Oh what a bunch of pious, bilious, victimhood nonsense.

The reality is the religious forces are quickly a secular, egalitarian nation into a quasi religious state.

We now have about 30% of our nations kids who attend private religious schools. We have a scheme costing over half a billion dollars a year which inserts religious figures into our public schools. And yet we have people like this claiming the world is about to end because someone gets pulled up for saying a portion of Australians are headed for hell, for how they were born.

"Dissent from the prevailing new orthodoxies about gender and sexual orientation is virtually impossible without attraction opprobrium and venom - just ask Israel Folau."

How much "opprobrium and venom" does it take for you to regard someone who is same sex attracted as deserving of eternal pain, torture and torment?

The "very language we use in civil and moral discourse begins to fragment" when we think it is okay in today's world to quote 2,000 year old scripture out of context to label, condemn, and vilify people for the way they were born.

Sanctimonious twaddle.

Sorry, but this article is a load of bollocks. People do have free speech and the article demonstrates just that!

What they don't have after the SSM plebiscite, is an unfettered right to spread false or misleading belief, or harass and harangue. Nor do they have a right to discriminate against others on the basis of alternative religious belief, (Cult) ethnicity or natural, God-given, gender bias or difference.

Given this is now so? Live and let live is actually how we should live!
If people just allowed others to live their natural lives as both nature and the creator intended, there'd be a lot less social friction!

And keep your perverse filthy minds away from medical clinics where all manner of uncontroversial medical procedures are routinely performed!

You want rights and freedom? Well then, let's all have them in full abundance and guaranteed in law, with a charter of human rights written into our constitution!

As for that character Folau? He's entitled to believe in anything he wants, even the rat-bag leanings of that pagan sun worshipper Constantine. If he Folau was quoting from scripture? It's both misquoted and misinterpreted! And as such, as false as that other cult, merely masquerading as a religion, Scientology!

Simply put neither he nor you or anybody is entitled to promulgate seriously misguided (false) unproven and unprovable beliefs on any other.

Would that we had a genuine, live and let live culture, free from obsessed control freaks (Folau and cohort) pushing their load of horse sh!t on everyone else.

Moreover, ignoring (willfully blind to) their own serious shortcomings in the process! And the principal reason for such divisive, errant behaviour!? Pointing out the sty in the other man's eye, while ignoring the plank in yours! Quote, unquote.
Alan B.

The truth of this article is proved by the mouth-foaming responses of the left-loons who shouted first.Talk about the big 'shut up' from the inarticulate!

Never mind of course that the last four paragraphs of this essay are a perfect description of the the behaviour that the TRUMP-enfuhrer promotes almost every time that he opens his mouth.

And more importantly via his copious mostly irrational toxic tweets, which certainly do not invoke, appeal to, or empower the "better angels" of the human nature of his enthusiastic supporters - quite the contrary in fact.

How many lies has he told since becoming president?

If one belongs to a cult,i.e., Folau? And one is married by that cult, i.e., Folau? Then is one not actually married in the sight of God, i.e., Folau?

Given that is so? Is not the pulpit-pounding Folau himself a fornicator and as he decided for all others, heading for hell?

Oh yes, there is a hell and as dark, dismal as the dark side of the moon and inhabited by unseen terror so terrifying as to be hugely indescribable!

So much so, being buried alive pales into insignificance!

A cult? That which massively misinterprets and misquotes "Constantine's approved biblical text" for purely political (control freak) purposes, i.e., Scientology and other self-educated splinters "Alleged Christian" groups/tribes! Like that which brainwashed and trained
(Salivating on command, [bell ringing] Pavlov's dog) Folau.
Alan B.

The author's attempt to use his article as click-bait enticing us to read HIS "latest paper" fails to entice.

In fact help is on its way for throwback Izzy hate-speech in the form of "religious freedom" legislation that our dear PM is pushing.

Checkout http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-urges-colleagues-to-avoid-another-religious-freedom-row-20190702-p523gc.html

well of course we had some Indigenous 'woman' pulling up her skirt and cr pping on some whitie. Of course on the 'your' abc. The leftist haters are more concerned about Scripture being quoted than ,vulgar and distasteful vomit from their own.

Hiya runner

Methinks you forgot to claim abortion was a sure sign democratic gay communism.

Free speech, my dear Peter, is being closed down in western countries by stealth, by world savers, closet totalitarians, and self obsessed elitist virtue signallers. They are being aided in their aim by the general populations customary political apathy. But the times, they are a changin', Peter. Whenever the rights and freedoms of freedom loving people are spectacularly suppressed in order to accommodate a failing state ideology, the real intellectuals come out from wherever they are disporting themselves and confront the new class of elitist oppressors. That is happening, right now.

