PaulS

rstrats, No documentation from me, sorry. I am aware of the argument, but just don't get it when it comes to the three 'nights' bit. I can accept the three 'days' meaning parts of days and therefore entombed Friday/out Sunday I could accept as three days, but I think it is more than a stretch for anyone to argue that the Jewish idiom argument can be stretched to fit 3 nights. To me, no matter which way you cut it, entombed Friday/out Sunday is not even a look in at 3 nights. Of course, others will argue against this.

An excellent site that puts forward argument and counter-argument much more eloquently than I. http://www.arguingequality.org/

I would argue that it is morally wrong to ban gay marriage based on the moral standard developed by science (that being gay is just as natural as being hetero) and our evolution of our thinking has gotten humanity to a point where we are recognizing the harm we are causing trying to deny our gay brothers and sisters wholeness and inclusion in society. I liken the situation to other morals that have modernized throughout history - stoning non-virgin daughters to death, slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.

I forgot to mention that donations are easily accepted by credit card and Paypal. Please remember what you will be doing for international relations also. A donation for men's health and a contribution to world peace. How well you will sleep after participating in this great cause!

In Australia in 2003, a little fundraiser cranked up called 'Movember'. The movement calls upon all the men of Australia to grow a moustache and raise money for men's health, specifically prostrate cancer and male mental health. I believe this movement has made it to the US (see http://us.movember.com/ ), Canada (http://ca.movember.com/) and the UK (http://uk.movember.com/). Well I am participating next month and growing what will be a pathetic excuse for a moustache, and in a shameless fashion I am asking for donations from across the globe (well just about the only people I know outside of Oz are my TCPC friends). So if you feel so moved by the Spirit, or just feel like donating anyway, please, please do. My prostrate and testicles thank you. The following link will take you to my Mo Space. I am part of our team here at work. Please select Paul Smedley (that's me) and donate away. Come Thursday 1 Nov, I will post a new photo of a freshly shaven canvas, ready and willing to create a fundraising Mo, with weekly updates of my progress for your humour. Please donate for a worthy cause. Your Mo Bro Paul http://mobro.co/PaulSmedley

Another bonus of gay marriage - the rate of unwanted pregnancies amongst homosexual male unions is zero. Much better than any hetero stats!

