I don't favour gay marriage—it's up to them—but I see no valid reason to oppose marriage equality.
Yours
Secular fanatic
Left-leaning intellectual
Out-of-touch progressive
Etc

Wow. That's a fairly aggressive stance. Gay marriage is an illustration of how democracy cannot ever succeed...

"Common governance, helpful in improving worldly conditions, is ultimately useless, insofar as what matters most requires something of our humanity, an inner metaphysical quality that refuses to be devolved to politician, priest or lawyer."

Hmmmmmm

I guess that only leaves theocracy.

And we all know how well that works, don't we.

Interesting points, progressives and respectable conservatives have a long tradition of deriving their moral authority from barbarians, seeking the consent of a Hollande or an Obama is in keeping with their historical affiliations with people like Mao, Stalin or Hitler. Time magazine had Adolf Hitler as it's person of the year, now it promotes "Gay" marriage, that's what we call an ideological continuum!

That's hilarious, Jay of Melbourne.

>>Time magazine had Adolf Hitler as it's person of the year, now it promotes "Gay" marriage, that's what we call an ideological continuum!<<

Time magazine's "Man of the Year, 1938" was not selected for being nice, but for having the most influence on the previous twelve months.

"...nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a 'hands-off' promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539,00.html

So much for your "ideological continuum".

What is really amusing, though, is the blithe manner in which you take aim at your own foot, take a shot, then claim victory.

Classic.

Pericles,

He he, coming from someone like yourself who believes in tyranical democracy (stolen land) in Northern Ireland. He he. Wishy washy hypocrite.

You seem to be saying that legislation that promotes social advancement should be deleted and we should rely upon our own individual responsibilities to ensure community advancement.
By this logic slavery would still be in vogue, 5 year olds would be working down mines, we would be working 60 and 70 hour weeks and single women would not be allowed to get a loan.
This is one of the most ludicrous propositions ever put forward on OLO.

"Though Republican extremists may be conflicted and given to creatively crude statements, they nonetheless intuit, like Dowd's timorous judges, one crucial fact: institutions are ultimately powerless to mediate on moral truth."

Of course, another way of looking at the issue is that marriage equality proponents are merely redressing interference and mediation by institutions before now, on so-called 'moral truths'.

On the basis of your article, Mark, you demonstrate "the self-evident truth that personal belief is irreducible to reason alone" since so much of your reasoning is reducible to the equivalent of a three-year-old's insistent justification for everything as, "Because… Just because."

You certainly don't demonstrate why "it's impossible to intellectualize what matters, only experience it as a shared transcendent value."

"The stated goals of civil society – freedom, equality, happiness – are unrealisable politically, which is exactly why they're so special, why Jefferson resigned American democracy to a "pursuit" – and yet without later efforts by others to intellectualise and work towards politically achieving space for those freedoms Jefferson's 'pursuit' may have been limited to that of his slaves seeking escape from his estates, if not his bedroom.

As the world moves inevitably towards a nuclear holocaust what is the issue that fills the minds of the people?

Whether same-sex couples can be married and call each other 'husband' or 'wife'. WTF! Surely this is equivalent to strumming a musical instrument while Rome burns.

Another issue which seems to be a mind-filler on OLO is the 'Is There A God' question which always gets frantic arguments going all of which follow the same basic format and all of which are devoid of evidence. Yawn.

Then the Singer chimes in and flogs the Israeli issue, ad nauseum.

God Help Us! How much longer must we suffer?

Has any government, before legislating for same sex marriage, fought an election on the issue or held a referendum to find out what the majority of electors feel about this issue?
DIS

Well no, just one leader with the testicular fortitude to take a stand one way or the other, no if, buts or maybes! And taking that position to an election, as official policy, just might?
And indeed, might also swing the election decisively, one way or the other; but particularly, for someone with a reputation for being able to be persuaded by logical rational argument; and or, changed circumstances, to be able to change her mind!?
Currently, Julia apparently doesn't believe in true equality?
Tony might some day, just not yet!
And all of this prevarication, flies in the face of overwhelming support for marriage equality, or the inherent right of every human extant on the planet, to seek and find true fulfilling happiness.
Suppose some extremely virtuous, moralising pulpit pounders, had successfully outlawed de-facto relationships?
It is simply not good enough to give one group of relationships the official seal of approval, yet deny it to another, due to nothing more than an accident of birth, (natural aberration) or irregular gender bias!
It is no different to discriminating against folks, on the basis of colour! (What they were born with!)
As one speaker put it, different strokes for different folks.
It's not your role or mine, to be the final arbiter of what those strokes should be, or their limits.
We do need to get our noses out of other peoples' bedrooms and back squarely and fairly on our own morals or moral ineptitude.
No catholic Cardinal, or so called Christian, should pound the pulpit and lecture us on morality, unless and until they have cleaned out all the paedophiles in their ranks, and surrendered surviving offenders to proper judgement! Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's!
And much more appropriately compensate surviving victims, if only to ensure, in the most appropriate way possible, that they the victims, finally understand, that they were in no way to blame!
Rhrosty.

"True equality"? You mean there is discrimination against gays? Bollocks!

The Gillard government has already staked its claim to removing all discrimination against homosexuals with over eighty laws changed.

Either Julia Gillard, Jenny Macklin and other senior ministers of the Gillard government have lied, or what they claim is true, that all discrimination has indeed been removed. Like most others, I believe the Gillard government on this. The proof is that the Marriage Act as it is and should remain is not discrimination according to both the government and the Human Rights Commission.

The push for gay marriage is coming from political 'Progressives'. The numbers of gays and of gay activists seeking gay marriage are few. The few homosexuals who can look forward to pesronal financial gain are few (examples being through family law and superannuation), but they are very vocal and assertive (they can afford to be!). All homosexuals have lost already through the State becoming involved in determining their relationship status through defacto 'initiatives'

As far as the broader community is concerned the Marriage Act is not broke and should not be changed. If some gays want a similar arrangement then fine, have another law and secular title to suit the purpose.

The elephant in the room is that gay marriage is being pushed for the secondary agendas of political 'Progressives', and it is just a convenient stepping stone for other social change.

IMO it is perfectly OK for gay's to marry, cohabit or whatever they like but it should be an accepted law that it takes two people of opposite sex to adopt children.

Shalmaneser wrote: "You seem to be saying that legislation that promotes social advancement should be deleted"

You seem to be saying that this legislation promotes social advancement.

You seem to be narrow minded and lacking in empathy

Yes Robert LePage, I'm with you on that one, cause we have enough screwed up kids in society already.

David G, I also agree with you that there are far more important issues on the horizon than two gays wanting to be legally married.

However, as I have said several times, legalizing gay marriage will not be enough for gays, as they will forever fight for acceptance and equality in their marriage, something that I, along with many others no doubt, will never give them.

It's a shame they just can't take the easier option and find another word that fits their union, as we could all move on and tackle much more pressing issues that we face today.

All this ranting against same sex marriage, yet not one antigay contributor can give a true and clear explanation for why not, other than they are indifferent to others happiness in life; which will not take anything away from them and cost them absolutly nothing.
"There but for the grace of god go you"

There is no prohibition of homosexual sex or relationships.

