HI there CRAIG MINNS...

Thank you for your clarification on this still very convoluted subject, but I must be dim, compared to many others on this Site, I still can't see any real need or a necessity, other than creating 'precise equality' (by being married) for homosexuals ?

Still I'm an old bloke now, so whatever I think is immaterial. As there's now a wave of contemporary thinking permeating throughout society, suggesting this anomaly be addressed, and appropriate legislative amendments be made, in order that homosexual people may 'marry' with all the legality, that normally accompanies marriage ?

Thank you CRAIG.

The Irish have come to a democratic decision of the people - the actual people – of the nation to introduce marriage equality into the nation’s legal framework. They have applied the only known mechanism to this, a referendum. Yet even Ireland is not a democracy. The people were granted this power by the pollies, and there are voices raised against it even from among those who don’t oppose the measure – there are better things to spend $20 million on than a referendum. It’s always some excuse to oppose democracy, even where there’s a democratic vote on an actual issue (not just on which sellout crooks should govern the country on behalf of their party’s financial and political sponsors).

In WA we’ve had numerous referenda that have said a clear NO to daylight saving only to find it countermanded by the pollies on behalf of the big end of town. We even had a vote in which we said NO to Sunday trading by Coles/Woolies which was brushed aside by the bought pollies. The Irish people have had no say in multi-billion dollar decisions which have led to mass impoverishment (deceitfully called “austerity”) to which Killarney has drawn attention while deploring the footling $20 million spent on the referendum. In Australia we are spending $125 million EACH on F35 strike fighters without a by-your-leave from the people. Six times what the Irish referendum cost. We are being dragged by the bent pollies and mandarins into a TPP agreement which will cancel even national (let alone democratic) control of our own laws. All without the permission of the people.

We need a referendum (not just a deal among pollies) on legal recognition of equality in marriage. We need referenda also on many other issues committing our nation. We are ill-served by government of the people by the pollies and mandarins for those who buy them.

Hi O Sung Wu,
There are many laws that exist without any unambiguous necessity being demonstrated. Laws, after all, are the product of politics rather than the inevitable process of rigorous application of rationality.

However, once a law exists, then its application is dependent on its being able to be applied within a rational framework and any gaps that might be found in that framework weaken the authoritative strength of the law. As a working copper you must have seen many laws that were mostly honoured in the breach.

Homosexuality isn't something new, it's been around for at least several thousand years that we know of and it seems reasonable to assume that it goes back much further. There may well be very good evolutionarily adaptive reasons that some part of the population is homosexual, although that probably drifts away from the subject of this thread.

It's also true that with age comes a little less flexibility of thought and that often shows up as conservatism of viewpoint. As we get older, we like to be able to rely on some veritudes, rather than having to constantly worry about the latest New Big Thing. This may also have had some evolutionary adaptive value for our human ancestors, acting as a brake on adventurous young people doing things that were likely to have bad consequences and I'm sure that still applies.

However, to the extent that the species has been able to advance, it is because at times the young people have overridden their conservatively cautious seniors.

Those silly old buggers (in Bob Hawke's famous words) who demand that the world come to a stop to suit their fearful inability to keep up with change, of whom there are a few here, are inevitably going to be ignored. Those who can accept that change is a needful thing and help guide it are vital. The wisdom of age and the enthusiastic passions of youth are a powerful combination.

A quote from AJPhillips: “Of course it is self-evident and unquestionable (i.e. axiomatic) that a marriage is currently a union between a man and a woman only.”
Subsequent quote from AJPhillips:” my questions remain relevant and more importantly, unanswered (including how heterosexual-only marriage is axiomatic when it is clearly not self-evident and unquestionable to everyone). “
There is evidence of you undergoing an addle-brained state there, but I will ask you, in case you are capable of comprehending, where there is any controversy about the meaning of the term “marriage”. Controversy about the institution of marriage itself is irrelevant.
I note the ignorant and baseless assertion that I am a "denier”
What am I denying? Refer me to the science which shows any measurable effect on climate by human emissions.
I am a truth and science supporting realist on climate. The science shows that the human effect is trivial, and not measurable.
The fraud backing IPCC asserts that it is 94% certain that human emissions cause global warming, but cannot explain why all of the science shows otherwise.
Toni Lavis, do you never check on facts before you reply, to avoid talking nonsense? The rat-cunning definition of climate change by the IPCC, caused a lot of the confusion and lies which abound in the climate fraud, but it is gratifying to note that its definition also caused the IPCC some of the difficulty it so richly deserves.

From a report on “Misdefining at the IPCC”:
“gridlock has resulted in large part from the basic design of the FCCC, which at its foundation is based on a highly restricted definition of ‘‘climate change’’ focused only on changes in climate that result from greenhouse gas forcing of the climate system. This restricted definition may make sense from some abstract, theoretical perspective, but it has also set the stage for inaction in the real world of politics and policy”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1841-2004.10.pdf

Hi again CRAIG MINNS...

Bloody hell mate you can read me like a book ! Concerning your thoughts on the praxis of our laws, laws are only an expression of society's demands. The framing of which rely exclusively on our democratic process of jurisprudence, which as you would know is merely the scientific synthesis of the essential principles of our entire legal system.

Indeed you're correct when you say, police occasionally need to 'backfill' a charge or charges, in substantiating the criminal proofs of an offence, should the DPP consider the available evidence lacks the necessary strength to endure exhaustive legal enquiry ?

Craig, you're again correct when you suggest, as we age we become more entrenched, more constrained and less flexible in our views and opinions. We seem to lose the ability to clearly see another's point of view, especially in such a complicated discussion as homosexual marriage ? In less than a month I'll turn 76, therefore I'll clearly fall within that exclusive demographic of 'muddled' partisans. An entirely inflexible group of 'oldies' ?

Notwithstanding, I would however put it to you (with respect) the only positive virtue or outcome that necessarily accompanies aging, is that of experience ? Experience of a kind that may assist younger people from repeating the same mistakes that we, of my generation have made. That is of course, they're prepared to listen ?

There are four issues on which the government remains woefully out of touch with the Australian people – same sex marriage, voluntary assisted euthanasia, abortion on demand (which, contrary to prevailing belief, is still a crime on the statute books) and the legalisation of marijuana.

Poll after poll registers between 65% and 90% support to legalise (and thus, regulate) all these issues.

For reasons that continue to defy comprehension, successive Australian governments continue to fly in the face of popular (aka ‘democratic’) opinion. No doubt, they are waiting for their political masters (the US) to give them the green light to pass these pesky democratic laws.

The US is the major controller of Western public opinion, foreign policy, socio-political practice and the execution of so-called Western ‘democracy’. However, it is unfortunately captive to reactionary backward social policies, that spring from its strong puritan, militaristic and slave-trading traditions.

What a pity we can’t send the US packing and settle these issues with a singular referendum on all these issues once and for all.

Eeeew! Too democratic by far!

Craig

It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether you 'like' me or not.

Just STOP ATTACKING me! Repeat. STOP ATTACKING me!

I know feminist commentary triggers extremely hostile reactions and that every time I make a feminist comment, I leave myself wide open to abuse. However, this does not excuse the disproportionate level of abuse I receive from you and others on OLO.