long and does not purport to be Christian. While I would prefer it not to be inclusive of gay unions, I don’t think it is the end of the world if it eventually does, because it not representative of the Christian notion of marriage as it stands now.

With the greatest of respect I don’t think this is a great statement either. Of course, with abundant historical precedent, Christian marriage will continue regardless of what happens in broader society. However, surely love for people in that broader society and with all the evidence of worse outcomes for couples and especially children involved in alternate arrangements, means we will stoutly defend marriage as defined in the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 with full vigour. That I suggest would be our Christian duty. I know what I’m talking about because that has been a significant part of my involvement politically the past year or two or three.

Please don’t sell the farm!

Australia has chosen to priviledge people who choose to make long term, stable, monogamous commitments with a range of legal, social and financial benefits. If there are Christians that don’t wish to be wed in a gay marriage then no one wants to force them. Homosexuals who wish to celebrate their faithful, monogamous partneships and enjoy the all the trimmings that come with marriage should certainly be allowed to do so in a society that prides itself on being free and fair. For me, getting married in a country that practices sexual apartheid is like getting on a bus that won’t carry blacks.

Beth,

A couple of points. Firstly, people in de facto couple relationships including same-sex relationships have been able to gain a number of legal and financial benefits over recent years, often in a case-by-case basis, sometimes on an individual legislative basis. However in some cases what is seen as justice in this area that has been difficult and cumbersome to achieve for those in same-sex relationships.

So secondly, the federal government has recently seen fit to move towards the approach of legislating across the board to make this much easier, and our own Archbishop has cautiously supported this move, especially since the government has indicated it is not redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. Nor will it tolerate civil unions that mimic marriage in all but name. Marriage at law continues to protect what marriage is in essence - a lifelong union between one man and one woman.

That’s background and you may well be aware of it - however I wasn’t certain from your remarks.

My key point is this: it is highly offensive to black people to compare being black with homosexual activity. I would ask you reconsider. One is totally genetically determined. The other has clear elements of choice involved, possibly alongside some disposition issues. One is just who you are. The other has a large component of behaviour.

Justin Taylor alerted me to some comments by Robert Gagnon who is a pre-eminent scholar in this area.

Gagnon recently wrote an open letter to the President of the University of Toledo. The President had suspended his Associate Vice President of Human Resources (a black, female, Christian), threatening her with worse penalties if does not recant. Her crime? Questioning the comparison of homosexual desire-and-practice with being black.

In Gagnon’s letter he cites six scientific studies that demonstrate this fallacy of equality same-sex attraction and race, and he makes a brief philosophical case against incentives for homosexual practice.

G’day All,

David Palmer - 19 May 2008 08:38 PM

with all the evidence of worse outcomes for couples and especially children involved in alternate arrangements

Following on from this idea, does anyone have any evidence of worse outcomes for children raised in same-sex parent households as opposed to children raised in heterosexual parent households?

[quote author="Beth Parker"]For me, getting married in a country that practices sexual apartheid is like getting on a bus that won’t carry blacks.

Beth, can you explain how the current arrangements for homosexual couples in Australia (which is what I presume you are referring to) is similar to the treatment of non-white people in South Africa prior to 1994? I have to admit I find the comparison a little extreme, but if you could clarify whether you were just using hyperbole or not, that would be helpful.

Cheers,

Timbo

I think the concepts/ terms need a good long hard look before we can be sure about them and make judgement.
The older terms may well stand as they are, but I think that public perception may have shifted. De Facto relationships have gained in popularity and so has divorce. Marriage isn’t always forever. De Facto relationships aren’t always for “maybe”.

I’d be happier if “marriage” was, across the board a sacrament cos then the discussions might well make more sense. But as it is the lines are blurred and I am not quite sure how to vote.

Concerning marriage of a man and a woman versus cohabitation of a man and a woman, the geezers who are married will always have at least one right the folk who have simply moved in together won’t enjoy.

If Fred moves in with Wilma today, and Fred dies tomorrow, Wilma will have a hard time proving she is entitled to all his goods and chattels.

But if Betty and Barney get married today, and Betty dies tomorrow, Barney will be entitled to her stuff, provided he wasn’t the one that caused her sudden demise.

Who get Dino and Bam Bam?

Sandy, you seem very certain that homosexuality is a choice, however I feel that this is at odds with every credible source of information on the matter: for instance the Australian psychological society states; “Some people report trying very hard over many years to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, with no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. People don’t choose their sexual orientation”

I was not intending to be offensive in comparing the treatment of blacks to the treatment of homosexuals. The bottom line to my analogy is that I think that homosexual people should be afforded the same civil rights as heterosexual people. 

Tim, Thanks for your question, I have actually been quite illuminated in working out my answer. As I am sure you know, Apartheid South Africa witnessed the passing of many laws that aimed to create two countries; one for the ruling whites and another for everyone else. The laws were about fundamental aspects of black South African’s lives; they affected where they could work, how educated they could become and whom they could marry; for instance the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. There was a deliberate policy of systematically ensuring that the standard of living for black people was below that of white people.

When the Australian Attorney General Robert Mc Clelland audited the findings of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, he found that in laws which deal with long standing same sex relationships “areas of discrimination include taxation, social security, superannuation, workplace laws, privacy and education assistance.” Laws in Australia such as Howard’s 2004 Marriage Amendment Act have been designed to ensure that committed homosexual relationships are second class to committed heterosexual ones.

I think that this forum is straying far from the topic of whether Gay marriage should be allowed in Australia. For me, if people are willing to make the sacrifice and the commitment to one other person, to love them and nurture them, sometimes at the expense of their own wants and needs, that commitment should be honored and supported. Committed monogamous relationships teach us the real meaning of love and provide us with great joy. They should be able to be recognized and celebrated by every couple who wishes to enter into marriage, and Christians, whatever their personal views on homosexuality may be, do not do society any favors by trying to stand in the way of this. Australian law must be for all Australians, not just a few and living a Christ like life must be a choice, not something we legislate for.