There is no discrimination in the Marriage Act against homosexuals, as confirmed by the Gillard government and by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

The Marriage Act specifies a number of conditions that have been determined democratically. Those are the conditions for heterosexual couplings. Like it or leave it.

If you want homosexual couplings then fine, no-one is in your way, just put up the Homosexual Coupling Bill if you please and go for it. The result will be the same as in the netherlands - where homosexual marriage law already exists but very few 'gay' marriages ever take place.

'Progressives' hypocritically say they are opposed to the State interfering in relationships. Yet the same 'Progressives' brought in defacto laws that are an absolute mess -no two government bureaucracies can agree on the same definition- and those laws forced homosexuals under the same State control.

Gays were once adult enough to arrange and dissolves their own relationships and agree on the spilt are now ruled by family law, and the government tells them whether they are in de facto relationships or not. Now the same 'Progressives' who stuffed up de facto law and apploed it to gays is forcing the State model/shackles/mold for State determined heterosexual marriage upon them.

It is idiotic to believe that this State regulation of gay relationships and the geterosexual form of coupling being forced on them is for their benefit. Nonsense, it is just the 'Progressives', largely radical feminists, presuming to always know what is best for society and in this case gays.

That is your opinion however, as you are not in a same sex relationship, you are not in a position to comment on what same sex couples seek.
Wether couples are hetrosexual or homosexual, it should be accepted that their personal wishes as regards their relationship and being be respected, for no other reason than their personal and private lives are their own; without right of criticism from others.

Pericles.
No contradiction in my post whatsoever,I'd read that article before you see ;). "Gay" marriage is part of the agenda of an aggressive global imperialist movement which also terrifies the gentle souls of the world, makes a mockery of human rights and seeks to impose the worldview of a European elite upon the entire globe..like Nazism it's a vision both great and terrible.
Are you saying that the proponents of "Gay" marriage haven't bullied, cowed, blackmailed and humiliated their opponents into submission or that craven continental politicians haven't sought to "appease" them?

.

Dear Mark (Christensen, the author),

.

You wrote:

"The current political model has taken American civil rights far and wide. Australia has had a similar experience. But it can't go all the way, and believing so is morally and intellectually corrupt".

I understand "civil rights" to mean the "the personal rights of the individual citizen". They include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, colour, ethnicity, religion, or disability. Civil rights also include freedom of the press, assembly and movement, as well as individual rights such as privacy, the freedom of thought and conscience, speech and expression.

Which of these civil rights do you advocate limiting, why and how ?

You then add:

"It is this message – not bigotry – that motivates much of the opposition to gay marriage."

Would you please provide your evidence supporting this statement ?

Judging by the media, most of the opposition to gay marriage is based, rightly or wrongly, on religious considerations - even when expressed by members of the judiciary and the politicians.

The recent riots and demonstrations in France are an example of this.

The Catholic Church, among others, states that, while it does not condemn homosexuality, it considers "homosexual acts" as "contrary to the natural law" and that "under no circumstances can [homosexual acts] be approved."

The Church is, of course, making the same mistake as it did when it declared that the sun revolved around the earth:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

The Institution of marriage was not invented by religions. It pre-dates all the major religions by nearly 20 000 years.

It is a common feature in the animal kingdom for males to compete for the right of access to females for mating purposes.

The instauration of marriage simply civilised this process.

The clergy later seized on the institution of marriage as a means of increasing their influence and control over their "flock" of submissive "sheep" and its future progeny, thus assuring the prosperity and perpetuity of their religions.

.

Totally agree with you Jay,

Divide and conquer is the ploy and chuck all the foundations of liberal western civilisation foundations in the bin. The loud minorities are vapid, clueless and ultra individualistic me me's who have no concerns for societal order,stability or real culture.

Here's some interesting insights in Der Spiegel regarding what's recently happened with the leftist socialist government in France who quickly installed the same-sex ruling without consulting or debating it with it's people. I think it's pretty ruthless and totalitarian. And the globalisation new order is becoming very scary to your ordinary person. True, it all makes a mockery of human rights(which has become "illiberal" and victimisation obsessions going on today.
Hollande has divided France in two:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-press-french-vote-to-approve-same-sex-marriage-a-896287.html

Same goes for Spain where the socialist government there did the same and as a consequence birth certificates no longer state "Mother and Father" but instead "Progenitor 1 and Progenitor 2". Doesn't sound natural to me! What do you reckon?

So much for living in a democracy. All is caput.

Even funnier, Jay of Melbourne. You're clearly on a roll here.

>>"Gay" marriage is part of the agenda of an aggressive global imperialist movement which also terrifies the gentle souls of the world, makes a mockery of human rights and seeks to impose the worldview of a European elite upon the entire globe...<<

Indeed. I can sense the community's terror every Mardi Gras parade, as they cower in their houses waiting for that knock on the door, or in their shops in fear of a Gay Kristallnacht. Those GLBTI stormtroopers in formation, marching up William Street.

>>..like Nazism it's a vision both great and terrible.<<

What an imagination you have, to think that these perfectly ordinary people, from perfectly ordinary families, with perfectly ordinary life aspirations, could possibly pose a threat to you, in any way,shape or form..

"chuck all the foundations of liberal western civilisation"
Ah.. that'd be foundations like tolerance of diversity. freedom of expression, equality before the law.
Constance you obviously have no understanding of the principles that you say you wish to defend. If you did you would be supportive of marriage equality.

Banjo P: "The Institution of marriage was not invented by religions. It pre-dates all the major religions by nearly 20 000 years."

For many people marriage is a sacrament administered by a church while secular/state issues are secondary in importance. Nothing will change that. Which churches oppose gay marriages and which don't should be a matter for churches.

The State, on the other hand, should stay out of the way and the 2004 amendment of the 1961 Commonwealth of Australia Marriage Act 1961 to include “Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." should be rescinded.

In fact I think all legal reference to the term "marriage" should be replaced with "civil union" and leave marriages and their attendant ceremonies and solemnization to choice. Why all the Gov't required certification should be completed at a wedding ceremony is beyond me when it is a secular, administrative a matter.

My position does not make me a proponent of "gay marriage", nor does it make me an opponent. I think this is where most sensible people stand. All we need is the legislative changes to reflect this.

A splendid article, endeavouring to move the debate to a more realistic and honest level - and away from the essentially emotive and emotional.

Can you legislate how people 'feel', can you legislate to reverse an obvious truth - to make black, white, or green into yellow - can you legislate 'equality', or 'fairness', 'happiness' or 'reality'? You may try, but can it really make a difference?

Any effort to ban 'discrimination' could never alter the fact that people are all different, each an individual, with an individual mind, body, 'heart' (sense of 'being'), and 'heterosexual' or otherwise.

Gays are different, and are not the norm, and in advanced societies are accepted for what they are, but no amount of sermonizing will make them the same as the majority - as no legislation can remove a disability or cure a disease, or ensure a long and happy life for everyone, nor a happy, secure and committed marriage.

In some sense all may be equal, but this is an illusion, for a street-sweeper is not a captain of industry, a woman not a man, a baby not an adult. In relationships there is no guarantee of 'equality', but rather so often a reveling in difference, and no-one can legislate 'compatibility'.

