The sensible centre?
Oh puleez!
These stark images reveal what energizes the world-view of right-wing Christians.
http://spiritlessons.com/passionofchristpictures.htm
Remember too that many of these right wing Christians have direct associations with Opus Dei. The unspeakably vile film above is essentially a graphic portrayal of Opus Dei's attitude to the human body and the practice of bodily mortification described here:
http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm
Remember too that Opus Dei has an extensive list of banned books - most of which are essential reading if one wishes to understand Western culture altogether in the 21st century.

And of course this toxic psychology is passed on from generation to generation (all with the "best" intentions" of course) creating this enduring cultural phenomenon
http://zakherys.tripod.com/greven.htm
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html

Lyle you know full well that voters main interest is their bank balance, the majority couldn't care less about what consenting adults do in private. Voters, as I have stated to Ian Macfarlane do care about the time wasted talking about "same-sex marriage" there are a number of important issues that need sorting out long before SSM, chase the paedophiles out of the church's, name and shame the drug pushers, work towards ending the "right to remain silent" corrupt rort that Legal-Aid scum use to "defend" criminals in court, (it has been ended in Britain after 400 years) and then you will have achieved something, in the meantime stop worrying about the hapless "poofs".

Sorry, Lyle, but your analysis is wrong in thinking that same-sex marriage was sufficiently on anyone's radar to be a vote-changer... either way.

Also, shouldn't Christians be informed by what Christ apparently said and did rather than their hypothesis of 'What would Jesus do'?

But here is a suggestion to help the ACL avoid any charges of hypocrisy... compaign as strongly for prohibitions on divorce and a total ban on remarriage - for which Jesus gave clear instruction - rather than bother with same-sex marriage, about which Jesus was mute.

My bet is that many 'Christians' would find reasons why divorce/remarriage laws shouldn't be changed.

Spot on! For Labor to win they need Catholics, obviously limiting their religious liberty is not going to attract them. The blue labor movement is the future, but it looks like Tony will that space before it gets going.

only a right wing Christstain would vote on this issues alone and they are hardly likely to vote green. As with most christstain logic the very basis of your argument is wrong.

Well, if Jesus walked amongst us today, with his single status and obvious preference for male companionship, he may well have been judged as gay?
And then crucified all over again by people who have conferred a self conferred right on themselves, to judge and or deny others, the rights they consider their very own birthright!
The Christian message is unequivocal in its universal love message, or doing unto ALL others, as you would be done unto!
SSM may well not have registered with the gay community or changed very many voting intentions, given its apparent late inclusion and or its extremely limited part of the campaign message; and indeed, all the other competing issues, and the self destroying infighting in Labour ranks?
Even so, it might well have prevented a disaster becoming an absolute rout!
That said, this issue should be decided by a referendum, which could be included in a number of other pressing questions, that ought to be decided by the people.
Like say whether or not, we should recognize our first peoples in the constitution, whether or not an Australian should be our constitutional head, rather than a foreign Monarch? Who now argues against us and our interests, whenever they conflict with Britain's!
And a mother country, which now treats Australians, its wartime ally as aliens, all while allowing Europeans, and former enemies, virtually unfettered access/entry?
Let the people decide!
Rhrosty.

Kevin Rudd sought to differentiate himself from Gillard and Abbott by being a campaigner for SSM...only to discover that the strategy got applause in certain circles but didn't bring any votes.

Kevin was vocal on this issue in the last week of the election on Q & A.

PM Abbott has been clear that he supports marriage as between a man and a woman.

The results are in- If this issue had mainstream support, Rudd would have attracted votes.The vote flow went the other way.

Please MP's-forget about this issue this term of Gov't.
There is no discrimination against gays in society.
Aussies are happy to live and let live.That's tolerance.

Marriage is currently defined to reflect the natural order of biology and to reflect public policy that children are generally best raised by a father and mother,if possible.

Lets focus on those that are discriminated against-the unwanted unborn & asylum seekers

The truth is that gay marriage, which was only up until recently sledged and reviled by gay activists, would not be a vote winner with all gays either.

It is a just a few noisy activists. As is quite apparent from the main suspects in the media and particularly the publicly-funded national broadcasters who promote gay marriage at every breath, the main push for gay marriage is coming from the leftie 'Progressives' and radical feminists. They pursue their own secondary gains from the gay marriage Trojan Horse.

What gay really wanted the interfering 'Progressives' to redefine and extend the de facto provisions of family law to him? Particularly where the definition is so murky and broad that even the government bureaucrats themselves, who now look over the shoulders of gays informing them of their de facto status (?!) can and do disagree on individual cases.

