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.