Marriage is a state of mind, but also of 'being'. It may be based on love, or security, attraction, subservience, domination, or convenience. No perfect formula. But there is a common understanding of marriage, based in nature (and legislated in our case to two parties), and no amount of legislation can alter this general understanding of this contract, this partnership.

So, legislate away, but it can make no difference to this basic reality, but only create an illusion of 'equality' where none can realistically exist.

It is not discrimination to accept that someone is gay, but it is discrimination to deem that they are absolutely the same as everyone else. We live in a bipolar world, of men and women, and of heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Vivre la difference, and though we may be 'equal' we can never be 'the same'.

What is needed is a referendum, one made a part of the next election. A simple YES/NO is all that is required to the question: should gays be able to marry?

The results will put the noisy, pushy, take-no-prisoners gay community into a tizzy and may cause some of them to question their sexual preferences.

Another question could be: Should gays be able to enter into civil unions? Mainstream society probably would say 'YES' to this proposal although it can't be guaranteed.

If the gay community thinks that forcing changes to the laws will lead to them being fully accepted by mainstream society, they are completely deluded.

I find the image of two men kissing extremely nauseating and will always do so regardless of what the law says!

Pericles.
Ah yes, all the best people support "Gay" marriage, Hillary Clinton,Barrack Obama, David Cameron, Francois Hollande, not a warmonger or imperialist among them!

Sorry champ, strawmanning and creating false contradictions doesn't work, Gay marriage is just a relatively benign part of the globalist/imperialist agenda,just as Anti Smoking campaigns and cancer research were part of the Nazis'imperialist agenda.
Hitler wanted to draw all the best people of Europe to his new European capital Germania and from there create a new ruling class for Europe and it's dominions with Germanic values and Germanic ideas to be the basis of all those societies. The Western powers want to do exactly the same thing utilising Western values, the only difference is that their "Germania" is Manhattan.
Hitler envisioned Aryan man as the new ruler of the globe, the Soviets dreamed of Soviet man,the Westerners have Western man, same worldview, different ideologies and different tactics.

For the record, I'm no longer opposed to "Gay" marriage and I've never been "Anti Gay", I think the marriage equality movement is stupid, I think the public figures who support it are self serving and at the upper end of the scale of perfidy we have the David Camerons and Hillary Clinton's.
As noted by another poster the number of people who will take same sex spouses will be tiny, it'll be hundreds of couples at first, maybe a few thousand in the years following ratification.
It's no big deal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbgU8rxU5iU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QLt6EO3k28

.

Dear Constance,

.

You wrote:

"Here's some interesting insights in Der Spiegel regarding what's recently happened with the leftist socialist government in France who quickly installed the same-sex ruling without consulting or debating it with it's people."

Televised debates and street demonstrations are both national sports in France. I have been living in Paris for nearly half a century now and I can assure you that not a week goes by without a debate on "marriage for all" as they call it.

Government ministers often participate in these televised debates alongside advocates and opponents of whatever happens to be the subject, and this was no exception.

The subject has been literally thrashed to death but they're still not satisfied and are pursuing it into heaven or hell or wherever, though the game is over, the lights are extinguished, and all the players have gone home.

The debate in the National Assembly leading up to the final vote lasted 136 hours and 46 minutes.

The final vote by the people's democratically elected national representatives was 331 for, 225 against and 10 abstentions, making a total of 566 votes. This followed standard procedure whereby for any bill to become law, it must be accepted in exactly the same terms and conditions (including amendments) by both houses of parliament, the National Assembly and the Senate.

The "marriage for all" bill was first debated and approved by the National Assembly. It then went to the Senate where it was debated and amended before being voted. It was subsequently resubmitted to the National Assembly which, after further debate, by its final vote, accepted the bill in its amended form.

It thus became law.

The difference between France and Germany in these matters is more of a cultural nature: the Germans arrive at a national consensus through negotiation; the French win or lose by knock-out as a result of street riot and confrontation.

The former are Teutonic. The latter are Latin.

.

.

Dear Luciferase,

.

You wrote:

"The State, on the other hand, should stay out of the way and the 2004 amendment of the 1961 Commonwealth of Australia Marriage Act 1961 to include “Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." should be rescinded."

I suggest the text be modified to read: "Marriage, means the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

Otherwise, Luciferase, I see we are on the same wave length.

.

Dear Saltpetre,

.

You wrote:

"A splendid article, endeavouring to move the debate to a more realistic and honest level - and away from the essentially emotive and emotional."

The author not only moved the debate away from the "emotive and emotional", he also moved it away from the problem: religion.

The author identifies the problem as being the enforcement of "civil rights". He considers "It is this message – not bigotry – that motivates much of the opposition to gay marriage."

In one of my previous posts (page 5 of this thread), I asked him to provide evidence of his claim. I am waiting for his response..

You also wrote:

" ... can you legislate 'equality', or 'fairness', 'happiness' or 'reality'? You may try, but can it really make a difference?"

Yes, it can and we know it. That is why there is so much opposition to the legalisation of "same-sex marriage".

Then you wrote:

"Any effort to ban 'discrimination' could never alter the fact that people are all different ... Gays are different, and are not the norm ... all may be equal, but this is an illusion ... it can ... only create an illusion of 'equality' where none can realistically exist ... though we may be 'equal' we can never be 'the same".

You have hammered that one to death, Saltpetre, but as the French say: "You just smashed down an open door". Nobody disagrees with you.

Nobody is suggesting that people should be equal. It is about equal rights.

.

.

Dear Jay Of Melbourne,

.

You wrote:

"Gay marriage is just a relatively benign part of the globalist/imperialist agenda ... ".

That is an extremely original observation, Jay Of Melbourne.

Would you be so kind as to share with us the detailed evidence which has led you to this somewhat astonishing conclusion ?

.

......Wether couples are hetrosexual or homosexual, it should be accepted that their personal wishes as regards their relationship and being be respected, for no other reason than their personal and private lives are their own; without right of criticism from others.,

So Kipp, why is it that gays won't respect the personal wishes of normal people's marriage.

Why is it that they (gays) want to break in to OUR WORLD, when there is a very simple solution, that being finding another word?

Where is your respect for our wishes?

I don't think anyone here is denying SS couples their freedom to get hitched, we are simply protecting our rights to the meaning of the word married, as like it or not, married refers to the union of a man and woman.

So while you ask that we respect the rights of gays, gays are not respecting our rights to the protection of a law that has been recognized world wide for thousands of years.

But, no doubt these SS lobbyists will not give up and the squeaky wheel scenario will see them get their wish one day, but I fear it will be of little consequence as they, gay marriages will never be accepted, or respected as a normal marriage, so even then gays will not be satisfied.

I will say this till the day I die, FIND ANOTHER WORD!

They can call what they do what they want but aping an ancient rite doesn't make it right. They claim to be creative, for once then BE so, and develop a suitable rite of their own, all the legals like benefits, de-facto laws are (correctly) the same. I no more recognise them as married than a pair of dogs in an Elvis Chapel.

