No...I'll sit back and watch the world drown itself in madness. No stopping that inevitability.

But, if a neutered society, is the wish of the masses, and Marxist destruction of society is the aim, then maybe we should not resist re-population programmes underway, courtesy of China.

Blah Blah Blah Safe Schools,
Blah Blah Blah Cultural Marxists,
Blah Blah Blah Gender Fluidity.
Blah Blah Blah Hitler and Stalin.

Bingo!

Good point, judging from other similar countries with ssm nothing really changes for gays afterwards, but on the flip side, Christians experience further disenfranchisement...which maybe was the plan all along. spose will never know for sure.

It is interesting that politicians did not insist on a compulsory vote in their usual dictatorial way. They are happy, in this instance, to tear up our traditions on the say so of HALF the voting population. And, of course "the homosexual community was used unwillingly at times". The entire vicious campaign had nothing to do with homosexuals: but everything to do with Marxist politics.

8 million enrolled voters declined to speak up. We can only wonder what they think. The future for duped homosexuals might not be all that rosy, as the rabidly hysterical pushers of this sorry episode probably already know.

Ttbn.

The odd few I am aware of who (say) they didn't vote, indicated they felt pressured into a yes vote by association with family or friends, who were homosexual.

I am certainly aware of some very angry no voters. This show will not go well in the long run, for homosexuals. If you want a view of that, then check out South Africas situation since ssm introduction in 2006.

Listen dumkoff, the survey is over, the people, those with a still operational cerebral cortex, have spoken!

Those that ignore the evidence of a genetic cause of an normal human aberration like homosexuality! Are like this froth foaming author, unable or unwilling to accept the evidence or the umpire's decision!

We know he's on the level, because he's foaming equally from both sides of his mouth.

Why? Because the brainwashed are clinically incapable of critical, independent thinking and need clowns like the disgruntled author to do it for them? He needs to go and get "gruntled"?

Notice how the resident homophone resorts to hot button words like homosexual, when referring to same sex marriage! Hadda slip that one in the backdoor, didn't ya?

We've had the survey, the people have spoken and wished so much money hadn't been wasted! Just to confirm already known facts!

Next year I've decided to form my own flat earth religion and insist on a parental right to exclude my kids from those schools that teach, evidence based, round earth theory!

And it's my right to reject any and all credible evidence and just keep banging on with my mindless brainwashed from birth, stone age belief!

It's my right! Right?

99 change hands. You can do it left handed as well? You'll go blind!

I'm sorry for the tasteless connotation? NO I'M NOT!
Alan B.

dd,

They can't legislate away what people think. Alan B really should give up drinking.

Ttbn.

Politicians are going to take the brunt of homosexual obsessionalism.
This issue has panned out to be a national divider, as nothing else I've witnessed here.
It's obvious the divide is, as not uncommon, between city and the bush.

The bush is politically over-lorded by the National party.
For the coalition, it has been agonisingly destructive.
Turnbull will not lose any skin with his fancy city types. But the hatred of him in the bush is palpable.

Will this fracture the coalition?

The Nationals will be impossible to throw in the bush, but the Liberals are vulnerable in the city. Without the Nationals, Liberals are dead in the water.

But can they remain friends without losing support to whoever puts their hand up, as an alternative?

dd,

The Liberal party, in particular, has been fracturing since Marxist Malcolm knifed Abbott. The Nationals will endure because, as you say, they are not tainted by the urban Left. Good opportunities for the Australian Conservatives. One Nation is not well enough organised.

Ttbn

In terms of timing, I think it would be the ideal time for both Parties to throw-off the facade of friendship, and reorganise a credible opposition built on honesty towards the electorate.
A time to recognise the enemy, and go forward into the “no” electorates, preaching the return of power and sensibility, and promising a return of respect, to traditional moral values!

I think it is oversimplifying to believe "homosexualism" is entirely a Marxist front.
I think it is a good-part life style based on “urbane” fancies; read lifestyle of the rich and drug obsessed.

It has developed as an issue, since it is this group from which our politicians gravitate from, or longingly aspire to. The group to be sucked up to. Far distant from Marxism.

The tools of choice though, used by this manipulative collection of evil doers, are the teachers union. A mailable mix of aspirationals.

The universities, where the new age agitators and lay-abouts, pine for a power trip at another's expense, usually their parents, as a tradition.
Unmotivated and self absorbed, sexually deviant, and violent.
Nothing much changes.

