Adam, I'm still waiting to have a really good explanation of what the "consequences" are for Christians in allowing homosexual couples to regularise their relationships as marriage?

Marriage isn't a Christian exclusive. Do Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or other faith groups who also marry in a faith tradition similarly cause consequences for Christianity?

I'm seriously struggling to understand, are you able to shed some light for me?

Sorry Adam but you are also a bigot.

Some people interpret religious freedom as their right to prescribe that other people live according to their dictates. Religious communities will still be able to decide who they will marry.

The author writes:

"Sure, it provides that ministers of religion will not be forced to officiate same-sex weddings. This is the very least it could do."

No. It's the most they can do. If a business provides a public service for money they cannot decide to refuse that service to same-sex weddings any more than they can refuse to provide that service to Jews or Muslims, adulterers, masturbaters, members of the Liberal Party or supporters of the Brisbane Broncos.

thanks Adam. Rational does not come into this debate.The pro homosexual lobby demand reasons for opposing same sex 'marriage'. When given they then label that person a bigot. A five year old can see a penis is designed for a vagina. Anyone with any knowledge of health knows that sodomy is extremely unhealthy. Ms Gillard apologised to kids taken from mothers because she at least realised the importance of a mum. Yeah, reasons are clear but bigots just label others as bigots. The abc/sbs is over represented by the gay lobby. They have been for decades. To take a sensible stand many would have to conclude their own lifestyles need looking at. Oh and we can't have that. Interesting enough the bigots rarely taken Islam. For some reason the vast majority are Christophobic but to gutless to take on Islam.

Times have changed, a critical mass of citizens no longer base their moral judgements on judaeo christian values. If christians want to continue to live their faith in freedom they will need to focus inward on the church community by privatising marriage, education and even employment.

' If christians want to continue to live their faith in freedom they will need to focus inward on the church community by privatising marriage, education and even employment.'

well at least you are honest progressive pat. That obviously is the outcome that the god deniers want.

Horse feathers, bird's fur, risible rubbish, Bah Humbug, balderdash, fatuous asininity, gratuitous garbage!

Simply put, nobody but nobody is being asked to go against their actual conscience/religious beliefs in this or any related matter.

If you have a problem marrying left handed folks, or if if you find uniting people afflicted with club feet, or any other condition; God given black skin, brown eyes, albinism, also imposed by birth, offends your personal scruples?

Then please feel free to exhibit your personal bigotry?

It's still a free country, particularly if you take medieval religious control or enforced and entirely unnatural celibacy out of it!

I take it these same folk are free to get baptized, worship, place their paper on the plate, contribute generously to any and all Christian charities?

Well?

The only thing threatened here is the degree of control some, so called Christians/control freaks, exercise over the lives of others/in the bedroom!

If Jesus were a Gay man?

And given his patent predilection for almost exclusive male company, as well as his extraordinary gentle nature, he may well have been; or be so judged, by his so called devotees, if he walked among us today?

And would any here have refused to marry him and Judas if they asked to be united in the bonds of endless life long love, on the quite spurious grounds, it would have offended Jesus?

Who would have got so hung up over mere semantics; or be so arrogant as to claim to know the mind of God, or indeed, speak for him or in his name?

What comes next, killing each other in his name because you worship falsely/facing the wrong direction, using the wrong nomenclature?

Well what else would you expect when arrogance personified, patent nut jobs purport to speak for God or know his mind!?

Insomuch as you do unto the least among you, you also do unto me! Quote unquote.
Rhrosty.

Having been employed as a counsellor for seventeen years, I am interested in the "Christian Relationships Counsellor" who refused to give counselling to a same-gender couple. It's not clear from the article whether this was a person who worked for a Christian service or whether this was an employee of a counselling service who happened to be a Christian. I would think it would be very unusual for a same-gender couple to attend a Christian Counselling Service, knowing that most of them would take the view that their sexual behaviour was sinful and unacceptable. However, if this was a counsellor who just happened to be a Christian, then, under the terms of their employment, I would expect that it would not be acceptable for them to refuse to assist a client because they disapproved of their behaviour. Social Workers and Counsellors often work with criminals, perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse, drug dealers and others whose behaviour would generally be considered to be socially unacceptable, but if you are employed as a counsellor, then you are expected to counsel in a professional, non-judgmental manner.

' Social Workers and Counsellors often work with criminals, perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse, drug dealers and others whose behaviour would generally be considered to be socially unacceptable, but if you are employed as a counsellor, then you are expected to counsel in a professional, non-judgmental manner.'

Louisa

You obviously can't see that domestic violence, child abuse, drug dealing etc is wrong. Without making a judgement you are simply wasting your time. No wonder secular counsellors have next to zero success in reabilitation. You are non judgmental (unable or not allowed to diagnose) the problem (usually sin).

"The gay rights lobby will do whatever it takes to legislate same-sex marriage, even if it means stripping our faith communities of their fundamental right to religious freedom."

This is their whole purpose for this exercise - it's nothing to do with homosexuals or their relationships.

It is true that Christian churches have historically forced themselves on the public through the mechanism of the state, so now we see some angry/hateful people seeking revenge. However, that revenge is ultimately directed at religious individuals, not their churches, including individuals who are not even Christian, or who have their private religion or version of Christianity.

Dear David,

I am puzzled by a seeming contradiction in what you wrote:

1. Religious communities will still be able to decide who they will marry.
2. If a business provides a public service for money they cannot decide to refuse that service to...

It could possibly be reconciled by the word "public", but then why would anyone be providing a "public" service? then every individual providing a service should declare it as "private" in order to be able to serve only those they want (and shouldn't this be the default?). Is this what you meant, or do you actually mean that the state has a right to force people to serve others against their will?

(note however that I do agree with Louisa: an employee should either follow the directions of their employer for which they are paid - or resign)

Dear Runner,

<<That obviously is the outcome that the god deniers want.>>

That is also the outcome I want.

Those who love God should understand that times have changed and that the only way we can be allowed by the state to maintain our religious freedom to love and serve God, is to allow others their freedom too. "Privatisation" is now the only way to prevent religious persecution, where you and I would be the victims - or martyrs.

<<No wonder secular counsellors have next to zero success in reabilitation>>

If they don't have any success, then let it be their own problem, let them have zero success. The issue here is that they may just as well claim that WE have no success. If this type of claim is allowed to become an enforceable state-law, then it's us who could find ourselves burnt at the stake for our faith.

Why does Hollywood seem to be pushing an Occult and Gay agenda?

Whatever happened to good wholesome TV programs that pushed traditional family values, like "7th Heaven".
Why are we being subverted?

If I was to have an extreme view I'd say the whole thing could be a pedophile takeover designed to sexualise children.

Kids be asking "Why does little Johhny have 2 Dads but no Mum?"; "How was he born without a Mum?"

And then you're pushed towards a conversation about sex with your 6 year old.

Are you going to try to tell me that the right / wishes of the homosexual are more important than the rights of innocent kids?

What next?
Pedophilia will be labelled as progressive and liberal and all about love for the child?
And that its progressive and liberal to allow them to express themselves?

I'm not totally opposed to gay marriage, though I do not think it should be allowed in a church.
And I do not think that that children from parents of mothers and fathers should be exposed to this kind of mental conditioning.

I do believe that people should be allowed to live how they choose and be happy, but just so long as it does not affect others.

The word "sin" has no place in my vocabulary and I can assure you that I have been able to assist many people to make positive changes in their lives.

As a happily married heterosexual, I am pleased to announce my support for the principle of marriage equality.

I cannot see how allowing gay or lesbian couples the right to marry will, in any way, limit the religious freedoms of any one else, regardless of their religious expression. Nowhere in the Bible can I find a text whose meaning is that I will go to Hell if two men or two women somewhere else allowed to marry.

Marriage equality does not change the religious freedoms of anyone else!

And whatever happened to "We have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"

I can see being aired some of the misleading statements which seem to confound sane and reasoned discussion of marriage equality. The fact that two men or two women are allowed the same access to marriage as a man and a woman have does not automatically open the door to multiple marriage, under-age marriage or marriage to a non-human entity.
Christians lose nothing by welcoming same-sex marriage.

So, Kerryn Phelps, pin up girl for lesbians, is also an anti-religous bigot (to use a favoured word of her lefty mates). An anti-free speech bigot, too. No surprise about about the HRC, which is interested only in the rights of a select few; nor the discriminatory advertising rules of SBS.

Adam need have no worries about 'Muslim wedding planners'', though. Muslims have their own special ways of dealing with homosexuals, as the unfortunate gays and their left wing supporters drain the moral fibre of the West enough for Islam to gain victory over us, they wiil come to realise their mistakes.