All humans start life as female!
Some of them are transformed in the womb, by a release of hormones, by the mother, into males.
As throughout the animal kingdom, this process is not always complete.
In other cases, the testosterone load may be elevated and cause some change, without completing it.
There are four sex control centres at the base of the brain, two for males and two for females.
One controls normal arousal and attraction, the other your libido or sexual appetite.
Sometimes an inappropriate sex centre is the one turned on.
In no case can we hold the baby responsible for this outcome!
Yet some of us, through our extreme ignorance of basic biology, do just that!
And let me tell you, a broad medical education, doesn't always overcome indoctrinated or habitual bigotry!
In a case in Scotland some years ago, a repeat offending paedophile, was brought before the same judge for the third time.
The judge gave him just two choices, internment for the term of his natural life, or hospitalisation, where experimental brain surgery could be trialled.
Various observations allowed the doctors to understand that all four of his sex centres were firing, hence the attraction to both male and female simultaneously, represented in prepubescent boys?
A tiny filament was inserted into the base of the brain and the inappropriately firing female centres burnt out, leaving only those normal to heterosexual males still firing!
After a period of around twelve months, he took a singular interest in females, eventually married and had kids.
We also know of a reported case of a alpha male footballer, having a neck injury, which damaged the normal male sex centres.
After a period of around twelve months, the same male took up hairdressing and a formerly unthinkable unnatural interest in the same sex.
In neither or any other case, is the person responsible for their normal for them, reactions or attractions.
There is simply no element of choice in your entirely autonomous responses.
Asking anyone to control that is tantamount to asking them to, i.e., control normal knee reflexes!
Rhrosty.

Given the overwhelming majority now favour marriage equality, it should be legislated into law.
Obama formed that view and came from behind, to win a second term election.
Even when it is legislated into law, some of the abysmally ignorant, will continue to bash gays, physically or verbally, or just by denying them equal human rights.
This should be all the ammunition we need to bring in a bill of basic human rights! One of which ought to allow complete freedom to pursue happiness and consensual adult sex, in all its normal divergent human forms.
Given dumb animals can't ever give consent, bestiality in all its forms, ought to continue to be outlawed.
Ditto torture and the deprivation of liberty, through any means, including things like financial control!
If anyone had travelled to Bulgaria, Romania and a few other eastern European states, and seen how state wards were treated, sometimes in little better than prison camp like conditions; none would stand in the way of gay adoptions.
Homosexuality is not a transmittable disease, just an accident of birth, that no sane person would chose as an outcome, given all the ramifications!
At the end of the day we need to get the horse ahead of the cart and focus on outcomes for kids, rather than a plethora of completely ignorant assumptions, which to date, have all but controlled this debate.
Homosexuals bullying others into submission?
Well given the gay demographic, is just around 10% of the voting population, that assertion is just extreme bigotry personified; and or, out of date, highly risible propaganda, that has absolutely, no foundation in fact whatsoever!
Rhrosty.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

“That is an extremely original observation, Jay Of Melbourne.” Have you been living in a bubble over there? Haven’t you noticed the world is changing - New World Order and all that. Where Western countries are gradually losing their national sovereignties and all has become politicized. What Jay is talking about is the elite imperialists - the so called Liberals/Progressive politicians - Post Liberals/Post Modernists if you like, that are pushing new agendas in a totalitarian manner at the cost of your ordinary folk. This is where REFERENDEMS are needed - as Switzerland does as many politicians no longer have the interests of general society. We can no longer rely on the illiberal progressives in parliaments anymore. They’re zombies.

The John Waters example used by Jay. (I’m realising more and more of how much of a Bohemian I really am.) Waters is basically saying that the minority noisy gay campaigners are giving Gays are bad name - that is they’re losing their Cool status (mojo/charm).

Gays use to be so much more interesting and edgy and had notoriety/outsider cred, but harmless to society. Why on earth do they want to join mainstream. Gays are much more fun when they don’t become the political jerks you have today.

Ie. Mind your own business and do not impede in the rights of others in society. We have always had diversity but the key world is BALANCE, not DIVISION. I don’t believe we need to destroy existing traditions in order for the neurotic (gimme gimme materialists) needy new You have to draw the line in the sand. Yes, I am a cautious person and I am pretty pessimistic about the consequences of same sex marriage because it will eventually involve more rights to parent children. Yes, I worry about the psychological effects and complexities this will have upon children. Kids are going to have enough to deal in their globalised futures let alone stigmatization and the rest. /Cont…

All this hokey self righteous victim industry who are abusing the real meaning of human rights I find pathetic and highly insensitive to mainstream culture.

I’m an absolute freedom loving free spirited person but I hate contrivance and its unnaturalness and the way political correctness is going. Dark waters ahead. And my gay friends despise it also.
They’re killing cultures. There is no such thing as compromise in the progressive ideology - only bullying.

Hey Jay,

Yes, Jack Donovan who is gay. He is definitely onto it. Men are being demasculated. I’m all for true diversity. Let men be men – it’s their natural God given right.

And these militant feminists who are also dominating in the Post Liberal New World Order scheme of things have got to stop thinking they're superior to men. We're only equal.

Banjo P wrote "I suggest the text be modified to read: "Marriage, means the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

I suggest removing the word "marriage" from any gov't legislation (e.g the Marriage Act becomes the Civil Union Act)

Let "married" be what people want to call themselves, however they came to be wed.

Keep gov't out of "marriage". The only reason we have a Marriage Act is because churches had influence in binding church to state.

Constance,
On the other hand maybe Gay marriage will be of benefit to all married men if Gay men carry forward their demands for equal treatment under the law. I wonder too how many Gay men really intend to enter into a system that penalises masculinity and discriminates against fathers and male spouses.
The way Jack Donovan and the rest of the Alt/right discuss masculinity reveals the way mannerbund have always been a threat to the establishment and to the state, which if these calls for male unity are heeded bodes not well for the gynocentric status quo.
Fascists and National Socialists were obsessed with the state, specifically the male state, their attitudes to homosexuality stemmed from their fear of the male organisation, the mannerbund undermining the state. Heinrich Himmler gave a speech to a gathering of his recruiters where he laid out the SS position on male organistaions such as Gay clubs and the priesthood, basically the last thing they wanted was men showing love or loyalty to other men before loyalty to the SS and the Reich, that's one of the reasons they persecuted the priesthood and broke up all the gay clubs and male associaitions like the Scouts.
I digress but the point I'm getting to is that this call for "marriage equality" sounds awfully like a call for conformity and submission to the rules of the state, which in this day is completely gynocentric. Feminists (of both genders) are indeed female supremacists because they measure themselves against other groups such as men (the patriarchy) and seek to dominate them."Traditionalists" or conservatives, the "other feminists" simply see women as superior to men, they're goddesses or madonnas, to be worshipped and carried aloft by their men.
Neither side can tolerate virility, male self assurance, male bonds or male associations, this is where Donovan and his milieu are really onto something, great social change could come about via male unity and allegiance to our brothers, especially between straight and homosexual men given that the schwerpunkt has now shifted to this dubious concept of "marriage equality".