Western society today is under attack from people who consider democracy with it's accompanying freedom of speech, to be a serious impediment to the sort of socialist multicultural utopia that they envision will Save The World. The fact that their ideology of already disproven socialism, with it's new offshoot multiculturalism, is self evidently failing, is an inconvenient truth which the elites must hide from the public by any means.

Essential to destroying western civilisation is the left's new tactic of identity politics. That is, since the sort of demographics who support leftism are not the smartest matches in the book, and because the left's supporters are disproportionately represented in welfare dependence, serious criminal behaviour, and even terrorism, then their sordid reputations must be defended from any valid criticism. The new limit to freedom of speech therefore becomes the hurt feelings of the left's supporters. The left proclaims to illegal immigrants, drug addicts, professional social welfare recipients, the public service, sexually confused people, and imported foreign criminals, that we have your backs.

It is just amazing that the western world has come to this. But the pendulum is swinging and the backlash is on the way. Evidence the totally unexpected wins of Brexit, Trump, and Morrison. Ordinary decent people are forsaking their hobbies and interests to unite in using the ballot box to fight against the people who are insisting that their own particular exulted moral values are the only ones that are correct, to the extent of even trying to control ordinary people's opinions and language using legal sanction.

"We have a distorted view of morality because instead of being guided by reason we are now guided by emotion."

This is the result of a concerted effort to empower women and disempower men.
- Just one part of the war being waged upon all western nation states -
It's not by accident, it is by design.

Divide and Conquer.

A plan to divide us all against each other so that we don't identify as citizens of 'our nation' but identify as per our 'identity politics, social issues and leanings' and force us into the arms of a One World Government.

empower women and disempower men.
Armchair Critic,
Once the division is achieved, the real insidious agenda will be exposed-the gay movement !

It's up to the individual to be aware....unfortunately he's being distracted with watching sport and more sport deluding himself that he's 'entitled'
Herds are formed by fear, whereas the individual refusing to be afraid chooses to walk alone.
Religion and Politics are herding influences, both leading to war.

Multi national corporations are steering social policy.
'Hate speech' is a tool used to silence 'free speech'.
Social justice means something other than regular justice.
It means a right to vilify those who aren't actually doing anything wrong and to steer society with a herd-like mentality.

.

Dear Peter (the author),

.

You wrote :

1. « Free speech is being closed down in the name of preventing 'hate speech'; bonds of trust in commercial life are broken; and religion is now divisive that new law is needed to protect religious freedom »

No, free speech is not being « closed down », Peter. We can write and say what we like, when we like and where we like – including so-called « hate speech » – so long as we are prepared to pay the price. As you say : « just ask Israel Folau » !

2. « Dissent from the prevailing new orthodoxies about gender and sexual orientation is virtually impossible ... »

Previous « orthodoxies about gender and sexual orientation » had been formulated by self-proclaimed moralists and elevated as religious doctrine due to lack of knowledge and understanding of what we now know to be a perfectly natural phenomenon found throughout the entire animal kingdom.

3. « Defenders of such cultural change, however, say the culture is not broken but simply responding to new sensitivities ... »

More importantly, it is responding to knowledge of the reality of nature which we previously ignored and which has been revealed to us through modern biological and zoological research. This is simply another instance where religious doctrine on the nature of the universe has been proven to be ill-founded.

It has nothing to do with culture, sensitivities, morality or religious belief. It just happens to be a biological fact which we previously ignored and misunderstood.

4. « First, there is a move away from the communal … Second, the emerging primacy of the individual has been accompanied by the eclipse of the moral language of virtue by the emotional language of values - which is wholly unsuited for moral discourse »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Biological individuality has always been a characteristic of all life forms. There is nothing new about that. And, generally speaking, people tend to be sociable and gregarious in their lifestyle even though they may be more independent of mind than their ancestors. Also, the constraint of efficiency, which is the driving force for cooperation and joint action, is by no means on the wane. On the contrary. It is increasing exponentially. Whereas the isolated individual inventor and craftsman has become something of a rare curiosity. Research and development, today, is almost exclusively the work of highly specialised multidisciplinary teams, as is manufacture and distribution.

Fundamental human values include such notions as respect, honesty, loyalty, integrity, freedon, justice, courage, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, altruism, generosity, open-mindedness – nothing to do with « emotional language» as you indicate.