The morally bankrupt gays and their supporters are using the current cowardice of Western politicians to also remove religious influence from our lives altogether. They were never exposed to Christian ethics when young. They hate and fear what they don't understand, so they naturally rale against it.

Oh, and when the loony-left European Human Rights Court rules that gay marriage is NOT a human right, we can see what a bunch of out of control loons we have in Australia pushing the cause.

There are different ways to look at gay marriage, herein is the dichotomy, one is from the christian perspective and another from our modern day legal interpretation.

I think if we change the legal understanding of it and remove its traditional value of between an adult man and woman to just between one adult human being and another, this in its simplistic form is all it takes to solve the problem.
I can not understand all the BS & drama about this progressive change. Get over it, please! hence the contradiction spelled out in the new international version of the christian bible...

Mark 12:31 "The second is this, 'Love your neighbor as your self.' There is no commandment greater than these."
and what is the definition of "love" as communicated by this bible? perhaps 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 is the ultimate understanding of this most powerful of forces. I'm not going to quote it here because of space limitation, so if anyone cares, well I'm sure we all know how to search the net or even take the time to read it in the actual bible itself!

So dear National Forum readers, this comment is my view of gay marriage... and for the record, I do consider my self christian and its purely on the basis of love and compassion (as spelled out in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7) that gay marriage can be justified under christian principles.

'The word "sin" has no place in my vocabulary '

No doubt Louisa. The 'progressives'have certainly redefined language to santise repulsive actions.

As always, runner, you demonstrate an amazing ability to confuse motes and logs.

So Adam,
You seem to think that *other people*, who do not share your religion, have some sort of obligation to pander to *your* religion's behavioural prescription. You further think that a failure of these people (who do not even share your religion) to act according to your preferences is an infringement of *your* rights.

I think you are a twit, a spoiled twit whose religious views just happen to have been sheltered beyond coddling by coercive force.

You, your views and your religion simply aren't that important. I wish you great frustration and disappointment.

The "bible" that *you* believe tells *you* how to live instructs *you* to mind your *own* sins foremost rather than those of others. Do get on with it.

Rusty

Yes, what we all need to keep us in line is all of the "moral"-codes that informed the practice of old-time religion - as described here:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last, save one. 10 And runner did step forward, and said unto Jesus, I is I lord. I alone am without sin, I beseech you: let me cast the stone. 11 And Jesus said, By our own hand, runner. 12 And runner took a great stone and smote the woman mightily. 13 And Jesus was seen to shake his head and heard to mutter, Christ, why do I even bother?
- Runner 8:1-13

The arguments made by the NO campaign are very bit as stupid as those proffered by the YES campaign, two sets of social misfits and lunatics arguing over an issue which doesn't exist outside the ever shrinking humanist milieu. The really amusing aspect of this "debate" is that it's really just an extended argument within the husk of European Christianity, the puritanical NO campaign is beset by the heresy of the YES campaign, they both believe in the same principles of equality, fraternity and justice but represent two extremes of the faith.
So now we have a third and even less constructive aspect to the "Marriage Equality" debate, added to the cynical moves to use the issue to unseat the prime minister and the spurious claims by a few homosexuality advocates the whole unseemly mess just flows farther and farther round the S-bend and on to it's ultimate and rightful destination.

I am a Darwinist and believe that evolution is about propagation of the species. Hence homosexuality is unnatural by definition. As it seems to be a product of a genetic fault, rather than environment, we need to encourage homosexuals not to breed children. We are already on the path of breeding out genetic malformations by aborting foetuses where such can be detected. So far homosexualty cannot be detected in the womb.

Outrider,"So far homosexualty cannot be detected in the womb."
So what does that tell you?
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in equality so the solution I'd propose is a new act of parliament via a "Same Sex Union and Marriage Diversity Bill", a separate category of spousal union to be recognised in by the state.

//Hence homosexuality is unnatural by definition.//

By definition of what? You can't just say 'such-and-such is such-and-such, by definition' without actually defining at least one of the terms.

//As it seems to be a product of a genetic fault, rather than environment, we need to encourage homosexuals not to breed children.//

A curiously persistent 'fault'. There is an obvious selective pressure against such a trait persisting - those that inherit the trait are unlikely to naturally sire or bear children. Without some sort of selective pressure in favour of homosexuality it is unlikely the trait would persist; genetic drift is not sufficient to account for it's survival.

There are many theories as to what this selective pressure might be. There is some evidence to suggest that females who are more likely to give birth to homosexual sons are more are also more likely to give birth to more fertile daughters.

It's the propagation of the species that is important: if the genes that produce gay people allow for better survival of straight people, and most of those of straight people go on to breed... have you read the Selfish Gene?

Toni,
Homosexual men were useful to society in the past, as soldiers, sailors, herdsmen etc, men who lived on the perimeter of society but acted as guardians to the farmers and their families. Western man has been neutered by Christianity, particularly since the 19th century, gays haven't been immune to this process either, put 'em back in uniform and let 'em loose on ISIS I say.

Outrider,
I am interested in how you will distinguish Homosexuals who breed from heterosexuals who won't answer your survey questions. Any homosexual who breeds has already defeated your criteria for isolating him/her from the "breeding" population. The seemingly maladaptive strategy of "not breeding" while assisting a breeding relative has been discussed in a very accessible manner by Richard Dawkins, and more thoroughly by others more qualified. The particular internal cognitive reasons why individuals don't breed are irrelevant if their labour helps the tribe or clan, and if they *do* breed, how will you argue their unfitness to do so? Proponents of "eugenics" (and "law") historically display spectacular failures to separate "what I like" from "what is genuinely advantageous".

Rusty

Uncontrolled population growth is a tremendous problem. Sustainable growth is nonsense. The earth and its resources are limited in extent. Homosexuals can breed but are less likely to. Possibly all or most people have have tendencies toward both heterosexual and homosexual orientation. It makes good sense from the standpoint of the world's limited resources to encourage homosexuality.

//Homosexual men were useful to society in the past, as soldiers, sailors, herdsmen etc, men who lived on the perimeter of society but acted as guardians to the farmers and their families. Western man has been neutered by Christianity, particularly since the 19th century, gays haven't been immune to this process either, put 'em back in uniform and let 'em loose on ISIS I say.//

An interesting perspective. Homosexual bonding was encouraged within Spartan society, as it was believed that a soldier would fight harder to protect those he loved than for any other motivation. What better way to encourage team bonding than to have your soldiers love one another - and hate the other guy.

Frankly, I see a lot of similar behaviour in televised football. They've turned down the violence a lot, but the gay is still turned up to eleven.

Dear David,

I thought that this thread was about freedom of religion, not about homosexuality or its (undeniable) possible benefits to society. Most of those who advocate gay-marriage today do it purposefully in order to crush what-they-perceive-as-religion, rather than due to having any real feelings for homosexuals or even the planet.

Take your suggestion: "It makes good sense from the standpoint of the world's limited resources to encourage homosexuality": I wonder whether your friends in the gay-marriage movement would similarly embrace: "It makes good sense from the standpoint of the world's limited resources to encourage monasticism"?

//"It makes good sense from the standpoint of the world's limited resources to encourage monasticism"?//

Yeah, I'm up for that. As long as the monasticism doesn't have to involve religious devotion.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "Most of those who advocate gay-marriage today do it purposefully in order to crush what-they-perceive-as-religion, rather than due to having any real feelings for homosexuals or even the planet."

How do you know why those who advocate gay-marriage today do it? What verification is there for your statement? I can't read anybody else's mind. How do you do it?

Toni Lavis, I laughed at your version of the Bible quote with Jesus and the adulteress.
Very clever : )

I have already expressed my thoughts on marriage equality many times on this forum, and still no one can really tell me how allowing gays to legally marry will affect anyone else at all. It certainly won't make one iota of difference to my life.

One of the best discussions on this issue I have heard was on Q & A on the ABC TV on Monday night. The PM's well spoken Gay sister Christine Forster was discussing her hopes to marry her partner.
A really interesting 'alternative Christian', Cornel West, was saying he lived by the basic philosophy of loving his neighbours and his enemies, and did not find any reason not to allow gays to legally marry.

The host Tony Jones went on to ask him:

"TONY JONES: Cornel, some Christians are going to quote back at you. I know you’re a sort of Biblical scholar as well, but some Christians are going to quote back at you Paul's epistle to the Romans.

CORNEL WEST: Yes. Yes. And Paul’s got much to say about other things.

TONY JONES: Yeah.

CORNEL WEST: Absolutely but Jesus, of course, is silent on the issue.

CHRISTINE FORSTER: He was a good guy.

CORNEL WEST: I mean, you would think if it was such a pressing issue, he would have dropped a word here or there."

Lol!

Dear Tony,

Like a cake without sugar (or other sweeteners), a garden without plants or a bed without a mattress, monasticism without devotion looks to me like a military camp or a prison.