Banjo.
The goal of Globalisation is one global standard for every facet of human life, with one global state overseeing all transactions for the well being of all, the end point is global communism in other words.
The "Gay" and Second Wave Feminist movements we know today grew out of Marxism, that's demonstrably true, go look it up.
Heterosexual relationships are based on a method of exchange, the male exchanges his surplus labour for the woman's reproductive capacity and vice versa, now do you see where a Marxist sees his entree to "our bedrooms"?
Continues below.

And there was I, thinking that it couldn't possibly get any more ridiculous, Jay of Melbourne.

Well, I was wrong. I admit it. It just gets more and more hilarious each post.

>>Gay marriage is just a relatively benign part of the globalist/imperialist agenda,just as Anti Smoking campaigns and cancer research were part of the Nazis'imperialist agenda.<<

According to this, anti-smoking campaigns are features of a Fascist dictatorship. And so is cancer research - presumably, in your concept of democracy, no research into killer diseases should be undertaken, lest the perpetrators be viewed as master-race imperialists?

That has 'em rocking in the aisles already... but do go on.

>>... the last thing [the Nazis] wanted was men showing love or loyalty to other men before loyalty to the SS and the Reich, that's one of the reasons they persecuted the priesthood and broke up all the gay clubs and male associaitions like the Scouts.<<

And they replaced the Scout movement with... the Wandervogel Movement. Check it out.

And... didn't the Nazi Party have many of its early meetings in the Bratwurstgloeckl, a well-known meeting place for the butchest of gays? And wasn't one of Hitler's earliest backers (if you'll excuse the expression) one Ernst Roehm, whom William Schirer described as "a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar- faced professional soldier...[and] like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual"

What could possibly top that? Oh... there's this.

>>The goal of Globalisation is one global standard for every facet of human life, with one global state overseeing all transactions for the well being of all, the end point is global communism in other words.<<

That conjures up the image of Arjay's bankster elites, who are apparently controlling all our lives, and flying false flags all over the place.

You're just a barrel of laughs.

Continues from above.

On the road to communism all exchanges and expressions of value need to be overseen by the socialist state, reproduction is an exchange, with me so far?
Single men and women don't have to work very hard to keep themselves alive, married couples with children on the other hand need to exchange things of value in ever greater amounts and using ever more complex means of exchange.

Same Sex marriage is an easy road to bringing all reproduction under state control because it needs scientific assistance to function, again, things like surrogacy,sperm and egg donation and adoption are transactions with their own value and means of exchange.
Where "Marriage equality" come in is that for everyone to be equal everyone, heterosexual and homosexual needs to be under the one system, one marriage act, one standard for construction of zygotes, one standard for IVF, adoption and so on.

I don't think many people understand the "Gay" movement because not many people understand Marxism, now that's not to say it will work out as the globalists plan, it most probably won't because there are so many, as we gamers say "modifiers" which could change the state of play. As I said above, one unwanted modifier in the globalist game could be that all married men unite and start making their own demands, the other modifier is that using force to get your own way usually only leads to the opposite outcome to the original plan.(the state is a monopoly on the use of force, legislation is that monopoly in action). Legislating same sex marriage will almost certainly have the opposite outcome to it's stated aim and may even have unintended and unwanted effects on the status quo.

Pericles,
False contradictions aren't arguments and William Shirer's opinions and anti Nazi propaganda cannot be trusted, there's no evidence that homosexuals were numerous in the early party or that they were tolerated, those titillations and dirty innuendos about Hitler, Roehm, Emil Maurice and the supposed perversions of the SA are completely baseless.
When Hitler was looking for a way to get rid of Roehm his homosexuality was revealed to the leadership and it was one of the charges used to denounce him,that is all, maybe Hitler knew beforehand, maybe he didn't but the regime was remarkably consistent on the issue of homosexuality.
To put this into context I refer you to Himmler's 1938 speech on the subject of homosexuals, it's pretty unambiguous, he wanted to entrap any gays who tried to join the SS then they were to be sent to concentration camps and then be "shot while trying to escape".
The point is that totalitarian regimes are threatened by groups of men whose oaths are sworn to each other or to a higher authority than the state, married Gays with kids would be far less likely to get involved in any insurgency against liberal democracy, would they not?
Whereas in the past the single, Gay "ronin" would have and did gravitate towards Anarchism and Trotskyism, just as they do today, bands of men have always been threat to globalist ambitions, from Robin hood's Merry Men to the Taliban, surely you can grasp that?

Don't get in such a lather, pet.

>>Pericles, False contradictions aren't arguments and William Shirer's opinions and anti Nazi propaganda cannot be trusted, there's no evidence that homosexuals were numerous in the early party or that they were tolerated, those titillations and dirty innuendos about Hitler, Roehm, Emil Maurice and the supposed perversions of the SA are completely baseless.<<

I don't know about "false contradictions", Jay of Melbourne.

But I'd back the thoroughly-researched and sober conclusions of the historian William Shirer against your shrill denials, any day of the week.

There's no use either, trying to muddy the waters with a couple of red herrings - neither Hitler nor Maurice were homosexual, as far as scholarly history of the period is concerned. Ernst Roehm, on the other hand, was most definitely homosexual, with a penchant for young boys. This is not only well documented by historians, but is apparent in his own handwriting, in letters to Dr. Heimsoth.

It shouldn't really matter, of course. In every administration, of whatever creed or philosophy, there has always been a sprinkling of gays. Your problem though is that to acknowledge this obvious fact would undermine your argument that only gays passively accept authority, while only butch heteros are freedom fighters.

Sorry about that.

.

Dear rehctub,

.

You wrote:
"... married refers to the union of a man and woman."

I am inclined to agree with you but I see that my Oxford dictionary defines "married" as "of person(s) so united".

Dictionary.com is a little more expansive:

married - adjective

1. united in wedlock; wedded: married couples.

2. of or pertaining to marriage or married persons; connubial; conjugal: married
happiness.

3. (of an antique) created from components of two or more authentic pieces.

4. interconnected or joined; united.

5. (of a family name) acquired through marriage.

Origin:

1250–1300; Middle English marien < Old French marier < Latin mar&#299;t&#257;re to wed, derivative of mar&#299;tus conjugal, akin to m&#257;s male (person)

.

Dear Rhrosty,

.

Your contribution to this debate is potentially paramount.

I presume there is solid evidence in support of your biological explanation of homosexuality. Would you be so kind as to elaborate further on this and indicate your sources.

.

Dear Constance,

.

That the social and political order is constantly evolving on a planetary scale is an evidence none can deny.

It commenced when mankind broke away from his common ancestor with the chimpanzee 5 to 7 million years ago and it is due to end in 500 million years time when the sun enters the final phase of its stellar evolution and we all disappear into cosmic dust.

New World Orders are a fact of life but attributing them to international social, political or economical conspiracies is a bit far-fetched in my humble opinion.

I am aware that a number of authors such as H.G.Wells, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, as well as politicians such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill had such visions in relation to dramatic change - various religious, political and sectarian organisations also, including Freemasonry.

As it happens, I was the international director of Continental Europe's largest insurance broking group for many years and have had first-hand experience of the difficulty of implementing world-wide strategies.

I am not convinced. In my view, it is more of the order of utopian and dystopian fiction.

.

.

