Good point made, the twitter message, the quick thoughtless comment is dominating politics and social activity.

Yet, we still have a political system that works through slow government processes that observes and tries to grapple with significant medium and long term problems. But this divergence is no longer recognized.

In Australia the result is similar to what all can see as conflict and confusion as American groups demand instant answers to systemic problems.

Really, it is one's fault - we just have to learn how to cope with the hand phone, app, instant messenger and so on ... and have a system of social organization that works.

Perhaps totally new social and political ways are needed. Maybe the (as some suggested) we have an app for 'voting' on issues. Maybe we turn 180 degrees and move to Far Right Dictorship(seemingly a tend in Europe).

Or maybe it will all go away like Pokeman:

I was watching a video where one of the (Western) world's pre-eminent social psychologists from a prestigious US university and utterly reputable, let slip for some seconds to be seen to boast about how he and some other social psychologists contributed to a Democrat's presidential campaign. Was it pride in having and using the levers? Or was he going further into the dark side, to believe that he had a mission, that he and his colleagues were doing what was 'right' for the public and secretly? Next step, why waste time on the appearance of elections?

It didn't mattered what side he was on, it was his own lack of insight (while talking about cognitive error at the time!) that mattered and many would argue, the conflict of using the unique things that make us human and help us to bond together and to survive, against us.

This top research and teaching psychologist, if he didn't understand how he was compromising his personal and professional ethics, that he was also displaying elitism, if not authoritarianism, the end justifies the means, who else might and what about scientists who fool around with chemicals and physics?

Gay marriage is the creature of a political elite who identify and rationalise their authoritarian, anti-democratic, overlord social experimentation as 'Progressive'.

But they are at heart no different to any other ruthless totalitarian SOBs, because it will always be their way or the highway and their desired ends will always justify the means. They are NOT happy that the perceived bovine public (who don't have the wit to know what's best for them) are being consulted at all, even though that 'consultation' is too late and half-arsed (a fitting word in the circumstances).

The article should have been about totalitarianism and the political elite, and the inability of universities, widen that to educators, to maintain their previously treasured independence, professional ethics and freedom of speech.

As a labor voter I can tell you not all of us agree with gay marriage. If you post on the mamamia site you are not allowed to oppose gay marriage... this will be a guaranteed 'NO' vote because everyone knows it's an attack on Western Civilisation!

Fancy that mamamia girl telling us married women want gay marriage: that is the purest bull dust anyone ever said ever!!

Australian will be lost if it keeps listening to these globalist disillusion campaigners: bow down If you don't respect your war dead I say... People actually died for this country!

Equal rights for all people. But is marriage a right? Equal rights for all people ... Unless one person's rights hamper another person's rights. Take a lesson from the U.S. After several states legalized marriage, there were still some that would not agree. Legal suits on cake bakers who would refuse service do to their disagreeing on the marriage. The controversy over gay rights spread from just gay rights and religous rights, to also small businesses having their rights or not.

I don't blame Mark Christensen for being sick of this debate. Believe me it'll only get worse once it progresses, and it'll stay a current issue to push until gay marriage is legalized. It's not going to go away anytime soon.

I also agree with the points that politians need to not push an ever expanding political process. There needs to be ground that is past politics and legislation. Things for the people to descide without a law to enforce their decisions.

Which goes back to the first question. Is marriage a right that needs legal backing? Or is it something else. Personally I think getting married should be about a union with the person you want commit the rest of your life to (and hopefully love). The legal implications come second to that. If people can do with without an enforced legal element then that is what they should go for. It will bog down away from future civil rights being burdened under one right being held up.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Did you not realise until now that the purpose of this campaign for "gay marriage" is to hurt the religious? It never had any other.

In this context, "Rights" are man-given, whereas marriage is made in heaven and cannot be "bestowed" on us by other people. The legal term which mocks marriage has no relation with marriage itself - and should better not exist in the first place.

The question here should rather be, how do married couples who were previously deceived and are already trapped in the legal condition of "marriage", escape this condition [without being forced to separate and live apart for a whole year plus the divorce-application period].

If I had a cake shop, I would say to any approaching couple (regardless of gender) who wish to celebrate their marriage: you are welcome to pick any existing cakes off the shelf, but if you are about to seek the regime's blessings for your relationship, then I won't take part in that by making a special cake for that occasion.

Yuyutsu - how does equality 'hurt' the religious? I thought their god holds that all are equal? The religious don't need anyone outside to 'hurt' them - they've done a fine job of that to themselves, while, of course, condemning those that are not exactly like them.