Suit yourself, but is this what you advocate?

---

Dear David,

True, its just my gut feeling from reading the comments here, especially as none of the homosexuals I know cares about being married, so lets take an honest survey among gay-marriage supporters:

1. Would you support the legal marriage of two celibate monks (or two nuns)?
2. If homosexuality was still illegal and you found that the church was secretly performing religious marriages of homosexuals, would you inform authorities?
3. If a certain small percentage of the population had a bucket-fetish, would you currently support them legally marrying a bucket?
4. Would you change your answer to #3 if you knew that the church is strongly and dogmatically opposed to marrying a bucket?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think you said it all when you said that it's your gut feeling.

There was no basis in fact for your statement.

From Wilson, Edward O., The Meaning of Human Existence by E. O. Wilson:

"The great religions are inspired by belief in an incorruptible deity - or multiple kinds of deities, who may also constitute an all-powerful family. They perform services invaluable to civilization. Their priests bring solemnity to the rites of passage through the cycle of life and death. They sacralise the basic tenets of civil and moral law, comfort the afflicted, and take care of the desperately poor. Inspired by their example, followers strive to be righteous in the sight of man and God. The churches over which they preside are centers of community life. When all else fails, these sacred places, where God dwells immanent on earth, become ultimate refuges against the iniquities and tragedies of secular life. They and their ministers make more bearable tyranny, war, starvation, and the worst of natural catastrophes.

The great religions are also, and tragically, sources of ceaseless and unnecessary suffering. They are impediments to the grasp of reality needed to solve most social problems in the real world. Their exquisitely human flaw is tribalism. The instinctual force of tribalism in the genesis of religiosity is far stronger than the yearning for spirituality. People deeply need membership in a group, whether religious or secular. From a lifetime of emotional experience, they know that happiness, and indeed survival itself, require that they bond with others who share some amount of genetic kingship, language, moral beliefs, geographical location, social purpose and dress code preferably all of these but at least two or three for most purposes. It is tribalism, not the moral tenets and humanitarian thought of pure religion, that makes good people do bad things.

continued

continued

Unfortunately a religious group defines itself foremost by its creation story, the supernatural narrative that explains how humans came into existence. And this story is also the heart of tribalism. No matter how gentle and high-minded, or subtly explained, the core belief assures its members that God favors them above all others. It teaches that members of other religions worship wrong gods, use wrong rituals, follow false prophets, and believe fantastic creation stories. There is no way around the soul-satisfying but cruel discrimination that organized religion must practice among themselves. I doubt there ever has been an imam who suggested that his followers try Catholicism or a priest who urged the reverse."

So your gut feeling is that the aim of those who support same sex marriage is to crush religion.

It might be a very good thing to crush religion, but I doubt that those who support same-sex marriage have that noble aim.

"I have already expressed my thoughts on marriage equality many times on this forum, and still no one can really tell me how allowing gays to legally marry will affect anyone else at all. "

Maybe there is a positive side to the whole issue for Christians, Suseonline?

'Accepting' of same sex marriage could be an easy way to guarantee redemption for them. Remember [and this is quoting Jesus!] the two verses after the 'Lord's Prayer'...

"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." [Matt 6:14-15]

Seems like baking a wedding cake is one way to get into Heaven?

Dear David,

This is why I was very careful to state that my gut-feeling (which has not changed so far and comes as a result of reading OLO comments), is that the true aim of those who support same sex marriage is to crush WHAT-THEY-PERCEIVE-AS-RELIGION, rather than religion itself (which most of them either have no clue about or believe that it doesn't exist).

Rites of passage can be performed in either a religious spirit or a tribal spirit. I admit that it might look the same to the naked eye, thus while I care little about the tribal aspect, I find it of utmost importance to allow all tribal expression, even such expression which I personally find disgusting or outrageous, for this very reason that gems of true religiosity can be so easily overlooked.

Yuyutsu,

How does one objectively determine what is "true religiosity" and what is not "true religiosity"? And how do you know that what "they-perceive-to-be-religion" is different from what actual religion is?

Sparta got wrecked, and in the space of only a few centuries - Sparta could not arrest its decline, and could not grow out of its disgustingly brutal caste system with its sadistic cruelty towards, and pathetic dependency on, the Helots. The Spartans' cultish homoeroticism clearly helped sustain such an irrational and unbalanced political culture and anti-social degeneracy.

Corinth, Thebes and even Athens rained Hell on Sparta, and no-one misses it but some pseudo-classicist macho-homoerotic fantasists.

Sparta became a joke among the Hellenes, notwithstanding the homoerotic fantasies Sparta obviously perpetuates til today. A degenerate society and culture which could not even produce any sculpture or architecture beyond some few crude and infantile relics eliciting by turn amusement, pity and bewilderment when viewed against the glories of their Hellenic neighbours.

Interesting that the Sparta fantasists here on OLO ignore the fact that Sparta's homoerotic cult was actually based on an active sponsorship of pederasty. Sshh! Don't mention the rock spiders - it could upset our pet pseuodo-scientific theory about the Clockwork Orange and its predetermined/genetic sexual orientation!

Of course, a closer historical comparison in time, space and practices is the Notfolk Island penal colony where for a long period the majority of inmates were in de facto (but still sham) "marital" status all to the satisfaction of many warders and governors who often seemed more depraved than many of the convicts.

Craig Minns: Adam, I'm still waiting to have a really good explanation of what the "consequences" are for Christians in allowing homosexual couples to regularise their relationships as marriage?

You are being disingenuous by not acknowledging the suppression of freedom that has resulted from legalisation of SSM overseas.

Brendan O’Neill of ‘The Spectator’ observed that wherever same-sex ‘marriage’ has been legalised, “it has battered freedom, not boosted it. Debate has been chilled, dissenters harried, critics tear-gassed. Love and marriage might go together like horse and carriage, but freedom and gay marriage certainly do not. ...There are awkward questions the ‘freedom to marry’ folks just can’t answer. Like: if gay marriage is a liberal cause, how come it’s been attended by authoritarianism wherever it’s been introduced?” (Read more at http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9390702/gay-marriage-and-the-death-of-freedom/)

In France, those hundreds of thousands who marched against legalisation , were branded bigots, subjected to police beatings and tear gas, and arrested for holding ‘unauthorised protests’. In effect, critics of SSM were denied the right to protest and turned into ‘ideological enemies’ of the French state.

One of the first things the LGBT lobby in Britain did when they won the right to marry was to deny religious freedom by demanding Catholic schools be forced to teach that SSM is as good as straight, even though they do not believe this. In the words of the author Damon Linker, a supporter of SSM, the LGBT demands ‘psychological acceptance’ of gay marriage from all.

In the USA, the LGBT has been very aggressive in ‘controlling’ SSM opponents. O’Neill quotes Linker as saying “Americans who raise even a peep of criticism of gay marriage face ‘ostracism from public life’ … the gay-marriage brigade has created a menacing climate, where the aim seems to be to ‘stamp out rival visions’. Americans who fail to bow at the altar of same-sex hitching, from wedding photographers to cake-makers, are harassed and boycotted and sometimes put out of business. The ‘freedom to marry’ clearly trumps the freedom of conscience.”

In Canada where SSM has been legal since 2005, Michael Coren reported in National Review (New York), June 11 2012:
“It’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. And this estimate doesn’t take into account the casual dismissals that surely have occurred.

“In 2011, for example, a well-known television anchor on a major sports show was fired just hours after he tweeted his support for ‘the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage’. He had merely been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving numerous death threats and other abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign.

“The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage. He is hardly a reactionary — he used to be known as ‘Red Fred’ because of his support for the labour movement — but the archdiocese eventually had to settle with the complainants to avoid an embarrassing and expensive trial.

“The Canadian litany of pain, firings, and social and political polarisation and extremism is extraordinary and lamentable, and we haven’t even begun to experience the mid- and long-term results of this mammoth social experiment. I seldom say it, but for goodness’ sake learn something from Canada.”

Thank you, Raycom,

It is indeed my feeling that there is no authentic movement of homosexuals who want to marry (those who want can already marry now anyway, without the blessings of the state), that those who pretend to speak on behalf of homosexuals would stop at nothing but banning religion and burning all religious people at the stake, even those who have been marrying homosexual couples for years in their liberal churches - the latter will be pursued later on some other pretext.

Raycom, thanks for the response, it has taken some time. From your response, it appears you don't see any "consequences" other than the possible discriminatory treatment of those (Christians or otherwise) who choose to make a protest about the implementation of marriage equality. Am I correct in saying that?

I agree with you that those things are deplorable, but they are not the result of marriage equality, they are the result of stupid people being narrow-minded on both sides. Ecumenism is what has enabled the various religious groups to live together in harmony and it is what is required in this case as well.