Dear Jay Of Melbourne,

.

You wrote:

[The goal of Globalisation is one global standard for every facet of human life, with one global state overseeing all transactions for the well being of all, the end point is global communism in other words ...

Heterosexual relationships are based on a method of exchange, the male exchanges his surplus labour for the woman's reproductive capacity and vice versa, now do you see where a Marxist sees his entree to "our bedrooms"?]

Thank you for that detailed explanation of why you consider that "Gay marriage is just a relatively benign part of the globalist/imperialist agenda ... ".

However, I must confess it seems a bit far-fetched to me - as I just explained to Constance on page 8 of this thread.

In the case of my wife and I, for example, we both had previous experiences outside of wedlock with various partners before we married. Our marriage was the symbolical act we performed in order to distinguish this relationship from all others, marking its special nature. It was the symbol of our union.

I am not so naïve as to imagine that all heterosexual marriages have this as their sole motivation. I am sure there may be many others.

I, nevertheless, see no reason why the motivations for same-sex marriages should be any different from mine or those of other heterosexuals.

I looked-up the New World Order (conspiracy theory) on the web, as you suggested, and found this article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29

I can understand that it is a theory which may please some to imagine exists in real life. Perhaps others are even trying to implement it.

I have no idea if you have tried to implement it yourself or not but, quite frankly, I have very serious doubts that anyone could ever succeed in doing so.

People tend to get married for their own, personal reasons - not because of some theory about New World Order conspiracy.

If you have any proof to the contrary, I should be pleased to hear of it.

.

Mark, good post.

De Tocqueville, at the birth of modern democracy: (tried to encourage its best aspects but saw clearly the terrifying potentialities)

"Now it is in the nature of all government to wish to enlarge its sphere continuously. It is therefore very difficult for it not to succeed in the long term, since it acts with a fixed thought and a continuous will on men whose position, ideas, and desires vary every day. Often it happens that citizens work for [the central power] without wanting to. Democratic centuries are times of attempts, innovations, and adventures. There is always a multitude of men engaged in a difficult or new undertaking….They do indeed accept for a general principle that the public power ought not to intervene in private affairs, but each of them desires that it aid him as an exception in the special affair that preoccupies him, and he seeks to attract the attention of the government to his side, all the while wanting to shrink it for everyone else. Since a multitude of people have this particular view of a host of different objects all at once, the sphere of the central power spreads insensibly on all sides even though each of them wishes to restrict it. A democratic government therefore increases its prerogatives by the sole fact that it endures….One can say that it becomes all the more centralized as the democratic society gets older. —Democracy in America— [1833]

"(Let me pause here to observe that questions surrounding children remain some of the most troubling implications of same-sex marriage for those who oppose it. The success of same-sex marriage will not only marginalise the principle that biological parenthood is normal and best. It will mean that the discussion of whether children need their biological mother and father is over for good, because such a claim will be regarded as discriminatory against the necessarily non-biological parent or parents in a same-sex marriage. To be as equally married as anyone else requires that we never again question the various ways children enter these marriages, and whether these means of having children are best for children.) http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/30/3747877.htm

^Understand what this means, the state and its legal and administrative functionaries, not your own heredity, will be more important to the legal custody of your own children.

Those flexible of conscience, the ambitious, the striving for worldly position (media, university 'experts', politicians, large corporations, think tanks etc) in late stage democracies only know what would continue and further what they had sacrificed so much to enter, i.e. how to survive - the bringing under central administration of ever more aspects of human life and freedom.

"To be as equally married..." (civilly united) "...as anyone else requires that we never again question the various ways children enter these marriages, and whether these means of having children are best for children.)"

Yup. Is there a problem?

Luciferase,

>Yup. Is there a problem?<

Yup - but only for a lot of normal people of course.

The relevant proposition offers to fling the flood gates wide open, with PC anti-discrimination rendering void any and all opposition to any constructed family 'arrangement' or any means of sourcing 'progeny'.
Marvelous for all the kinks and kooks, but of seriously questionable merit for the general raising of well-balanced children - and with subsequent uncertainty of the fitness of such 'wunderkind' to become meritorious parents themselves.

Welcome to a world of mass-neuroses. Dysfunction - the new 'normal'.

Dear Banjo Patterson.
Why on earth have you brought up Darwinism? I don’t mean to be rude but you seem to be a bit of an old dinosaur in your thinking. That is your own truth, not everyone’s. Populaces get conned, just like the whole Fraudian juggernaut where it dominated the whole health industry for far too long (I think) at the expense of more deserving health issues, such as Autism for one. Are not they not just trends of the day which carry people away from other more pending realities.

“Utopia/dystopia” - yes, dystopia is possible. You are not considering real history. I’m no expert on it but how can you ignore even recent history, like the killing of Russian traditions (yes and their previous monarchy) and the dystopian Stalin leader and Hitler. The Cossacks are even making a rise in Russia today in their military training of the young (a hankering for past traditions, no doubt). You can’t take freedom for granted these days. Anything can happen. The awful financial situation that Weimer Germany found itself in and then what happened? Rothchilds? Usury? Today’s obvious collusions with elites in banks and money dupers in other financial industries that squandered the savings of millions of people and the companies and their thieving executives get off scot free with stupendous bonuses and super pensions to see them off. And the plebs only get robbed. Where is the accountability and justice?

But she’ll be right, mate. I hear the French have become émigrés in about the past 8 years or so. There seem to be a lot of French around Sydney. What’s happening over there? Now they are becoming a socialist state by the sounds of things. Unemployment, not too good? And in Spain, even worse with their socialist government - I’m hearing 60% unemployment and current news in Oz, many Spaniards are now coming here. /Cont..

…/Cont.
But she’ll be right, mate. I hear the French have become émigrés in about the past 8 years or so. There seem to be a lot of French around Sydney. What’s happening over there? Now they are becoming a socialist state by the sounds of things. Unemployment, not too good? And in Spain, even worse with their socialist government - I’m hearing 60% unemployment and current news in Oz, many Spaniards are now coming here.

It’s a strange world today with this combination of corrupt extreme capitalism and impending socialism. It looks like elitism to me. When anything becomes extreme trouble arrives. Then there’s also Islamic extremists which cannot be ignored. We’ve had four terrorist attempts here which were fortunately foiled. But lots of our resources are spent on behind the scenes security.

Extremism in all varieties seems to be occurring today.

The State and their newly formed legislations, I’m very wary. Even Obama has supposed to have brought in new laws making banning street protests, or at least making it very difficult. I need to clarify this.

Lenin invented the concept of Political Correctness used by the Elite and didn’t have trouble finding their Useful Idiots. Why do we have this obsession with Equality to the endth degree? We are only equal to a point. And they banned religion, didnt’ they. They were only full of greed and hate afterall.

Hitler did say, "The bigger the lie…the more people will believe it".

Jay,

Trotsky's greatest (doesn’t mean good) and most original contribution to Marxism was his theory of Permanent Revolution. I agree, Marxism is at the root of Feminism.