Morality is a system of behaviour as regards the mores and laws of society. Neither more, nor less.

5. « The fracturing of our culture is due, in large part, to a crisis of moral authority » 

If that is so, Peter, why is it in crisis ? What is the problem ? Who is supposed to exercise that « moral authority » and why are they not doing their job ? Could it be that they have they lost whatever « moral authority » they might have had ?

Are they no longer credible ? If so, why ? These are important questions, Peter.

You indicate in response :

« We must refuse to equate emotional claims with moral claims; and we must call for a reorientation from the personal to the communal »

Is that is your only explanation, Peter ? Is it an explanation at all ?

.

Hey Banjo,

- Not to nitpick or anything -

But;

"More importantly, it is responding to knowledge of the reality of nature which we previously ignored and which has been revealed to us through modern biological and zoological research. This is simply another instance where religious doctrine on the nature of the universe has been proven to be ill-founded.

It has nothing to do with culture, sensitivities, morality or religious belief. It just happens to be a biological fact which we previously ignored and misunderstood."

Ok, emphasis: "reality of nature"

- I'm absolutely certain that the currently recognised gender options are not in any way a 'reality of nature' or a 'biological fact';

Facebook: 71 Gender options
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Facebooks-71-gender-options-come-to-UK-users.html

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/07/explained-the-33-gender-identities-recognised-by-the-2016-australian-sex-survey/

Let me explain something to all the flaming nutjobs.

Gender isn't something you choose, it's something assigned to you when you're in you mother's womb prior to being born.
You actually don't have any choice in your gender, but you can identify as whatever you want including cutting your bits off if wish)

But know this, identifying as something doesn't make it so.

I can identify as 'long nosed bandicoot', or a 'Somalian Ostrich' or even a 'three-toed sloth' if I choose too, but I can NEVER become one.

(And for reference 'mother' denotes the female sex and refers to having a vagina and a womb in which procreation is possible.
This function is specific ONLY to females)

Look at all this crap
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/
http://apath.org/63-genders/

With so many new genders one might argue Charles Darwin's theory of evolution may have finally been proven accurate.

Apparently 'Gender Questioning' is an actual gender now.
Like 'I don't know what the hell I am' gender, is actually a bona-fide gender.

- I'd argue that the whole bloody lot of youse actually border on insane -

- That is if you actually subscribe to believing any of this shite.

AC, WHEW, I am sooooo relieved to see there is another intelligent MAN on OLO.
Who sponsors this crap?
I think we have let the mental retards loose and this is what we end up with.
I have to wonder how sick do you have to be to conjure up even one other gender, let alone 58 or more.
I don't care for queers, I don't want to know about them, I don't care what some irrelevant queer loving morons call me, I fully expect them to stick up for them. (pun intended)
I had nothing against queers, until they started sprouting BS and making unrealistic and unreasonable demands, all based on an arrogant and petulant platform, of 'equality'.
I will not change my opinion of these sick munted and amorphic, unnatural life forms who are clearly NOT normal and are offensive by their aggressive attempts to portray themselves as such.
I had no problem with them before they started their mis-information and misguided campaign, they pretty much kept a normal profile in public, what they did behind closed doors was of no interest to me, but when they decided to go public and shove their illness in our faces, well that was beyond the pale, and so it is that they should not be allowed to carry on in public.
Anyway, sorry if you might find my comments a little confronting, but I am an honest man with an open mind, but this stuff is just too much for even the most reasonable and understanding of men.
Someone has to say, enough is enough.
I do not wear fools and I tell it like it is.
I don't care if some stupid morons called the govt passed some stupid disgusting SSM bill, which is not accepted by the majority of Australians, because only 60% of 70% of Aussies responded to the SURVEY, (not vote, the govt voted, NOT the people) and therefore if the YES twats could add up they would find that it was not an OVERWHELMING approval of the public.
Another attempt at misleading and misinformation.

No need to apologise ALTRAV,
Saying it like it is helps to keep me grounded.

My comment was just my personal 'War Against Stupid'.
- I just can't seem to help myself sometimes...

.

Dear Armchair Critic

.

You raise some interesting questions there, but you are getting us into deep water.

I'm afraid I'm a little out of my depth and don't pretend to hold the truth on anything concerning the questions you raise.

My thoughts are rather basic and somewhat simplistic, but I'll gladly share them with you for what they're worth – if anything.

