Richard Kings conveniently forgets that when Liberal Party philosophies were being put together 60 years ago homosexual relationships were considered un-natural and the thinking at the time was was that there were men and women and children came naturally as the result of interaction between the two, mostly through marriage.

When one reads a sentence such as "That all minorities, be they Aborigines, gays, Jews, or any other, and their legitimate interests, must be protected, as must their legitimate interests, against sectional and selfish policies imposed by others", the term "gays" is out of place. It is fine to consider Aborigines or Jews as minority groups because one is considering a normal group with men and women in normal relationships. To include "gays" makes the assumption that being in a homosexual relationship is also quite normal.

People who support the traditional relationship between men and women believe that it is un-natural to have homosexual preferences. That is, one doesn't have to be "gay". I know a woman who lived in a homosexual relationship with another woman for a number of years but is now happily married to a loving husband and has children that have come from their marriage.

Certainly tolerance includes accepting that individuals can choose to live in homosexual relationships if that is their wish. However, whilst being tolerant it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the societal norm is the traditional man/woman relationship and that should be fostered and supported by all Australians.

And I know plenty of men and women formerly in straight relationships and who now identify as gay. And what is this 'unnatural' crap I keep reading whenever homosexuality is raised as a topic? Being gay is no more 'unnatural' than having an imaginary friend (often known as religion), preaching the joys of celibacy and then molesting young children (commonly known as the Catholic priesthood) or genital mutilation (common to the Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions even in 2005).

Spare me your 'natural'. Thugs are expressing their masculinity on Sydney beaches in the most natural fashion they can. And out of interest, how many of them identify as gay? Not too many, I'd imagine. No, I bet anyone they are heterosexual. Before anyone pontificates ignorantly from their soapbox about gays, maybe they'd like to clean up their own act.

Its Not a privelage to be gay or religous, HELLO?

Deal with it, im sure the person who faught in Veitnam who has one leg who now lies in a wheelchair deserves more support who was probally spat on by even some of the readers of this article when he came back from war.

A few women and men worried about their "sexual lives". In a country known for acceptance they should be gratefull of what they have and not want more. Could be worse, we could live in a Anti-homosexual government with death penalties... If you dont see the point by now then you wont see if after. Gay rights are already here, people just dont have the stomach to confess or use them properly.

It is about the greatest good for the greatest number.

Gay people have a right to do what they want, I agree they cannot choose it, but it is again a personal thing. should we then spend the money changing the system to accomodate? if we do, other groups have a right also.

Societal structures and the sacredity of marriage is the key to our culture. The world can be gay friendly without bending over backwards for another minority group.

Marriage (from my school days) was defined as "the unity of a man and woman in a volantary commitment for life to the exclusion of all others"

Gay people can have de facto relationships, there is marginal legal difference. They cannot simulate a relationship between a man and woman, most dont raise a family, therefore if being gay is the vogue, so too is things like defacto relationships and the like.

If gay people need to be married for a reason i understand. But just to 'feel better', and to integrate into society more?

For those who say 'gay guys were not part of those riots', no they were probably all sick with Aids. Generalisations are at complete odds to your cause, if you want to play trump cards be prepared to be trumped by reverse generalisations.

Be stong for the cause, i agree with equal rights and opportunites for gay people, but not for the sacred commitment of marriage.

Marriage is not one single concept. Australian society does not recognise or allow polygynous or polyandrous marriages, but that does not mean they do not exist.

Why do people marry in Australia? To show to the rest of society that they aim to keep only to their partner, and that they wish to remain in that relationship for the rest of their lives. That these promises are not always kept does not diminish the intent with which people enter into that contract.

They also marry for the legal benefits it brings, the entitlements to superannuation, often medical/legal power of attourney, rights to equal property share, irrespective of the proportion of income contributed by each party, etc.

I see little reason why two men or two women should be legally barred from making that same public committment.

I do not see why GLBTI people should specifically appeal to the Liberal party, as they in general seem to be moving more to the 'right', but perhaps it would do this society good in general for the Liberal party to be brought back to its original aims of being 'liberal minded'.

I do recall reading that some conservatives in the US were arguing in favour of gay marriage, on the premise that they believe that sexual relationships outside of marriage are wrong, and that therefore society should be encouraging those whom it accepts are 'pair-bonded' (for want of a better term) to marry, rather than have 'unofficial' relationships tacitly condoned. Which goes to show there are many ways to look at this.