Whereas once gays could have whatever relationship suited and could easily sort their own assets on break-ups, lawyers and courts are now involved. It was simply not enough for the 'Progressives' and feminists to re-jig the family law for straights, they just had to extend their social re-engineering to gays. They always presume to know what is best for others and the changes happen whether gays like it or not.

with the Greens vote down 3% australia wide it shows that murdoch and the abc are pushing an agenda most don't want. hopefully Tony listens to his convictions and does not get bludegeoned by a loud vocal nasty minority group.

So if the comments so far are correct in saying that same sex marriage is no big deal for most, why was it raised as an election issue by Rudd? There is no discrimination, even gay activists like Helen Razer concede that. You are all right in one thing though, and that is that the electorate wants its leaders to focus on real issues. Back to work, oue elected leaders ...

Most comments agree there is a lot of noise being made by a few who want dysfunction in society, break down family values, disrupt principled lifestyles - it makes them think they are in charge. Homosexual discrimination is targeted more for these reasons than any other. But the people have used this election as a catalyst for change and spoken in favour of what they believe will bring success, based on the model of two leaders. Tony Abbott prayed (as did others) may the best man win. Therein lies the difference.

Speaking of marriage equality, does anyone supporting same-sex marriage support marriage equality for those of polyamorous sexual preference - i.e. polygamy and polyandry - and if not, why not?

Because it is not a relationship, it is an exploitation; and that is a typical rightwing idiotic question

Dear Lyle Shelton,

You lied. Rudd did not bully the pastor. I saw the debate, and Rudd politely stated his position.

You are probably correct. Same sex marriage was not a vote winner. However, I think it was a reasonable position. Possibly, Rudd was for it because he thought it was the right position to take whether or not it was a vote winner. Sometimes politicians act on principle.

Civil marriage is not a religious matter. I am married to a woman, and I am quite happy to continue our union. If people of the same sex get married I don't see how it will affect my marriage. I also don't see how it will affect the churches, synagogues or mosques who do not wish to sanction those unions. They don't have to.

However, I wonder why it was necessary for you to lie. Is that moral?

Is polite disagreement with another person bullying? Your lie does not make your case better.

SSM is a dead issue for the next three years. I was really pleased to read in the article that the Christian Lobby is upset about the departure from bi-partisanship on foreign aid and, presumably the cuts announced last week. I hope they will use their influence to lobby the Government.

Good question Jardine. The way I understand it, homosexual marriage proponents, say its simply a question of love. So if gender and the way partners couple their bodies (think where raison d'etre is anal sex and one man sucking another man's willy ) is of no relevance to marriage why should the number of people in it be?

As to Kipp's comment, there can be exploitation in any relationship. If one person in a polyamorous relationship of three people, is bisexual or a polyamorous relationship consists of 2 men and 2 women, where is the obvious exploitation? Whilst in the business of degrading the meaning of marriage you might just as well go the full hog.

Multiple marriage with the consent of the parties is no more intrinsically exploitative than any other marriage with the consent of the parties.

If outlawing gay marriage is sheer blind prejudice, why is outlawing mulitiple marriage?

In fact the position for bigamists and polygamists is far worse than for gay marriage, because not only can't bigamists and polygamists have their second or later marriages recognised by government, but their exchange of commitments is actually a criminal offence, unlike the situation with gays.

The whole argument for "marriage equality" is that marriage should not be limited in its definition by sexual preference. If it's sheer blind prejudice not to register gay marriages, how can the criminalisation of polygamous marriages be in any better position.

Notice how Kipp doesn't provide any reason and just descends instantly into circularity and personal abuse? I realise this is stock-standard left-wing style, but at least *try* and think, even if you find it very difficult.

@ Roscop

Polyamorous families and marriages already exist in Australia, its just not talked about because its taboo. You paint a picture that polyamorous will only happen once gay marriage is legal, but in reality polyamorous marriages have been happening in Australia for a number of years. So its all very convenient for you to insinuate and link polyamorous relationships with homosexuality, and at the same time totally ignore all the heterosexual polyamorous relationships which are currently happening. And for the record I don't support polyamorous marriages.