It's a classic game-theory problem - the deadlock game.

http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/games/Deadlock.html

As can be seen, there is a best-case scenario in which cooperation occurs - characterised in the grid given above as [defect/defect] - whereby both parties to the conflict agree to forego some aspect of their best-case outcome in order to achieve a better overall outcome than is available if both sides insist on standing on their digs, or if one side "wins" at the expense of the other's defeat, which can only lead to further discord.

What you have done, in highlighting some bad outcomes that you see as caused by proponents of marriage equality is to play a different game altogether - the game of chicken.

http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/games/HawkDove.html

In this game, there is no possibility of cooperation - the rules of the game create such a huge disparity between the best outcome and second best, that there is an enormous incentive to "stay the course" (as long as noone thinks about it too much). This incentive is reinforced by barracking from the sidelines.

It's not a new game either.

Yuyutsu, if it is reasonable for someone to do something WITHOUT the blessing of the State, then what harm can there be in the State bestowing its imprimatur for doing that same thing?

Dear Craig,

The harm is in expanding a government function. This means more public-servants, which apart from taking our tax-money and keeping records about our private lives, support the continuing existence of government and its functions because they and their families depend on it for their livelihood. For every public servant there could be perhaps 10 or so people who support the government (through elections) because they don't want to see their relative out of job.

Yes, I support marriage equality - by disassociating the state from personal relationships altogether.

As I wrote earlier, I don't believe that those who currently promote marriage-equality have a genuine interest in that: they only use it as a pretext to bash the religious.

Hi Yuyutsu,
government already registers marriages.

You're welcome to argue that they shouldn't, as indeed GY has tried to do in bit of politically pragmatic hairsplitting, but that's not the issue being discussed.

In the original post to this thread, I asked:

"I'm still waiting to have a really good explanation of what the "consequences" are for Christians in allowing homosexual couples to regularise their relationships as marriage?

Marriage isn't a Christian exclusive. Do Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or other faith groups who also marry in a faith tradition similarly cause consequences for Christianity?"

This is the 49th post in the thread and nobody has answered yet.

Surely one of the very passionate people (presumably some of whom identify as Christian) who oppose marriage equality can give me a reply to those questions?

Dear Craig,

I'm neither a Christian, nor opposing marriage equality, hence I'm probably not the person to ask. Yet you did ask me in your last post, so I gave you my answer.

As this discussion is already raging, I just see it as an opportunity to dissolve one of the unnecessary government functions, one of too many. If the marriage-equality people are genuine, then they should not object, nor should Christians.

CM: "Do Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or other faith groups who also marry in a faith tradition similarly cause consequences for Christianity? This is the 49th post in the thread and nobody has answered yet."

Craig, maybe no-one answered it yet because it was so obviously a logical fallacy to compare Gay pretences to "marry" with the actually parallel marriage traditions of such faiths beside Christianity. Your comparison makes no sense.

So there's a short answer. Further explanation could include reference to an apparently profound alienation among those Gays and fellow travelers who yearn to be regarded as somehow equivalent to an oppressed and victimised group, as if in some marginalised and stigmatised minority religion. That would reveal an ulterior, personal motive arising from deep insecurities on the part of those pushing the Agenda.

In fact, the typically lavish and highly publicised Gay celebrations of such make-believe unions, with so many brainwashed joining in the futile "best wishes", flowers, cakes, etc., all point to a new and contrived elite backed by the media and regime apparatchiks, hardly any oppressed victims. Their censorious and aggressive attacks do the rest.

Another reason your comparison has no steam is that misses perhaps the most important and positive aspect of actual marriage: the other non-Christian religions of your attempted comparison all celebrate a measure of success marrying adults of the opposite sex, in the hope that such marriage will produce the ideal and exemplary balance and dynamism of a true effort towards life-affirming harmony and propagation of the Species.

By contrast, a Gay imitation would be a sham or mockery of such genuine marriage, as in the mock wedding between the pederast-fascist and the kidnapped boy depicted in Pasolini's 'Salo'. Besides actual mockery, it would also in effect be a celebration only of a quite fundamental failure to effect that genuine achievement recognised in actual marriage since ancient practice, and across all ethnic, religious and class divides. May as well celebrate divorce, or even a failed heart bypass.

Celebration of failure would be only another sop to those who deem themselves "Too Big To Fail".

Interesting Craig, that other eastern religion you did not mention: Taoism.

Now there's a very simple and direct answer from a non-Christian faith which expresses quite succinctly my essential points in one beautiful ancient symbol, no written language needed.

//Now there's a very simple and direct answer from a non-Christian faith which expresses quite succinctly my essential points in one beautiful ancient symbol, no written language needed.//

I'll see your Yin-Yang, and raise you the past phi-thousand years of Western philosophy.

I still think gays should be allowed get married. Got any better reasons why not than groovy symbols?

TL: "I still think gays should be allowed get married. Got any better reasons why not than groovy symbols?"

Yeah, a frequently apparent smug flippancy, with shallowness and superficiality in arguing their case. Not all gays, of course - Pasolini for example wouldn't have entertained such nonsense for a minute.

Got anything better to contribute, or is it just more "Cos I wanna"?

//Yeah, a frequently apparent smug flippancy, with shallowness and superficiality in arguing their case. Not all gays, of course - Pasolini for example wouldn't have entertained such nonsense for a minute.

Got anything better to contribute, or is it just more "Cos I wanna"?//

If that is your best attempt at a reasoned argument no wonder you are losing the debate.

BTW I'm straight. Assumption is the mother of all fcuk-ups.

I knew you were going to come back with that. The foul abuse is no surprise either.

My reference to "Cos I wanna" is simply my identification of your shallow principle (more lack thereof), by which whatever a middle-class westerner wants should be allowed.

I expect next you'll write that your working class, part-Asian, religious, whatever

Case proven, floor wiped

//The foul abuse is no surprise either.//

It's a surprise to me that you could read foul abuse into that post. I guess some people only see what they want to see.

I must be a bit thick, mil.observer, I didn't see any "consequences" for Christians listed in your post. In fairness, I may have missed it among the non-sequiturs, so if that's the case, please indulge me by reiterating it.

A suitable form of such a response might be:

"The consequence that Christians would suffer as a result of marriage equality being ratified in law is [...]".

Other forms of words that are similarly concise and lucid could be substituted as preferred.

Craig Minns, you cannot be correct when you continue to be disingenuous.

The unstated objective of SSM proponents is to trample the institution of traditional marriage and all those who support it. Suppression of freedoms is inherent.

What has transpired in Canada is pertinent. Bradley Miller’s article ‘Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada’ (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/ ) contains the following observations.

The Impact on Human Rights

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.

A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.

Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

(cont.)
The Right to Freedom of Expression

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.

Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly. Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians.

But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s magazine spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.

Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.

Raycom, all that and I still don't have a clear understanding of what the consequence is for Christians.

Is it your thesis that because marriage has been regularised as a formal contractual arrangement that is available to all people who wish to form a one-to-one personal relationship as a framework for living their life, Christians who wish to exercise what they perceive as their right to vilify homosexual relationships are thereby disadvantaged?

In other words, are you saying that my right to call you a theologically ignorant buffoon who shouldn't be allowed out in public without a leash around your neck and a muzzle on because you might bite one of my children and infect it with whatever nasty disease it is that caused you to be this way should be so fundamental that it should override your right to swear an oath of love to someone you wish to share your life with?

I know I'm probably being disingenuous, but I'm sure I can rely on you to tell me what I really think..

(SSM impact on freedoms in Canada Cont.)
Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

Parental Rights in Public Education

Institutionalizing same-sex marriage has subtly but pervasively changed parental rights in public education. The debate over how to cast same-sex marriage in the classroom is much like the debate over the place of sex education in schools, and of governmental pretensions to exercise primary authority over children. But sex education has always been a discrete matter, in the sense that by its nature it cannot permeate the entirety of the curriculum. Same-sex marriage is on a different footing.

Since one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect that we give marriage, its proponents have been remarkably successful in demanding that same-sex marriage be depicted positively in the classroom. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices.

The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely. Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance”—they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.

The reforms, of course, were not sold to the public as a matter of enforcing the new orthodoxy. Instead, the stated rationale was to prevent bullying; that is, to promote the acceptance of gay and lesbian youth and the children of same-sex households

It becomes clearer that the problem is not same-sex marriage, but the anti-discrimination laws.

Discrimination is one of the most important faculties of life gifted to us. Discrimination is good. It allows us to differentiate between good and evil, between truth and error, ultimately between the illusory world and God.

This is what the mob behind "same-sex equality" bitterly hates. They want to live in a bland, stupefied society with a uniform lifestyle of the lowest common denominator, so they cannot encounter others who by living differently remind them of their sins.

