The same-sex marriage campaign is like kids who don’t like chocolate but do like jelly beans and may have as many of the latter as they want chucking a tantrum until they get jelly beans called chocolate.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, any more than there are square circles or carnivorous vegetarians, and yet this absurdity created out of nothing has reached the brink of success inside 20 years.

The aim was to steal a word or, to put it another way, to make sure the English language no longer had a word that meant the union of a man and a woman, that husband no longer meant husband and that wife no longer meant wife. To succeed, the aim had to be dressed up in human rights language with the campaign falsely labelled marriage equality, with the creation of a minority group of victims being discriminated against, with polls asking if same-sex marriage should be legalised (even though it was not illegal in the first place, but non-existent) or if gays should be allowed to marry (when they already were, just as they already were allowed to form same-sex unions). To add emotion, opponents were intimidated by being called homophobic bigots and by being blamed for mental health issues actually created by the campaign’s invention of the idea that the thousand-year-old meaning of a word made gays feel second-class, even though it had not done so for the first 980 of those years.

Gay marriage is the silliest thing to be taken seriously in my lifetime, but the campaign provides a lesson for those want real things: get the wording right and you can change anything.

We know that plebiscite on same-sex marriage has no legal force. We know that any question phrased as the usual opinion polls on the subject are will be carried. We know that any question phrased in such a way as to give the opponents of same-sex marriage a chance of victory will be condemned as trickery and thus only postpone the issue. We therefore know that a decision to hold plebiscite means that those in the Abbott government who claim to oppose same-sex marriage do not want to give the people a say at all but just want a way of telling the conservative base that they tried and failed.

Given that the High Court took it upon itself to amend the Constitution by changing the meaning of the word “marriage” in it, the only way anyone can take the Abbott government’s claimed opposition to same-sex marriage seriously is if the people are permitted a constitutional referendum to change the meaning back.

To have any chance of success, such a referendum needs to both recognise same-sex unions and preserve real marriage. A proposal to replace the word “marriage” with “civil partnership (being the union of any two adult persons voluntarily entered into for life), including marriage (being the voluntary union of one man and one woman voluntarily entered into for life” puts the onus on the defenders of marriage to achieve the double majority and thus avoids the claims of trickery that the reverse proposition would provoke.

I don’t expect there to be a referendum and therefore believe it is only a matter of time before the word theft campaign succeeds. But that won’t stop me pointing out the irrationality of the whole idea along the way.

Homosexual marriage itself is a petty issue not worth our time.

But the author's greater campaign against individual conscience is a real threat:

"some opponents of [something-the-author-believes-in] insist the consciences of all Australians must be preserved under the guise of religious liberty. If we grant any credence to the "conscience" of one person, unaccompanied by evidence or argument, we devalue the objective good reasons why policies are implemented."

The people who live in this continent were never allowed in the first place to exercise their conscience whether or not they agree to belong to that collective "WE" the author speaks as. Now he wants to use that "we" to quash individual conscience altogether.

I am not asking the author to give credence to other people's conscience - merely not to forcibly obstruct others when they act on theirs.

The demand for "objective good reasons" in the context of policy-making is nonsensical: no policy whatsoever makes objective sense because the objective world contains no "good" or "bad" - No such "good" (or "bad") particle, wave or any other "good" entity was ever discovered by science! Only once infused with subjective values can policies start to make sense. What the author is actually asking, is that his subjective preferences override opposing values because... well he has the guns.

The author concludes:

"It's quite possible Australian voters have more love and empathy for same-sex couples than they do for either major political party."

True - but no love or empathy for those who wish to tread on our conscience.

MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 94
Bigamy (1) A person who is married shall not go through a form or ceremony of marriage with any person.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

Well, Alan Jones, where's the campaign to reform this?
Can't you "love" more than one person?

Hugh Harris runs around chasing his own tail.
If relationship rights exist "in fact" than there is no point to all this kerfuffle.

"treating a word or an abstract concept as though it's real."

Words have specific meanings or language and communication would be impossible.

MPs can actually vote any way they want any time they want, on any bill.
They are elected as individual people (which is why they can resign from a party and still keep their seat).

The thing about laws is they establish compulsory obligations that apply to *all* citizens.

Gay marriage is not forced on the couples, but it will be forced on all providers of goods and services (as we've seen in the many wedding cake lawsuits recently).
Where are the "rights and liberties" of bakers and dressmakers?

And no, religion is not the only possible basis for objection.
It could be argued from a purely secular, scientific perspective that genitalia have a biological purpose: reproduction.

Ipso facto, all sexual unions should be heterosexual, as any other contradicts nature.
Nothing about God there, I'm afraid. (I don't agree with this. I'm just pointing out there is a non-religious rationale).

By the time this does go to a vote, the public may be so sick of cake-controversy news stories, they reject it in disgust at the totalitarian "means" associated with the noble "end".

Be careful what you wish for.

Chris C,

Words don’t have meaning. Words have usage and we attribute meaning to them. No-one owns words either, so your entire argument is invalid.

Definitions changes over time. A larrikin used to be a delinquent. Nice used to mean foolish and stupid. Marriage used to be a form of trade or a way of forging alliances between two powerful families.

<<There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, any more than there are square circles or carnivorous vegetarians, and yet this absurdity created out of nothing has reached the brink of success inside 20 years.>>

This assumes that a true and objective definition of marriage lay waiting for us to discover while those in the distant past were just using the word incorrectly. Good luck in justifying that without invoking the supernatural. Marriage is whatever a society deems it to be.

<<...opponents were intimidated by being called homophobic bigots and by being blamed for mental health issues actually created by the campaign’s invention of the idea that the thousand-year-old meaning of a word made gays feel second-class, even though it had not done so for the first 980 of those years.>>

What a stupid comment. Gay people were already made to feel like second-class citizens by mere virtue of being themselves for those 980 years, so it’s hardly surprising that not being able to marry was not on the top of their list of priorities

Two things; in order to have a conscience vote you first need a conscience?

And simply not evident in some folks who've been able to ostracize/evict/exile their own flesh and blood for daring to (chose) be born different!

To the advantage of the ultra religious far right, is the comforting knowledge, like Chris C, they're like an omnipresent, omni powerful, all knowing God, always right!?

