Interesting!

Being asked for costless common courtesy and civility has got far more folk stirred and shaken, up in arms and frothing at the mouth, than child abuse!

We have to know they're on the level when they froth equally from both sides of their physiognomy. Informative PRIORITIES!

I leave them guessing with an upturned smile that forces all the froth to the middle.
Alan B.

' A committee in Mexico's lower house of congress has voted down a proposal by President Enrique Pena Nieto to legalise same-sex marriage nationwide.

The measure seeking to enshrine in the constitution same-sex couples' right to '
wed was defeated 19 to 8 on Wednesday in the Commission on Constitutional Matters.
- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/sthamerica/2016/11/10/mexico-rejects-same-sex-marriage-proposal.html#sthash.H07Cijnh.dpuf

Hey why no mention on ' our ' abc?

This one never made MSM in this country either

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/10/16/tens-thousands-march-in-paris-against-same-sex-marriage.html

Despite assumptions that political correctness is the product of tree-hugging progressives, many may be surprised that in fact it came from the right wing of the Reagan era.
It was a time when they thought that morality was beginning to slide and this was a way of maintaining some sort of control over how people behaved and (hopefully) thought.

Nevertheless it's just an overblown and over-hyped self-imposed restriction and given much more attention than it deserves.

Except for threatening and obscene displays of public language, I don't believe anybody has ever been arrested, convicted or even charged with the "crime" of Political Correctness.

I am still quite free to say offensive things to others in public and all it would do is say more about me than about my target.

We're coming up to the silly season where some people get all uppity about Christmas trees and Nativity scenes but all the alleged restrictions - and arguments - are made by misguided individuals "taking the law into their own hands" and not as a matter of legally enforced public policy.

Many still rant about 18C but never mention the provisions of 18D.
There is also a difference between illegality and criminality - two different things under the law.

Bolt was charged under 18C because he didn't meet the provisions of 18D but also for making deliberately false allegations. He has a very long history of this but on that occasion, somebody bothered to challenge him in Court and he was exposed.

I don't agree Rache.

The origins of political correctnees are subject to debate but most commentators date its origins much earlier than the 1980s (some date it as far back as WW1 while others suggest 1930s). In the Australian context we can certainly date key PC events. The Racial Discrimination Act dates from the Whitlam era (1975 to be exact).

So called "conservative correctness" did develop in the US as a reaction to political correctness around the time of the Reagan presidency. It was more associated with conservative jargon than anything else. It was not associated with legislated impediments to free speech, and has largely faded.

The main reason Bolt was charged under 18(c) was simply because the provision was there and a small group of people sought to use it to shut him up!

//Try posting any article on the health dangers of anal sex and see what response you get.//

Widespread acceptance?

I think it's pretty much common wisdom these days that anal sex is risky. I think the problem you're encountering is more that you're posting articles about anal sex, and expecting people to accept them as arguments against gay marriage. And then when people say: "hang on, what does sex have to do with marriage? And what about the lesbians? I don't think they're as interested in anal sex as pornhub would have us believe." you get a bit stroppy that people can't see good common sense like you and accuse them of abusing you with political correctness.

This seems to be what most of this whining about political correctness boils down to: a certain breed of thin-skinned tory who get stroppy when lefties disagree with them. For heavens sake, they're lefties. Of course they're going to disagree with tories. That's what lefties are for.

If the tories don't like being disagreed with, there's a simple remedy that I dare not speak for fear I be accused of trying to 'silence the debate'. If that's not to their liking, I suggest that maybe they just get over this disproportionate sense of self-pity mixed with outrage they feel when people pour scorn on their opinions.

Because the thing is, if you go around offering up your opinions for public consideration, there'll always be somebody out there waiting with a nice big bucket 'o scorn to tip on them. I should know - much scorn has been poured over mine. I can't say it's done me any lasting damage, for opinions (including the scornful ones) aren't physical, tangible things.