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.