I'm no expert on same-sex marriages of history, but Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....same-sex_unions advises that it wasn't a big deal until about the mid-300s when Constantine outlawed it. It didn't seem to be an illegal issue for Rome before then. But definitions and paremeters change over time anyway, Joseph. Surely we don't have to stay with the one single definition of marriage you are referencing. In our times is there no scope to broaden that definition to encompass loving gay relationships? The main reason I feel it important to use the word marriage for gays is to include them as whole persons. I view them as no less a loving married couple than a hetro pair, it's just that the State won't let them have that recognition. I am for letting them have such recognition and as a married hetro man, I find no offence, no threat, no concern in doing so. I don't think refusing to allow gays to legalise their union as a marriage is providing equal rights, even when the other prejudices are addressed - this one will still remain. I don't even care about the fact that in my hetero marriage I have two children and married gays can't naturally conceive their own (without a third party becoming involved). That to me is a big "so what?" I am not trying to force anything on anyone. I, like you, have an opinion. My opinion is that gays should be allowed to be married. If my opinion becomes popular enough it will become law. That is what I think will most benefit society in moving forward. I expect once it becomes law anybody that doesn't agree with it will be silent and won't try to force heterosexual marriage only, on anyone It seems to me we are discussing which side to make happy. You are concerned it will upset those who hold a view the tradition is male/female marriage only. I am concerned that such a view makes many homosexuals unhappy and feel less whole than their opposite-sex counterparts. Words are very important to people, very important to gays too. If it's just a word, then I guess I could ask you what's the hangup with heteros that don't like the word marriage for gays? Sure, there may be a tradition that it has meant heteros only (debatable, but I'll go with that), but surely we can be mature enough to make room for gay marriage. The definition gets broader, more inclusive, welcoming to more - I just don't see the threat (other than it going against a relious conviction which some do find threatening as though they need to be the police for God...and I am not referring to you). If society voted, and the decision came down in favour of homosexuals, would that end the matter for you? Would you then change your mind because society now recognises same sex marriage as a societal right? Well at the moment the boot is on the other foot and many gays feel harmed by it. That it is unacceptable to many heteros and presently to a society as it exists right now is no reason for not suggesting/fighting for change. Slavery was a long established tradition (longer than marriage) but most of the world finally got around to understanding it as mean, inhuman, unfair, prejudiced etc. Change was fought for and against. The question is not whether change upsets people, but whether it is right or not. Of course on that 'rightness' many hold different opinions. I might find it rational, Joseph. I actually can see your point on rationality and didn't buy into the argument at all during this topic. Whilst it may be commonly accepted thought that marriage was established with a particular meaning, the word 'gay' was too. Words and their meaning change. I think it is time to change the definition of marriage to include gay people, that's all. Laws change. Society changes. Perhaps society would be returning to its Roman & Greek roots of allowing gay marriage prior to religous intervention outlawing such. It's true that alienation does not do much good in affecting change (and sometimes I need to take more care when phrasing my thoughts), but it is also true that societal definitions change as a society matures (we no longer stone to death our daughters who are found not to be virgins on their wedding day - I wonder how long that was held as a societal norm and proper understanding of the condition a woman should be in upon marriage?). It would seem after the discussion so far, the strongest reasons you have for not legalising gay marriage are that: 1) marriage wasn't created for gays but for hetero couples in order to encourage pro-creation, and 2) people who believe this will be upset if it changes. I think both these points can be worked on by the proponents of gay marriage, and I wish them well.

Joseph, I am talking about the real issue. To me the real issue is that our society has come of age where it can broaden the narrow definition some hold of marriage. Marriage has meant many things in the past (my opening post of Spong's just one example). I haven't at any point tried to change the definition of marriage other than to suggest that there is no obstacle to it including gay people. You are the one that seems to be saying that it can only include male/female relationships on the grounds that marriage was instituted to encourage/reward/recognise couples for procreating. I am still at a loss to see just how gays marrying somehow harms/denigrates/reduces the institution of marriage. Is heterosexual marriage threatened by homosexual marriage? - I would argue "in no way". People may feel threatened because of their religous beliefs or because they think marriage is reward/recognition for potential procreation and contribution to society, however the fact of the matter remains that if two people of the same sex marry, nothing changes at all for the hetero couple. So if hetero marriage isn't harmed, then why not allow homosexuals to marry and feel whole? Maybe things are different in America, but in Australia there is no discrimination between gays and straights concerning rearing children, education, rules and regulations and policies that atest to such, other than the discrimination concerning the right to hold a marriage licence. If a gay couple live together and raise a child, for all intents and purposes as a married hetero couple, they are afforded the same legal rights and indulgences as the hetero couple. I fail to see how the hetero couple are any better off. But off course the homosexual couple are worse off because they are denied a state licence to formalise their marriage. Now we can say that this is the law so let's leave it alone, but I think the tide is massively turning and that people are becoming more understanding of homosexuality and accepting of their desire for inclusion with society and their fellow humans. I keep coming back to this point - how does homosexual marriage harm or reduce hetero marriage? Do you simply stand on the ground that marriage is an institution that was designed to recognise and reward hetero couples because they can naturally procreate and benefit society, whereas homosexuals can't so they should be rightly denied that privelege of a marriage licence?

