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