And filtering down to the "stupid" of neurotic Women! Easily lied to and gullible.

I don't see an entire landscape of ideological Marxism. But Marxism carries with it the warriors of social destruction. Destruction of anything held dear and precious by the perceived enemy, those holding traditional values as worthy!

the ISIS look alike, Western style, are the nueva-homosexual: And not necessarily homosexual, but an elite, by invitation only club.

These are the enemy of truth, the enemy of sensibility, the enemy of the good and the decent among us, the enemy of Democracy as we have observed.

Alan B

Agreed, I'm just not as grumpy. It's nearly over and it's about time. Argument from tradition is nonsense, there are some very old traditions such as slavery which were abolished and civilisation survived.

The Four Horseman will have to wait.

Anyone heard from runner? U OK Bro?

'Anyone heard from runner? U OK Bro?'

not about to top myself, smash up cars or spit on police which would of occured had the no vote got up JBSH. Past societies have chosen debauchery, perversion and to call evil good. Thankfully no one has ever be abble to dethrone Christ and no one ever will. Sad that after all the abuse of the Catholic church we will now groom massives more kids for abuse. I bet teachers will be lining up to teach kids( who can't decide what they want for lunch) to decdide if they are boys, girls, gay etc. As usual those who are in the suicide industry, the crime industry and the educational industry will be dumb enough to ask why.

Religions teach that God created man in his own image, in his own image did he create him!

Fundamental to all the religions of the book! And includes every genetic variation!

Any and all genetic variations between!?

Christians claim he sent his only begotten Son to save their souls and found their church?

Many commenting here, would have at least suspected an unmarried at 33 Jesus was gay!? Even so, every genetic variation the Creator's handiwork and intentionally so!? Right?

It's not like the Creator would make a mistake? Or perhaps there isn't a creator?

But if you believe there's a Creator absolutely aware of what he/she was doing!? Then he/she can't have made a deliberate mistake nor been unaware of what would follow from the hands of his/her creations? True?

It follows therefore, to single any branch of that creation to target or ostracise them and allegedly, in Gods name, can't be right!

But egregious false witness by folk pretending to hear the word of the lord!?

Did perfection make a mistake or did a few nutters pretending to speak for him/her get it terribly wrong and now have a case to answer on their own final judgement day!?

In the interim let's be sure we name every conservative backing the no case and put them and their preference partner last on the ballot paper, if only to have the bar stewards understand the will of the people and a will that can no longer be denied!

Bring on the next election and remember what these dinosaurs tried to do here! And only to have them understand the ultimate price they must pay for being, a tail that tried to wag the dog!

Let's drain the swamp and flush out the born to rule control freaks, who want to not only put their words in God's mouth? But persecute part of his/her creation for daring to be born difference, but still in his own image!

It's not them being put to the test fool, but the rest of you allegedly normal folk!

Bring on the next election!
Alan B.

The only "error" was changing the long-satisfactory Marriage Act in 2004.

Repealing those changes would be the simplest, fastest way to provide the nation with a reasonable act, and one with 40 years of precedent in place, allowing clear interpretation of legal rights of the parties involved and no erosion of *any* rights that existed prior to 2004.

It will also save the nation the travesty of watching the current mob attempt to draft new legislation

Rusty.

Hear, hear and well said Rusty!
Alan B.

DD. If this had been a general election, Those voting no, would have carried the day in a whopping 17 seats, the length and breadth of the country!

And if that indicates as your partner in crime, ttbn claims, is really not about homosexuality at all? But rather those voting yes are all just maxist?

Then how come the Liberal coalition won any parliament anywhere, anytime in the last 100 years?

Another thing, we are not South Africa and still emerging from the trees!

Like another barely human stone age, pointing the bone, violent culture! And therefore, not yet developed enough in the head, to look at and understand forensic, scientifically garnered evidence!?

Bring on the next election and the "maxist culture:, ready willing and waiting in the wings! To send the mad hatter's tea party back to the other side of the looking glass, where it belongs and the alleged Christians posting here, to their final day of judgement, to account for the harm they have so surely done or caused!

If J.C. walked among us today incognito, with his patent predilection for male company, his kind compassionate ways and still unmarried and childless in comparative middle age!

