.

(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,

.