.

Dear Saltpetre,

.

Since you want the stats served to you on a platter:

- There were 121 000 marriages but also 50 200 divorces in Australia in 2010.

- Roughly 50% of divorces each year impact on children aged less than 18 years

- 41% of all reported sexual assault victims were aged 0-14 years (Aust. Institute of Health & Welfare, 2009)

- 19% of women and 5.5% of men reported experiencing sexual violence since the age of 15 ( Aust. Bureau of Stats. survey, 2005)

- 25% of women experienced intimate partner physical violence at least once in their lifetime and in the last 12 months, 1995–2006 (UN Stats. Division:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/Worldswomen/WW2010%20Report_by%20chapter%28pdf%29/violence%20against%20women.pdf)

- Family Violence costs Australia about $8 billion per year, a substantial proportion of which is borne by the victims themselves (Vic. Health, 2004)

According to a survey by The Aust. Institute of Criminology in 2003 :

- 20.8% of all homicides involve intimate partners. This represents approximately 76 homicide incidents within Australia each year.

- Over three-quarters (76.9%) of these intimate partner homicides involved a male offender and a female victim.

- Of these homicides, 65.8% occurred between current spouses or de-facto partners, whilst 22.6% occurred between separated/divorced spouses or de facto partners.

- 10% occurred between current or former boy/girlfriends, and

- 2% occurred within same sex relationships

Even if there were to be just as much intimate partner violence in same sex marriage as there is at present in heterosexual marriage, at least the protagonists would be boxing in the same category !

On the basis of the latest available statistics, same sex relationships only count for 2% of all intimate partner homicides.

Also, about 50% of all heterosexual marriages today, end up in separation or divorce. The children end up living with a single sex parent, generally, the mother.

You add:

" In the wild ... a fair amount of same-sex 'play' and xperimentation is evident".

You are dead right there, Saltpetre :

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

.

Dear Banjo,

You wrote: "The children end up living with a single sex parent, generally, the mother."

Very few parents have more than one sex. Ursula le Guin wrote a science fiction novel where people periodically changed sex, but they still were only one sex at a time.

Paramecia may interchange one eighth of their genetic complement during conjugation so they potentially have eight sexes. Wowee!

Since Australia is **SUPPOSEDLY** a democracy, the will of the majority of citizens should be paramount. Accordingly, the accepted method of determining majority opinion is via a referendum. I suggest therefore that the bloodsucking parasites in Canberra be instructed to add a referendum on homosexual marriage to the one on recognition of local authorities when we turf out the red-headed witch in September. Furthermore, a 'none of the above' option should also be provided on ballot papers so there can be no confusion should the majority be dissatisfied with every candidate. Those who take exception to my use of the word 'instructed' above should read the article 'my will be done' on the Toowoomba branch website of 'Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy'. Note particularly that the cost of an additional referendum will be negligible as we are already required to play the stupid voting game on the date anyway. Mind you it will be a tad less stupid for me at least this time around if Big Clive runs a candidate in my area. The witch & her followers have already been allocated the biggest numbers on my ballot paper, followed by RAbbott & friends.

Dear praxidice,

Majority rule is only part of democracy. Democracy as it is commonly understood includes the rule of law and the right of all to equal treatment under the law. Free speech and equal treatment under the law are given rights which are not subject to referendum.

No referendum is needed for same sex marriage as it is equal treatment under the law for those who wish to have legal recognition of their status as committed to each other regardless of sex.

The homosexual marriage issue is clearly extremely contentious & as such cannot be satisfactorily resolved WITHOUT a referendum. Furthermore, one cannot rely on any component of 'the system, PARTICULARLY 'the law', as that little rort is crooked beyond imagination and the exclusive game of utterly avaricious leeches whose only interest is the pursuit of personal riches. There is no lower lifeform on planet earth than a failed lawyer turned bloodsucking parasite politician. Its quite obvious that the pro-homosexual lobby will do or say anything, including courting the support of aforesaid leeches & bloodsucking parasites, to avoid a referendum as they know full well that it would inevitably fail in dramatic fashion. Note that I don't normally have much time for either the Fred Nile CDP or islamic interests but in this case I sincerely hope their common interests prevail. Seems Big Clive is also of like mind so the pressure is mounting.

Dear praxidice,

Free speech is also contentious, but it is part of democracy. Of course a referendum on the issue might decide that we should no longer have free speech. If we allow free speech then there will be people who say things you or I don't want to hear.

You spoke of a pro-homosexual lobby. Nonsense. There are people who believe that equal rights should not be restricted to those who are heterosexual. If equal rights are extended to homosexuals there will neither be more nor fewer homosexuals. However, those who are predominantly homosexual will be freer to admit their orientation.

You apparently have a great distaste for politicians and the law. I guess you also have a great distaste for democracy. To express that distaste you are apparently willing to favour both Fred Nile and Islamic interests when it when it coincides with your prejudices.