The purpose of a 'plebiscite' is to give the current government a clear message detailing 'the will of the people'. A government may then choose to ignore or assent to that message.

On this particular issue, much the same as in 'military conscription' for example, I think it is wise for the government to seek a publicly funded 'survey' (a plebiscite), as opposed to the many privately funded surveys held to date.

It is my understanding that the only time that 'marriage' is documented in the constitution is with respect that only the commonwealth government is empowered to make laws with regard to the institution. Further, it is my understanding that 'marriage', as defined in the constitution, is the Union of one man and one woman, for life and to the exclusion of all others.

To change the 'definition' of that word within the constitution, requires a referendum.

Hence; a plebiscite on 'marriage' would indicate to the government whether or not a referendum is required to change the meaning of the word as stated in the constitution.

Where are we now A J PHILIPS - what gems of wisdom do you intend bestowing upon your faithful devotees at this hour ?

Anyway, ask any working copper what these sodomites or queers do exactly, in Public Parks during hours of darkness ? Besides loitering in or near the public toilets. Why are they skulking and lingering around in the dark, for what mysterious assignation would you suppose, 'hanging around' in or near some (often) smelly public loo ?

Would it be perhaps, they are trying to meet other sodomites, if so why meet in a public toilet ? Do they realise by them engaging in this protracted 'loitering', they're inhibiting legitimate people from using those toilets for the purpose they were original designed. Certainly not as a convenient rendezvous to meet like minded sodomites. Surely they could find somewhere more appropriate, and much more hygienic, than a public bog !

In an earlier Email you claimed that I was keen to use such emotive terms as 'sodomy' and 'buggery' as something calculated to inspire 'disgust' and 'hatred' ? Some folk describe anal sex, that's practiced by sodomites, as revolting even dirty, some have termed it positively filthy.

I'm sure your delicate sensibilities wouldn't want that ? Anyway I would've thought their very practices alone would inspire disgust in many ordinary people, and with some, even hatred ? What words or terminology would you prefer I use, 'Alpha Juliet Papa' ? Gay, homosexual, queer, 'bouncie boy', what precisely prey tell me A J P ? After all, sodomy is the correct term for males engaged in anal penetration together, you'll note I didn't use the noun 'sex'.

Well, you can't have been a very astute copper otherwise you would have read what's written inside public dunnies on the walls and backs of doors.

Thereafter, some of these people have been scarred, bullied and worse so they are understandably afraid to meet openly and in public. That's what you are supposed to protect them from without fear or favour "Oh!" sung Wu.

As for sodomy being filthy, again, it is something I haven't personally indulged in but I have been led to believe that in advance of the delicacy, at least some practitioners take careful preparatory measures. Perhaps not as extreme as preparing for a colonoscopy, but you get the idea.

..

AJ, I still think that the problem here with O Sung Wu is that he thinks that you have offended him. But, I suspect that he failed to comprehend what you were saying and misinterpreted. And now, he feels insecure and threatened and his prior training has led him to conclude that the best response to his cognitive dissonance is a sustained ad-hominem attack.

Sometimes I think that advanced vocab and phraseology is best avoided in favor of simple plain english. Phanto could even use with ComPics I reckon.

As for Prompete, whilst constitutionally it is the commonwealth's role to make rules regarding marriage, it is not the constitution which defines marriage. The commonwealth marriage act defines marriage and was made by Parliament and can be changed by Parliament. It does not require a referendum.

Maybe we could call it FAM?

o sung wu,

The snide remarks are really unbecoming. I don’t know where wisdom comes into the mix either. I don’t remember trying to offer anyone pearls of wisdom.

<<…ask any working copper what these sodomites or queers do exactly, in Public Parks during hours of darkness>>

A small percentage of them, yes. Such is life for those who are forced into unhappy marriages and then underground like that because of a stigmatisation. But you can do your part to change that.

<<Would it be perhaps, they are trying to meet other sodomites, if so why meet in a public toilet ?>>

Perhaps they can’t be seen at gay clubs because they’re married or high profile individuals (as is sometimes the case)? None of the openly gay men that I know would ever be caught in a public toilet. They’re all very educated, successful and respectable people.

Here’s something that’ll really make your head spin. Are you sitting down?

Some cops are gay.

That’s right. Big, burly, 6’2” blokes built like brick shithouses protecting the public. But you can call them “pansies”, if you like. Most won’t mind.

<<In an earlier Email you claimed that I was keen to use such emotive terms as 'sodomy' and 'buggery' as something calculated to inspire 'disgust' and 'hatred' ?>>

Yes, your arguments are so emotive and vacuous that you apparently feel you have no choice but to use such adjectives. Sodomite, bugger, queer, faggot, poofter. You’ll use the most offensive possible word to describe an entire demographic for which you have no rational reason to hate indiscriminately.

<<What words or terminology would you prefer I use, 'Alpha Juliet Papa' ?>>

It's not about what I would prefer. Still, why can’t you just say “homosexual”, “gay people” and “anal penetration”?

--

DreamOn,

You’re right. For some reason o sung wu has always taken opposing views as a personal attack on who he is. Even when they’re not communicated to him. I can respond to him with a demeanour that is almost sickeningly sweet but it makes no difference, so I don’t usually bother anymore.

The problem is, and always has been A J PHILIPS, I simply don't respect you, and for other reasons altogether, I don't like you !

Why, well think about it for a moment ? I dedicated a good part of my working life as a police officer, both in GD'S and in plain clothes. At the very beginning I, and several other contributors herein were in the process of discussing some matter that touched upon the criminal law, and up popped A J PHILIPS and waded in without any thought to what others had contributed on the matter. Wisely I should've simply ignored you and followed the sage advice of an old uniformed sergeant of mine, who used to say '...son, never argue with a mug...' !

Recklessly, I engaged with you in order to explore a more pragmatic approach to the issue, much as a 'case officer' might do when first allocated a job and job number. What happened next I forget, but ever since that first encounter, you've quoted this text, and that text and what some eminent Social Scientist had stated, and so on.

Interestingly, much of what you said was from a theoretical point of you, and it was probably quite right. Whereas, I was speaking from a pragmatic position, and I too was right. We were both right coming at the right conclusion, from two entirely different angles.

In ordinary (daily policing) practices, one follows very much the well worn procedural trail. Diverging neither left nor right. Never needing to digress as our practices are generally very well proven, rarely ever needing to seek a theoretical opinion, only in matters of violence occasioned against the person, and then only that, of a forensic medical officer. Even then we follow precisely, this proven path which generally gives us the results we seek.

So when an unknown theoretician appears and starts lecturing a former Squad Sergeant on how to do his job, well he'll naturally 'arc up' and get real dark with this bloke; see what I'm alluding to here A J P ?