Yet another example of morality, as perceived by various religious groups, being forced down everyone else's throat. I went, on a scholarship, to a school which placed great emphasis on its brand of Christianity. One of the things I was taught is that the second greatest commandment is "Love your neighbour as yourself". Well, I don't begrudge my gay "neighbours" the joy and fulfillment of a loving and/or sexual relationship, nor the emotional, spiritual and legal benefits which can follow from a formal marriage, if that is what they desire.

There has been a remarkable lack in recent years of one phrase when it comes to those who feel themselves inclined towards homosexual activity... "giving it up for the sake of the Kingdom"... the phrase which should be used for all of our natural inclinations, like those to jealousy, hate, or violence, which are not in line with conventional dogma. To argue that whatever comes naturally to a person is the basis for what is right is not the Christian way, and the Cross, the symbol of sacrifice to a greater good, should be the lead for those who are of that inclination, just as it should be to those wishing to engage in intercourse with children, or with someone to whom they are not married.

Closer to the topic of marriage... our society of late has attemped to destroy some traditional aspects of marriage, such as it being the place for the bearing of children, and it being symbolic of the unity of the two halves of mankind, but the fact that this destruction has gone on does not in any way validate a loosening of the criteria for marriage.

Tolerance for homosexuals is necessary, and they should be given no hinderance in their desire to sleep or live together. To change two fundamental aspects of marriage... the union of man and woman, and it being the socially acceptable place for the bearing of children... goes beyond tolerance to being an imposition of a totally new definition of marriage onto those already in it, and those institutions (such as the churches) which have been bestowing this institution for far longer than the state. I don't see how this last paragraph destoys any ideas of the Liberal party, as it offer tolerance, but also respect for tradition and our institutions, especially respect for the Christian framework of marriage whence is derived its secular form.

Richard King's opinion makes an interesting read. However, one issue has not been addressed.

There is not much doubt that the majority of Australians believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. That is the outcome of the amendment to the Marriage Act in 2004- a clear definition of what the majority of Australians hold.

Surely that is a reasonable outcome in a democracy such as ours. Legislation reflecting the view of the majority is hardly a new concept.

We don't need to see anything more than that in the position taken by the two major parties following a strong lobbying move by The Australian Christian Lobby group and some other concerned organizations.

As historically marriage has been between a man and a woman (or one man with several women!), why can’t we have “registered partnerships” for same homosexual couples (or for heterosexual couples who don’t believe in marriage as a religious institution) as in the Netherlands, with those in a registered partnership having the same rights as those married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands

You gotta feel sorry for those social liberals in this country who don’t have a taste for unionism or environmentalism. Their only political choice has been the Liberal Party, which lately has been taken over by the forces of evil. Its 17 principles are now an empty relict.

Vanstone and Coonan, liberal campaigners in their student days, have been forced over to the dark side in order to have a career. Abbot and Ruddock are setting the tone, with the loony christian right setting the direction.

Kings is barking up the wrong tree. Today's Liberal Party will never show leadership on gay rights

I don't think that 'place for having children' should really be considered as part of the concept of marriage, as considering this as a key criteria for defining marriage totally invalidates the committment of people who marry but are infertile, or who do not wish to have children- and yes, there are many people who marry without any intention of having children. Equally, many people have children out outside of marriage, who love each other and their children with just as much committment as those within marriage.

Marriage is a solemn ceremony which confirms the serious intentions of the couple to remain committed to each other for the rest of their lives. And with that interpretation I fail to see how we could exclude people from same-sex marriage. If we include children in the definition of marriage, then we must surely closely quiz all people wishing to marry as to their reproductive aims, and then put them through a battery of fertility tests to ensure that their aims are likely to be met.

Laurie, I don't believe that saying that marriage is a responsible, socially acceptable place in which children should be raised in any way invalidates those unable to concieve through infertility or ignores the love that parents who don't have children in wedlock have for their children. An infertile couple are still joining the two halves of mankind in a loving marriage, but are just unable to bear children. Just because they cannot bear children doesn't mean that their marriage is incomplete, yet it also does not change the fundamental fact that heterosexual unions procreate in general.

Our society suffers now as, although we are richer than ever before, a lack of stable families creates a gap that is ever more difficult to surmount. The removal of the emphasis on children being a thing intrinsically linked to marriage is part of this change, and those who suffer are a whole generation of our young. Children born in marriage are more likely to have two parents raise them, whilst those born outside of it are not, and are exposed to the unfortunate consequences of this.

To define the union of people solely in terms of a commitment to one another makes the union weak when a third force, that force being children, enters the equation, and they are not counted in the original statement. The equivocation introduced by removing children from socially recognised unions is a problem we are dealing with in unions of men and women, let alone unions of those of the same sex.

