Democracy is a convenient myth used to appease the sheeple. It was highjacked years ago by bloodsucking parasites & their legal leech comrades, along with concepts like free speech, accountability & equal access to justice. If there was any such thing as democracy, the right of the sheeple to voice their opinion on matters of concern would be regarded as a given, not merely in the few weeks before an election, but every single day. The failure to seek or to respond to public opinion proves`conclusively that the bloodsucking parasites really don't give a rats. There is no excuse whatever for not consulting the sheeple on matters which are quite obviously contentions, eg homosexual marriage & boat people. With a federal election looming on the horizon, there is even more reason why referendum questions should be incorporated. Cost of running a referendum is usually (and conveniently) used as an excuse to not consult the sheeple but clearly that is irrelevant when combined with a federal election. The reason why I'm encouraged to see the CDP & islamic cooperation is that adds a smidgin of balance to an argument hitherto dominated by homosexual lobbyists & bloodsucking parasite politicians grasping for votes. Given the absolute lack of accountability other than (maybe) immediately prior to an election, the time for the sheeple to make their presence felt is NOW.

.

Dear praxidice,

.

In Australia, a non-constitutional referendum is usually called a plebiscite.

Also, it is interesting to note that, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the plural of referendum is referendums when only one issue is to be decided. Referenda necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.

In Australia, we usually vote "No" to referendums or plebiscites. Only 8 out of 44 have been carried since 1906.

Perhaps that is why you advocate a referendum.

In France, where I have been living for nearly half a century, the situation is pretty much the same. Voters usually seize on the occasion to say no to the president and/or the government irrespective of what the question may be.

It inevitably ends up as a "no confidence" vote to the politicians even though there may be a majority in favour of whatever is being put to the vote.

Only a small minority of conscientious voters actually vote on the question they are asked to vote on.

Recourse to public opinion polls is probably the only way to find out what people truly think about any particular issue.

In October 2010, a Galaxy Poll found 62% supported same-sex marriage, with 33% opposed and 5% undecided.

In July 2011 a survey by Roy Morgan Research (the only Australian-owned independent polling company) found 68% support same-sex marriage.

In early 2012 the House of Representatives conducted an online survey to provide a simple means for the public to voice their views on same-sex marriage and two bills which sought to legalise it.

There were 276 437 responses, the largest number ever received by a Committee of the House of Representatives.

177 663 respondents (64%) were in favour of changing the law to recognise same-sex marriage, 98 164 (35%) were opposed to it and 610 (1%) were unsure.

However, the report acknowledged that "The online survey was not a statistically valid, random poll. Respondents were self-selected, in that they chose to participate if they wished."

There have been no public opinion polls published since that survey by the Committee of the House of Representatives in 2012.

.

.

Dear david f,

.

You wrote:

"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!"

.

I understand that earthworms and a few other grubs are simultaneous hermaphrodites, having both male and female sexual organs at the same time (but with a firewall between the two to prevent self-fertilisation).

It seems there are even, occasionally, a few "rare" humans in a similar situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

That seems to put same-sex relationships between two separate individuals into perspective, doesn't it?

Quite banal really. All part of nature.

Some might say "Intelligent Design" - producing standardised, all purpose products on the one hand and slightly more fancy, customised goods on the other.

Nothing like a little fantasy and experimentation to break the monotony ! ... [it being excluded that the "Intelligent Designer" could possibly be guilty of making an error or even permitting totally uncontrolled random distribution as part of the process of creation].

.

The common garden snail is an hermaphrodite, as also I think are some plants. Some snails can self-fertilize, others can donate and receive conjointly with a 'partner' snail.
Many microbes simply undergo mitosis, splitting themselves to produce an identical clone - though occasionally with an unplanned 'mutation', sometimes with dire consequences.
Humans are just mixed-up, and rapidly becoming more so.

As for relational statistics from the Netherlands, it would be preferable to consult from a broader reference set, given the proclivity of that society to want to be the first to try anything radical.
1% of total divorces, but what % of divorces (or separation/breakup) specifically from same-sex 'marriages' or relationships; and what comparative average of longevity of such marriages or relationships - as against their hetero counterpart population?
Unless something has changed drastically, relevant statistics, as canvassed previously on this subject, do not present gay relationships in general in anything like a favourable light.

When there is genuine evidence of a broad and concerted commitment by the gay community at large to the foundational and binding tenets of 'marriage', as traditionally understood and respected, then, and only then, could there be a genuine case for 'marriage equality'.
I would suggest that a broad commitment to civil union would represent a solid first step to providing that evidence.
However, an argument by a boisterous minority that the absence of 'marriage equality' is preventing them from entering a genuine marital commitment, despite the availability of civil union provisions, rings hollow and evasive, and begs the question of true motivations.
Deficiencies evident in the tenacity and wholesomeness of heterosexual marriages in our society do not represent argument for 'lowering the bar', but rather for better education to develop higher ethical standards of social interaction, and thereby to 'raise the bar'.
Descending to the lowest common denominator is not a constructive way forward, and could only impact adversely on any aspirations to be a 'leader' in the Asian century, and on our international relationships generally, and particularly with our middle east trading partners.
Food for thought.

Rights are always something given by one party to another. In this case homosexual people are asking for a right from the government but should the government be the ones who give such a right? Does it need to be even given by any one at all? The only reason people want government sanction of their relationship is because they accept the government definition of marriage as something that is legally sanctioned by the government. Why do they accept this? If you give up the freedom to define your own relationship to someone else then you have bigger problems than marriage equality. If you maintain the right to define your own relationship as you wish then the only other thing you might require is the legal benefits that married people have.

To have integrity as a human being you would need to maintain your right to define your own relationship as well as fighting for your legal rights. Anyone who does not want both these rights has less self respect than someone who does.

To want government to sanction your love, your sense of security or your worth to society is the sign of someone who is very insecure in themselves and very insecure about the validity of their relationship with their partner.

By all means fight for your legal rights with all your strength but introducing issues that are based on personal insecurity are a waste of taxpayers’ time and money.

.

Dear Saltpetre,

.

The problem is we have been conditioned for so long by our social and religious environment that we tend to lose sight of reality.

We have been conditioned to associate births and deaths with religion. But if we open our eyes and look around us at the birds and the bees, the flowers and the animals we can see them as purely natural phenomena.

Monogamy (marriage) is simply the pacification (civilisation) of the competition among males for the right of access to females for mating purposes. It developed 20 000 years before present day religions emerged and integrated it into their rites.

Homosexuality is also a perfectly natural phenomenon, just like heterosexuality. Society is only beginning to realise it, gradually getting used to it and timidly accepting it.

As Petter Boeckman, a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, pointed out: "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, ... a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue".

Religion historically regards homosexual sex acts as sinful, based essentially on an erroneous understanding of "natural law" (the law of nature) as shown by the results of the zoological research mentioned by Petter Boeckman.

Religious dogma is constantly proven wrong in its interpretation of nature by scientific research.

There is a perfume of "déjà vu" regarding the current debate on homosexual marriage, e.g., Galileo's condemnation for heresy when he declared in 1610 that the earth revolves around the sun.

It was not until November 4, 1992 that Pope John Paul II finally declared :

" The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.... "

In 2000, he issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by the Catholic Church throughout its history, including the trial of Galileo.

De-conditioning mentalities is a long, slow process.

.