You and all the other self declared homophones protesting here, would have likely decided he was just another turd burgler and set upon him like a pack of rabid dogs!? Wouldn't you!?

And all the probable far king turd burgler deserved?

Finally, if you think South Africa is so superior? How come you're still here, in Australia? Well?

You'll have a nice day now y'hear!

Bring on the next election!
Alan B.

Seeing the hand wringing angst of the homophobes who populate OLO is most amusing.

"Notice how the resident homophone resorts to hot button words like homosexual"

Given the monumental errors AlanB has perpetrated in these pages, this (homophone!) is only a mynah one.

"Hadda slip that one in the backdoor, didn't ya?"

Are you allowed to say "backdoor" while discussing gaze? :)

You can't legislate what people think whether they agreed or disagreed with the question!

But we can legislate the right to religious freedom, the right to free speech and the right to parental responsibility to the almighty irrefutable truth ahead of ingrained tradition or intolerant culture.

As far as I'm aware no marriage has been rent asunder, by a yes vote to true equality!

Moreover, the failed in spades, diabolically dumb, negative campaign, asked parents, aunties, uncles, nieces, nephews, brothers, sisters and friends, to to side with no case politicians, against their own family or friends.

Furthermore, not everyone is able to simply bury the head and disregard the evidence of a genetic cause for homosexuality, as part of a range of normal aberration inside the human family.

Nor can laws be so amended, as to allow discrimination against two gay people, when it is now today, illegal to discriminate against one!

That said, religious freedoms and rights could and should be enshrined on law, as a long overdue bill of irrevocable rights!

Just as you can't be half pregnant you cannot subjectively select what human rights can be enshrined in law! And leave all the others as the alleged default position!

It's either or, not two bob each way or have your cake and eat it too!
Alan B.

A mynah error on the part of spellcheck which apparently doesn't recognise homophobe as a legitimate (Australian english) word. But continually corrected it to Homophone!

And one out there for the folk, whose only priority is to just nit pick/play the man not the ball, as opposed to debating the issue on merit and the evidence!
Alan B.

Ahhh spellcheck...the "dog ate my homework" of the digital age.

"play the man not the ball"

When the ball is constantly deflated, the problem is the man.

Apart from the thorium fantasies and the Chinese electric car fantasies, we now have the homosexual gene fantasies. Its rubbish. There isn't a 'gay' gene(s) and even if there were, it hasn't been found. If such a thing had been found, the ayatollahs would be forcing every man to visit the genome test site atop an 8 story building to determine whether they get to go down via the lift or a somewhat quicker fashion. (visual aid to help understanding ...http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/17/12/304188CE00000578-3403505-image-a-25_1453033408510.jpg).

Additionally if homosexuality were determined by genes then all identical twins would be of the same disposition. They aren't..QED.

Not that any of the above will stop AlanB from restating his illusions. That would only happen if facts mattered to him.

mhaze,

Sexuality may not be determined by genes alone (and almost certainly not by one gene), but genes inevitably play a role and there is plenty of evidence to support this:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=genetic+influence+on+homosexuality

This shouldn't come as a surprise, though, as all behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between genes and environment.

(I even have a textbook which discusses this. Just be careful before claiming that you've read it this time. I'd link you to the book on an online store, but we both know how you'll try to twist that, don't we?)

Interesting link(s), PJ; then there is hope for a cure?

Thanks, Pis Mise,

<<Interesting link(s), PJ; then there is hope for a cure?>>

I'm not sure how you get that from the articles found in the Scholar search to which I linked (at least not from the articles listed in the first couple of pages of search results), but I guess if our technology were advanced enough, then we could "cure" any trait.

Although, I think "alter" would be a better word to use, if I understand you correctly.

"alter'
does fit better.

I'm not the one given to terminological inexactitudes MH. And one notes, you claim to be well read, but clearly haven't read the reports By geneticist Alan Sanders and his team, repeat, team!

When I wrote about this, just weeks ago, I even named two of the genes found only in homosexuals, and there's probably three more!?

Identical twins have different fingerprints, different retina scans, different tongue patterns etc.

Therefore, very few identical (already rare phenomena) twins are actually identical! If for example, the fertilised egg (rare) was XXXY, when the egg splits, then one of the twins could get XX (girl) genes and the other XY (boy) genes.

So your claim falls on it's face right there, as unprovable!

Further, one could be left handed the other right handed!

At the end of the day, we have to play the hand nature and our genetic legacy handed us!