In particular, you wtite :

« I'm absolutely certain that the currently recognised gender options are not in any way a 'reality of nature' or a 'biological fact' »

Life in all its forms, to me, is an integral part of nature. I understand nature to be an objective reality, and life, a constituent of the objetive reality of nature, a biological fact.

Identity, an idea in the minds of cognitive life forms endowed by nature with the faculty of consciousness. I understand mind to be a form of neuronal activity and, as such, also a faculty developed by nature and a biological fact.

Gender identity, which is what interests you, has been considered, since time immemorial, a simple matter of male and female. We now realise it is far more complex than we thought.

Any variance in the traditional dichotomy male-female had always been considered, until recent times, an anomaly, a disorder, classified by the American Psychiatric Association in its DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) as gender dysphoria.

It has since been reclassified as "gender incongruence", a condition related to sexual health. The working group responsible for this recategorisation recommends keeping such a diagnosis to preserve access to health service.

In December 2002, the British Lord Chancellor's office published a Government Policy Concerning Transsexual People document that categorically states, "What transsexualism is not ... It is not a mental illness." In May 2009, the government of France declared that a transsexual gender identity will no longer be classified as a psychiatric condition, but according to French trans rights organizations, beyond the impact of the announcement itself, nothing changed. Denmark made a similar statement in 2016.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

A 2014 High Court of Australia judgment unanimously ruled in favor of a plaintiff named Norrie, who asked to be classified by a third gender category, 'non-specific', after a long court battle with the NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. However, the Court did not accept that gender was a social construction: it found that sex reassignment "surgery did not resolve her sexual ambiguity" :

http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/11.html

In Australia, the 2016 census indicated that some 1,260 people were considered to have provided a valid and intentional sex/gender diverse response (sex/gender because many did not give enough information to determine which). This is a rate of 5.4 per hundred thousand people - a very small proportion, and unlikely to be an accurate number of people with sex/gender other than male or female :

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main%20Features~Sex%20and%20Gender%20Diversity%20in%20the%202016%20Census~100

Australia's non-heterosexual population aged 18+ in mid-2016 was a little under 600,000, representing 3.2 per cent of the total adult population (18,750,000). The figures indicate there were more non-heterosexual females than males in the younger adult ages, with the situation reversed in the older age groups :

http://www.australianpopulationstudies.org/index.php/aps/article/download/23/13/

In view of these relatively recent revelations that shed a radically different light on the question of gender identity, I am inclined to consider that gender variance or gender nonconformity (including so-called "intersex") is a perfectly natural biological phenomenon.

.

Banjo, given that in nature, we all agree, there are only two basic life forms that are the "pure" and "un-adulterated' version of each.
Anything other than a + or a - is a ?.
I do not care for the tripe these so called experts and scientists put out, it is an overreach at best to look for and subsequently act surprised, when they find differences which were obvious before they began their research, only to declare as if to have discovered a new gender (or species).
If they wish to be seen as unique and something other than male or female, then they are by definition, something other than homo-sapien.
To that end their true gender then is "alien", and then are in fact, and must be considered in the same category as mutations or a flawed version of homo-sapien, in the same way a mentally impaired or physically dis-abled person or even dwarfism is an imperfect form of homo-sapien.
They are not under any circumstances a "new" gender so I will not facilitate these mental deficients in bolstering their selfish, arrogant stance and dogmatic mantra.
These "mutants" are described, as having a "condition" when the word "gender" is researched.
So it is that if they wish to remain under the genetic definition of "homo-sapien", then they are a "physically and or mentally impaired or flawed" male or female.
But they are still MALE and FEMALE.
If they want to be classified as something other than male or female, then they are another species or aliens and cannot be regarded or included in the same category as homo-sapiens as this life form is very specific in it's terms of reference, and any, ANY departure from this renders the person a flawed version of what is a strict genetic code or structure which identifies and classifies us as MALE and FEMALE!

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

I see you are a man of conviction.

But, obviously, the claim that gender deviance is what we call a « manufacturing error » in industrial terms – in this instance, a biological error in which people's gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned with at birth – would be rejected  "manu militari" by all those whose firm conviction is that the creation of their hypothetical God is perfect.

Let's face it, they represent 84% of the world population at the latest count (http://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next). According to religious doctrine, aberrations concerning gender identity are to be attributed, in part or in whole, either to the gender deviants themselves (as « sinners »), their parents or their entourage.

It appears that the causes of gender deviances have been the object of numerous studies for many decades. The most studied factors, so far as I can ascertain, have been biological – certain brain structures in particular. As a result, it has been found that hormone therapy helps align secondary sexual characteristics of nonconforming gender individuals with their gender identity at birth.