And can be guaranteed to fight a bloody minded rearguard action, all the way to a carefully worded referendum, before they desert the field?

And a useful tactic, if it were just a case of swaying the undecided!?

I like so many others watched as siblings, friends and relatives grew up in the same household, subject to the same set of circumstances, environment, examples, inculcation of conventional values; yet turned different!?

Clearly for those of us just not confining our brain to a locked and bolted mindset!? There's simply no element of choice here except for those whose chose to (mentally or physically) bash folk/estranged relatives, for daring to be born different!

I can remember the republican debate which had around 70% support for a republic; and how a document full of, I believe, cleverly hand crafted weasel words killed stillborn!

Therefore and arguably on the aforementioned grounds, We can have marriage equality or a returned anti equality Abbott government; just not both!
Rhrosty.

A well argued article, and I agree with the author that in 10 years time we will wonder what all the fuss about allowing gay marriage was all about.

Chris C "Gay marriage is the silliest thing to be taken seriously in my lifetime, but the campaign provides a lesson for those want real things: get the wording right and you can change anything."

It may be 'silly' to you Chris, but it was taken serious enough by the majority of Irish, Canadians, Americans and Kiwi's , so that gay marriage is now legal in those countries.
What makes you think Australians are going to be any different?

We are predominantly just as bright and enlightened as the people in those countries, so it is only a matter of time. I am just embarrassed that it has taken so much longer here. I think that it is because of Tony Abbott and his incredibly out of touch disciples on the front bench.......

Suseonline "I think that it is because of Tony Abbott and his incredibly out of touch disciples on the front bench......."

And Labor did what when it was in office? (Crickets chirping).

*ANY* MP can introduce a bill at any time.
Tanya Plibersek is quite vocal about this issue, and has been an MP since 1998.
She's had almost 17 years to present a gay marriage bill!
17 years of zilch, nada, zippo.

"the majority of Irish, Canadians, Americans and Kiwi's" did not choose these reforms.
They are the choices of parliaments or courts, not "the people".
Only in Ireland was there a referendum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-fourth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_(Marriage_Equality)_Bill_2015

"It was approved at a referendum on 22 May 2015 by 62% of voters on a turnout of 61%"
i.e only 38% actually supported it.

In California, "the people" did vote *against* it (Proposition 8) with a higher turnout than Ireland, but were overruled by the courts.
So much for trusting the "bright and enlightened" people of a democracy.

What of bisexuals?
They may "love" both a man *and* a woman, but bigamy prohibitions prevent one of those relationships being officially "recognised".

They must choose which they "love" the most.
How fair and equal is that?

Same-sex marriage is a conscience issue and an
important change that's being proposed.
Surely all sides of the debate have an equal
right to be heard instead of being demonised.

The following website gives an overview:

http://theconversation.com/why-Australia-is-so-far-behind-the-times-on-same-sex-marriage-42327

"Tony Abbott has exercised his conscience, in order to disallow others from exercising theirs, as if in mockery of the very concept".

Perhaps he got the idea from the Victorian Labor Government Hugh? In the 2008 abortion debate in the Victorian Parliament, the Labor Government, having treated themselves to a "conscience vote", voted away the right of conscientious objection of doctors and nurses to involving themselves in baby killing.....right up to birth Hugh. Just imagine ..we can't say " No, I don't want to be responsible for the death of this human being ..for the denial of the first human right..the right to life to a fellow human being." I am surprised you make no reference to this in your discourse on conscientious objection.

How were you on the rights of conscientious objection for those Australians, who, lead by the Labor Party's late Jim Cairns, had a personal conscientious objection to our engagement in the Vietnam War?

And to the concerns currently being expressed on the ABC's recent Q&A program by The Greens senator Larissa Waters (whose Victorian colleagues voted for the 2008 legislation denying a right to a conscientious objection for doctors and nurses) who now is concerned for a handful of doctors and nurses in detention centres such as Manus Island...not being free to speak out about their concerns relating to breaches of human rights there? Come on....we all know how politically partisan, inconsistent and downright hypocritiacl all this is !!

Suseonline, "I think that it is because of Tony Abbott and his incredibly out of touch disciples on the front bench"

That blows the gaff on the main push behind gay marriage, which isn't the homosexual community at all, but the two political parties in opposition, Labor and Greens, who are using 'gay' marriage as a wedge to realise their secondary agenda of winning power (the end justifies the means) and a small number of Gay Pride activists who aren't interested in what homosexuals want anyhow.

The Greens are a protest party. By definition the Greens not only have no interest in a comprehensive, integrated set of costed, practical policies, but have a vested interest in, well, serial protesting. - Headline hunting to get votes from youth lacking life experience and the easily led and disaffected - a motley collection of odd-bod 'rule breakers' (sociology), Housos and barking-mad political transients that Labor and Greens constantly fight over.

Labor under Willie Shorten is unrecognisable to the Labor rank and file who have been denied any real input by the faction bosses who run Labor for their own benefit.

The influence of the small number of young publicity-seeking Gay Pride activists would be nothing, squat, without the concerted effort of the organised left who will continue to use gays and gay marriage for their own secondary agenda.

when the left start to lecture on morals you either have to laugh or vomit. Wasn't it Gillard who opposed gay 'marriage' for so long. And for quite awhile there Shorten agreed with whatever Gillard said even if he did not know what she had said. Now we have saint Bill lecturing on morals. Please!

Shockadelic, and OTB, I don't care what Labor did or didn't do, as I don't vote for them.
With Ireland just voting in legal gay marriage, and the courts in America doing the right thing too (or maybe everyone in the court system in the U.S. Is gay Shockadelic?),
now is the right time to join them.

Shockadelic what are you on about with bisexual people and bigamy? No one is suggesting anyone will be allowed to marry more than one person at once, as that is against the law and a criminal offense. I really can't see anyone putting that suggestion forward to the Government, can you?

The fact remains that Abbott is using his own personal views about gay marriage to force all his Liberal colleagues to follow him, and that is wrong. At least labor got that part right.
They should be allowed a conscience vote, rather than putting forward an expensive referendum or plebiscite.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I desire to point out that the High Court of Australia has absolutely no judicial powers to amend the constitution and as such neither the meaning of "marriage".

