Making all marriages equal would be good if they were all equal to the best marriage, but not if they were all equal to the worst marriage.

Just as there is no such thing as a square circle or a carnivorous vegetarian, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. “Marriage equality” in that context is just a marketing slogan.

All education was not free compulsory and secular until 1963. Catholic and other religious schools had existed for more than a century before that year.

When Robert Menzies began funding Catholic schools, he began funding Protestant ones too.

If “Australia has the most Christianised education system in the Western world”, where are the figures to support this assertion. Some 30 per cent of the UK’s fully publicly funded schools are private and usually run by religious authorities, mostly Anglican and Catholic. In addition, the non-funded elite schools are also often religious.

This is the usual diatribe that we have come to expect from fervent secularists. It is assumed that all Christians are fundamentalists who are a danger to the intellectual life of the nation. We could assume that all secularists are like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, they are not. Most of them are kind and generous hard working and moral.

Stigmatising Christians as knuckle dragging throwbacks to a primitive age is just wrong. It is as if two centuries of theological investigation has not existed. The author levers his view on a mistake, Christian theological thought is developed, deep and profound. It is not based on anti-evolution or new earth ideas.

But this article is just a plug for his book that is obviously based on the above mistakes.

Another mistake would be to call the Nazis 'secularists', they were not.They instituted a state religion, and the fascists certainly weren't either.

And the communists weren't really either, as they merely replaced theological religion with a political ideology, and didn't separate it from the state but elevated to the status of a state religion.

Going on about these political ideologies that fitted hand in glove with religion and calling them 'secularists' and that secularists were to blame for WWII (but not WWI apparently) is really a stretch and so beneath you Sells.

I guess that a vicious lashback is what we should expect when your beliefs are attacked though.

The demography of our parliaments does not reflect the demography of the nation. If there is to be a striving towards the notion of 'democracy' this will be best served when the demography of our parliaments does indeed reflect the demography of this nation. It will not be achieved in my lifetime.

What does the term "marriage" actually mean?
Also, how do same-sex couples create children from their bloodlines?

Brian can continue in his blind ignorance but should not force it on others. The mantra that creation came from chaos, reason came from non reason might give Brian some conmfort despite being idiotic. No wonder the 'moral' base for secularist change every year or so. Just ask Rudd or Gillard when it comes to 'gay''marriage'. It is bbvious why so many adopt the gw pseudo religion and are so indignant about it. We are created moral beings despite the denials from the god deniers. Just where Brian draws his moral base from who knows.

It seems religion needs to be involved in politics as no one else but the religious seem to be talking about the poor working conditions across Asia that westerners profit so much from.

The religious right, given their druthers, would take us to where Turkey is now, presided over by religious fanatics!

To the point where they sent war planes out to bomb the Shiite out of Kurdish civilians, as part of the peace process; and to encourage the Kurdish party to seek outcomes through the purely peaceful process and parliamentary representation.

Just as the sun shines equally on saints and sinners, so do bombs! Genocide of the first order! But then history abounds with examples of warrior Popes, who were no better? I mean who burnt Joan of Arc at the stake, her enemies?

Fanatical fundamentalism, when the case mounted for using warplanes is like so much of the froth and bubble that comes out of the mouths of the religious right,blatant(don't take any notice of what I do, but rather, just what I say,) BS writ large!If the liberal don't want to take a hiding to nothing at the next election they need to return to (return bill) Turnbull?

There's a very fundamental reason for the division of a secular parliament and religion; arguably to guarantee religious freedom, while putting a needed hand brake of some of its excesses?

Just who was it who decided we of all western nations. couldn't shouldn't have a bill of irrevocable rights?

Notice just how overrepresented the religious right/control freaks are as the principle naysayers?
Rhrosty.

I am for separation of religion and state. To me that means that the state should not serve the purposes of religion and that religion is none of the business of the state. Religion is only one of the many influences on us. If we are in political office we are not required to list all or any of the influences on us with the exception of items where we have a monetary interest. let us judge our politicians solely by their acts and public pronouncements. In short the religious views of any politician is her or his own business, and we should treat those opinions as a private matter.

'The religious right, given their druthers, would take us to where Turkey is now, presided over by religious fanatics!'

actually the non religous left are taking us to Sodom and Gomorrah which no longer exists.

The distinction is straightforward, according to it's proponentssame sex marriage is based on "Love" whereas opposite sex marriage is all about passing on your genes, people who marry but choose not to have children are in the same category as Gays. Clearly what we need are two separate acts, one to recognise "love" marriages or de-facto relationships, the other to recognise "biological" marriages, religion needn't even be considered in the process.