@ Runner

Sure the Greens vote is down this year but they have still managed to elect another senator Janet Rice who was the mayor of Maribyrnong, which in turn gives them more power and influence. Whats funny is the Coalition attacked the ALP for doing deals with the Greens, and yet the Coalition is going to be forced to do deals with the Greens to pass laws and gain support for motions in the senate etc. So it just goes to show you how hypocritical the Coalition is and the people who attacked the ALP for doing deals with the Greens. However I can guarantee you wont find any mention of the Coalition doing deals with the Greens in any News Limited papers.

Candide said: "SSM is a dead issue for the next three years."

NOT SO!

The homosexual marriage lobby is now saying inter alia:

"In the next few weeks we aim to arrange meetings between new MPs and key groups like Clergy for Marriage Equality and Psychologists for Marriage Equality."

These people are loud and persistent. I suggest that the ACL needs to remain just as active and sharpen up its arguments on what's good for society and demonstrate that that goes beyond what is said in the bible since a large percentage of people who are involved in the debate (including myself ) are not orthodox religious people. To do that the ACL should not use its opponents language. That's where the problem lies. They've have done a good job on changing the meaning of the word "gay"; they have changed "homosexual" to "same-sex", now they want to change the meaning of the word "marriage".

Well said Lyle! Curious how this is not being reported in mainstream media. The people have spoken...

Rhosty.
*Jesus to this day is claimed to be many things; a homosexual, that he was married; had a harem; was a lunatic; was a liar; that he did not even exist and finally (gasp) that he was who he claimed to be, Lord and future judge of all who have and will ever live. The historical record only supports one of these catagories.
* I strongly suggest you read ALL that Jesus had to say, instead of cherry picking his sayings.
* denying the rights of others. I dont see any bible believing christians dragging homosexuals to court for having a civil union or getting married where it is legal to do so, but already christians are being persecuted for exercising their right to not take part in something they disagree with (photographer declining to take photos of a SSM, baker declining to make a cake, foster family now declined the right to foster because they disagree with SSM). Who is the intolerant here?
* ...or doing unto ALL others, as you would be done unto! Where is the contradiction? opponents of same sex marriage do not claim a right to marry whoever they want on the basis of love. We are bound by the same rules; We can only marry a member of the opposite sex, of legal age, not already in a marriage, and not a close biological relative. Many SSM advocates are hypocrites because they only fight for their right to marry a same sex partner, they distance themselves from other marriage (sic)equality petitioners who want the right to marry more than one person; to group marry; to marry a close relative.(One group argues, if you permit homosexual marriage, what reason is there to deny two brothers or two sisters from marrying as genetically handicapped offspring is not a risk. If marriage is based on love...)
Referendum on marriage? Lyle Shelton agrees with that, as do other high profile SSM opponents ie, John Anderson. Who does not want a referendum? some hi profile supporters of SSM. Good job Lyle.

Because it is not a relationship, it is an exploitation; and that is a typical rightwing idiotic question
Posted by Kipp,

Very judgemental there Kipp, alot of polygamists would vehemently disagree with you, but hey, there opinion does not count does it, only yours. Typical bigoted militant left wing response.

It seems that the problem that some homosexuals have is that they not only wish to be different but that they also want to be the same, hence a desire for a change in the definition of marriage.

Penetrative sexual intercourse between males is an unnatural act, putting heterosexual marriage on the same footing is demeaning the institution and meaning of marriage.

@Is Mise, "Penetrative sexual intercourse between males is an unnatural act,...". Do you mean anal sex? In the lead up to the election I don't think I heard one mention of "anal sex" when the issue was being discussed. It would be good if that could be forced out of politicians' mouths more often. Also good to see you use the word "homosexual" instead of the misuse of that other word.

>>Penetrative sexual intercourse between males is an unnatural act<<

What does that have to do with marriage? Anal sex and gay marriage are not synonymous terms. And if gay marriages are less worthy because the couple have anal sex, where does that leave heterosexual marriages where the couple have anal sex?

Cheers,

Tony

"Penetrative sexual intercourse between males is an unnatural act,...". Do you mean anal sex? In the lead ....
Posted by Roscop,

Yes, but I like to get a bit literary!

>>Penetrative sexual intercourse between males is an unnatural act<<

What does that have to do with marriage? Anal sex and gay marriage are not synonymous terms. And if gay marriages are less worthy because the couple have anal sex, where does that leave heterosexual marriages where the couple have anal sex?
Cheers,
Tony"

It leaves them performing an unnatural act and thus debasing marriage.

Tony, "Anal sex and gay marriage are not synonymous terms." Yes not synonymous but in one direction doesn't one imply a strong association with the other? I don't think heterosexual people would have any problems with the association of natural sex with traditional marriage irrespective of whether it occurs.