Why a constitutional referendum is required regarding same sex relationships.

The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/275702976/20150824-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-TONY-ABBOTT-PM-Re-Same-Sex-Relationships-and-the-Constitution

As such the proponents of same-sex marriage may very well discover that even if they were to get Bill shorten in power and he then legislate within 100 days for the so called "same sex marriages" that it then has to be overturned because it is found to be unconstitutional. What should b e of concern to those promoting same sex marriages is that it must be pursued in a proper legal manner and not some quick fix solution that afterwards can be overturned

Dear Mr Gerritt,

Prior to 2004 - in the Marriage Act-
there was no legal definition of
marriage. John Howard in 2004 added the Amendment
to define marriage as being between "a man and
a woman to the exclusion of all others."
Are you suggesting to us that this was not legal?

Please explain as a Constitutionalist.

The word in the constitution must be interpreted as they had a meaning at the time of federation. Read my document to which I referred.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

As a “constitutionalist”, you don’t understand the constitution very well.

The Australian constitution gives the Commonwealth the power to legislate on marriage, and to override State legislation on marriage. It does not specify the content of that legislation, which is contained in the Marriage Act and which can be amended like any other piece of legislation, as Foxy describes.

In much the same way it gives the Commonwealth power to raise taxes, but the actual taxes it raises are detailed in other Acts of Parliament and amended routinely.

Thanks Rhian.

Suseonline "I don't care what Labor did or didn't do, as I don't vote for them."

You also didn't vote for the governments of Ireland, Canada, the USA or NZ.
But you trumpet their decisions as representative of a "majority" of their citizens.

Presumably, Labor governments also "represented" the majority of Australians, yet did nothing about this issue while in power.
Hypocrites!

We don't vote for judges either, so why should we accept their undemocratic decisions, applied community-wide after case-specific judgements?

"Shockadelic what are you on about with bisexual people and bigamy? No one is suggesting anyone will be allowed to marry more than one person at once"

That is precisely my point.

Everyone keeps going on about "love, love, love", ignoring the fact that some people "love" BOTH sexes or more than one significant partner.

Why are those "loves" not "equal" to monogamous straight or gay couples?

Bisexuals and multi-partner relationships are apparently invisible to the reformist activists.
They are still perpetuating restrictive antiquated conceptions.

There is still only one cake, with 2 figurines on it.
Hardly revolutionary.

Rhian,
where on earth did you get it that the states can legislate as to marriage. Seems to me you do not understand the constitution. The states only were able to continue their colonial powers regarding marriages until the Commonwealth commenced to legislate upon it, thereafter no further legislation.

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Shockadelic,

Just how exactly do you think marriage could cater for bisexuals beyond allowing same-sex marriage as well as heterosexual marriage? Do you know what bisexuality is?

As for polygamy, there are many reasons to reject it. Firstly, societies that have allowed it have always had immense social problems, and while that does not necessarily suggest that polygamy is to blame for those social problems, having men compete for a limited pool of women while others take more than their “fair share” is not conducive to a healthy society.

Secondly, having governments limit the number of parties to a contract is an entirely different story to excluding certain people because of their sex. As a gay man yourself, I'm astonished that you couldn't make this distinction.

Thirdly, and following from the last point, polygamy is not a trait that one is born with. Discriminating against someone because of how they behave or want to behave is an entirely different kettle fish to discriminating against someone because of how they are born.

Fourthly, polygamous arrangements often involve rape and incest.

AJ Philips,

If “words don’t have meanings”, then your response, being in words, doesn’t have a meaning.

Marriage has not changed its meaning in our society. There have been restrictions on access to marriage and different reasons for marrying at different times, but marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman.

Words do change their meanings, but the same-sex marriage argument is not presented as a need to change a meaning but as a dreadful case of discrimination and human rights infringement in which a word meaning something gays would hate to have must now be applied to something that they want to and may have. I see no reason to deprive the language of a word that means the union of a man and a woman.

Gays have always been able to marry – and many did. The reason that not being able to call a same-sex union marriage a cause of mental health problems for 980 years was that no one had thought of the idea that the meaning of a word was in fact discrimination. Someone then invented the idea that it was and thus created the feelings of exclusion.

Rhrosty,

I am not surprised that you resort to untrue, name-calling, abusive drivel, given the utter lack of logic of your case.

I am not a member of the “ultra religious far right”. I have never used “God” in any of my arguments on this issue. I regard religious argument as irrelevant.

Same-sex marriage is not “marriage equality”, but word theft.

The republic referendum was defeated because the republicans could not agree among themselves. No society today would establish itself with a hereditary monarchy, but I voted no to the republic because I did not want a president who could be sacked on the whim of a prime minister. Others voted no because they wanted an elected president. Had an elected president been proposed, lots of republicans would have voted no because they wanted an appointed president.

Your suggestion that we can have same-sex marriage or the Abbott government is nonsense. If Labor wins, a bill to create same-sex marriage will be introduced and, given the number of Labor MPS who have caved into the airheads, probably passed. If the Abbott government is returned, a plebiscite will be held, not to stop same-sex marriage but so that the Abbott government can wash its hands of responsibility. It will be worded in such a way that it will get a majority of the vote. Then, a bill to create same-sex marriage will be introduced and passed – no “probably” this time. Then the language will no longer have a word that denotes the union of a man and a woman, and the bandwagon can move onto to some new issue created out of nothing and start abusing and name-calling those who do not agree. But get on board the day it leaves the station. Don’t wait 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years to display your trendy credentials, as most of the same-sex marriage brigade did.

Read what I said again, Chris C.

<<If “words don’t have meanings”, then your response, being in words, doesn’t have a meaning.>>

I was going to say “inherent meaning” so as to not invoke such a petty response, but opted not to at the last minute to see if you’d be silly enough to try it on.

My point still stands.

<<Marriage has not changed its meaning in our society. There have been restrictions on access to marriage and different reasons for marrying at different times, but marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman.>>

Well then it has changed its meaning then, hasn’t it. Since when did the meaning of marriage only constitute the sexes involved?