I beg to differ, Joseph. I AM talking about recognizing the humanity of homosexuals, the ignorance of some people, and the treatment gays have received. You are the one talking about a set definition of marriage as though such a definition can't be applied in the 21st century with broader ramifications. Do we really only marry these days so as to procreate? Do you really think governments these days are trying to entice people to marry so as to procreate? I think not. What is wrong with accepting an expansion of the definition? How does it harm heterosexual marriage or lessen its significance? A review of the history of marriage shows that is was as just for power and cooperation between families and tribes as it was for procreation. In fact, it was controlled by the church long before the state got involved. Perhaps that skews are understanding of marriage too.

A couple of things I'd say to your comments, Joseph: 1. I don't think it's so much a case of 'previosuly denying' homosexual marriage, but rather it has finally come to a point where society are starting to see the need and respect for it. It's more a case of ommission than a deliberate "gays shall not marry". I think we are finally starting to recognise the humanity of homosexuals and are starting to make room for homosexuality in a world that has been otherwise ignorant of homosexuality and it's ability to be just as loving as hetrosexual love. Much like we moved toward abolition for slaves - it was slowly recognised that the prejudice against them was no longer acceptable. 2. Taxes and changes to regulation can be overcome. I'm sure there was much financial pain and regulatory change with the abolition of slavery, or the setting up of the US as an independent country, or the recognition of defacto relationships etc etc. The day we let our hestitancy to change our bureacracy to overcome wrong would indeed be a sad day. 3. In regards to a 'future' society, I see the view that "the image presented to other children of a man and woman in marriage as the norm is a more balanced image to society as it exists here to promote that continuance" becoming obsolete, or at the very least, children having the ability to discern that for some people, homosexual marriage is the norm and that this is perfectly okay. It's up to society to educate it's chldren and show them that scientifically, people don't choose to be gay, or fall in love, or wish to be married to somebody for life. It's just nature at work. 4. Sure, looking at nature we do see in animals and insects that each has a position assigned whether by birth or its societal group, but there are many differences too between us and the animal kingdom. I don't know too many animals which participate in a representative democracy, that offialise partnering with somebody for life, or in that case designing and implementing a myriad of rules for the dissolution of such a relationship (maybe other than the black widow who eats her ex). 5. I think it's a lot easier to say "live in peace with our differences" when we're not the group being discriminated against or denied our wholesomeness as fellow human beings. Science says gay people don't choose their sexual orientation. How can we deny them the same rights as hetros who also don't choose their sexual orientation? 6. I'm happy for your brother that being legally prohibited from marrying the love of his life works for him. Clearly it doesn't for many, many homosexuals. Your views are your views and of course you are entitled to them. To me it doesn't matter what your views make you but rather if your views harm or benefit greater society. I am still at a loss to understand just how homosexual marriage threatens hetrosexual marriage. I should imagine hetros will continue to marry and breed even when gays are allowed to marry. In Australia there are no significant financial incentives to marrying one of the opposite sex for the purpose of breeding. I find it interesting that most marriage vows don't usually include any mention whatsover about procreaton being the reason for the marriage ceremony but rather focus on the love one partner has for the other. There's no mention (usually) of government subsidies or the economic advanatges of becoming married, but rather just simple love is expressed. If I was gay, I'd like to be able to do that with the one I love also. To deny me that would be to say that my love and relationship is something less than a hetero's, IMO. "I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life". I reckon this works just as well for gays. This article addresses some of my beliefs more eloquently: http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/faqs.htm

So, referencing my opening post, I don't understand how gays marrying in any way diminishes hetro marriage. I'm interested Joseph, in how you intuit its acceptance as not a positive benefit to future society?