The way I see it marriage is an officially solemnized relationship, an ideal, where there is complementarity between the spouses which is derived from the gender of each and that is the essence of it (that many fail from the start or some time down the track has nothing to do with it). The chemistry within the union can only be got from that complementarity. Marriage distinguishes the relationship from ALL other forms of relationships

If heterosexuals or homosexuals wish to enjoy anal or oral sex it is nobody else's business. As long as all parties are consenting adults let them enjoy what they will. If anybody doesn't wish to engage in such practices they certainly don't have to, but they have no business deciding what others should do. 'Unnatural' or 'natural' are value judgments which should not be put on others.

The old Victorian adage still goes.

"Do what you will as long as you don't do it in the street where it might frighten the horses.

>>It leaves them performing an unnatural act and thus debasing marriage.<<

So logically we should exclude heterosexuals from marriage as well, right? Because they perform unnatural acts and thus debase marriage. And if we don't let gays get married in case they debase it then why should we let straights? Doesn't really seem fair does it?

>>Yes not synonymous but in one direction doesn't one imply a strong association with the other?<<

Anal sex doesn't imply any association with gay marriage... and gay marriage doesn't imply any association with anal sex. You guy always seem to forget that about half of gay people are women. Do you think lesbians have much anal sex? Do you think getting married would affect how much anal sex they had?

>>I don't think heterosexual people would have any problems with the association of natural sex with traditional marriage irrespective of whether it occurs.<<

I don't think they would either. And I don't think homosexual people would have any problems with the association of anal sex with homosexual marriage irrespective of whether it occurs (and I doubt that lesbians have much anal sex). I know heterosexual people wouldn't have any problems with the association of anal sex with homosexual marriage irrespective of whether it occurs, except for a small minority who seem to have an unhealthy fascination with other people's sex lives.

There is a word to describe people who spend a lot of time obsessing about other people's sex lives: perverts. Because let's face it: it's only a short step from spending much of your time thinking about other people's private, intimate moments with their loved one to climbing a tree outside their bedroom window with a pair of binoculars. All this obsession from the anti-gay marriage crowd over what gay people do in the privacy of their bedrooms just seems a bit weird and creepy to me.

I wouldn't mind so much except that I every time I try to have a reasonable discussion about gay marriage around here, it gets run off into a ditch by somebody with a strange fascination with buggery. It's tiresome, and I personally find the discussion of other people's most private and intimate moments rather distasteful. There's a lot more to marriage than sex and gay men are still going to have anal sex whether they're allowed to marry or not.

It would be nice, just for once, to have a discussion about gay marriage which focused on gay marriage rather than bumming.

Cheers,

Tony

"It leaves them performing an unnatural act and thus debasing marriage."
"The way I see it marriage is an officially solemnized relationship, an ideal..."

Surely the easiest thing is for all who hold such views to not perform the 'acts' or not let themselves get married in a way with which they disagree?

Up to now I've thought people with a preoccupation, bordering on the obsessive, with other's sex lives satisfied themselves with buying Who Magazine.

But as to what is 'natural'... to quote my grandmother, "You should get out more."

Here is one helpful tip. Unnatural sex is anything that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, or requires batteries.

None the less anal sex is unnatural regardless of who performs it, it is an act that nature did not intend, hence unnatural.

I must admit that I performed an unnatural act upon myself for years and still do it occasionally, though not the full act these days.

Looking at the results of the elections, it's actually pretty hard to see what motivated people ito vote the way they did, aside from confusion and disillusion. Except for one thing: same-sex marriage clearly had very little to do with anything.

However, I never took it for granted that the marriage equality 'issue' would necessarily sway the electorate as a whole, despite the number. A majority, incidentally.

However, overall majorities are not the same as majorities in electorates, or even in States.

Multi-cultural, well-educated and sophisticated electorates, filled with people who have daily contact with people of all sorts and don't feel they should fear them - these are the areas where the notion of marriage equality raises few eyebrows. And they may even be in the majority - but that doesn't necessarily equate to an overall electoral win.

Simple fact. just saying.

>>None the less anal sex is unnatural regardless of who performs it<<

See what I mean? It's always about the anal sex. I guess these weird sick perverts just can't help themselves.

>>it is an act that nature did not intend, hence unnatural.<<

Nature doesn't intend any acts; it cannot hold intentions because it lacks agency. Who taught you philosophy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

Unnatural acts are simply those that do not occur in nature. But I don't believe in the supernatural so the only possible acts are natural acts - and the only acts which can be said with certainty to be unnatural are those that could never possibly occur because they would breach the laws of nature. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to imagine what sort of sex act would violate the laws of physics.