This is the argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy, by the way.

<<Words do change their meanings, but the same-sex marriage argument is not presented as a need to change a meaning but as a dreadful case of discrimination and human rights infringement in which a word meaning something gays would hate to have must now be applied to something that they want to and may have.>>

Then why make invalid claims about alleged “word theft” instead of demonstrating why the case of discrimination is so dreadful? I suppose you did give the ‘980 years’ idea a crack, and you’ve tried it again (this time with the claim that same-sex couples have always been able to marry and that mental health issues within the gay community only began with the marriage equality campaign), but I’ve already dealt with that and your latest attempt at it does nothing to negate what I said earlier.

<<I see no reason to deprive the language of a word that means the union of a man and a woman.>>

And I see no reason why we need a word that means specifically “the union of a man and a woman”. There is no word for “partner” reserved specifically for heterosexual couples to indicated that the partner is a heterosexual partner, but your life doesn’t seem to be too affected by that.

AJ Philips "Just how exactly do you think marriage could cater for bisexuals..?"

You can only marry one person.
If you have significant relationships ("love, love, love") with both a man and a woman, you must choose one and only one to marry.
Is this "equality", respecting the dignity of sexual identity?

"Firstly, societies that have allowed [polygamy] have always had immense social problems"

Apparently, this an issue of individual rights, not what's best for "society".

What precedent can you show for the social benefit of same-sex marriages? (Crickets chirping).
Probably the only societies that permitted same-sex marriage were those that also allowed polygamy (e.g. Rome), which you disapprove of.

Polygamy does not mean people "compete for a limited pool" of partners, as everyone can marry as many people as they want.
You are still thinking in terms of *exclusive* relationships, which is beside the point with polygamy.

"Secondly, having governments limit the number of parties to a contract is an entirely different story to excluding certain people because of their sex."

Why is it "entirely different"?
It's all about love, love, love, right?

Can't you love more than one person? Can't you love your sister? Can't you love your formerly adopted sister (who's no longer adopted)?

People can enter into many other multiple contracts.
You can lease 2 houses, work for 3 employers, sell your books to different publishers.

"discriminating against someone because of how they are born"

Nobody actually knows *exactly* what factors may result in people being "gay".

Being exclusively gay with one exclusive partner is certainly not the way you're born. That is a choice.
You are born to the same parents as your sister. But that prohibition is valid, eh?

"There is no word for "partner" reserved specifically for heterosexual couples to indicated that the partner is a heterosexual partner".

Husband.
Wife.

Gender-specific paired words that an only exist in mutual context (i.e. a "marriage").

I believe there was a word in medieval times for male "friends" who vowed a life-long "love" bond.
I can't recall what it was, but it certainly wasn't "marriage".

So you’re conflating with bisexuality with polygamy then, Shockadelic?

<<You can only marry one person.>>

I thought so.

<<Apparently, this an issue of individual rights, not what's best for "society".>>

Actually, it’s both for reasons I have pointed out numerous times. I’m sorry you missed them.

<<What precedent can you show for the social benefit of same-sex marriages?>>

The fact that marginalisation has never benefited a society and that an inclusiveness has always proven to be beneficial.

<<Polygamy does not mean people "compete for a limited pool" of partners, as everyone can marry as many people as they want.>>

This only strengthens my point. Unless you can argue why jealousy wouldn’t be a problem?

<<Why is it "entirely different"?>>

Because the number of people allowed to enter a contract does not go to who they are as a person.

<<It's all about love, love, love, right?>>

No. There are also financial benefits and drawbacks.

<<Can't you love more than one person? Can't you love your sister? Can't you love your formerly adopted sister (who's no longer adopted)?>>

Now you’re talking about family. That’s a different type of love. Incest has its own problems.

<<People can enter into many other multiple contracts.>>

That would be bigamy, which has the same problems as polygamy.

<<You can lease 2 houses, work for 3 employers, sell your books to different publishers.>>

You don’t say.

<<Nobody actually knows *exactly* what factors may result in people being "gay".>>

So you choose to be gay then, do you? We know enough to know that there is a biological/genetic component.

<<Being exclusively gay with one exclusive partner is certainly not the way you're born. That is a choice.>>

You’re not born with a partner, no. Hence my third point.

<<You are born to the same parents as your sister. But that prohibition is valid, eh?>>

Correct. Incestuous relationships are harmful.

<<Husband.
Wife.>>

Damn, you beat Chris C to this dumb argument. I was expecting him to say that. I said “reserved specifically”. A married same-sex couple could use those words too.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

The Hansard debate you quote is actually in relation to the external affairs power, not marriage.

The states have the power to legislate on marriage, and indeed until 1961 marriage was regulated exclusively by the states. But their legislation must be compatible with Commonwealth law. That’s the basis on which the ACT’s 2013 attempt to legislate gay marriage was overturned by the courts.

http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=56792

Anyway, my main point was that it is the Marriage Act, not the constitution, that specifies that marriage must be between a man and a woman. This was introduced to the Act under the Howard Government by a simple amendment to the legislation, and could equally simply be removed by legislation. There is no constitutional bar to same-sex marriage.

As expected: flippant, shallow, empty responses to my quite valid points.

"So you’re conflating with bisexuality with polygamy then"

If you love both sexes (born that way!), you may want to marry both, but you cannot "publicly affirm your love" for both, only one at a time.
Inconsistency!

"The fact that marginalisation has never benefited a society and that an inclusiveness has always proven to be beneficial."

Never. Always.
The hallmarks of fascist rhetoric.
Has intrusive statism ever benefited a society?
Inconsistency!

"Unless you can argue why jealousy wouldn’t be a problem?"

Monogamous couples can be jealous, even when there's no cheating (just the suspicion).
Redundant!

"the number of people allowed to enter a contract"

And why does *this* contract and its *number* of parties require state control, but not other contracts, which are left to private parties to determine "what's best".
Inconsistency!

"There are also financial benefits and drawbacks."

Irrelevant!
Yes, the lawyers who sue the cake shop benefit and the independent bakers "draw back" into bankruptcy or wage-slavery.

"Incest has its own problems."

But "born that way", honey!
Inconsistency!

