"For example, if the search for ultimate truth leads to an individual believing that same sex marriage is wrong, she or he may face accusations of hate speech and homophobia."

If the search for ultimate truth leads to an individual believing that same sex marriage is wrong, he or she is searching for ultimate truth in the wrong place. Any rational adult has a responsibility to form their beliefs on the basis of the best available evidence, and they are culpable if they fail to do so. If I drive with my eyes closed because I am confident that God will tell me how to avoid pedestrians, then it's still my fault when I hit one, because a bare minimum of research would have informed me that God doesn't do that -- or, indeed, anything.

If someone has an incorrect belief which is causing distress or harm to others -- or indeed to themselves -- and they want to be treated as a rational person, then they should correct that belief. Failure to do so indicates that they are abandoning any claim to be rational, and in that case society should treat them like a child or an intellectually disabled person, and remove their power to harm others.

Interesting article. The inference from the author's arguments is that religious freedom is separate from other human rights. Do atheists have the right to discriminate against believers on the grounds that their superstitions are offensive to unbelievers? Do Christians have the right to discriminate against Muslims because of their perceived theological errors?

Religious beliefs are personal and particular, there is no right for believers to impose their ethical beliefs on other people or to violate the laws of the secular state.

The author wrote: "Indeed, the issue of same sex marriage and the campaign to promote it by groups such as the Australian Greens is an example of the threat posed to religious liberty by aggressive secularism."

Aggressive secularism? Any change proposed to the marriage act would not affect a religious group deciding who they would and would not marry. It is nonsense that there is any threat to religious liberty. It is religious dominance not religious liberty for a religious sect to demand that civil law conform to their strictures. Many religionists resent the fact they cannot force others to conform to their ideas of what is right and proper. Liberty means to me that I cannot force my views on others, and others cannot force their views on me. The demand that civil law restrict freedom which does not harm others is tyranny not liberty. Allowing same sex marriage does not force Peter Kurti to approve of it or for his religious group to perform such ceremonies.

Too often language is used to obscure meaning. One example is a demand that there be religious education in the public schools. What is generally meant is that the schools allow religious indoctrination not education. Religious education would allow students to find about a religion without any attempt to make a value judgment on the validity of a religion. Allowing same-sex marriage in civil law would not force Peter Kurti to change any conviction that he has. It would deny him the ability to force civil law to conform to his convictions. That ability should be denied.

Have to again agree with Jon J.
Faith based belief has done nothing but harm!
It made our world flat and at the centre of a solar system sized universe!
It allowed hugely misguided devotees, to burn some very insightful people at the stake, or stone others to death, just and only for being accused of adultery.
Today the hurled stones seem to have been replaced by AK57's and a bullet to the back of the head!
It seems faith based belief also confers the right to murder or spill innocent blood, in so called honour killings/jihads etc!
And it seems on available evidence, stoned women always committed adultery absolutely alone and on their own!
Or were represented as the devil, who made me do it!
Incidentally, in the earliest esoteric teachings, Archangel Lucifer was only ever the bearer of bad tidings, greeted by we humans, who tended to shoot or bad mouth the messenger, who was and remains scapegoated, even in still unproven myth or legend!
Faith based conviction still allows some of us to force others, sometimes mere children, into forced unwanted marriages, or allow endless rape in marriage, as some sort of right, allegedly conferred by a mythical being!
Faith based belief has caused most wars, justified slavery, handed out land rights and heaped cumulative injustice on the already disadvantaged!
Tolerance must squeeze out conviction, but particularly where that conviction is based on seriously revised holy books, that now bear absolutely no resemblance to the Author's original publication; or, flies directly in the face of absolutely overwhelming evidence, or both!
Rhrosty.

Ah, projection! Just make rubbish up and pretend thats what your targeted opponents think or say, and therefore they are bad people so its OK to shut them up.

Moral narcissism at its finest. So the 'marriage' 'equality' debate goes.

'Marriage' 'equality', Chris? Is that the same as marriage equality? If not, how does it differ?

ask any doctor and if truthful he will tell you of high disease rates among those committing sodomy. Jon J wants the studies where the best evidence is available. This rule of thumb obviously escapes the secular humanist who will distort any evidence and even had out degrees for those doing it. Just look at the gw faith and the pseudo science used to make pensioners trying to stay warm with heaters while the scaremongers fly first class around the world. None more bigoted than the secular humanist.

There is no possibility that the State will compel churches to marry gays. Churches are free to put whatever rules they want on who to marry – the Catholics, for example, will not marry divorcees.

If the government decides to permit gay marriage – and I hope it does – the churches will be able to decide whether or not to conduct them. As a Christian, I hope they do. Here in Perth the Anglican Synod has twice voted to support civil unions, only to be overturned by its Archbishop. It was clear from the debate that most representatives support full marriage equality.

I would expect a CIS Fellow to be more clear-thinking about the boundaries of freedom and the coercive power of the state. The state’s distinction between the relationships it will sanction and those it won’t constitutes abuse of power and discrimination. There is absolutely no infringement of religious liberties if the state decides to adopt marriage equality.

Dear runner,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism tells about secular humanism.

From the website:

"According to the Council for Secular Humanism, within the United States, the term "secular humanism" describes a world view with the following elements and principles:

• Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted by faith.

• Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

• Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

• Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

• This life – A concern for this life (as opposed to an afterlife) and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

• Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

• Justice and fairness – an interest in securing justice and fairness in society and in eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

• Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children."

Secular humanists have a high regard for evidence. They reject such concepts as God or an afterlife since there is no reasonable evidence for the existence of either. Some secular humanists have superstitious backgrounds such as yours but have rejected superstition when it has become plain to them that such beliefs do not rely on evidence. I hope you will make the most of your life. It is the only life you have or will have.