It is very simplistic to suggest that there are only two arguments in the debate about same-sex marriage – the so called ‘progressive’ and the religious.

I have seen many excellent arguments on this forum against same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with religion. The problem is that such opinions do not get a voice in any mainstream media because those who edit such media are too afraid to antagonise the same-sex marriage lobby.

Those who run the media not only censor such arguments but highlight the positions of religious extremists as a way of holding them up to ridicule and implying that this is the other side of the debate. The gutlessness of the media is shameful.

One of their mantras is that bad things happen when good people do nothing and that applies equally to media.

The author of this article is guilty of the same behaviour. If arguments based on religion are worthless then ignore them – there is no need to highlight them unless you have an agenda to ridicule religious people.

Religious people have a right to their opinions as much as anyone else and they have a right to become politicians like anyone else. When you want to know someone’s religion before you vote for them then you are on draconian ground. There are lots of bastards in politics who are not religious.

Hi Phanto

Equally, there is no consensus among Christians on this issue, in fact surveys now suggest a majority of Christians support same sex marriage.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/even-among-christians-there-is-strong-support-for-samesex-marriage-20150604-ghh2vp.html

So yes, you’re right, the author’s attempt to portray this as Progressives vs Christians is way too simplistic.

Runner,

Many of the Goat Cheese Circle and the Opportunist Left would read your claim that "the non religious left are taking us to Sodom and Gomorrah" and say, "Well, yeah, so what ?"

Is it possible that "marriage equivalence" is a more appropriate term than "marriage equality" ? Or that some other term altogether would be the most appropriate ?

I don't know about other male heterosexuals, but I have nothing particularly against some form of recognised union between lesbians, but to be honest, my skin crawls when I seen two male homosexuals kissing.

Come on, call me a bigot, get it over with.

And similarly if there is to be a plebiscite: get it over with, ASAP, and move on to more important issues, like clothes-peg design.

And if the people's decision goes against changing the definition of 'marriage', then that will be that. End of.

Joe

Sodom and Gomorrah, pillars of salt? An exodus from Egypt for a chosen people. And tablets of stone with 14 commandment carved thereon, for a people almost to a generic man; could neither read nor write!

There's plenty of archaeological evidence for the existence of Egypt, Pharaohs, but none for their so called nation of slaves, Sodom or Gomorrah. Or an Exodus to a so called promised land, by a chosen people; !

But plenty that well may disprove the claim of an actual exodus whatsoever; or the associated claim; this land is mine, God gave this land to me.

I've seen folks walk on fire, but none willing to try that in a flaming furnace!

Or survive forty days and nights in a desert (burning by day, freezing at night) without food or water?

Simply put, you can survive around 3 minutes without air , three days without water, and around three weeks (21 days) without food!

It seems some so called devotees can cherry pick their legends; always providing it complements/agrees with their faith based belief or bigotry?

One of which just happens to be, we all of us get to choose our natural sexual bias?

Preference being a misnomer, given no hetrosexual decided/chose to be born with that as their natural preference; and unless a gun is held to the head, unable to participate in the opposite/against a natural disposition!?

The very thing they accuse the gay community of so doing!

They know this as fact, given all hetrosexuals decided some time during their development in the womb to be born hetrosexuals; and about as cogent as people deciding to be born left handed!

Such beliefs allow those carrying them, to persecute those who don't!

Perhaps to the point where the persecuted sink so low, or laying in some emergency ward bashed within an inch of their liffe that they have no other option, than to end the emotional pain and persecution permanently!?

Suicide the only way left open to them to deny their natural reflexes!?
Rhrosty

It would also be great for atheists and agnostics in parliament to state their beliefs, and for the coherence of their position to be tested. What is the basis for their views of justice, morality and the public good. Do they agree with Prof. Singer etc.

And it would be good for their behaviour also to be publicly disclosed:
1) How many sexual partners has each MP had and what promises did they make in those relationships?
2) Have they been faithful in their marriages?
3) What is their level of alcohol dependence?
4) Have they ever had an abortion or encouraged someone else to have an abortion?
5) Are they or have they ever been a perpetrator of domestic violence?

If you think non-Christian politicians are any more free to approach the issues of the day with a clean conscience you are unambiguously naive.

I too would like to see those parliamentarians whose thinking is influenced by the Bible explicitly bring Jesus words to bear on the public debate, for it is He to whom we are ultimately accountable.

"Why are parliamentarians not questioned closely on personal faith -- particularly at election time?"

See s.116 of the Australian Constitution for the answer.