"bigamy, which has the same problems as polygamy.""Incestuous relationships are harmful."

*Everything* has the potential to harm, to cause problems. Should the state regulate *everything*?

And monogamy has no problems, never harmful?
Explain the divorce and domestic violence statistics.
Inconsistency!

"same-sex couple could use those words [husband, wife] too."

Without the matching contextual one.
Hence "changing the meaning" of words yet again!

In summary: Inconsistency! Hypocrisy! Irrelevancy! Redundancy!
Blah, blah, blah.

"As a gay man yourself, I'm astonished..."

As a gay man and a genuine liberal (kids, it has something to do with "liberty") I am DISGUSTED that those words are being used as *weapons* supporting an insidious totalitarianism, automatically lumping me in with an agenda that is just Nazism turned inside out.
DISGUSTED!

Shockadelic,

<<If you love both sexes (born that way!), you may want to marry both…>>

But whether or not one does is not inherent to bisexuality. Again, you’re conflating two different ideas.

<<Never. Always.
The hallmarks of fascist rhetoric.>>

Try finding an example that contradicts my claim then.

<<Has intrusive statism ever benefited a society?>>

Yes. The State’s intrusion on the desire of some to murder has been immensely beneficial.

<<Monogamous couples can be jealous, even when there's no cheating (just the suspicion).>>

Sure. I'm willing to bet there'd be far more jealousy with State-endorsed multiple marriages though.

<<And why does *this* contract and its *number* of parties require state control, but not other contracts, which are left to private parties to determine "what's best".>>

I’ve listed a few reasons. If you think can argue otherwise, then you’re welcome to lobby for polygamous marriages.

<<Irrelevant!>>

Not irrelevant!

<<But "born that way", honey!>>

Homosexuality does not have the negative social implications that incest does. This is an invalid comparison.

<<*Everything* has the potential to harm, to cause problems. Should the state regulate *everything*?>>

The key difference is whether those problems are directly attributable to a specific action.

<<And monogamy has no problems, never harmful?>>

I’d prefer to say “less harmful”.

<<Explain the divorce and domestic violence statistics.>>

How would polygamy reduce these problems?

<<Hence "changing the meaning" of words yet again!>>

Apparently not...

Wife: http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3Awife
Husband: http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=define:husband

Ive said it before and Ill say it again.

You godbotherers need to learn it is fine for you to say....
I wont do that because of MY religious beliefs.

It is NOT fine for you to say....
YOU cannot do that because of MY religious beliefs.

It is simple. A simple idea for simpletons.
KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!
Keep your idiotic beliefs out of my life!

Rihan,
thanks for the link. I have downloaded it and will write to the authors that they do not appears to understand the true meaning and application of the constitution.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Therefore, the "concurrent" legislative powers no longer exist once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate.

I am used to come across so called constitutional lawyers (an oxymoron) who claim they know it all. On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth and state Attorney-Generals on compulsory voting. This on the basis compulsory voting is unconstitutional. The opponent lawyers all claimed they knew better but still lost the cases!
Without promoting homosexual marriages it nevertheless should be considered what is the use to force ahead some legislation as to homosexual marriage and then those who participate later discover that it was and remains unconstitutional and all their monies on the purported marriage ceremony was wasted?
As for John Howard I do not accept he changed the word marriage, but merely clarified what it stands for.
If marriage is merely because of "love" then well why should anyone be denied to marry whomever they love, even if it is a dozen or more people of different sexes? "Love their neighbour" doesn't mean you are going to marry your neighbour.

As for George Williams I understand he is an advisor to the Federal Government and well, as I indicated they lost nevertheless the cases in 2006

Playing with retarded children is so exhausting!

Your beehive-poking pushy totalitarianism is actually going to set back all the gains made in sexuality tolerance in the last 40 years.

Don't expect queer people to thank you when bashing incidents rise 5000%.

One poster seems to feel quite strongly
that "gay bashings" will increase by
5000 per cent if same-sex marriage goes ahead in this
country.

What an amazing thing to say.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

I thought that this sort
of neanderthal behaviour only occurred in countries with
medieval moralities. Not in a country like Australia
that is supposed to believe in social equity, compassion ,
and the idea of an egalitarian society - a "fair go"
for all.

Still, I suppose we have to accept the fact that there
are some men who would view their heterosexuality as a
primary measure of their masculinity and who would be
under the false impression that "bashing" anyone who
they see as a threat to their masculinity would for
them garner social approval (and alleviate boredom.)

Therefore we need to ask ourselves - are we really a
nation that glorifies violence and abhors sexual
diversity? Do we really perceive a minority that violates
gender norms as such a big threat? Does all this function as a
prop for some to use in demonstrating their masculinity?

I certainly hope not.

Hopefully, the majority of Australians have evolved much
further than that.

"One poster.."

Has a name.

Ever had a campfire?
What happens when you stir the dwindling embers?
The dying fire starts again!

Homophobia was dying a slow death in developed countries, but it's only been a short time historically since this evolution.

A "nation" doesn't go gay-bashing on Friday nights, never did and never will.
It only takes one psycho to ruin your day.

With the wave of an official wand, you expect these wasps to magically turn into butterflies and kiss you sweetly in gratitude.

Ever heard of feet of clay? Castles built on sand? Too much too soon?
There's a whole litany of phrases in our language for your arrogant fairytale.

Your entire ideology is based on clueless wishful thinking and "high horse"-riding.

It won't take a "nation" to bring it all tumbling down, just enough "medieval Neanderthals", who you welcome in droves at the airport every day.

I have every respect for homosexual people, but none whatsoever for gays!

So does Mr Gerrit, Shockadelic.

<<[One poster] Has a name.>>

But you still failed to use it before lashing out at him out of the blue the way you did.

<<What happens when you stir the dwindling embers?>>

What a silly way to prove your point. Ever used smoke on bees?

Intolerance is a complex human quality not necessarily analogous to fire.

<<Homophobia was dying a slow death in developed countries...>>

Was? It still is, and support for same-sex marriage is continuing to rise despite the push for it. You didn't see a rise in black-bashing with the civil rights movement in the US either.