>>And they may even be in the majority - but that doesn't necessarily equate to an overall electoral win.

Simple fact. just saying.<<

You are quite correct jcro. May I call you Jim? The overall electoral win will come in time: older demographics have higher than average opposition to SSM and younger voters have higher than average support. Once enough of the worn out old fossils and their medieval views have shuffled off the mortal coil the electoral win will be inevitable :)

Cheers,

Tony

Can't imagine it influenced any voting intentions:

"I must admit that I performed an unnatural act upon myself for years..."

Umm, thanks for sharing... if that's not a contradiction in terms in this instance. It's not everyone who can pull themselves together...

You have reminded me to be more tolerant of anyone who needs time to come face to face with their issues.

WmTrevor,

I shaved for years, practically every day during my army career but these days I have a beard and only shave around the edges when necessary.

Shaving is an unnatural act, an act not intended by nature.

Tony,
Re. philosophy.
Professors Gaukrogers and Mac Dermott among others at Syd. Uni.

>>Shaving is an unnatural act, an act not intended by nature.<<

Wrong again: shaving is a natural act because it occurs in nature. Shaving would be only be unnatural if it only occurred outside of nature. Nature does not and cannot have intentions for reasons I've already explained to you. Because nature lacks agency it's impossible to meaningfully define 'natural' and 'unnatural' in terms of intentions: it simply nonsensical to do so.

Your willful ignorance saddens me: it is unfortunate when people can't learn - but when people won't learn because their minds are too closed to absorb new information that is a tragedy.

>>Professors Gaukrogers and Mac Dermott among others at Syd. Uni.<<

Obviously they didn't do a very good job if they left you with the erroneous impression that nature has agency. Or maybe you just weren't a very good student and you were daydreaming when you should have been paying attention to your lectures on agency.

Unfortunately the academics you named do not appear to be currently employed at Sydney Uni:

http://sydney.edu.au/arts/philosophy/staff/academic.shtml

But if you get in touch with Prof. Peter Anstey, Dr. Sam Baron, Prof. David Braddon-Mitchell, Dr. Matt Far, Dr. Kristie Miller, Dr. Luke Russell, Assoc. Prof. Nick Smith or Dr. Caroline West then they should be able to clear up your little misunderstanding for you.

Cheers,

Tony

Then Tony, define unnatural.

How does shaving, as performed by mankind occur in nature?

It looks like the Labor mob didn't learn anything from the recent federal elections ( I believe votes Labor received were the lowest in 100 years). In the ACT, Labor is at it again trying to bypass Federal Government constitutional powers:

"TONY EASTLEY: The new Federal Coalition Government's position on marriage equality is already being put to the test, with the ACT Government promising to introduce legislation this week to legalise same-sex marriage.

The ACT Attorney General, Simon Corbell, says the Territory Government is delivering an election promise and plans to introduce the bill on Thursday.

He says the Territory Government is ready to fend off any challenges to the legislation.

Rachel Carbonell reports. "

Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3849198.htm

*Note article author takes part nearer to the end of the discussion.

Phew... I'm glad that's been cleared up, Is Mise.

But doesn't that leave us in the position of thinking you believe only people who never cut any of their hair can get married?

That's Sikh.

Not at all, lots of things that we do were never intended by nature; like wearing shoes, man being the only animal that has decided for itself to provide foot protection.

Which Political party can win office in their own right.
2013 Australian Federal election Primary votes.
Liberal 3,798,466
Australian Labor Party 3,988,349

Where does that leave Abbott's supposed mandate?

Kipp, you neglected to include the LNP party primary votes(probably intentionally) - 1,067,784. Your post is irrelevant to the discussion here.

I have an idea for Lyle Shelton and other holding the same view on homosexual marriage. It is a way to outfox homosexuals and their supporters in respect to the issue. If homosexual marriage is put into law, my suggestion is for the churches to stop using the word "marriage". Instead in the wedding ceremony the word "marriage" should be substituted for something like "union of loving heterosexuals". The churches could set up their own registers. There would be no benefit for those joined in such ceremonies registering their union in the Births, Deaths & Marriages. Governments might have the power to introduce laws which are offensive to sections of the community but I don't think that they can dictate the language used in church ceremonies.

These days marriages, as they are today, are treated not much differently from de facto couples when it comes to the law except perhaps for immigration where one of the parties is come from overseas.

