I don’t accept the ‘christian values’ as a default, they are based on a lie of a deity.

As not everyone accepts christian values, they have no place in influencing law.

The christian notion that marriage is between one man and one woman is based on a christian value. Christians my use that value in their own organisations. It is inappropriate for that value to be use as a guide stick for those who don’t accept it. The ACL and Wallace do want to force their values on the rest of Australia. That’s just plain wrong.

“I don’t think anyone is suggesting you should have to live your life based on their values. And nor should they. But it is the nature of democracy that everyone should be allowed to contribute to the discussions that shape law and policy.”

Just to expand – the law isn’t a code of values. It’s more like a framework for maintaining peace, order and well-being.

But there are diverse differences in what people see as being the best building blocks for that framework – and that’s what we won’t be able to discuss without bringing our own values into it.

So values will always play a part in forming the law – but the law can’t control your values.

People with same-sex attraction can live in same-sex relationships and espouse all the values that their sexuality entails irrespective of the definition of marriage.

Bruce, I think it’s reasonable enough to have more than one reason to have a certain position on something. For example, I prefer not to eat that much chocolate – because I find fruit more satisfying and healthy. I might also decide it’s a good idea to eat less chocolate because of the prevalence of cocoa that is sourced from countries where children and young adults are forced into slave conditions in the farming and trade of cocoa. That’s not an analogy and it’s far from the same point of same sex parenting – it’s just to illustrate that it’s fair to have more than one motivation behind a position.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting you should have to live your life based on their values. And nor should they. But it is the nature of democracy that everyone should be allowed to contribute to the discussions that shape law and policy.

It’s not possible for anyone to leave their values out of these contributions. We all have values, regardless of where they come from. This will mean people will continue to disagree. This should lead to reasoned and informed debate – not the silencing of people with views that are different to your own.

He needs to be honest and say only that he thinks god said to his followers that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those of us that outright reject the notion of any supernatural beings should not have to live our lives based on the misguided values of others.

and he suggested we take the time to work out what the best environment for trees, but ignore the evidence of the best environment for children.

Pretty sure it’s a challenge about where we’re prioritising our efforts – literally, there needs to be more research into the impact that our decisions have on children.

I’m not sure that he intended it to be an analogy.

Does that mean we should do the same to marriage or gay people ?

I am confused