If they have their way now, they could next struggle for true marriage equality - that one should only be allowed to get their spouse through a random lottery, otherwise isn't it unfair that ugly women and short men are never selected...

(SSM impact on freedoms in Canada Cont.)

It is a laudable goal to encourage acceptance of persons. But whatever can be said for the objective, the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children’s best interests. It frustrates the ability of parents to lead their children to an understanding of marriage that will be conducive to their flourishing as adults. At a very early age, it teaches children that the underlying rationale of marriage is nothing other than the satisfaction of changeable adult desires for companionship.

Religious Institutions’ Right to Autonomy

At first glance, clergy and houses of worship appeared largely immune from coercion to condone or perform same-sex marriages. Indeed, this was the grand bargain of the same-sex marriage legislation—clergy would retain the right not to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. Houses of worship could not be conscripted against the wishes of religious bodies.

It should have been clear from the outset just how narrow this protection is. It only prevents clergy from being coerced into performing marriage ceremonies. It does not, as we have seen, shield sermons or pastoral letters from the scrutiny of human rights commissions. It leaves congregations vulnerable to legal challenges if they refuse to rent their auxiliary facilities to same-sex couples for their ceremony receptions, or to any other organization that will use the facility to promote a view of sexuality wholly at odds with their own.

That's awesome, Raycom. It would be nice if you could just answer the really simple question that was addressed to you though.

Yuyutsu, the problem is not the anti-discrimination laws, it is that some people think they should be exempt.

Dear Craig,

The idea as if some people (i.e. the state and those representing it) have a right to order others, under threat of violence (which is what the law is about) with whom they may or may not engage, is sickening to the core.

Nobody should be subjected to such decrees.

If you don't like bigots, then you have many other avenues to show it. You can talk and write against them, you can blacklist and boycott their businesses, you can tell your kids not to play with theirs, etc.

What you have absolutely no moral right to do, is to threaten them: "if you refuse to provide service to such-and-such, then I will confiscate your assets and throw you in jail". That's pure and unjustifiable violence.

Yuyutsu, mate, without the rule of Law, which has to involve the threat of coercion, there is no society.

If you find it intolerable to live with the threat of consequences for your actions, legal or otherwise, then I suggest you're sh!t out of luck.

Dear Craig,

If I allow others to coerce others in my name, then I would have to live with the consequences of being an accessory to coercion.

The specific issues discussed on this thread do not affect me personally in any significant way, but if I allow X to coerce Y in my name only in situations when Y is threatening to hurt X, then I am only an accessory to self-defence, while if I allow X to coerce Y in my name just because X desires to achieve their petty goals through coercing Y, then I am fully guilty as well and will have to live with the consequences, which might well include that tomorrow X or Y would coerce me on other matters that are most important to me.

If you find it intolerable to live with the law of karma, then I suggest you're sh!t out of luck.

YuYutsu:

“It becomes clearer that the problem is not same-sex marriage, but the anti-discrimination laws.”

The problem is that such anti-discrimination laws exist without any burden of proof upon those who claim discrimination. This is much more of a worry than same-sex marriage. For discrimination to be present you have to be able to prove that some other group has something which you are being denied on the basis of some characteristic or trait that you have such as gender or race. It is easy enough to prove the first part but how do you prove the second part if that trait is sexual orientation? How do you even define such a thing and if you can define it in such a way that everyone could agree upon then how do you prove that a particular individual has that trait and deserves protection from discrimination. It is simple to tell what race a person is or what gender but how do you prove sexual orientation?

As it stands anyone examining a case of discrimination simply takes the word of the claimant as true without any need for proof. It is just accepted that the claimant’s own analysis of his behaviour is sufficient. In what other area of law would such laxity be allowed? If a murderer analysed his own behaviour and declared it was not murder would the judge just accept that and let him off?

There has to be some objective measure of what is sexual orientation otherwise the laws are a joke. Homosexual people are changing the face of things like the education curriculum just by claiming discrimination. They know they do not have to prove it so they will just keep pushing as far as they can go.

I wonder how the references to actions taken against opponents of same sex marriage would stack up against a dossier of harm done to homosexuals by religious fundamentalists and those partly inspired by their bigotry.

I can remember when the term "poofter bashing" was not all that rare. I can recall a number of famous actors who have felt the need to hide their sexuality for all or most of their lives because of the backlash if being gay was acknowledged. Plenty of rumours around of some still feeling the need to do that. I can recall when being same sex orientated was regarded as a security risk because exposure was a blackmail risk. There are still places in the world where homosexual acts can lead to a death penalty http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death/ I'm sure others could quickly add to the list.

Vandalising an office is not a legitimate activity but I find the moral outrage over acts such as that hard to take seriously while so much harm to homosexuals is still so recent in our past and to some extent ongoing.

R0bert

Dear Phanto,

What you describe is an additional problem.

Thanks for pointing that out, but what I referred to as the problem was the very existence of anti-discrimination laws that criminalise individuals for something they refuse to do - whatever that something is.

Forcing people to perform a job they don't want to do, for whatever reason, amounts to slavery.

Forcing people to give or sell something they don't want to give, for whatever reason, amounts to robbery.

It's that simple!

(and it's also my 4th post for today, so I won't be able to reply further till tomorrow)

Robert:

The fact that some people were treated badly in the past or are being treated badly in other countries in the present is no excuse for destroying someone else’s property in the present. If revenge becomes the law of the land then what does that say about homosexual people?

It is de-humanising to act that way. There are many groups and individuals who have been treated badly throughout history but have maintained their dignity and not lowered themselves to such primitive responses.

De-facing someone’s property might not be a major crime but it says something about the person who does it. It says they are not content with obtaining justice they want to lash out and hurt someone who has done nothing more than express an opinion which they did not like.

"... and to some extent ongoing."

Yes R0bert, such as this from a few days ago:

http://www.sott.net/article/297690-Young-man-in-Delta-Utah-attacked-robbed-had-the-words-die-fag-carved-into-his-arm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwhBnGvYZ6U

"There has to be some objective measure of what is sexual orientation otherwise the laws are a joke."

No phanto, the basis of discrimination laws is predicated upon the act of an offender based upon their perception of a legally protected status.

For example, there is no objective measure of what is a person's religious belief - only their assertion of it. Yet there are laws providing relief based upon this. Are they a joke? The laws, that is, not the people...

CM: “A suitable form of such a response...” Nah, you're the one who needs to get “suitable”: you failed entirely to engage with substantive points of argument.

Craig, you must have had trouble with English comprehension tasks at school. I admire your courage in affixing your name to the posts though – me, I'm a scaredy cat because I want to minimise the hassle I've already had, especially in workplaces, from bigots enforcing their rule of bogus identity politics and the distraction it succeeds in making in order to impoverish our entire political culture.

Craig, try take issue with any of my substantive points. Who knows? You might be able to grasp something of a different world view and sense of life's purpose.

Yuyutsu:
"What you describe is an additional problem."

Well I think the problem I describe encompasses yours. If my problem was solved so would yours and dozens of others.

WmTrevor:

"No phanto, the basis of discrimination laws is predicated upon the act of an offender based upon their perception of a legally protected status."

Well I am saying such laws should not exist for homosexual people until such time as there is a method of proof like there is with race and gender.

"For example, there is no objective measure of what is a person's religious belief - only their assertion of it. Yet there are laws providing relief based upon this. Are they a joke?"

Yes they're a joke as well.

Phanto, it doesn't matter what the claimant says, if there is no discrimination, there is no case.

However, I do tend to agree with you that the anti-discrimination laws have tended to expand to fill the space available. As in any evolutionary process, if a niche becomes available, then some form of creature will evolve to inhabit it. In some cases, those creatures act in a way that will expand their niche. This is precisely the case with lawyers of all types and just one of the reason that the doctrine of Separation of Powers is so important, in its capacity to limit the excessive expansion of any of the arms of the legislative/legal complex of the State.

It may be time to think about expanding that doctrine to include the other players that didn't exist at the time of the early Westminster Parliaments, such as corporations of all types - for-profit and otherwise, professional advocacy groups, lobby groups (which are already regulated) and so on. While these groups have no formal role in the process, there is no doubt that their often-murky dealings with Parliament are highly influential and cause significant skewing of decision-making.

Yuyutsu, if you believe in karma, why are you worried about the law? On the other hand, if you don't like the rule of law, then you may need to find a desert island somewhere that nobody else already has a claim to and set up your own anarcho-religious society. good luck with that. Look up "New Australia" for an instructive example.

R0bert, I'm not comfortable with an argument that goes along the lines of "because that happened then, this is justified now", except to the extent that it is designed to prevent "that" happening now and is carefully examined as to its consequences in other ways.