The churches should threaten to do this whilst this matter is under consideration by the government.

When it came to filling out forms rather than tick marriage just right on the form "Other".

I'd be interested to see what others think.

>>Then Tony, define unnatural.<<

unnatural (adj., adv.): not occurring in nature

>>How does shaving, as performed by mankind occur in nature?<<

From wikipedia:

>>Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe.<<

This the philosophic sense of the word nature: it is simply physical, material, observable world. More poetic notions of nature as some sort of Arcadian idyll where man lives as a noble savage in such perfect harmony with his environment that he has no need for technology are:
a) Difficult to define. Philosophy is difficult without clear definitions.
b) A false picture of the world. I'm not sure there was ever a time when man (homo sapiens) has lived in such perfect harmony with his environment that he had no need for technology: we are tool-building animals.

Tool-building is one of the things which makes us human but we aren't the only animal that modifies its environment to suit its own needs. Termites build mounds, beavers build dams, humans build mounds and dams. At what exact point does modification of one's environment cross the line from 'natural' to 'unnatural'? If bird builds a nest then it must be natural for a human to build a house - so are apartment blocks a natural or unnatural phenomenon?

How does shaving occur in nature? Basically, a sharp blade slices the hair off close to the skin. Mankind has modified his environment in way that enables him to cheaply mass-produce these sharp-bladed tools. At no point has he operated outside the laws of nature. The precise mechanics aren't really that important anyway: what is important is that does occur in nature. It occurs in the observable physical world - it can be observed on a daily basis. Since it occurs in nature it is natural. QED.

Cheers,

Tony

Nature never intended us to shave, hair is there for a purpose; therefore as nature intended some of us to be hairy then shaving is an unnatural practice for the hirsute,

Quite simple really.

Other examples: the vagina is designed for two way or reciprocal motion of a firm object; the anus, on the other hand, is designed for one way traffic.

The 'intent of nature' is common parlance and is understood by most people, by insisting on a narrow academic definition you are, as it were, sailing the good ship "Philosophy I" close to the Rocks of Elitism and on a lee shore at that.

In terms of what is natural, I think the analogy of cutting hair and the use of the anus for sex is a poor one. Its a question of the evolved function of different parts of the body. The function of the anus is form a channel to excrete body waste not receive a penis. There is also the question of public health(think E. Coli). Cutting hair simply relates to grooming.

We are ever evolving and 99.9% of women who give birth do not eat their afterbirth, however there are a few who still practice one of nature's ways of giving energy when it is much needed; it is however a natural practice.

>>Nature never intended us to shave<<

True that. But clearly it never intended us not to shave - or it wouldn't have given us the capacity to fashion razors. Or use them.

>>hair is there for a purpose<<

Is it? I can't think what purpose that might be other than vanity. It's certainly not insulation; woven fibres and animal furs do a much better job than our meager covering of hair. Other than harbouring lice I'm struggling to see what purpose hair serves. But if it's there I guess it has to serve some useful purpose, right? Like gout.

Tell a lie, some hair is useful: life would be a bugger without eyelashes (eyebrows, nostril hair, etc.). But I only shave my facial hair and I can assure you it has no useful purpose in such a warm climate beyond becoming uncomfortable and irritating if I let it grow too long.

>>therefore as nature intended some of us to be hairy then shaving is an unnatural practice for the hirsute<<

Maybe. But nature obviously never intended us to be hairy: if it did it wouldn't have given us the intellectual capacity to invent hair-removal methods or the manual dexterity to apply them. If nature had truly intended us to be hairy would we not have feeble little arms like the offspring of a T-rex that had been taking thalidomide, unable to bring a razor to our face or tear off a waxing strip?

>>Other examples: the vagina is designed<<

No it isn't. And if it is I - and a lot of other people besides me - would like to have a few words with the engineer in question. Words such as: "What on earth were you thinking", "Were you high?" and "Look, we all appreciate the effort that has gone into the aesthetics. It's not the form we're contesting but the function: why so close to the anus? What were you smoking? Didn't you study basic microbiology as part of your Human Engineering Degree? With the blueprints you've given us the female model is going to be at a much greater risk of urinary tract infections than might otherwise be the case, if you hadn't cocked up. And didn't it occur to you to get in touch with Hodgkins who was heading up the Juvenile Model Department? Looks like somebody was using the Metric system for the juvenile model and Imperial for the female model. It won't fit! Am I the first person to have noticed this? Smith, you're off reproduction. I want you well away from any major systems from now on: you're demoted to earlobes."