Also, I don't think we should call them "homosexual unions", as there are many homosexual individuals who choose to enter marriage. Marriage in the christian churches is not a "heterosexual union" persay, but rather is a union of man and woman, whatever their inclination. To allow "gay marriage" is to change the meaning of traditional marriage to a simple expression of sexuality, which diminishes its other facets - procreation, social stability, lifelong frienship.

Or alternatively, DFXK, to disallow "gay marriage" is to change the meaning of traditional marriage to a simple expression of procreation, which diminishes its other facets - sexuality, social stability, lifelong friendship. Sorry to be awkward.

Traditionally the Liberal Party over many years has been seen as holding 'conservative' views, made up of freedom of expression and the rights of the Individual and the rule of law.

As such the Liberal Party should embrace and emcompass diversity of it's members, and as the ruling party, practice compassion, to members of the gay community, as it would any other minority groups.

The Prime Minister, on the racially motivated riots in Sydney recently, pointed out that 'his' government does not tolerate discrimination based on race or religion, to which the Federal Leader of the ALP agrees, all I am asking is that they extend these sentiments to this community.

What the author Mr Kings has intended to express is that, one must be able to accept these individuals for whom and what they are, with all their differences of opinion.

'Traditional' society does not necessarily have to agree with them, however by allowing them the freedom to express their views and sexuallity, we become better human beings, by promoting a more tollerable and understanding society.

These are the bedrocks of religious compassion and tollerance.

Ah, but DFXK, it is also true that only children born in marriage experiance divorce! There are upsides and downsides to every way in which we organise our society, but I feel that actively discriminating against people who happen to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex is cruel and actively works against supporting the concept of social equality.

All of the actions to exclude homosexual relationships from having equal recognition under law (and I am referring to all laws regarding relationships between consenting adults) are in themselves doing the most damage to ideals/beliefs/whatever that people seem to be trying to protect.

Given that the laws of Australia do not require people to be of any particular religious persuasion it is my belief that any religious connotations of a legally recognised relationship between consenting adults should be a matter of faith or religious observance for the individuals involved and anyone else in their religious community (For those of little faith you are on your own, no laws of the country to fall back on).

Can someone please tell me how allowing homosexual relationships between consenting adulats to have equal recognition in law is diminishing the value of other existing legally recognised relationships between consenting adults or any legally recognised relationships between consenting adults yet to be?

Making references to homosexuals in the same sentence with paedophiles and adulterers (as DXFK did) or using the term 'unnatural' without clear scientific merit or the 'm' word is not allowed.

All submissions to be < 350 words and double spaced.

And to get back on topic it does appear IMHO that Richard Kings has made a good case that the liberal party are not being true to their founding priniciples (why am I not suprised ....)

lil_ol_me what is the 'm' word?

lil_ol_me I thought DFXK's posts quite calm and reasonable (even if I don't quite agree with them as IMHO I think homosexuals (and heterosexuals) should be able to enter into a "Civil Union" with the same rights as marriage). DFXK actually says, "Tolerance for homosexuals is necessary, and they should be given no hinderance in their desire to sleep or live together". Quite frankly, I've heard a lot worse!

lil_ol_me to answer part of your question “or any legally recognised relationships between consenting adults yet to be” there could be a problem if people want to enter into a marriage type relationship where there are more than two people – eg. one man wants five wives. Also you can't enter more than 350 words in one post - the automated system will not allow it.

DFXK, good point re homosexuals choosing occasionally to enter into conventional marriages. Homosexuals also procreate.... wouldn't it be better for their children to be brought up in a stable Civil Union?

Pedant, the 'm' word is marriage. The word means different things to different people which makes it very difficult to have a consistent debate.

Re: DXFK. I never said that the posts were unreasonable or otherwise. My comment was specifically referring to the following as written by DXFK "To argue that whatever comes naturally to a person is the basis for what is right is not the Christian way, and the Cross, the symbol of sacrifice to a greater good, should be the lead for those who are of that inclination, just as it should be to those wishing to engage in intercourse with children, or with someone to whom they are not married." These extraneous comments struck me as gratuitous and offensive.

Re: Number of people in a relationship. I must admit that I had not considered this. I myself would not participate in a polygamous relationship but it is certainly allowed by other religions. Why should only Christian religious beliefs be enshrined in the law? Granted there are numerous difficulties (legal, social) with polygamy. But in the interests of not 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' assume a relationship between two people.

Re: 350 or less ... indeed it will not! My poor attempt at humour.