MO, I'm sure your POV is terribly interesting to you, but I'm a simple man and all I need is an answer to the simple question that I asked nearly 80 posts ago. Have you got one?

CM, you got a thorough answer to a question you asked, then you claimed, "poor victim", that you haven't been answered because you choose instead to isolate a separate previous question upon which that second question was based. That's dishonest, and a dishonest agenda reveals a fraudulent campaign using dirty and brutal tactics.

But your tactic is obvious to any who care to reflect on it: your mention of brutal "game theory" revealed itself earlier. That is how you intend to keep on your own agenda with its fatally flawed assumption and false comparison between "non-Christian marriage" and the sham, fake and pretend Gay "marriage" your agenda seeks to impose ie, by squealing "victim of discrimination".

Your two questions' together, and their assumed comparisons, would be offensive to all those faithful to such traditions and their life-affirming perpetuation of actual marriage.

Your two questions together are not simple but simplistic in that they treat the subjects of (your preferred) comparison in a brutal and unjust manner, as we are familiar from any who pose false argument.

Such brutality and its attendant arrogance and disregard for its subjects of comparison would hint at just why most countries still oppose your sham agenda on basic human rights grounds.

Such brutality and dishonesty in your two questions together would also confirm the aptness of my references to both recent and ancient history where the personal inadequacies and failures in the many Gay Nazis, including Hitler, and cultish-pederast Spartans inspired a brutal lashing out at those who had not submitted to their fatally flawed, stunted and brutal identities and world view.

//De-facing someone’s property might not be a major crime but it says something about the person who does it. It says they are not content with obtaining justice they want to lash out and hurt someone who has done nothing more than express an opinion which they did not like.//

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI

So the centurion was lashing out at the romans for expressing opinions he didn't like? Wait, I'm confused...

Maybe people write on walls for all sorts of reasons.

Dear Phanto,

<<Well I think the problem I describe encompasses yours. If my problem was solved so would yours and dozens of others.>>

I don't have a personal problem as such because it's really none of my concerns what race, gender, nationality, sexual preference, etc. others have.

My problem is that others, calling themselves "state" or "government", are doing unacceptable or immoral things in my name. In this particular case, to force people to serve others or procure goods to them against their will - irrespective whether or not I sympathise with the reason(s), if any, of those who refuse to provide the given goods or services.

But let me give you an example and please tell me whether and how fixing your problem would also fix mine:

If I were to open a restaurant, then I would place a sign there:
"Sorry, no Muslim males allowed on these premises unless accompanied by their mothers".

and if you were to ask me for the reason, I would remain silent, so most people and courts would assume that I am a discriminating bigot.

So let me now disclose my real reason for this sign in the above example: I've heard that it's prevalent in the culture of Muslim men to disrespect "no smoking" signs, so I'm not willing to take any such risk and rather nip that possibility in the bud. Now the reason I would not tell you or the court why I placed this sign, is that had the public been knowing about my fears, then stupid youngsters (Muslim or otherwise) would likely come and defiantly light up in my restaurant, considering it "fun", thus I'd rather say "Yes, I'm a bigot" than disclose my true reason.

Now please tell me how solving your problem could also solve mine?

---

Dear Craig,

<<Yuyutsu, if you believe in karma, why are you worried about the law?>>

I didn't say that I'm worried - I just don't want this law (and laws in general) to exist since it is my duty to refuse immoral acts to be done in my name.

(SSM impact on freedoms in Canada cont. after 4th posting enforced break)

Neither does it prevent provincial and municipal governments from withholding benefits to religious congregations because of their marriage doctrine. For example, Bill 13, the same Ontario statute that compels Catholic schools to host "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs (and to use that particular name), also prohibits public schools from renting their facilities to organizations that will not agree to a code of conduct premised on the new orthodoxy. Given that many small Christian congregations rent school auditoriums to conduct their worship services, it is easy to appreciate their vulnerability.

So, Craig Minns, by legalising same-sex ‘marriage’, you want the totalitarian suppression of rights and freedoms as conducted by the Canadian human rights machine, imposed on Australians. Our authoritarian, pro-same-sex-marriage-biased Human Rights Commission would be jumping at the bit to play the totalitarian agent

Still waiting for an answer to the simple questions in my first post, Raycom, your obsessive cataloguing of the sanctions applied to silly people who can't manage to act in a civilised manner isn't it.

I could, if I chose, give you a much more extensive list of wrongs done to homosexual people in the name of the law, starting with the death of one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, Alan Turing, but since that, like your comments, have nothing whatever to do with my question, I won't bother.

I would have thought that perhaps the author could have answered my questions for himself, seeing he made the original claim, but apparently he's not able to either. Perhaps he just chose his words poorly and is embarrassed, so doesn't wish to appear and correct himself?

MO, see above.

CM, consider yourself exposed as a simple fraud

Thanks for exposing, via your evasions, that your "cause" is a fraudulent one derived from serial, general and specific failure such as your own

Dear Raycom,

Do Catholic schools in Canada accept government funds?
If so, then they deserve being pushed around as they do.
If not, then what you describe is extremely terrible.

Closer to the root of the problem is the very existence of public schools as well as handouts by provincial and municipal governments to private bodies.

The church has been comfortably in bed with the state/government for far too long, instead of calling from the rooftops that states as we know them are an abomination before God.

It's certainly uncomfortable to receive the other end of the stick, but it's a wake-up call.

---

Dear Craig,

<<the sanctions applied to silly people who can't manage to act in a civilised manner>>

Your jaws are wide open for all to see your canines.

It seems you believe that those who are either silly or are not interested in your civilisation, ought to punished - and that you have a right to do so, predator.

Sheesh, Yuyutsu, hysterical much?

MO, still waiting on that simple answer to simple questions. Any time you think you can answer it, have a go.

CM, as rational and self-disciplined readers can no doubt discern for themselves, your questions together are of that exact same dishonest type as that of the apocryphal nasty corrupt cops asking their target: "So, when did you start beating your wife/husband"

Therefore, judging by your dirty, shallow example, I expect that in the event of the bogus campaign succeeding in changing the marriage act there will indeed be more such interrogation of innocent people in genuine marriage relationships.

If you want "hysterical", go check the record on the private life of one AH, whose first boyfriend was one August "Gustl" Kubizek, whose own autobiographical account described his naked night in hay with the notorious ranting orator-in-waiting.

It appears that AH's fury and resentment derived in no small part from a seething over his serial relationships never being recognised by wider traditional society and religion, especially that of the Judeo-Christian variety then prevailing locally.

See: Machtan, Lothar, The Hidden Hitler, 2001

Raycom,

A reference or three would be handy.

Having ploughed my way through 14 or 15 pages of turgid prose, I am still looking for an answer to the question of what religious freedoms will be threatened by the introduction of same-sex marriage

//I am still looking for an answer to the question of what religious freedoms will be threatened by the introduction of same-sex marriage//

The freedom to believe homosexuality is immoral? No, wait, that doesn't work: until law-enforcement agencies start employing psychics it is impossible to police beliefs or thought-crimes. Thank the lord there are no psychics to be employed.

The freedom to say that homosexuality is immoral? No, wait, that doesn't work either. Speech is pretty free in this country but not entirely free, but any changes to the Marriage Act will not effect the already-existing laws that limit our freedom of speech. That horse has already bolted, for better or for worse.

The freedom for religious ministers not to conduct gay marriages on the grounds of conscience? I think that the freedom is likely to be enshrined in any changes to the Marriage Act. That is how it worked in England, who are culturally, politically and legally similar to Australia.

The freedom for bakers not to decorate cakes? Does this really count as a 'religious' freedom? Not a single one of the Good Books I've studied says anything on the lines of 'Thou shalt not decorate the cakes of thine enemies with words that vex thee'. Maybe I just missed the whole importance of cakes in religious devotion.

I'm stumped. Maybe somebody more religious than myself could detail exactly which of their liberties they think are likely to be curtailed and how this is likely to occur.

Toni Lavis:

“Maybe people write on walls for all sorts of reasons.” Such as? We are talking vandalism and the only reason for vandalism is to cause damage and hopefully to hurt someone else by the damage you cause. Are you saying that everyone should be free to write what they like where they like?

Yuyutsu:

How does your sign prevent old men who are neither Muslim or interested in ‘a bit of fun’ from lighting up? If the real point of the exercise is to stop people from smoking in your restaurant then you would want everyone to stop doing it so there is no need to single out Muslims in particular. It just looks like you have another agenda – to keep Muslims out of your restaurant. You are discriminating on the basis of religion. My point is that the Muslim person can prove your intention to discriminate but he also has to prove that he is indeed Muslim. He can’t do that but he can do everything else within the law to destroy your business and I would encourage him to do so.