>>the anus, on the other hand, is designed for one way traffic<<

In a galaxy far, far away...

>Smith! Into my office NOW!

<Yes, sir?

>Smith, what am I to do with you? I gave you a second chance after the vagina fiasco of stardate 43582.6. I'd always admired your work on the aesthetic design even if there were... other oversights. You turned out good work in the earlobes so - against advice from HR - I promoted you to the Waste Management Department. Smith, what does the phrase 'one way' mean to you?

<A sh!tty boyband from the early 2100's?

>I didn't study Arts, Smith. One way means ONE way! Got it!? As in things only go one direction. Smith, what's wrong with this anus?

[Pulls a VERY lifelike arse from behind his desk]

>I'll tell you what's wrong with it! It doesn't go one way!

Smith, I can poke my finger up there quite easily - and the Human's digits go just as easily. I've just seen modelling from the Male Division which suggests it can accommodate somewhat more than a finger but that data is still speculative. Nevertheless you have clearly failed to grasp the meaning of 'ONE way'. I've been experimenting with this prototype anus all afternoon and can move my finger back AND forth. That's two ways, Smith.

<mumble mumble repro mumble mumble intellectual mumble

>What, Smith?

<[clears throat] I said, sir, that we already thought of that - and solved the problem - but the Reproductive team in the female division are claiming some intellectual property bullsh!t - 'prior discovery' - some rubbish legal phrase 'vagina dentata', whatever that means. Basically sir, we wanted to install teeth to make it a properly one way system but legal got in the way.

>Legal, huh?

[A gleam forms in his eyes]

Fcuk those legal fcuks.

[Fade to a scene of a man having his dick bitten off by anal dentata]

Good ones, Tony; did you write for 'Honi Soit'?

Hair does have it's uses. It stops sunburn of the pate; aids the evaporation of sweat and the facial hair when grown to beard length is most useful, acting as an extended evaporative surface in hot weather and retaining an insulating layer of air in winter.

There are stories that damsels in distress have used their own long hair as a rope with which to effect their escape from towers and the like.

Tony, why not [Fade to a scene of a man wiping faecal matter off his member]?

especially if he has a foreskin.

>>Tony; did you write for 'Honi Soit'?<<

No: I wrote for OPUS. Newcastle (NSW, not Newcastle-Upon-Tyne) Uni's equivalent to Honi Soit.

>>Hair does have it's uses. It stops sunburn of the pate<<

Like a hat?

>>aids the evaporation of sweat and the facial hair when grown to beard length is most useful, acting as an extended evaporative surface in hot weather<<

This might be even more effective if hair could efficiently transfer heat: there is no circulation within hair. An extended evaporative surface is about as useful as tits on a bull if it can't effectively transfer heat to the rest of the body.

>>and retaining an insulating layer of air in winter.<<

Like a beanie?

>>There are stories that damsels in distress have used their own long hair as a rope with which to effect their escape from towers and the like.<<

But they're fairytales. The physics doesn't work. If people could grow hair to such length and volume it would make a fine rope. But the human scalp is NOT a fine anchor point. The rope would hold Prince Harmings's mass, but he'd scalp Rapunzel in the process and she would die soon after from septic infection of the scalp (no antibiotics in fairytales). A real cheerful story to tell the kids.

>>Tony, why not [Fade to a scene of a man wiping faecal matter off his member]?<<

Because that would be a sh!tty way to end the sketch.

>>especially if he has a foreskin<<

Where does my foreskin come into this? Are jokes considered funnier if the writer possesses/lacks a foreskin? For the record I've still got mine, and would be rather unwilling to part with it EVEN if I thought it would make me funnier.

Cheers,

Tony

>>Hair does have it's uses. It stops sunburn of the pate<<

Like a hat? [Correct].

>>aids the evaporation of sweat and the facial hair when grown to beard length is most useful, acting as an extended evaporative surface in hot weather<<

This might be even more effective if hair could efficiently transfer heat: there is no circulation within hair. An extended evaporative surface is about as useful as tits on a bull if it can't effectively transfer heat to the rest of the body.

[Why would it be required to transfer heat to the rest of the body? The idea is to reduce the heat.
The sweat runs out onto the hair and evaporates thus allowing the evaporative process to work faster on the skin and allowing the hairy area to be cooler than the sweat soaked non-hairy bits, that's also why we have pubic and underarm hair, the latter also helps to stop the skin rubbing as we move our arms, which we do constantly when walking].