Below is an opinion piece that was in my Sunday paper this morning: Why a baby isn't always a great gift by: Mia Freedman A baby is sometimes not always a great gift for some people. Source: Supplied WHAT'S the difference between a scented candle and an unwanted pregnancy? There isn't one! They're both gifts and should be accepted with smiling gratitude. When Republican US presidential candidate Rick Santorum was asked earlier this year how he'd feel if his daughter was raped and became pregnant, he insisted he wouldn't want her to have an abortion and would instead encourage her to see the pregnancy as "a gift". This word is often used by people opposed to abortion and, at first, it seems like a reasonable one. Babies are a gift, aren't they? Many new parents use that exact word, especially if they've struggled with infertility. But what about the ones who don't choose - or want - to be pregnant? A candle and an unwanted pregnancy do have this in common; neither "gift" was chosen by the recipient. That's where the similarities end. Because lives aren't plunged into poverty and emotional, mental and physical hardship by a candle that smells like figs. Journalist Caitlin Moran argued against the idea of unwanted pregnancies being "gifts" in a recent column, where she said: "From the shop floor of pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood, here's what that gift can entail: tearing, bleeding, weeping, exhaustion, hallucination, despair, rage, anaemia, stitches, incontinence, unemployment, depression, infection, loneliness. Death. Women still die in childbirth. Not as many as used to - but notably more die while receiving any other 'gifts', such as scented candles, or minibreaks." Last week I watched Mitt Romney's wife, Anne, on The View face questions about her husband's strong anti-abortion views. She said it was "a very tender issue" and segued towards less emotive ground. "What most women are saying to me when I talk to them is, 'Help'," she said, "because they're in terrible financial strife." I had a shouting-at-the-TV moment: "Can't you see the connection between those two things, Anne? Forcing women to have babies they don't want and can't afford to look after pushes them into poverty!" Nobody wants the abortion rate to be high. Not pro-lifers. Not pro-choicers. On that much, we agree. I believe in "safe, affordable and rare". But when it comes to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, consensus evaporates. Poof. Gone. The idea that prevention is better than cure is a no-brainer and relevant in Australia, where our rate of abortion (19.7 per 1000 women) and teen pregnancy (17.3 per 1000 women) is high compared with other Western countries. One strategy to lower those numbers was to make emergency contraception (the morning-after pill) available over the counter without a prescription. Has it worked? Kind of. A recently published Australian study of more than 600 women aged 16 to 35 found that just under half (48 per cent) knew they could get it over the counter and up to 60 per cent of women didn't understand how it worked. What if all contraception was free? Fact: free contraception would dramatically lower the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in Australia. The Contraceptive Choice Project, conducted by researchers at Washington University proved this. In 2007, they gave 9256 women aged 14 to 45 access to free contraception for two years. The results were dramatic. The annual birth rate among teen girls dropped by more than 80 per cent and the abortion rate among women of all ages dropped by about 70 per cent. How bizarre then that the groups and people most vehemently opposed to abortion are the same ones who don't want to make contraception (or sex education) more widely available. "It seems illogical," says Australian ethicist Leslie Cannold, "but it makes perfect sense if your real problem is the idea of women having sex outside of marriage for reasons other than childbearing." Ka-ching. Now I understand. Hello, Catholic Church. "While the majority of religious people in Australia are pro-choice, nearly all anti-choicers are religious," Cannold adds. Here's a thought: why aren't we considering free contraception as a way to reduce abortions? Because that would be a true gift to women, men and society.

What if there is no next of kin, or they are not contactable, and nobody else is specified in case of emergencies? What if the person didn't plan issues out in advance (especially the pregnancy!).

Love it!

What if the mother isn't in a condition to make a reasonable decision (unconscious, coma, etc) or her decision making powers are otherwise not up to standard (brain damage, perhaps serious autism, mental health issues etc)?

Stanley, Have you considered body implants and/or those huge holes in your earlobes for that rebellious touch? Or maybe a braille tatoo that allows the blind to enjoy body art also?

I agree Neon - I was just pointing out what I think people using the bible to support an anti-abortion stance might use for their argument (rightly or wrongly - I believe wrongly). No doubt - it's proving a little difficult to get that across to bible-believing anti-abortionists though! That said - you're never going to win them across by trying to use the bible to defend abortion either.