Craig Minns:

“Phanto, it doesn't matter what the claimant says, if there is no discrimination, there is no case.”
Well consider the ‘gay cake’ incident. A heterosexual person could have pulled off the same stunt just because he hated Christians. He could have had the same kind of outcome and done the same amount of damage to the bakery because the Commission didn’t even bother to ask his sexual orientation. There would be no discrimination but try telling the baker there was no case

//Such as? We are talking vandalism and the only reason for vandalism is to cause damage and hopefully to hurt someone else by the damage you cause.//

You didn't watch the video, did you?

Dear Phanto,

EXACTLY. It LOOKS like I have another agenda, but actually I don't and unfortunately just as I cannot prove it to you, I couldn't prove it to the judge/jury either.

Perhaps I'm even mistaken in my judgement that the combination of the two signs would do the job: "No Muslim Males" and "No smoking", so what? to err is human and I'm still not motivated by religious discrimination!

Which points out that your partial reform is insufficient.

The practice I described, of placing such sign, is referred to as "profiling" and there is controversy regarding its morality or otherwise (google "morality of profiling"). HOWEVER, while the morality of profiling is dubious, and while I probably wouldn't place such a sign in real-life, I do not believe that the state is entitled to be a guardian of morality.

---

Dear Tony,

I could point out some infringements on religious freedom in Canada from Raycom's list, but that's not the point (and I've got only few words left).

I think we can agree that freedoms were infringed in Canada. Whether these were religious freedoms of otherwise is so individual that probably only a sage could tell who is able to look into someone else's heart-of-hearts. In any case, there's no chance in a million that a secular government with no clue about religion could tell the difference, hence freedom (including the freedom to discriminate) should be universal and unconditional.

Non-action (such as not providing services or goods) could indeed under certain circumstances be inconsiderate, even ugly, but it cannot be harmful in itself and one should be able to do or avoid doing whatever they want so long as they do not harm others. As I previously noted, forcing others to act/give against their will amounts to slavery/robbery.

Yuyutsu:

Why would you put up a sign saying you do not want Muslims when what you want is to stop people smoking on your premises? What other conclusion do you expect anyone to come to except that you are discriminating? That is the logical conclusion and the state has laws to protect people from that kind of discrimination. You cannot blame the state if it acts according to logic. The onus is then upon you to show how your behaviour was not discriminatory. You expect them to accept that your real intention was to stop smoking when you have not acted in the logical way that one would expect if their aim was to stop patrons from smoking.

If you want to be taken seriously in your restaurant endeavours then you must act seriously. You cannot act irrationally and expect the state to be able to interpret your behaviour as anything but what it logically appears to be. How many other reasons might you have for putting up a sign that says ‘no Muslims’? Should the state also have to presume these as well without being inside your head?

The state has a right to enforce laws against discrimination. This is not enforcing morality but enforcing what most citizens have agreed is justice. In a democracy we have to accept what the democratically framed laws decree. We do not have to agree with them but we are bound to comply or suffer the consequences.

I don’t think what I am proposing has relevance for your problem. Your problem seems quite different.

Dear Phanto,

Good, then we agree that we are discussing different problems.

I am not asking the state to presume anything or to know what's in my head, I only state the obvious, which is that people have no moral right to order others around against their will to perform a certain task, to sell something of theirs or to allow people on their private premises. The fact that a group of people call themselves "state", "government" or "democracy" doesn't change this obvious moral principle.

And if such a group of people claims to do the above on my behalf (on the pretext of democracy), claiming that I am a partner to their immorality, then it is my duty to protest and make it clearly known that they don't.

Lets now revisit your problem:

"The problem is that such anti-discrimination laws exist without any burden of proof upon those who claim discrimination."

So long as there still are anti-discrimination laws, judges must assume that the legislator assumed that discrimination is provable beyond reasonable doubt, so what could be a more obvious evidence than a sign saying "No Muslim Males"? Except that in the case I presented no discrimination actually took place. Ordinary people such as restaurateurs are not necessarily great philosophers, paragons of logic or fully informed: they could well and truly believe that placing such a sign and not disclosing why they did so is the best practical solution to their legitimate problem. Could anyone who is not clairvoyant prove otherwise?

Craig and phanto "R0bert, I'm not comfortable with an argument that goes along the lines of "because that happened then, this is justified now", except to the extent that it is designed to prevent "that" happening now and is carefully examined as to its consequences in other ways." and "The fact that some people were treated badly in the past or are being treated badly in other countries in the present is no excuse for destroying someone else’s property in the present."

I thought I was pretty clear here and elsewhere where I've made a similar point that I don't condone the vandalism (or other acts of people taking the law into their own hands).

My point is that those who scream the loudest when this is happening to those opposed to equal treatment for homosexual people don't seem to be outraged at far worse treatment dished out to homosexuals. Often they have been complicit in creating or actively supporting those who spread the hatred that leads to that harm. Generally very much do as I say not as I do on their part in my view. That does not justify the later actions but it does create a legitimate question mark over their actual concern for the issues they raise.

R0bert

Yuyutsu:

I think you are saying that you should have the right to refuse service in your restaurant for any reason you like but then you go on to tell us what that reason is. Why bother telling us the reason if all reasons are valid. You do not need to justify yourself because you go by the principle that any reason is good enough. The problem is that the government and other members of society do not agree with your principle and in a free society they have a right to challenge you. It is not about forcing their morality onto you it is about trying to solve a problem of two opposing opinions. This is done by logic and reason.

If the government believes there should be exceptions then it has every right to challenge you. Citizens also have a right to challenge you via the government and its anti-discrimination laws. You would have to present an argument as to why such exceptions should not be allowed. In this case you would have to show that you were not trying to discriminate against Muslims but were trying to stop them from smoking in your restaurant. In order to prevent Muslims from smoking you have banned them altogether whereas for everyone else a simple ’no-smoking’ sign seems enough for you. If anyone ignores your sign then the law is right behind you in having them removed.

The point is that your argument and your behaviour are not logical. What does seem logical is that you are discriminating against Muslims and without evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to charge you with discrimination. If you want people to believe you are not bigoted then you should not act in a bigoted way. Putting up a sign which says ‘No Muslims’ and expecting people to interpret that as ‘no smoking’ is illogical and these problems should be solved according to the rules of logic and reason

Dear Phanto,

<<I think you are saying that you should have the right to refuse service in your restaurant for any reason you like>>

Just a small correction: one should have the FREEDOM to refuse service... rather than "right".
Freedoms are natural while rights are artificial. Nobody, including the state, has granted us this unasked-for freedom and nobody has a right to take it away.

<<The problem is that the government and other members of society do not agree with your principle and in a free society they have a right to challenge you.>>

Indeed, they have every right to boycott my restaurant, they could even erect a fence around it if they want (on their own property).
What they have no right, is to drag me to court and punish me for exercising my free choice whom to serve and whom not, whom to allow on my piece-of-heaven and whom not.

<<If anyone ignores your sign then the law is right behind you in having them removed.>>

So what if I don't want/need the law behind me, perhaps because it cannot redress my problem and removing the offenders from my property is too late to help and ever repair the damage, especially the emotional damage which cannot be compensated for? What if I truly believed (rightly or wrongly) that my indirect strategy, including the part of not-disclosing it, is the best, the most effective?

<<If you want people to believe you are not bigoted>>

This would be very nice - a bonus, but perhaps I'm either unable or simply don't know how, to achieve both - to preserve the sanctity of my restaurant AND have the people understand me. Perhaps I had to give up on the latter, considering it a luxury...

Yuyutsu:

Your little piece of heaven can remain just that if you keep the doors shut. When you open it up to other people it does not mean that you have absolute rights over those people. One of those rights you lose is the right to discriminate unless you are prepared to accept the consequences. You have to decide whether you want to make money from your restaurant and if you do then you have become a part of society and you have to solve your problem in logical and reasonable ways like the rest of society.

Robert:

“Often they have been complicit in creating or actively supporting those who spread the hatred that leads to that harm.”

That maybe true but there is not much point in saying it. There are no laws against doing that – it is a by-product of free speech. Maintaining law and order is paramount and the minute those people who wish to harm homosexuals overstep that boundary then they should be forced to suffer the consequences.

Dear Phanto,

The city of Sodom, we are told, had a law: if you have a guest, then you must share him (sexually) with the rest of town. On that level you are right - such are the laws of society in which we live even as we speak and if this forum were a university course in legal studies, then I would receive an astounding F.

Yet my interest is in morality, rather than in existing laws, asking what is and what isn't acceptable for those who want to have and live in a society.

There never existed a "right to discriminate", which could therefore be subsequently lost, for the simple reason that I was never given that right by anyone. Instead, my freedom to discriminate is natural and innate, so the question turns around to be "who and on what grounds has a right to take my freedom away?".

