I re-iterate again that I come down firmly on side of gay rights here. With that clarification to my opening sentence I stand by the rest of my earlier comments.

Returning to the X-Files policy statement. I would suggest (for those of you who have been exposed to my thought before) that what we have here is a Maladaptive Teapot Impression.

For those who have not read the very long thread where we first meet this idea … in short, the Teapot Impression is a maladaptive reaction to existential terror, when you do not want to feel the actual feeling of existential terror, and will do anything, literally anything … to avoid the feeling of discovering that there is actually nothing you can do … about the thing crushing you into dust.

I deal with people trying to avoid this feeling on a daily basis, so I do recognise it when I see it.

What is incompatible is *Christian* marriage. But no-one is saying to churches that they have to conduct religious gay marriages, all that’s being asked is the ability for gay couples to have *civil* marriages. In other words, *it’s none of their business because by their world view a civil marriage by itself isn’t a real marriage anyway.*

Re. other comments re. aliens. What if the aliens only have one sex? Or, more interestingly, what if they have more than two sexes? I’d love to see a few Catholic brains explode.

If you let religions get away with that, you end up with a situation where major religions can (and do) change their position on issues for political expendiancy at will. A literal biblical Christian is okay, because you know where they stand, even if you disagree with them on many issues. On the other hand a ‘Christianity-means-whatever-I-want-it-to-mean’ Christian (who seem to be in the majority these days) have a licence to hold whatever views they like (as does anyone else) but then still have the gall to claim their views are heaven sent, because they choose to label themselves as Christian!

Gay rights (including marriage) are in my view, and in the majority view of modern Australia, ethically and morally correct. Christianity clearly states otherwise. Therefore Christianity is incompatible with the majority view of Australians on ethical and moral issues. However, because we like the idea that our morals are founded at some level on some higher power (they aren’t, modern ethics and values derive from philosophers who fought against Theocractic domination) we like to pretend this disagreement doesn’t exist, by re-interpreting Christianity as something much more warm and cuddly than it is.

You can call it ‘being less literally’ if you like, I call it ‘lying’.

“Just this week I read an article about the Vatican reconciling scripture to accomodate the possibility of other intelligent life in the universe. If the pope is happy to bring aliens into the fold, how damned hard can it be to do the same for homosexuals, Mr Pell!”

Bravo! I love it.

When the Year of Same Sex Relationships is due to commence on November 28, the Church put out a policy statement on … whether there might be aliens. Hmmm. Very X Files.

Have they been drinking? %>

Is the issue that the state doesn’t recognize defacto gay relationships?

My understanding with defacto relationships was that once you’d been living together for 6 months or so it had some fairly significant legal implications (mostly over who’s stuff it is).

Agreed. but in this case, I’d say hell. Heck is just a euphemism.

Pell can, of course, have his culture - its basically called the Holy Roman Empire and its been defunct in most peoples mind for a millenia or more but whatever floats your boat - but the issue is the appropriate role of the state. The Christian view on gay marriage is not right or wrong, its just completely irrelevant. It is to be taken no more seriously as a legal principle than a Buddhist proposal to outlaw the eating of meat because that violates certain tenets of their faith.

Gay interest in ‘marriage’ is, in the main, an interest in having access to the legal apparatus of the state which deals with perogatives of partners in areas such as superannuation, medical care, adoption, accomodation etc. If living together conferred all of these, then I suspect many people would be happy with civil unions.

It leaves a small number of people who feel that, by refusing to use the word marriage society is implicitly undervaluing gay relationships compared to ‘good’ ones. While this is true, I have to admit that I hold the people who use the term marriage in this way in contempt and so really don’t want their endorsement. Sneering is a useful marker of people I don’t need to waste time getting to know. I would really take it as a badge of honor not to have Pell and his like approve of my civil union, because I sure as heck don’t approve of his lifestyle.

Our same sex friends in committed relationships are not getting the same deal that is extended by the State to heterosexual marriages.

If one of them dies intestate, for example? The State has a real problem, because it cannot recognise the claim of the same sex partner on the estate. So that person can end up losing everything owned by their departed partner to their state-recognised “next of kin”. If you’ve been living together a long time, and put all finances in together, but just forgot to make a clear will … you have no legal right to your partner’s estate.

Our government tries to do something about it, and suddenly Cardinal Pell has something to say about that activity, and wants it stopped, because of his cultural belief system. So his cultural belief system, in his eyes, has more validity than this discrimination. And he puts the pressure on, chapter and verse … and we have to chatter about it. Can you see our point now?

I don’t know why non-christians get married or even care about marriage.

Since living together beforehand is fine for non-christians why does it matter?

If its just a cultural thing, then remember that George Pell has his culture and he’s sticking to it.

It’s upsetting Cardinal Pell, who keeps trying to read us chapter and verse, so we must be doing something right. Ah, nothing hurts a man more than indifference.

I will see if I can find you on Facebook, and send you a virtual latte.

Maybe Jill and I will have our own party by the end of the week? We wish! At least it is shared warmth between two people, not hot air being pumped outward for everyone’s benefit?

Yeah, Monday looms. I don’t like them. It’s swimming lesson day and my son doesn’t want to be Ian Thorpe.

While you’re still about, John, you might be interested in something I fell over recently, about the word “marriage”? I wondered often, after finding out it wasn’t such an ancient institution, how did the word evolve? Why did it begin with the affix “mar” when we use that word to denote something broken?

I discovered the Latin “mar” means “shining”. How interesting that we modern English speakers have reversed it to mean the opposite.

8 sets of shared responses, leading closer and closer towards each other!

How sweet, their public warming adding its own small contribution towards global warming.

I wonder, is this a record for Crikey? Will this be a match made in heaven; either before or after the Rapture?

Will coffee be enough, or will it lead to a union of disaffected ALP and LIB souls?

Thankfully, Sunday will soon be over and then it is back-to-work day.

He explains more about some of the Christian thought in his contribution, which is very enlightening and interesting.

He also points out that it wasn’t Jesus who said gays were bad. It was St Paul. As Saul of Tarsus wasn’t a Jew, and wasn’t part of Jesus’ childhood group of friends and relations, it could be that he didn’t really understand what they were about. As he was a Roman citizen, he could say whatever he liked and none of the others could disagree. He was also a human being who had suffered a lot. Obviously he had some personal issues - and I would suggest that those issues informed his position a lot more than the teachings of J’esua.

Because I’m a psychologist, Jillian, so I gets a bit about what makes people get zealotry.

Feminist literature has a lot to say about St Paul and most of it is not kind. I can understand why some women feel rather angry at him. If he was the one who got gays banned, whipped up more prejudice against people with different tendencies, and also got women oppressed for a few more centuries, it would seem … he has a case to answer?

If we only live the once, I would presume that God took it up with him. If we don’t and the Hindus are correct? Gosh, isn’t that an interesting idea! If it’s a cold hard random universe? Then we’ve been right royally HAD. And thus, the debate goes on as we hammer religion into irrelevancy. If I were Cardinel Pell …. it’s a Brown Trouser Moment.

Now to read what Malcolm has offered us in respect of the “rapture”. How exciting for a Sunday.