Runner, was that really you advising somebody that he could continue in his blind ignorance but should not force it on others? How delicious!

phanto,

You are right. The Age has refused to publish every letter I have submitted on same-sex marriage. The Drum has similarly refused to publsh almost everything I have submitted on this topic and on the Greens’ attempt to manipulate the Senate voting system to their own advantage. Even the Andrew Bolt Forum has refused to publish posts from me correcting misrepresentations of my position on this issue.

The following has been submitted at least five times on three different days (with some variation in wording) and not appeared:

“I went to one of Victoria’s reputedly most militant universities in the 1970s, so I am no stranger to name-calling, abuse, lies and violence on campus, all of which came from people on the extreme left. That is one reason that I find this site so entertaining. There is no violence of course (it’s only a website after all), but the name-calling, lies and abuse are just as prevalent, except that this time they come from people on the right.

“I accept that someone has to have the last word and am generally content that someone else has the last word in response to me, but I cannot leave the comments about me yesterday unanswered because they illustrate the sheer inability to comprehend plain English that so often displays itself here.

“I did look in at around 4:30pm and respond to some people, but when I came back at around 6:00 pm my response had not been published, but further replies to my initial comment had been. …

“So let’s just look at MattR first. On 3/4/2015, after I had criticised the Greens for their attempt to manipulate the Senate voting system, this person replied calling me a Green.
(http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/a_senate_out_of_control_our_control/
A Senate out of control. Our control.)

“‘Yesterday, he replied to my post on how to stop same-sex marriage thus:
‘Why do supporters of SSM want to shove this down peoples [sic] throats? Why do you not respect the RIGHT of people to not want it to happen?’
(http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/on_the_bolt_report_today_august_16/P40/
On The Bolt Report today, August 16)

“But before we get to same-sex marriage, let me quote another comment from him:
‘I thought you were bad on global warming, but this issue takes the cake. “Either support us or we will hurl abuse at you and FORCE you to support us no matter what”.
So here’s a challenge, which will not be taken up: quote one word of abuse from me against anyone on global warning or climate change – just one will do.

“I can’t put my position in words of half a syllable because there are no words of half a syllable, so let me try in multi-syllable but simple words: I am opposed to same-sex marriage and have said so on this site more than once; a non-constitutional plebiscite will not stop it; a constitutional referendum may, but only if it is in the terms I suggest.”

Given the refusal of the site to publish the correction above, the following I did not even bother submitting:

“AndG55 was another from yesterday who seems unable to read.

“According to him, those opposed to same-sex marriage must be gay:
‘If you gays reckon you have the numbers in an even referendum… then have the GUTS to allow it and stop trying to force it through by some back-handed means.’

“Well, I am not gay and I still oppose same-sex marriage. If I were gay, I would still oppose same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage makes as much sense as carnivorous vegetarianism or square circles of having funerals for the living because restricting them to the dead is discriminatory. I guess in the reasoning of so many on this site this means I must be am dead.

“As I said on 25 May, ‘There is a “reasoned, cogent argument against same-sex marriage once you remove the religious component”; namely, that there is no such thing, just as there is no such thing as carnivorous vegetarianism.’
(http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/irelands_new_hell_fire_preachers/#commentsmore
Ireland’s new hell-fire preachers)

“What I believe is what I have stated more than once, so there is no need to bet or make things up. Opinion polls are generally accurate, though the answer depends on the wording of the question. I have no doubt that the majority of people in a plebiscite would vote for same-sex marriage. A sensibly worded and sensibly argued referendum would not be so certain in its result, but, if the standard of comprehension and debate by those opposed to same-sex marriage on this site is common, there is in fact no hope at all.”

I agree largely with Brian Morris article.
My only point of slight disagreement is that most MPs seem to be willing to divulge their religious beliefs, and certainly those in senior positions do.

Most of the previous ALP cabinet divulged their religious beliefs upon being asked.

The one time I agree with Eric Abetz is that you cant leave your worldview at the door when you're in office - just look at Tony Abbott. He can't allow himself to act on SSM even though its overwhelming popular and would ease his political concerns.

We are a Secular Country. We should be run be politicians observing and weighing evidence, not antediluvian beliefs, or bound by conscience. Good one Brian.

I think you have to listen to the arguments presented by anyone before you make judgement. Politicians may be religious but not all religious people have the same views on topics which come up for discussion. We may miss some very good arguments if we just dismiss someone out of hand because we know that they are religious and we should take in all arguments for consideration if we are genuinely seeking the truth.

It is bigotry to just label all religious people as not worthy of consideration simply because they are religious. There may even be some religious positions that it would be in the best interests of society to follow.

There is nothing to lose by listening to their opinions and if you disagree then tell us why instead of just rejecting them out of hand.

The author of this article is a bigot. A bigot is someone who rejects another person because he belongs to a group which he does not like.