I don’t know if you watched Q & A on Monday night. I myself had given up on the show as it has just become same old, same old, and never any genuine debate about anything. I just happened to watch it as Nick Caver was on the panel. He is a senior editor of the Australian has written a book called “The Lucky Culture and the Rise of an Australian Ruling Class”. He is an English man who escaped the class structures there so has found Oz very refreshing and hence given him more opportunies. With Tony Jones and that awful Sarah Hanson-Young was on it, and Nick became dead meat. He was pilloried by these two. This was the very thing he had written about. Tony and Sarah are clear examples of the new elite. The Latte Sipping crowd – the Progressives/Post Modern Liberals. We are no longer able to have freedom of genuine intellectual debate about anything anymore.

I have a nephew who is an honors graduate from Sydney University and also studied in Paris as part of his degree. He is currently rapidly climbing up in the public service. He is one of these elites that Nick Caver talks about. I’m afraid he has been brainwashed. He has also been taught to be self-loathing of our own disappearing Australian culture. Including no larrikins are permitted and the sus cultural relativism that comes with it. They really do look at themselves as being morally superior.

I’m neither really left or right. The closest political philosophy I can ally with is “South Park Conservative” or Libertaranism. Matt Stone and Trey Parker (or at least one of them) who hate extremists of any kind, but the ones they really deplore are today’s (so called) Liberals - the Progressives who are in fact hardly Liberal at all.

Not exactly, Constance.

>>Hitler did say, "The bigger the lie…the more people will believe it"<<

What he actually wrote was:

"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true within itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

Mein Kampf, Ch 10. Trans: James Murphy.

The interesting thing about this was that it was not an exhortation to his people to lie, but was directed at the Jews, whom he accused of promulagating the lie that Ludendorff was to blame for Germany's loss of WWI.

Goebbels later shortened this concept somewhat, to:

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

In both cases, the idea was used as a verbal stick with which to berate the enemy, and can therefore easily be taken for pure propaganda, rather than an intellectual observation.

.

Dear Constance,

.

You wrote:

"Why on earth have you brought up Darwinism? I don’t mean to be rude but you seem to be a bit of an old dinosaur in your thinking ... how can you ignore even recent history ..."

.

That's quite a diatribe, Constance. I suspect you are still fulminating, even in your sleep (given the time difference between Paris and Sydney).

From dinosaurs to newly formed legislations - you have certainly encapsuled much more than just "recent history".

It seems to me that what you are describing here is social, political and economic evolution.

Evolution, which originally derived from the Latin "volva" (womb, female sex organ), was coined in the 1640's. Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was published in 1859.

All Darwinism may well be evolution (though I am not familiar with everything he wrote), but all evolution is certainly not Darwinism.

I did not "bring up Darwinism" and, in my humble opinion, you did not either.

Have no fear, you were not being rude. You were simply making an amalgam between evolution and Darwinism - an understandable Fraudian juggernaut reaction.

You also wrote:

"You can’t take freedom for granted these days. Anything can happen."

Don't look behind now, Constance, but you should never have taken it for granted before either.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, the elite, the plebs, socialists, extremists, all those whom you mentioned and many more continue to haunt our memories - and yet you write:

[ “Utopia/dystopia” - yes, dystopia is possible. You are not considering real history. ]

I never suggested that "real history" was dystopia (nor vice versa). I trust that you do not either.

I did, however, express serious doubt that New World Orders are attributable to international conspiracies which was the thesis of Jay of Melbourne you were defending.

I bow to Pericles's erudition on the phrase you attributed to Hitler: "the bigger the lie…the more people will believe it".

Allow me simply to observe that, in my opinion, the same priciple applies "the bigger the truth". The difficulty resides in identifying one from the other.

.

.

Dear Constance,

.

You also wrote:

"I hear the French have become émigrés in about the past 8 years or so ... Now they are becoming a socialist state by the sounds of things. Unemployment, not too good?"
.

As a foreign resident in France, I abstain from French politics. As I am a member of an association called ABIE (Australian Business In Europe) I often attend meetings at the embassy with visiting Australian ministers, bankers, business leaders, cineastes, artists etc.

There are a couple things about identity I am particularly attached to. One is being a male. The other is being Australian. Though I have been living here for nearly half a century, I have never changed either and never shall.

One night in "Harry's Bar" my (French) boss told me that if I wanted to accede to the General Management of the Group, I should change my nationality from Australian to French. I swallowed my beer and replied that I should be happy to do so if he agreed to change his sex from a man to a woman.

That was over 20 years ago. He is still a man and I am still Australian.

Excuse the diversion. European governments and politicians, no doubt, have their part of responsibility in their countries economic woes but it is not a question of left or right, socialists, communists, centrists, liberals or conservatives. They all have their share of responsibility. None has been any better than any of the others.

The banks choked on the US toxic derivatives that flooded into Europe in 2007. Governments came to their rescue by borrowing huge sums of money on the international market, creating mountains of sovereign debt.

Banks no longer trusted each other and stopped lending money to industry and commerce. The economy collapsed. Research and development ceased. Investment ceased. Growth ceased. Unemployment sky-rocketed.

Australia was saved by the mining boom but that's now on its last legs. And, maybe, Australian banks will no longer be able to hide their own toxic derivatives indigestion:

http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2013_02_22_CBA_Hiding.html

.

Whilst legalising Gay Marriage in Australia may not resolve the debate, is this truly the aim of marriage equality?
Gay and Lesbian couples throughout Australia are asking for equal rights before the law. They do not want to be discriminated against and denied their dignity and worth. Marriage is about love, not gender.
Homosexual couples are not asking to be accepted / married by the church, only the law. As this is Australia, and a modern day at that, religion and law should be clearly seperated.
There will be outcries and continuing debate that rages on after same sex marriage is legalised, but there was the same for inter-racial marriage way back when.
The world is moving forward, recent statistics show that 65% of Australians support same-sex marriage, and 75% of us believe it is inevitable.
Therefore, there may be ongoing debate but wouldnt this be from the minority of the Australian population??

Banjo Patterson

Gobbledygook. Your admiration of Pericles says much. He is intellectually bankrupt and utterly pretentious. And doesn’t seem to believe in anything I think because he’s caught up in his own ego.

“I never suggested that "real history" was dystopia (nor vice versa). I trust that you do not either” ? I never implied this. I’m saying the way things are going, ie the Elitists’ power and control would likely bring us into some sort of dystopia - such as totalitarianism/communism. There are no incentives for private enterprise anymore and there is censorship on anyone speaking their mind. We cannot say anything as it really is.

You have diverted from the crux of my argument and end up talking about some French bloke not turning into a woman. With your namesake it doesn’t make much sense as Aussies are egalitarian to the core. Parisiennes don’t have a reputation of arrogance for nothing. When I visited Paris a few years back, I attained a deeper understanding of the word bourgeois. And they just may be disengaged from the rest of France just like you and Pericles are from reality.

Well seeing you’re part of the Bourgeoisie elite we’re not ever going to have any meaningful discourse, are we?

Here is an example of what’s been going on when the Labor Party lost its soul:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/my-party-was-trashed-by-the-middle-class/story-fn59niix-1225910722814

This is not a conspiracy. We are not living in democracies, more like PLUTOCRACIES.

We are losing our freedoms.

Oh dear, Constance. Have I said something to upset you?