As a married hetro male, I get a little tired of people preaching about how marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman, and the fear-mongering that goes with any suggestion of same-sex marriage as though somehow a gay mariage is going to tear down the 'institution' of marriage (whatever the hell 'institution' means). Frankly, I just don't understand how gays marrying, in any way diminishes hetro marriage. A lifetime committment to the one you love is the same for hetros as for gays. Unfortunately the right for gays to marry still faces an uphill battle in Australia, although I think there is traction and I hope for it to be fully legal within years (which is way to slow, I know). Anyway, I just wanted to share this paragraph from Jack Spong's latest newsletter. "Did God set monogamous coupling as the original basic building block of all human society in the creation story of the book of Genesis? Of course not! Does the good archbishop not know that the “seven-day” creation story of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is a product of the 6th century BCE? Does he not know that the story of the “fall,” as related in Genesis 2:4b-24 is the product of the 10th century BCE? Neither of these times is anywhere close to the beginning of human history. Human-like creatures, called hominids, have populated this planet for at least 4,000,000 years, and self-conscious, language-using, recognizably human creatures have been on this planet, according to the best scientific estimates for somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000 years. The biblical story of creation is, thus, very recent, relatively speaking. In most of human history monogamous marriage between one man and one woman was all but unknown. The original pattern of human “marriage” and family life appears to have been polygamy and harems. Since women were largely regarded as property in that period of time, the number of wives a man had determined his wealth and status. A vestigial reminder of this value system is preserved in church marriage ceremonies, when one man, the father, gives the bride away to another man, the husband, as if she were a possession. When the early writers of the Bible sought to describe this period of their own Hebrew ancestry, they quite accurately portrayed their forebears, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as polygamous people. Even the ultimate Jewish hero, King David, who was called “the man after God’s own heart,” was portrayed as the husband of many wives. His son, Solomon, in whose reign the Adam and Eve story was actually written, was famous for having had 300 wives and 700 concubines. So the suggestion that the monogamous, heterosexual marriage of one man to one woman is the original divine plan written into “natural law” and is, therefore the “basic building block of the social order” and thus not capable of being altered is both patently false and historically inaccurate. Marriage as a human institution has been and still is evolving from polygamy based on male supremacy to monogamy, based on sexual equality. In the light of this understanding the ability to grant to same-sex couples the dignity and sanction of official marriage is simply another step to be welcomed in that evolution."

I don't think anyone could quote a verse that directly condemns abortion outright, but I think some will interpret various passages to support their argument that an unborn is to be considered an innocent child, and not simply an organic fetus. In Luke, Elizabeth's baby 'leapt' in the womb when she met Mary pregnant with Jesus, thus used to argue for the consciousness of the fetus. Job 3:16 "Or why was I not as a hidden stillborn child, as infants who never see the light?", thus indicating that a fetus is simply an unborn infant. Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." I guess read to indicate that if God's 'knows' somebody even before they are physically conceived, then they mean something to God even as a fetus. In Genesis 25:21,22, Rebekah conceived twins, and "the children struggled together within her." Indicating a consciousness and humanity about them I guess. Disclaimer: I support the right to have an abortion. I would like us as a society to do everything possible so as to prevent somebody from being in such a situation, but until that day arrives, I support a person's decision to have an abortion. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Weeks? 21 weeks? As opposed to 21 months - i.e. a child nearly 2 years of age?...is what I was joking about.

Upon review, with your comments in mind, Myron, I'd have to agree now. Thanks.

I think 21 months might be viewed as murder, Myron!

I have wanted a tatoo for years, but haven't ever thought of just what I would want permanently tatooed on my body. My wife has always said I should get 'Hotei', the Laughing Buddha, as I carry a few kilos and am, or used to be, quite jolly! Maybe I put too much thought into it, but I want something that means something deeply to me. I like yours Johnny, and I like how it means something to you, yet has an originality to it.

Sorry, can't be of much help, David. But if you're ever in Mandurah, Western Australia......

I loved this MLK quote referenced in the article: “any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them …is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial.”