I never made any statement regarding children. A 'stable Civil Union' is not a prerequisite to fertility nor does it require the union to be heterosexual only.

DFXK, really mate, get a life homosexuals are no different to you and I with one exception, they fall in love with their own sex, it may be difficult for some to accept, however when one really thinks about this issue, it is difficult to deprive people of their sexual orientation, simply because we don't have the same orientation. Humans are humans, they come in all forms, and as far as I'm concerned, because they are different to me, I don't condem them. I know a lesbian woman, she is good company, and a lovely human being why should I judge her on issues I cannot possibly undersatand, she is a human being as I am, with a different sexual preferennce, so what, there are much more important issues in life to deal with, people are starving to death, being oppresed, I see sexual preference as small bicies, compared to survival, I may be wrong, however I think life is more important tha sexual preference, please correct me, if you think I am wrong, there are a lot of homophobics out there.

Liberals views:

'...individuality and acceptance of responsibility.' I don't think that these two terms should be used in the same sentence.

'the interests of all legitimate minorities must be protected.' What constitutes 'legitimate' and who judges?

'We believe social liberty based upon and limited by a conception of social justice.' I think it is more practical to examine the converse - that social justice is based on a conception of social liberty.

'We believe in social justice: in encouraging the strong and protecting the weak.' As long as we are willing to recognise qualitative as well as quantitative strengths.

Some informed comment here as well as the usual homophobic dross. There seems to be some confusion about what marriage actually is. Someone ignorantly referred to marriage as a sacred commitment. It ain't. Becoming a nun is a sacred commitment. Marriage is defined in this country by the Marriage Act 1961. It's a contractual obligation. You can have a marriage in a church, on a beach or in space if you like. What matters is the piece of paper you sign. If it was a sacred commitment then why are so-called religious types so keen to keep the very secular, non-spiritual Marriage Act 1961 the way they want?

In terms of how to go about making same-sex relationships equal with others, I'd be just as happy to have a Civil Unions Act - so long as its provisions were identical to the Marriage Act.

And by the way, it's "AIDS" not "Aids" - unless you're referring to things which can help you. Quite different really.

DavidJS, a contract but a very dodgy one. No redress for gross breaches of contract etc. I'm guessing that the following are as valid for gays as they are for hetro's.

A civil unions act could be great but rather than just following the marriage act why not allow for a much wider range of options. Let those entering into the contract agree upfront what is contracted and what breach of contract will mean.

Provisions might include
- fidelity etc. Not sure how this would work but it would be nice to have some ability for couples to agree up front about sexual activity - fidelity with a partner who uses sex as power (or the lack thereof) is something people don't expect.
- contributions - does either party expect the other to work, not work etc.
- nagging and other forms of DV (what is acceptable or not)
- period. Maybe fixed term contracts with an option to extend would provide a different approach for some. Likewise some want a "for better or worse, till death do us part" approach.
- consequences for various breaches of contract.

Plenty of other things which could be considered. The current mess and lack of reliable options is tearing people apart. Committments are made up front but hold no weight when broken.

R0bert

Robert raises some interesting points about marriage provisions etc. I had a look at the Marriage Act on Austlii and the amazing thing is that the content of marriage doesn't really come into it. There's stuff about what a marriage is, what it isn't (a man and man, for example), what constitutes an illegal marriage (such as marriage between adults and minors), registration of celebrants, what overseas marriages can be recognised. But very little in the way of content.

So, you can sign the papers and then never see each other again and that is a marriage. You can abuse your spouse and children but still be married. You can behave in any type of outrageous manner and as long as you meet the criteria of the said parliamentary Act, you are married. And this is what pisses off many in the gay community. Badly behaved heterosexuals get a "package" of rights (flowing onto Commonwealth and state legislation) which gays are effectively excluded from.

That said, no government can enforce model behaviour within marriage. Governments can punish you (and rightly so) for beating up your kids or stealing from your spouse. But they can't make you produce children, be a nice person to your family or refrain from secret adulterous affairs. Gay people, being human, also behave badly. But we are looking for the opportunity to be equal in line with our sexual orientation. In other words, I don't want to encourage sham marriages between gays and straights which the currently legislation effectively allows. It's absurd how Liberals and Nationals (and the ALP for that matter) see same-sex marriage as such a threat to the institution of marriage. Because there is no institution as such. Only marriage legislation.

DavidJS, I agree when you say there's no such thing as the "institution of marriage" in our laws. The "institution of marriage" is the set of cultural rules which underpin the history of marriage.

Thus it's not an argument about whether or not homosexual activity is right or wrong, it's about what the role of the "institution" is. There are two divergent views.