Then suffer the bigotry and intolerance of those who fatuously believe anyone, but anyone, would chose homosexuality! But particularly in any Islamic country or Putin's Russia where they can suffer all kinds of very negative consequences. Including imprisonment and being brutally bashed within an inch of your life!

I remember as a boy, The lefties having to tolerate all kinds of physical punishment from the normal right handed community, who knew to a generic man, these flawed and less than perfect humans, chose this aberration, just because they were non-compliant little rebels. Suggest you check with spellcheck (Australian English) before you label me a liar!

The people that resort to playing the man, have no intellectual capacity to carry the debate on the merit of the case! But always react, like conditioned Pavlov's dogs, with fact free, broken record rhetoric! As you so ably demonstrate as you prove me right, again and again!
Alan B.

"Sexuality may not be determined by genes alone (and almost certainly not by one gene)"

No. Sexuality is definitely NOT determined by genes alone. If that we the case then monozygotic twins would always have the same sexual orientation. In fact identical twins have very low rates of of concordance vis a vis sexuality - somewhere between 5 and 12% depending on who you believe (eg Bearman and Brückner 2002). That is, if one twin is homosexual it is very unlikely that the other will be, which is completely contrary to what you'd expect if genes were the main determinant.

So yes, its likely to be a combination of environmental and genetic factors with the latter being a minor factor. But it can't be entirely ruled out that genetics play no part.

AlanB however, based, as usual, on some gumpf he saw on Youtube, was asserting that not only was it proven that it was all down to genes but that the genes had been identified. Perhaps you'll have better luck trying to educate AlanB to be more discerning in his 'research'. What I find most disconcerting is that, having shown himself to be a rather gullible dill, AlanB then excoriates others as fools for not also falling for his various misunderstandings on reality.

You can, if you like, link to your source book. Since I'm in general agreement with your point, I probably wouldn't spend too much time checking its bona fides. Its only when your links have a suspicious odor that I check things out. Having done so once and had my suspicions confirmed, I doubt I'd bother again.

mhaze,

Thank you for agreeing with me so emphatically at the start there, while somehow managing to make it look like you were refuting what I had said.

<<So yes, its likely to be a combination of environmental and genetic factors with the latter being a minor factor.>>

It is not known for sure to what degree genes play a role, as there are shortcomings to the twin studies done in this area which make determining a rate difficult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Criticisms

<<But it can't be entirely ruled out that genetics play no part.>>

Yes, it can. That behaviour and personality traits are the result of a combination of both genetic and environmental factors is no longer debated. It is impossible for genes to not play a role in a person’s behaviour. What IS now debated is how exactly these factors interact to produce the behaviours that they do.

<<Its only when your links have a suspicious odor that I check things out. Having done so once and had my suspicions confirmed, I doubt I'd bother again.>>

Oh, don’t keep us all in suspense, will you. Please, tell us when this happened? When did I post a suspicious link that you confirmed was worthy of your suspicion?

I think you're telling porky pies again. It's becoming a bit of a habit for you, isn't it?

*Denotes sarcasm

"*Denotes sarcasm"

But there was no asterisk!!

So was the entire post sarcasm?

"while somehow managing to make it look like you were refuting what I had said."

I don't see where that happened. It seems we are in furious agreement here while having minor quibbles as to the relative importance or otherwise of nature/nurture.

"Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). ...He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, 'You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.' That’s the terrorism part."

There's an element of that in your approach.

My sincerest apologies for that, mhaze.

<<But there was no asterisk!!>>

I had a sarcastic comment that I decided in the end to remove, but forgot to remove that bit too.

<<So was the entire post sarcasm?>>

No, if that were the case, then I would have put an asterisk at the end of the entire post. My post could hardly be mistaken for sarcasm, though, given that it was all consistent with everything I had said earlier.

<<There's an element of [obscurantism] in your approach.>>

How so?

Since when have I ever been deliberately obscure in what I have said and then accused another of not understanding me? If there are ever any possible ambiguities in the way I word what I say, then I will give the person with whom I am conversing the benefit of the doubt and reword what I had said in the hope that I can clarify what it is that I am saying. I rarely ever give up trying to explain myself, but will do so when it becomes abundantly clear that continuing is pointless.

I’ve been accused of a lot of things before, but never obscurantism. That’s the domain of sophisticated theologians.