Whereas, so far as non-biological factors are concerned, the failure of an attempt to raise David Reimer (a Canadian man born as a boy) from infancy through adolescence as a girl, following medical advice – after his genitals were accidentally mutilated during a botched circumcision – is conidered to disprove the religious doctrine that gender identity is determined solely by the nonconforming gender individuals themselves or by parenting.

As I see it, ALTRAV, nothing is crystal clear in this debate on gender identity. Your conviction is just as good as anybody else's – at least until further knowledge comes to light and we find a better explanation.

.

Banjo, I am a little curious as to why you would not consider my argument as a very convincing and more than plausible one.
From what I read of your submission, it has a heavy focus on subjective reasoning.
As soon as religion is brought into a debate or discussion, it is immediately rendered moot, as the whole concept of religion is merely a man made construct and any attempt at trying to promote it as having ANY connection to something other than a fictitious entity called GOD, is pure fiction, and therefore by definition, is not a real or tangible entity but rather intangible, and subjective, so therefore is not what it is purported to be, and certainly not something we should worship and definitely not to the extent we are expected to.
So given that religion and the holy books, Bible, Koran etc are fiction, written by men who followed a particular dogma, which co-incidentally means, "something that 'seems' true", I believe my submission on this topic is more accurate, if not because of this one point alone.
We should not pander to or facilitate these flawed people.
They can call themselves whatever they want, I will call them, exactly what they are, and to their face.
If enough people did this we would not have to give sway to these morons and mis-fits.
So, I'm sorry but queers are exactly that.
I choose to call them that because of my limited knowledge of the English language.
It is my natural narrative.
I am not engaging in hate speech, you would know if I was.
No this is my normal speak so you see why it is important to leave the freedom of speech alone and let it be FREE!

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

Superstition and religious dogma aside, the most plausible explanation of the genesis of life appears to have been provided by the ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus (460 BC – 370 BC) who is reported to have observed that “Everything in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity”. Jacques Monod, the French biologist, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner, later accredited and developed that theory in his book “Le hasard et la nécessité” (Chance and Necessity) published in 1970. From this it is deduced that “Life is a spontaneous, evolutive, sensitive and reproductive process triggered by the fortuitous encounter of complementary elements of matter and energy in a favourable environment”. Chance in this context should be understood as meaning a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable” event.

The natural biological reproductive process of the species appears to operate on the basis of trial and error and, as Charles Darwin observed, when nature is allowed to operate freely (without any human intervention of any sort), the rule of the “survival of the fittest” applies.

But, as I noted in a previous post, we human beings are an integral part of nature. We have been created, produced and developed by nature through a process of random variables , inevitable events, trial and error and survival of the fittest.

Nature has endowed us with consciousness and intelligence which we have developed to a greater extent than all other life forms, gaining in autonomy (free will) through individual endeavour and efficiency through cooperation with others.

I am inclined to think that the natural biological reproduction process based on trial and error and survival of the fittest is the most plausible explanation for the phenomenon of gender incongruence.

I have no empirical evidence to back this up, ALTRAV. It is simply my best guess based on present knowledge – which is pretty scanty.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

I see no reason to believe in the existence of deity or supernatural beings. Nor do I feel the need to have firm and definitive convictions on the whys and wherefores of gender incongruence in the absence of fairly substantial evidence.

I consider that everybody, no matter who they are or what they are, has the right to live their lives as they wish, provided they do not prevent others from doing likewise.

.

Banjo, I agree completely with your last sentence, especially the last few words.
In saying so, it is relevant to point out that the last few words hit hard at the very crux of what is not accepted by the SSM bill.
"has the right to live their lives as they wish, provided they do not prevent others from doing likewise".
Well Banjo, if your life didn't change when the SSM bill was passed, then you must be of the YES camp, because, as I have always said whilst we all knew the queers existed, they conducted themselves respectfully when outdoors or amongst other normal people who they knew very well were uncomfortable being around and certainly not wanting to see queers carrying on with any physical or amorous displays.
Well now, as in a show of defiance and arrogance, openly perform their lewd and disgusting rituals "in your face", in public.
Now that may not bother you but unless your just another smart arse arrogant prick like them, and tell me and other "normal" people like me to "get over it", you are no better than them, in which case they do not deserve any consideration at all, and in fact deserve, derision exile, or even being banished.
So you see Banjo, it's easy to quote fables, but the real world is a vastly different and more complicated place, so one cannot predict what will happen when bad decisions are made.
Let me be very clear about it, it's all very well, a few well meaning, but mis-giuded souls must not hold the balance of power which ultimately affect the lives of the majority, if sold on the dogma of the "greater good".
As you can see, the SSM thing did not deliver a positive result for the "greater good".