>>and retaining an insulating layer of air in winter.<<

Like a beanie? [Yes, but one looks rather odd with a beanie on the face.]
On the hottest days the area covered by my beard is cooler than the adjacent virtually hairless skin.
I've been enjoying the numerous benefits of a beard now for over 50 years.

What a hilarious article, apparently all of Australia voted on one issue, and one issue only. Who knew?!

"Reforms passed with bi-partisan support and backed by ACL in 2008 mean there is no discrimination against same-sex couples under Australian law." Right, except not being able to marry, yeah?

It's also amazing that Lyle finds it so hard to believe that his religious freedoms will be at stake, considering that religious organisations already have exemption from many anti-discrimination laws (though hopefully not for much longer).
Why is it always the religious, who not content living their own lives, must intentionally campaign against equality on an issue that will have absolutely zero effect on them. Are your marriages really that close to collapse, that a gay couple you have never, and probably will never meet being able to access the same rights that you do will cause it to implode?
Watching the Australian fundie christian crew whip themselves up in a frenzy to block other peoples freedoms is almost as entertaining as watching the pope have to slowly backpedal further and further as rational thought prevails.
The religious constantly show their privilege, by simultaneously demanding exemption from laws of decent secular society while trying to enforce their outdated dogma on the rest of us, thankfully it's coming to an end, and morality is moving forward for it.

Dan,

Your first post, welcome.

Now, what about doing other posters the politeness and respect of reading and responding to their comments rather than just blowing in and sounding off?

Hi onthebeach,
Thanks for your welcome, I have read (nearly) all of the comments, as there are over 60, I don't think the posting limits will allow me to respond to them all. As far as blowing in, well we all have to start somewhere, and sounding off? It is called online "opinion" isn't it? But just for you, I have picked one of the stand-out comments to respond to.
"It leaves them performing an unnatural act and thus debasing marriage." The idea that acts performed privately in our own home can have an impact on other people and their marriages has to be one of the most bizarre I have ever heard, and I honestly wonder how someone can hold that belief in this day and age. I think it's also an excellent example of the hypocrisy that the religious so often manage , the fact that the poster is sitting at his "unnatural" computer typing away using the "unnatural" internet seems to have no impact on his or all our marriages, but gays having sex?! I also wonder why anyone (straight or gay) should have to care whether how they behave in their own marriage lowers the value of said marriage in the opinion of complete strangers? Talk about a god complex.

Dan Daman, "The idea that acts performed privately in our own home can have an impact on other people and their marriages has to be one of the most bizarre I have ever heard"

Almost as bizarre as gay activists demanding that the State regulate homosexual relations and gay marriages take place in churches, eh what?

Tell us Dan, why is it that marriage, forever scoffed at, decried and even reviled by gays is now somehow 'essential' to their wellbeing?

This and other questions have been posed in the thread and perhaps you have the answers.

Onthebeach,
"Almost as bizarre ..."
Maybe some "gay activists" are demanding that, I certainly wouldn't support it. Seems a strange thing, to demand the government regulate your relationship, surely you don't think that marriage is government regulation? While it is a legal institution, it is a long way from regulation(control, supervision).

"and gay marriages take place in churches, eh what?" Ah, Lyle's trope about poor churches being forced to drop their bigotry. Perhaps you could do me the politeness and respect of reading my first comment. Why is it so hard to believe that religious organisations which are already exempt from anti-discrimination laws would not also be allowed to bar gay couples from marriage ceremonies? Don't worry, no-one really cares what backwards and discriminatory beliefs are kept in the sinking ships that are organised religion, just kindly allow the rest of us to avoid being dragged down as well.

"Tell us Dan, why is it that marriage, forever scoffed at, decried and even reviled by gays is now somehow 'essential' to their wellbeing?"

Well, first you would have to show me that marriage has been forever scoffed at and decried and reviled by all gays. But you can't because it hasn't. There are gays who don't want/support marriage, yes, just like there are heterosexual couples that don't support/want marriage. Guess what, none of them have to get married! The difference is that the heterosexual couples who DO want to get married can, however the homosexual couples who want to, can't. It is extremely intellectually dishonest of you to present this as some kind of all in or all out scenario, just like it's hypocritical of religious folk to campaign so hard against gay marriage while ignoring de-facto relationships, divorce and re-marriage (as another poster already pointed out). If they claim to be so bound to their dogma, they should be just as passionate about these issues, however no-one is surprised to see theists cherry pick.
Also, please show me where I claimed marriage is essential to their well-being? It's not, it's equality, which any decent society should be striving for.