Had it not been for those Australian laws that heavily restrict the use of other currencies, including private/communal currencies, had we been free to use [only] our own currency, then what you wrote could have been completely correct. In that case, it would be reasonable to condition the use of Australian dollars on following certain social norms on the basis of "don't like it - don't use it!". Since this is not the case, asking to be paid for my restaurant services is not a morally valid excuse to demand compliance.

When I open the door to my little piece of heaven, neither do I have absolute rights over the people who enter, nor they over me: instead, my rights and theirs should be determined by whatever is agreed between us, and whatever was agreed should then be followed. If no agreement is reached, then no-hard-feelings: I can stay in my little piece of heaven while they can stay outside.

I do not want to get side-tracked by discussions of Canadian legal experiences, smoking muslims or christian cake decorators!!

Can someone, anyone, name the religious freedoms that will be lost by allowing same-sex marriage?

If, as I suspect, such a list is not produced it will be because it cannot be produced. The reality is that permitting same sex marriage curtails NO religious freedom .

Dear Brian,

As far as I read and understand, nobody here believes or claims that permitting same sex marriage curtails religious freedom, but the topic here is "Same-sex marriage PUSH threatens religious freedoms": it's the act of PUSHING which creates those threats that we speak about, as well as the true intent of the pushers and their future plans to build on this symbolic achievement and deliberately use it to harass religious people, rather than some benign act of permitting people of the same sex to marry (which is already permitted anyway).

As an analogy, normally there's nothing threatening about buying bananas, but if you buy bananas for the purpose of leaving peels on the path so that somebody you hate slips and breaks their neck, then it is a threat.

Selling the notion of sin is a business, not a religion .

Given the benefit of doubt that if it is. religious freedoms meaning you have your right to falling in love and marry your Christ. no more no less ..

Yuyutsu,
you're projecting. The fact that some religious people make the claim that they feel threatened by the movement to have marriage equality recognised under the law does not make the claim true, nor does it make the threat real.

It does say quite a bit about the people who make that claim, however, not a lot of it good.

Dear Platt,

For the time-being at least, the notion of sin is free of charge and for the time-being, anyone still has a right to fall in love and marry Christ (or a broom if they prefer).

What I don't get, is why should the secular state want to register any of that.

---

Dear Craig,

My projections are based on the Canadian experience as described by Raycom. Do you disagree with the facts s/he provides, or do you believe that it couldn't happen in Australia? Do you believe that the marriage-equality movement would stop at "live-and-let-live"? If so, I truly hope that you are correct!

Yuyutsu,
the facts may or may not be correct, I haven't checked, but it doesn't matter, they are simply irrelevant. Do I believe that there could not be excessively exuberant use of anti-discrimination laws, here or elsewhere? No, that would be stupid. Once again though, that is not a reason to avoid the effort to advance human rights generally within this country, at most it is a reason to be careful in framing laws so as to make them fair and just for all parties.

In general, there isn't much that can be done to protect people who wish to try to make martyrs of themselves, so if some Christian zealots wish to behave in a way that might lead to their being exposed to reasonable enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, then they will have to cop the consequences.

Personally, I don't see why they can't just follow the whole "do unto others" rule, but that's for their own consciences to resolve.

Dear Craig,

You want to advance human rights... at the expense of other people's freedoms?

Is it anyone's "human right" to enter my property without my permission?

What has the fact that I happened to erect a restaurant there for those I invite to do with the fact that it is still my place? Does everyone have a right to eat my food just because I cook it?

Yes, I oppose human rights, because they come at the expense of human freedoms. First, do no evil.

Yuyutsu,
you're flogging a dead horse with those red herrings, mate.

Any right must have concomitant obligations. Your version of anarchic libertarianism is neither feasible nor desirable, as a quick look at places where the rule of law has broken down will show.

Anarchism is a lovely thought experiment, but in practise you're simply going back to Tennyson's vision of "nature, red in tooth and claw" where Hobbes's "nasty, brutish and short" life is the norm. You're welcome to it.

Dear Craig,

It is true that any right must have concomitant obligations, but how does it relate here? One person receives a right, another an obligation? ? ?

Anarchism (Merriam Webster): "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups"

This is not what I advocate.

Yes, no one has a moral right to rule over others without their permission,
but unlike the idea of anarchism, there's nothing principally wrong if someone rules over others WITH their permission!

How society organises itself from within is an open question for the members of each society to decide and do as they wish. What is absolutely wrong is the forcing of individuals (and smaller/weaker groups) into "belonging" to a society without their consent.

This is what Daesh is doing today, cruelly forcing people to join an Islamic society; this is what the British did to the original people of Australia; and this same society still enforces itself even today over all the people of this continent without even asking for anyone's consent.

This is predatory behaviour, suitable for carnivorous animals, not for "enlightened" humans who claim to follow morality and not to do unto others what they would hate being done to themselves.

One day what I say today will become obvious to everyone, just as it became obvious that slavery is immoral and "not on".

Hi Yuyutsu, "concomitant" means something that must be naturally associated with something else. An increase in stream flow in a river is concomitant with increased erosion, all things being equal.

"Rights" bring obligations with them that fall on the one who wishes to hold that right.

I can see exactly what your point is and it's a wonderful utopian theory that underlies the Federalist model in the US and in Australia. It goes deeper than that, of course and may well be a fundamentally human drive that has lead to the expansion of the boundaries of human settlement, as people have chosen to leave places where they felt they were being unreasonably imposed upon by the powers-that-be.

However, in a crowded world, where there is no further room to roam freely, it's simply unworkable and must be modified if the society is to avoid chaotic rule of arms. Have a look at Jeremiah 18. This isn't a new problem.

Dear Craig,

No doubt that population density creates new challenges that require modifications and that as a result, freedoms may have to be curtailed under the old and acceptable grounds of self-defence.

But this has to be proportional and within reason. It should be the last resort and it should be only for self-defence rather than for furthering anybody's ambitions.

It would be reasonable for example to demand that a home/community may not defend itself with anti-aircraft missiles. It is not reasonable however to dictate to others (who have not voluntarily joined your society) what their children should study, what currency they must use, what religious ceremonies they conduct, whom they may or must allow in their restaurants or what they decorate on their cakes. The rationale is simple: it has nothing to do with self-defence, but rather with the ambitions of some to create an equal society.

Obviously rights come with obligations, so if for example one freely chooses to use the money which a society prints (once it's no longer obligatory), then they should not complain when they need to pay taxes and if one chooses to send their child to a society-run school then they should accept that their child will learn there whatever that society teaches.

While any society can make its membership-conditions all-or-nothing and is not obliged otherwise, I recommend a new model where society offers tiered levels of membership, where one can choose how much to involve themselves with that society, then the deeper that involvement, the more rights and more obligations come with it.

My question is similar to the one I have asked before:

"Which religious freedoms are threatened by the push for same-sex marriage?"

Other than the ability to discriminate against some people who don't follow your church's dogma or your freedom to determine what other people can do with their lives, I can't think of too many. Can anyone help?

Dear Brian,

I already answered your question, but you seem to ignore my answer.

Do you know how Eskimos hunt wolves?

- They wrap a sharp knife in seal-meat, then a wolf comes and licks the knife repeatedly until they bleed to death, believing that the blood from their own cut tongue is the seal's blood.

That's because wolves are unable to discriminate: they lack this wonderful gift that humans have.

The SSM campaign is only the tip of an iceberg, the people behind it just incidentally selected this redundant and insignificant issue of homosexuals as their current theme, but their long-term plan is to eradicate discrimination completely, even declaring war against intelligence.

Who knows, perhaps their next theme, if successful at this one, would be to prevent us from selecting our music rather than "giving an equal chance to every song-writer": they just suffer when others prefer quality over trash, or make a distinction between good and evil, then select the good and reject the evil. Most of all they hate religion because it challenges their ability to remain dumb as our proverbial wolf.

Psalm 1 tells about the virtue of discrimination:

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful - But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night."

Hi Yuyutsu, just a touch paranoid aren't you? I think you have been reading too much Tea Party or Festival of Light information. Homosexuals are not going to spearhead the new world order nor are they going to take away our guns. Homosexual marriage is not going to become compulsory nor are they going to close down every vestige of organised religion.

What will happen is that a minority, a peaceful patient minority, will finally gain the same rights that the heterosexual majority has has for decades.

You have said enough silliness! Go and stand in the naughty corner!

Dear Brian,

I never claimed that homosexuals have anything to do with this, or that they spear a new world order - the people who lead this campaign are not even homosexuals, nor speak on their behalf.

Homosexuals are indeed a peaceful patient minority and they can already marry each other as they please. Yes, I completely agree that they should have the same rights as heterosexuals - this by removing the heterosexuals' right to register their relationship with the state.