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo, I agree completely with your last sentence, especially the last few words. In saying so, it is relevant to point out that the last few words hit hard at the very crux of what is not accepted by the SSM bill »

I voted Yes in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. However, I tended to agree with those who considered that a survey of that nature should not have been necessary. On the basis of its international treaty obligations, the federal government already had a constitutionally valid means of legislating for same-sex marriage.

As I already indicated on this and many other threads on OLO, homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon, just like heterosexuality. There is no such thing in nature as ‘the norm of the heterosexual union’. Both heterosexual and homosexual unions are ‘normal’. As Petter Boeckman, a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, has pointed out: ‘No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist ... a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.’ Boeckman observes social advantages to the free expression of homosexual behaviour and adds: ‘It has been observed that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.’ (source: http://pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/)

Religion historically regards homosexual sex acts as sinful, based essentially on an erroneous understanding of ‘natural law’ (the law of nature). Religious dogma is constantly proven wrong in its interpretation of nature by scientific research.

There is a perfume of déjà vu regarding the debate on homosexual marriage, e.g., Galileo’s condemnation for heresy when he declared in 1610 that the earth revolves around the sun. Homosexual behaviour has never been noted as a possible cause of the diminution or disappearance of any animal or plant species.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

There is no objective reason to discriminate against either heterosexual or homosexual behaviour as regards the adoption and raising of children. The role of the State should be limited to the public – not the private – sphere, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In his 1995 popular science book « River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life  », Richard Dawkins noted :

« In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference »

That, to my mind, raises the question : should we intervene in nature and « correct » deviations from what many consider to be the « norm » of heterosexuality – in the name of justice ? What if the « fittest » genes that perpetuate themselves throughout the reprodution process from generation to generation are the « deviant » genes, for example ? Should we create a world not only of eugenics, but also of tight government control over all aspects of human reproduction ?

Or should we allow the reproduction process to run its natural course ? I'd be interested to have your thughts on that, ALTRAV.

Also, do you think things were any better when Victorian morality continued to reign in Australia until late into the 20th century ? Needless to say, I do not. On the contrary, it was clearly a period of utter hypocracy. Better to be frank and open about it, don't you think ?

I still have engraved in my mind that in November 1969, a poster image of the David of Michelangelo was confiscated by a vice squad in Sydney and the manager of the shop was charged with obscenity. Daniel Thomas, curator of the New South Wales Art Museum, called the action "incredible, utterly ridiculous." The charges were ultimately dropped.

.

Banjo, I absolutely disagree with your reasoning.
I don't care for quotes from sources of your choosing.
I completely reject any absurd studies or opinions from so called experts who base their findings and conclusions from others observations and deductions when they are not first hand or of their own work.
It is pure madness to suggest that any activity outside of natures male and female interaction is normal.
Yes it is normal for a sick person.
I will not allow the unnatural acts of queers to be considered normal.
And to even attempt to try and justify queers raising children as being acceptable, is just as contemptible as suggesting that the sexual interaction of two same sex people is normal.
Also I don't care about some moronic international treaty, being politically based it carries no value whatsoever.
You cannot be serious about a child being raised by two queers, males or females.
It is a given that these children grow up with emotional issues of lacking something in their lives.
They accept their lot and put on a 'brave face', but they feel cheated, just the same as a parent leaving and abandoning the rest of the family, to leave one parent to raise the children.
If we continue down this path, we will surely end up with the moral codes of pigs and the only result will be disgusting.
Discipline has been removed as part of the upbringing of a child, and look at the rubbish we are having to endure today because of that one simple act of cowardice.
Australia didn't VOTE 60% in favour of SSM.
The govt voted, the people had a SURVEY,the result of which was 60% of 70% of Australians bothered to come out and participate in the stupid survey.
But rest assured that the survey was a clear message of NO!
You do the math.
It should never have been given oxygen, and just left to die.
When someone says live and let live, they do not mean, let anything be and to hell with the outcomes, ramifications or consequences.

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

Many thanks for explaining your position.

Naturally, I understand and respect it.

It's been nice chatting with you and clarifying our respective points of view on this important subject.

Perhaps I'll have the pleasure of discussing other topics with you here on OLO.

With kind regards,

.