You're a strange one, Shockadelic. On the one hand, you're against same-sex marriage because you fear that bigots won't have the liberty to be bigots. Then on the other hand, you're worried that the push for same-sex marriage will incite bigotry.

I can assure you that bigots having the liberty to act like bigots is far more likely to result in more bigotry than any push for equality. Especially in the long run.

Yuyutsu,

Please, don't keep us hanging. Tell us all what the difference between a homosexual and a gay person is.

"So does Mr Gerrit, Shockadelic."

I was responding to Foxy (who repeatedly vows not to interact with me, but keeps doing so).

"Ever used smoke on bees?"

And how does that analogy hold with homophobes/bigots?
You can't "smoke" humans.
That would be a "crime against humanity".

"You didn't see a rise in black-bashing with the civil rights movement in the US either."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers%27_murders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

Firstly, that was a genuine people's movement, not a few loudmouthed activists and their ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Secondly, what's it like to be Black in America today?
Seems far worse than in ye olde days.

"You're a strange one, Shockadelic. On the one hand, you're against same-sex marriage because you fear that bigots won't have the liberty to be bigots. Then on the other hand, you're worried that the push for same-sex marriage will incite bigotry".

"you fear that bigots won't have the liberty to be bigots"

No, I fear people won't be have the liberty to be themselves, have free thought and free speech.

"you're worried that the push for same-sex marriage will incite bigotry""

I'm a realist, not a wishful thinking utopian.

I'm not against same-sex marriage, per se.
I'm against (a) the hypocritical/inconsistent "reform" that only goes half-way (ignoring other *explicit* prohibitions like incest and bigamy, that are also "love, love, love" between consenting adults) and
(b) the bully-with-a-megaphone totalitarian methods used to create/enforce "reform".

You're the strange ones.
You want "tolerance" and "diversity" but constantly bash religious people or anyone who doesn't goosestep compliantly with your agenda in any way (She's smoking and wearing fur! Get her!).

You want a modern "evolved" society, yet welcome droves of medieval/primitive people at the airport every day, as if just setting foot on Western soil will magically transform them.
And anyone opposing the flood of "Neanderthals" is a "bigot".

You're the ones who need to make up your minds.
You can't have your gay wedding cake and make it halal too.

I was referring to your post before that one, Shockadelic.

<<I was responding to Foxy…>>

Never mind. You missed it. Moving on…

<<And how does that analogy hold with homophobes/bigots?>>

Maybe the smoke is same-sex marriage or tolerance permeating through society? I don’t know. It was a stupid analogy designed to highlight the silliness of your analogy.

<<Firstly, that was a genuine people's movement...>>

So is this. You have simply written it off over a few cherry-picked occurrences like a friggin’ cake that no-one will shut up about. Seriously, who cares? Had it been a bakery that got in trouble for refusing to make a black-themed cake, no-one would say peep.

<<Secondly, what's it like to be Black in America today?>>

It seems a lot better than the days of segregation. Apparently a black guy even got voted in as president!

<<Seems far worse than in ye olde days.>>

I take your point about Martin Luther King, etc., but how you justify the above claim I’ll never understand. Apparently minorities should forever accept their position as second-rate citizens just to avoid a temporary backlash.

<<No, I fear people won't be have the liberty to be themselves…>>

Except if being themselves involves marrying someone of the same sex when it might upset those you should actually be fighting against.

<<I'm against (a) the hypocritical/inconsistent "reform" that only goes half-way (ignoring other *explicit* prohibitions like incest and bigamy, that are also "love, love, love" between consenting adults)...

Yeah, I already discredited your invalid comparisons there. Those other things are not analogous to same-sex marriage.

<<You want "tolerance" and "diversity" but constantly bash religious people or anyone who doesn't goosestep compliantly with your agenda in any way…>>

Have you got any examples you can provide us with? Discrediting the arguments of others is very different to "bashing" them.

The rest of your post to me can simply be ignored since you’re just lumping me in with a stereotype despite myself not having commented on any of those other issues.

My previous response was not an "inter-action" with
that particular poster. It was a general comment and
observation - on
his amazing claim concerning "gay bashings."

Considering his subsequent follow-up comments - I'm sure
most people will understand my wanting to give his posts
a wide berth.

AJ Philips "Maybe the smoke is same-sex marriage"

Or maybe it's giving the hive a great big whack!

"Had it been a bakery that got in trouble for refusing to make a black-themed cake, no-one would say peep."

Yeah, right.
NAACP on speed-dial, more like it.
Faux outrage blog posts galore.
Bricks through window.
Strangled cat in letterbox, etc....

So, I can get a black-face minstrel cake design, with no hassles, at the "liberal [sic]-owned and operated" bakery? Yeah, right.

"It seems a lot better than the days of segregation."

Can't recall those segregated coffee shops getting drive-by shootings by Uzi-toting, crack-smoking gang-bangers.

They just drank coffee and danced to the jukebox.
Then went home.
Because they had one.
Which they paid for.
With a job.

"Apparently minorities should forever accept their position as second-rate citizens just to avoid a temporary backlash."

Apparently they should be realistic.

"Except if being themselves involves marrying someone of the same sex"

How is state regulation "liberty" or "being yourself"?

We already have the "liberty" to love and live with anyone we want. No law required.

Don't like the existing state law? Then..
(a) repeal the whole damn thing
(b) amend the whole damn thing (incest and bigamy are also love, love, love between consenting adults), or
(c) STFU

"Those other things are not analogous to same-sex marriage."

No "analogies" required.
Incest and bigamy are "love, love, love" between "consenting adults" and are "nobody's business" except the lovers.

"you’re just lumping me in with a stereotype"

"You/Your" is plural too.
Buy a dictionary.

"You" (plural, progressive utopians) constantly contradict yourselves.
Internet forums are chock-full of "your" (plural) hypocrisy.

Foxy "My previous response was not an "inter-action" with that particular poster. It was a general comment and observation - on *his* [my emphasis] amazing claim concerning "gay bashings."

Then "*he*" can be named.

You referred to a person ("one poster," and now "that particular poster") not merely the content of the comments.

Etiquette: persons are addressed by name.
*Content* can be addressed directly without attribution.

Don't like responding to me? You just did it again!