>>Gobbledygook. Your admiration of Pericles says much. He is intellectually bankrupt and utterly pretentious. And doesn’t seem to believe in anything I think because he’s caught up in his own ego.<<

Ah yes, I remember, it was when I pointed out that the people of Northern Ireland actually vote, regularly, to remain part of the United Kingdom.

So annoying, isn't it, this democracy thing, when it doesn't fit with your own prejudices. Still, it is quite consistent with your overall rejection of uncomfortable facts, in favour of third-hand fable and counterfeit emotion.

Have a nice day, y'hear.

.

Dear Constance,

.

You wrote:

"Your admiration of Pericles says much ... "
.
But while (as I wrote) "I bow to Pericles's erudition on the phrase you attributed to Hitler", that is simply my recognition of his competence and authority on the matter in question. It is not a blank cheque of admiration.

Whereas, something I definitely do admire is your pyrotechnical style of thought.

Your posts transport me in mind to the Chinese New Year. Ideas and images are popping and spluttering in all directions, bumping into each other, exploding and showering up, overflowing in a splendid display of colourful fireworks.

Which is why I am surprised you should write: " ... there is censorship on anyone speaking their mind. We cannot say anything as it really is."

I could never have imagined you were suffering in silence, Constance. I hasten to reassure you. Please feel free to speak your mind with me and, for goodness sake, do not bite your tongue. I shall never denounce nor betray you. Cross my heart and hope to die.

I totally agree with you that " totalitarianism/communism" are to be avoided at all costs. Anything would be better than that. I could even take a fair dose of Marxism, or why not capitalism for that matter - in fact, I do, every day.

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on dystopia and reality. I have no problem with that, though I can't say I share your global pessimism.

You are quite right in thinking that " Aussies are egalitarian ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

However, I hesitate to agree that it is " ... egalitarian to the core" as you suggest, in view of the following:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5967792/Housework-makes-British-men-more-attractive.html

Nevertheless, if, despite the poor performance of Aussie men in the household, that's OK with you, Constance, it's OK with me too.

I think you'll find I'm a fairly easy-going person when you get to know me.

.

Pericles,

But you never did respond to that post, did you? Were you lost for words for once.

Terror induced democracy. Prejudices, you say?

Facts, which you can’t seem to face.

I have not observed you on that sole posting of yours. I have no obsession with that part of the world, but just felt at the time I read it, it deserved a rebuke. Then there was Individual’s idiotic response which followed yours that further caused my exacerbation.

Elitists always love to use prejudice in their ripostes to stifle arguments which is always so incredulous and predictable. Dodgy as.

Dear Banjo,

I have noticed that you appear laid back. I’m sure you are nice chap. But then you just seem to get off topic and divert into netherland in your posts.

I’m actually a laid back person too just not complacent. I usually have something always brimming underneath. I guess I’m the edgy type. Don't you like fireworks?

Home domestics issues are pretty small in the scheme of things. I won’t go into it but males and females do have different genetic makeups after all, and we can't change that. I haven’t seen any woman in a tool shed, have you? Men seem to be demonized today enough as it is. Yes, there are many Aussie men blind to housework like men in general tend to have that blue/green colour blindness. Big deal. But we don’t want that nasty class structure that the English have, do we?

Check out Jack Donovan’s take on mattters of men:
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/books/the-way-of-men/

Nick Caver on the elites
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/think-what-you-like-but-keep-it-to-yourself/story-e6frgd0x-1226590257097

Gregory Melleuish on the intellectual conformists and lack of diversity
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/intellectuals/4669742

You don’t seem to understand, I think you are unwittingly complying with the whole totalitarian nanny state we’re becoming as you are probably an elitist yourself. Now don’t get too laid back now, will you?

You should also check out Celia Green.

.

Dear Constance,

.

You wrote:

"You don’t seem to understand, I think you are unwittingly complying with the whole totalitarian nanny state we’re becoming as you are probably an elitist yourself ".
.

I don't think any so-called elite would want me, Constance. If they did I'm pretty sure they would regret it.

I climbed up the ladder the hard way. I grew-up in the Queensland outback. My lifelong dream was to become a drover. Unfortunately, I never made it and ended up hitch-hiking into Paris. No job. No money. No family. No friends. No French.

I gate-crashed into this place and somehow managed to survive on my primary school education. You may be right in thinking the "Parisiennes" are arrogant and bourgeois. I was too occupied trying to survive to notice. That was nearly a half a century ago. Since then I guess I've become one of them ( a Parisien, of course) - arrogant and bourgeois.

You are also right in thinking I am totally unaware of "complying with the whole totalitarian nanny state we’re becoming". I always thought I was doing it all on my own, without any help from anybody. I even thought that all that back stabbing from my work colleagues was done on purpose to eliminate me. It put the skids under me a couple of times, that's for sure.

All I know is it's been a long hard struggle. Either I went up or I was out on my neck. There was no other choice. I never went up. I was always out on my neck. And the competition got tougher as the years went by. The only way I ever went up was by negotiating my next job with twice the pay and twice the responsibility.

I had no idea that I was being protected all these years by a "totalitarian nanny state".

Please forgive me for not understanding, Constance. Now that the battles are over and the dust has settled, I'll take a look in the mirror. Perhaps I have become an elitist, as you suggest, without realising it.

.

Petty, Constance.

>>Pericles, But you never did respond to that post, did you? Were you lost for words for once.<<

As I recall, your question was...

>>You’re an English migrant, aren’t you?<<

Which, being rhetorical, I didn't bother to answer. But it is of course true, and also the reason I know a great deal more about the country than you do.

But you might need to expand a little on this mini-tanty:

>>Terror induced democracy. Prejudices, you say? Facts, which you can’t seem to face.<<

Hmmm. That raises images of the people of Northern Ireland being forced to vote themselves into Westminster at gunpoint. How else can "terror induced democracy" be interpreted? As for those prejudices, what else can they be, when exhibited by someone with so little knowledge and understanding of the situation?

>> I have no obsession with that part of the world, but just felt at the time I read it, it deserved a rebuke.<<

Not only have you no obsession with that part of the world, you know absolutely nothing about it, apart from some anti-establishment rhetoric that you happened to come across on the internet.

>>Elitists always love to use prejudice in their ripostes to stifle arguments which is always so incredulous and predictable. Dodgy as.<<

While others claim their prejudices to be fact in order to bolster a flagging argument, without providing anything more than unprocessed emotion in support of them.

Have a wonderful, freedom-fighting day.

.

Dear Constance,

.

You wrote:

"Now don’t get too laid back now, will you?"
.

Please forgive me but I simply can't resist the temptation ...
.

Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question...
Oh, do not ask, "What is it?"
Let us go and make our visit.

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.

And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,
Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions
And for a hundred visions and revisions
Before the taking of a toast and tea.

I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.

And would it have been worth it, after all,
After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,
Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,
Would it have been worth while,
To have bitten off the matter with a smile,
To have squeezed the universe into a ball
To roll it toward some overwhelming question,
To say: "I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all"
If one, settling a pillow by her head,
Should say, "That is not what I meant at all.
That is not it, at all."

(from T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock")

.

i grow old. i grow old. i shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled