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.