Shockadelic,

<<Or maybe it's giving the hive a great big whack!>>

Maybe. That doesn’t seem to have been the case yet. Either way, this will always be the case to some extent until it actually happens. Even bees eventually settle down after you whack their hive though.

<<NAACP on speed-dial, more like it.>>

Er, no, I meant you people who are so worried about the liberty of others wouldn’t be so quick come to the defence of a baker who refuses to bake a black-themed cake. And so you shouldn’t be either.

<<Can't recall those segregated coffee shops getting drive-by shootings by Uzi-toting, crack-smoking gang-bangers.>>

Those things are not caused by the liberation of African Americans. They would arguably be far worse if they were still repressed.

<<Apparently they should be realistic.>>

Yes, just think where African Americans would still be if people were “realistic”.

<<How is state regulation "liberty" or "being yourself"?>>

"Liberty" can also refer to statutory rights or privileges. (http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3Aliberty)

<<We already have the "liberty" to love and live with anyone we want. No law required.>>

That’s beside the point. Not being able to marry sends a message to homosexuals and their children that their relationships and families are not deserving of marriage, and marginalisation is never conducive to societal health. Marriage would also standardise, nationally, the benefits that the second rate civil unions provide.

<<Incest and bigamy are "love, love, love" between "consenting adults" and are "nobody's business" except the lovers.>>

And they cause harm. I’ve already addressed this.

<<"You/Your" is plural too.>>

It’s still a generalisation that you’re including me in.

<<"You" (plural, progressive utopians) constantly contradict yourselves.>>

You see?

I’ll be interested to see these contradictions though.

Susieonline,

I readily accept that the same-sex marriage debate is not silly to some people, but, so what? It is nonetheless silly because it is just about the meaning of a word, though the usual emotive baggage has been attached to the debate to provide the necessary drama. Same-sex marriage was never illegal in any of the countries you mention. Same-sex marriage is not illegal here. It was non-existent there and is non-existent here. The use of the terms “legal, “illegal”, and “legalised” is just part of the narrative of discrimination.

I don’t think Australians are going to be any different to the people of other Western countries. The same-sex marriage advocates have run a brilliant campaign, and it’s worked. I have no doubt that a plebiscite for same-sex marriage would be carried, though a referendum to reverse the High Court’s amendment to the Constitution would, if properly worded and argued for, have a chance.

I won’t lose any sleep if same-sex marriage is created. I will just wait for the next issue to be created out of nothing and all the usual suspects to jump on the bandwagon. I will also wait for a High Court amendment to the Constitution that upsets all those overjoyed with the last one.

AJ Phillips,

You should be able to distinguish between access to a thing and what a thing is.

I did not claim that “mental health issues within the gay community only began with the marriage equality campaign”. I said that “opponents were intimidated … by being blamed for mental health issues actually created by the campaign’s invention of the idea that the thousand-year-old meaning of a word made gays feel second-class, even though it had not done so for the first 980 of those years”. Mental health issues existed before the same-sex marriage campaign came along. What the same-sex marriage campaign did was create a new reason for their existence. People who had never felt discriminated against because marriage meant the union of a man and a woman were suddenly told that the meaning of this word was an infringement of their human rights and made them second-class citizens. It would be like people going through the process of adoption suddenly feeling discriminated against because Australians for Pregnancy Equality suddenly said the adoptive process had to be called pregnancy.

You see no need or a word that mean the union of a man and a woman, whereas I do. It is obvious to me, but, obviously, not to you.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,

The High Court has already amended the Constitution, in 2013, to say that “marriage” no longer means what it meant when it was put in the Constitution in 1901. If it can do that to “marriage”, it can do that to any federal power. It could decide that from now on “lighthouses” means “torches”. It could end the federal system.

At the time of federation, if the federal parliament had legislated for “same-sex marriage”, the High Court would have ruled the legislation invalid as the “marriage” power was a power over marriage (i.e., the union of a man and a woman) not over other unions. The federal parliament does not have the power to define any word in the Constitution any way it likes. All the words in the Constitution have a meaning. But the High Court can change the meaning, and the only way to change it back is via a constitutional referendum. If the general reporting is correct and we are to have a so-called plebiscite rather than a constitutional referendum, we will know it is for show only.

The amendment to the Marriage Act in 2006 is presented as John Howard’s, but the ALP voted for it too. As you say, that amendment did not change the meaning of “marriage”. It just put the common law meaning in writing to forestall a judge changing it.

AJ Philips "I meant you people who are so worried about the liberty of others wouldn’t be so quick come to the defence of a baker who refuses to bake a black-themed cake. And so you shouldn’t be either."

Er, yes I would.

Because unlike "you" (plural) I believe in liberty.
People "shouldn't" have to bake any cake they don't want to.
Go to another shop.

"Liberty" can also refer to statutory rights or privileges"

You do love define: don't you?
*I* am obviously not using it that way.
I would use the word "rights" in that context.

I am sceptical about "rights" (statutory codes) which is why I'm sceptical about marriage reform.
I have no scepticism about "liberty" (the state of being free within society).

"Not being able to marry sends a message to homosexuals"

Only if your self-esteem depends of official statutes.
Most queer people aren't that pathetic.

And prohibting incestous marriage, sends a message that your sister doesn't "deserve" your love.

And prohibiting bigamy "sends a message" to bisexuals that only one person (hence only one *sex*) "deserves" their love, hence something "wrong" with bisexuality.
Bad, bad message!

"It’s still a generalisation that you’re including me in."

So clarify.
Do you oppose the immigration of people from medieval/primitive cultures that are far more homophobic/sexist than us and will thus hinder our social "evolution"?

If you support this immigration, how do you reconcile the contradiction?

"I'll be interested to see" your answer, not further evasive misdirection.

Chris C,

I don’t think anyone has claimed that a definition alone made them second-class citizens.

<<People who had never felt discriminated against because marriage meant the union of a man and a woman were suddenly told that the meaning of this word was an infringement of their human rights and made them second-class citizens.>>

I’d say it has more to do with the reaction they get from the more bigoted types when they lobby for change. And besides, social attitudes from some quarters probably would have already made them feel as second-class as they were going to feel. I don’t think this issue has introduced anything new. They’ve always been aware that they’re not able to marry.

