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.