Dear David f

Need to test beliefs - totally failed by accepting evolution fantasy while rejecting the obvious

Reason, evidence, scientific method - failed as per above

Search for truth - again totally failed as they deny absolutes

Ethics - whose ethics? Evidence of humanist being just as sinful if not more than anyone else.

Building a better world - certainly failed on that. The fruits of secularism have been increase child abuse, drug usage, suicides, imoorality, perversion.

Dear runner,

There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of life besides evolution. If you know of another scientific explanation I should like to hear about it.

Unfortunately you do not rely on evidence. Knowledge proceeds from questioning and following wherever the evidence leads.

It is your loss. Pity.

The quotes, Jon J, are to indicate that I am using a pair of terms whose very definition is contested. Those words in normal use did not include same-sex partnerships, that meaning is an innovation; and the implication that existing arrangements are not equal or need changing is just a re-framing of the debate to suit the innovators.

Ten years ago gay politicals called marriage a bourgeois institution of which they wanted no part. They had freedom and marriage was for breeders, a form of slavery to them.

Gays have always been equal in marriage because it was never defined as having to be about 'love' or 'your primary sexual orientation'. Gays freely married people of the opposite sex, if they chose, and that is why we have so many SS families with children.

Now, in a Foucaultian inversion a new and novel moral absolute is used to shut down debate and marginalise anyone who even hesitates to swallow their junk. The important questions have not been answered because bigots - politically-correct bigot - have shut down debate.

Not really an interesting article at all.

It boils down to a single interest group arguing that their divine entity is more special than the people around us. It is sometimes extended to argue that man has dominion over the earth and everything in or on it, and thus is entitled to trash the environment at will.

There is very little (no?) evidence for a divine being. There is no evidence for belief that one particular divine being has precedence over all other divine beings. There is no evidence to support the notion that belief systems concerning sexuality are somehow entitled to pre-eminent position in any discussion on the subject.

This writer is entitled to publish what he has written, but in doing so must realise that it will cause distress and anger in some readers and others, such as me, will shrug off his message and seek to adopt an ethical and logical and fair stance in preference to one which is founded essentially on the teachings of white males with clear personal interest in resisting change, such as the many arms of the Christian religion.

Nah, David F, "secular humanism" belief goes like this.

1. White people are always wrong, and minorities are always right.

2. White people are always wrong, especially if they are Americans.

3. Human Rights over rides democracy.

4. The principles of Human Rights must be respected absolutely, unless upholding the principles become inconvenient and it gets in the way of socialist social theory and multiculturalism. In such cases they can be ignored.

5. The world is divided into "Oppressors" and "the Oppressed."

6. Straight White people, Jews and (especially) the straight white Americans are always the "oppressors" and everyone else is "the oppressed."

7. People who went to university are infallible, and everybody else is a bogan.

8. People who went to university are the new aristocrats who should rule the world because of Divine Right.

Rhian, "There is no possibility that the State will compel churches to marry gays. Churches are free to put whatever rules they want on who to marry – the Catholics, for example, will not marry divorcees."

I wonder about that. What about the use of church owned property for same sex marriages. I'm thinking of the issue with the youth camp not hiring out facilities to a gay support group and subsequent legal consequences.

Whilst churches get tax and rates exemptions for activities that other organisations would pay those same fees on I'm of the view that they have forfeited some of the rights to control what happens on their prememises so I'm not adverse to such an outcome.

Overall I do find the issue marked by a lot of double standards and feigned indignation and spin from both sides of the argument. Gays who oppose pluralistic marriages based on a set of reasons that looks remarkably lie the list of reasons others used to oppose same sex marrriage, the seemingly endless list of dodgy articles from christians opposed to same sex marriage dressed up to be about somemother issue. The pretense of some concern for the meaning of marriage from those who don't other wise appear to give a toss about the mess it has become for many heterosexuals.

Time for government to get out of the business of registering certain relationships as marriage.

R0bert

'There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of life besides evolution. If you know of another scientific explanation I should like to hear about it.'

yep you something from nothing crowd certainly make the flat earthers look smart David f

Dear runner,

You can insult me as you appear to take pleasure doing. However, you apparently cannot come up with another scientific explanation for the diversity of life besides evolution. That is because there is no other scientific explanation.

Thank you for this good article, Peter.

Excuse me, but some churches are made of idiots.

How could they possibly think that they could just call on the devil (the state) at their pleasure to do their work, using the coercive powers of that blind beast, expecting the devil to forever serve their interests like a nice doggie, to never turn against them, that the pendulum would never swing against them and that double-edged sword would never turn back and stab themselves?

Is this the example of Jesus? Nay, this is the corrupt example of the Pharisees! First take the log out of your own eye!

The only way to attain our precious religious freedom is to guarantee freedom to everyone, in every matter. Religion is always about oneself, what one does or avoids in order to come closer to God - never about what other people do or avoid. We, religious people should lead only by personal example, not by coercion. When God allows free choice, who are we to deny it?!

Specifically:

* If we want the freedom to educate our children in the ways of God, then we must not ask the state to dictate what other parents do with their own children - what they teach them or even whether they keep them alive.

* If we want the freedom to refuse to provide services that support practices that go against our religious injunctions (as in the case of that youth-camp), then we must advocate for everyone's freedom to refuse providing services against their will for whatever reason (even for no reason at all).

"Whoever digs a pit will fall into it; and he who rolls a stone will have it roll back on him" - Proverbs 26:27

Dear Yuyutsu,

Your views are more consistent than the views of any other person on this list who gives himself or herself the label religious.

Sounds right to me. Religious or non-religious, set an example and don't use the power of the state to force that example on others. If others want to follow it or not, that is their business.