<<It would be like people going through the process of adoption suddenly feeling discriminated against because Australians for Pregnancy Equality suddenly said the adoptive process had to be called pregnancy.>>

That’s an absurd analogy. Firstly, adoptive parents have not been rejected and discriminated against for centuries, and nor would the resistance they met in trying to redefine “pregnancy” be motivated by bigoted attitudes. Secondly, pregnancy is a biological reality; marriage, on other hand, is a social construct and a fluid concept.

<<You see no need or a word that mean the union of a man and a woman, whereas I do. It is obvious to me, but, obviously, not to you.>>

Then by all means, share. I would be fascinated as to know how not having a word to describe specifically “heterosexual marriage”, or how having to say “straight marriage” on the rare occasion that you actually need to distinguish between the two is going to adversely affect your life.

I know you would, Shockadelic.

<<Er, yes I would.>>

That’s why I said “wouldn’t be so quick”. There certainly wouldn’t be the uproar there was in support of the bakery owners if it were a race issue.

<<And prohibting incestous marriage, sends a message that your sister doesn't "deserve" your love.>>

No, it sends the message that society views incestuous relationships as potentially harmful. Again, I’ve already addressed your comparisons involving bisexuals, bigamy, polygamy, and incest - which was my main point of contention. If you’re just going to continue to re-assert your claims as if nothing was said, then there’s no point in me continuing here.

But to answer your question...

<<Do you oppose the immigration of people from medieval/primitive cultures that are far more homophobic/sexist than us and will thus hinder our social "evolution"?>>

That depends on the individuals. If you don't understand the problem with making such sweeping generalisations, then that would explain a lot of your posts.

You are making "sweeping generalisations" by claiming incest and bigamy are automatically "harmful".
And I recall your use of affection for the words "never" and "always".
And your "sweeping generalisations" about the history of Blacks in America.

Yet again you expose your own hypocrisy.
Everything you say is based on "sweeping generalisations".

"Rights" enshrined in state law are "sweeping generalisations", applied wholesale to the entire population.
The exercise of those "rights" often violating the "liberty" of INDIVIDUALS (as we see with the cake lawsuits).

Now, how exactly are we to assess the individual immigrant's "evolved/enlightened" attitudes to issues/values?
They could easily lie in a questionnaire.

And what policy are you proposing to deal with the unacceptable applicants?

To Mr Hugh Harris.

I think that most Australians believed that the time had come in 1973 that homosexual acts between consenting partners over 18 years of age should no longer be a criminal offense. That did not mean that Australians approved of this behaviour, only that they conceded that some people have some sort of genetic defect that screws up their sexuality, and no amount of punishment is going to change that.

Your premise is, that most Australians now believe that homosexuality is now considered socially acceptable and it now should have equal status as normal marrige between males and females. My premise is, that this is complete rot. I think that most people do not accept same sex unions as "marriage" and consider it to be a threat to family values.

If a majority of politicians of all persuasions agree that homosexual unions should be equal to real marriage, then this simply shows how much our political class can enact legislation which their own electorate vehemently reject. The issue is so important to the future of our society, that nothing less than a referendum can reflect the will of the people on this issue. No social transformation without direct representation.

I am certain that the homosexual lobby will do everything they can to prevent a referendum which would clearly display the real opinions of the people on this matter. They know that they will lose, and lose badly.

Every argument put forward by the homosexual lobby to advance their cause of homosexual equality could be used by incestuous couples demanding that brothers should marry sisters, mothers should marry their sons, fathers should marry their daughters, or cousins should marry their cousins. This is now feasible with birth control preventing the births of babies with congenital birth defects. But Hugh, unless incestuous couples can do what the homosexual lobby has done, and frustrate the will of the people, it ain't gonna happen.

AJ Philips, I'm still waiting to hear your proposed procedure for *individually* accessing potentially millions of immigration applicants for their suitability for our evolved/enlightened society.

Sorry, Shockadelic. I’ve been extremely busy this week.

<<You are making "sweeping generalisations" by claiming incest and bigamy are automatically "harmful".>>

I haven’t said they are “automatically harmful”. In fact, In one instance, I went to the effort of saying that incest was “potentially harmful”. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17616#311694)

<<And I recall your use of affection for the words "never" and "always".>>

Indeed I have. And I am still waiting on you to give me an example of instances that contradict my use of the words.

<<And your "sweeping generalisations" about the history of Blacks in America.>>

That’s a ridiculous comparison. Situations are not people and no-one expects others to insert qualifiers such as “usually” and “most of the time” every time they open their mouths. Making mention of something in conversation with an expectation to not have to qualify everything with “most, but not all” is quite different to making official policy for a nation that has real world implications both nationally internationally.

Most of the time.

<<"Rights" enshrined in state law are "sweeping generalisations"...>>

If you can figure out a way to have the State cost-effectively micromanage every interaction, while simultaneously increasing the liberty of individuals, and not advocating anarchy as an alternative, then you go for it.

<<Now, how exactly are we to assess the individual immigrant's "evolved/enlightened" attitudes to issues/values?>>

I don’t know. I only know about the negative effects of, and the problems associated with, rejecting an entire people because their ancestry. I haven’t thought about it enough to have a strong opinion on what should be done if it proves impossible to screen every applicant effectively.

What I do know, however, is that implementing the policies that those of your ilk (sorry, that most of those of your ilk) would have us implement would cause the some ethnic peoples already here to feel marginalised and, subsequently create a problem worse problem.

Potentially.

Besides, this is way off topic now. My point was that your equating of homosexuality with incest and polygamy was flawed, and I have sufficiently proven my point there.

Yes, AJ "generalisations" are the basis of all law and public policy.
So get used to them.

The only other option is anarchy. Which I don't recommend.

So there's no suggestion on how to screen the potential millions of immigrants.
Clueless.

My "ilk" (that would be me alone) would stop all immigration, except for European ancestry *refugees* (e.g. White South Africans fleeing their genocide).

That severely limits the number of applicants needing processing and they are already presumably modern-Western-culture compliant, so no real need to screen in the first place.

As for minorities offended by any policy change.
Their subjective self-perception is irrelevant to our nation's future.