Perhaps a more useful litmus test of religious tolerance in any given country is the tolerance given towards non mainstream, and especially new and emerging religious and Spiritual groups.
Look what happened to Jesus of Galilee when he threatened the worldly power and privileges of the ecclesiastical establishment in his time and place.
Which means that Australia is one of the few countries in which such non mainstream groups are not the target of any kind of negative animus from self-righteous "cult-busters".
It also seems to me that the very worldly power claims (and the associated privileges) of the socially dominant establishment religions should always be consistently challenged.
This is especially the case with the "catholic" church which wrongly pretends that it is the only source of Truth in the world, and that it has a "great commission" to convert all of humankind to its one-true-way. Such is of course part of its mission statement. A mission statement that has totalitarian intentions.
In the case of the USA this challenge should be extended to all of those who have signed on with the Manhattan Declaration, which in my opinion is a manifesto for christian fascism.
Fascism coming to Amerika shouting freedom or "liberty" with one hand and simultaneously waving a Bible in the air with the other.

Meanwhile it is also obvious that the "catholic" church has always negatively manipulated the minds, bodies and emotions of all of the human beings in the societies where it has operated. It has of course always simultaneously manipulated the political aspirations of the societies in which it has operated. It does of course run the worlds largest "privately" owned propaganda machine. The manipulative tentacles of which reach into almost every village on the planet.

I'm sure it's largely true that "public outrage is [being] fuelled by the reporting of the relevant document rather than the document itself." However, the document itself is full of flawed reasoning/information and misleading selectivity... biblically, theologically, and sociologically. Their stipulated commitment to respecting "those who experience same-sex attraction" (not respecting them enough to allow them to name themselves, though) is belied by the fact that they never engage with any of these people's voices, and they don't show any concern for their well-being except with some hypothetical, theoretical, and undefined statements at the start. Meanwhile, they show, and outline in great detail, great concern for the interests of organizations who do not want to recognize same-sex relationships in their policies. They oppose "unjust discrimination" (not, as Bird says, all "prejudice" against LGBTI people) while mounting an argument that discrimination against gay couples is just and should be undertaken by the secular government.

... to be continued ...

... continuing ...

All that said, although the document could have done a much better job at being respectful to LGBTI people, and will certainly offend people and be construed as insulting, I too find "it a little creepy that a Catholic bishop is about to be hauled before a court for teaching Catholic beliefs to Catholics." It doesn't seem very consistent with religious freedom.

It's not a simple issue, though. Let's imagine that the document mounted an argument based on interpretation of scripture and theology that marriage is a special relationship involving (among other things) the two people to be of the same race, and that, therefore, mixed-race marriages should not be called marriages, and Catholic organizations should be allowed to deny them various spousal benefits. Perhaps it also mounted arguments about how the children have a right to two parents of the same ethnicity and disadvantaged when they don't have it. To support this, let's say it selectively cited some sociological studies suggesting that when one parent is a an indigenous Australian and the other is a white Australian, the child is worse off than when both parents are white (and implied that this indicates a problem with that kind of couple itself, rather than a problem with the society that disadvantages Aboriginal people). In that situation, I think we would be split on seeing it as a grey area vs. wanting the government to ban it... nobody would see it as a straightforward case where it should obviously be tolerated in the name of religious freedom (well, except maybe some racists, of which there are sadly a lot in Australia).

ttbn,

Here you go again. I’m sorry, but Christianity is not much of a “basis” to live by at all. It is an immoral doctrine.

The concept of original sin is immoral; infinite punishment for finite crimes is immoral; the idea that a deathbed conversion can save someone, no matter how bad that person was throughout their life, is unjust and immoral; rewarding gullibility over good deeds is immoral; the revolting idea of scapegoating - the idea that people can throw their bad deeds on to someone else and have them die and take your “sin” with them - is immoral; The idea that a god watches people masterbating instead of feeding the starving is immoral. The Christian doctrine is as every bit as immoral as the Islamic doctrine and it is only by virtue of the fact that Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into modernity that it is no longer as overtly destructive as Islam.

Or did you not think that the crusaders had read the words of Jesus?

Anything in Christian theology that is good can be found elsewhere without the immoral rubbish that Christianity comes with.

LEGO,

Since you feel the other thread is not worth pursuing, perhaps you can inform me of why you disagree with same-sex marriage?

AJ Philips, all of those doctrines are disputed within Christianity. They are not straightforwardly what Christianity teaches. As a Christian, I think I probably dislike the same kind of Christianity you dislike.

Two points, elcalebo.

Firstly, nothing I’ve said is out-of-line with the Christian doctrine. If you reject the notion of original sin and salvation, then you are not a Christian. No Adam, no Eve; no Adam and Eve, no fall; no fall, no need for redemption; no need for redemption, no need for a redeemer; no need for a redeemer, no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life.

Secondly, if I’m painting someone else and you choose to use the same label as that other person, then don’t complain to me if you get a bit of paint splashed on you. If nothing I said earlier relates to you, then you need to find a different label other than “Christian”.

Don’t invent your own religion, then act like I’m attacking some sort of strawman.