1. "Traditional"
- Marriage is union of man and woman - represents a greater union of the two halves of mankind.
- Is proper place for the rearing and bearing of children.
- Has three constants - love, children and symbol of unity of mankind - it was a duty to love one's partner even when in an arranged marriage.
- Is NOT a heterosexual union. Millions of homosexually inclined people in the world marry due to a belief in these principles, and have fulfilling and loving marriages.

2. "Not traditional"
- Sees marriage/civil unions as being about the individual over society.
- Sees children more as choice rather than duty.
- Views traditional marriage as a heterosexual institution and a thing of social marginalisation.
- Extreme proponents argue for polygamy.

I fall in line with the first group as, in Australia, we're unwilling to tackle the cause of our social malaise - the redefining of civil partnership away from a traditional definition. To agree with the idea of traditional marriage is not to say that homosexuals cannot have happy and fulfilling lives with a partner, it is to argue that the state must promote social stability. To agree with traditional marriage is to see it as an institution - like the courts, or parliament, or schools - that plays a part in civil society's stability.

I feel that the push for society to recognise any type of union which reduces it to just sexual orientation and love is to invite social disintegration. Thus I disagree with benefits given to defacto relationships, unless they contain children. To argue for "gay marriage" is to be intolerant of traditional marriage, and to impose a new meaning upon it.

A thing to note from the last post... I don't agree with arranged marriages (just in case anyone wants to pick up on the ambiguity left by the 350 word limit). My reference to arranged marraiges was just to point out that marriage is always about love, whenever the times and the place. Thus it highlights the other two aspects which are unique to traditional marriage - unity of the sexes and "rearing and bearing" (in the vein of "ranting and raving", "weal and heal", and all those other Anglo-Saxon couplets) - and are unique to the futhering of a society which structures itself towards the promotion of stability.

Also, it must be noted that my views are - and I am using this term outside of the pejorative sense - reactionary, in that they are not arguing for the status quo, but that that the status quo has already moved to far away from an suitable situation, and that this is, in many ways, the last nail in the coffin of traditional marriage.

Finally, I don't appreciate being called "homophobic" or accused of spouting "homophobic dross". I have at no stage argued that homosexuals should be persecuted or vilified, just that traditional marriage should be preserved. To clarify an earlier comment, I was not comparing homosexual intercourse to adultery or pedophilia... I was just establishing a principle upon which Christians are challenged to not engage in sexual activity which comes naturally. Adultery is certainly worse than homosexual sex in a loving, long-term partnership - I do not consider them equal, even though I do consider them both to be discouraged to a Christian.

I am firmly of the view that traditional marriage is not about asserting heterosexuality, but rather is about unifying the sexes and procreating, and thus tens of thousands of homosexuals can be happily married to members of the opposite sex in marriage in Australia.

I hardly think a few gay men and lesbians marrying the partner of their choice is going to lead to social instability. What, are the majority of heterosexuals going to follow their lead, ditch their opposite-sex spouses and become gay?

If you want a recipe for social misery it is encouraging gay men and women to marry opposite-sex partners. Many have in the past (less so now in Australia as things have become easier for homosexuals) and the results include lying, cheating, men going off to do the beats and illicit affairs. This has had a devastating impact on spouses and any children from those sham marriages. A woman who finds out her husband has been having gay sex on the side will be just as unhappy as one who finds out her husband has had an affair with another woman.

I also worry about this language re: "duty" and "social stability". I used to be a socialist and now could be better described as left-libertarian. History shows us the dangers of where the needs of the state and society come before the individual. I should have woken up a lot earlier!

As for tradition, some traditions deserve to be thrown out. The tradition of adults marrying children went back a long way but legislation in Australia and other democratic states has rightly abolished that tradition. Polygamy is another tradition which entrenches the inequality of women. Again, it is a tradition we fortunately don't have in Australian marriage laws. Tradition for its own sake is not very useful and in some cases downright appalling.

I'd also like to point out that societies where social stability and the rights of the state over the individual are not necessarily stable in the long run anyhow. The Soviet Union comes to mind. An extreme example, I suppose, but it clearly illustrates what happens when individual freedom and happiness take a back seat to the "rights" of those who define what society's needs are.

DavidJS, great post.

R0bert

Thank you, Robert. I must say though that this thread (so far) has been more informed than some of ill-informed garbage that surfaces whenever the issue of homosexuality is raised.

On the original topic of liberal principles, people like Richard Kings have a dilemma. Their side of politics rests on a contradiction: deregulation of markets along with the regulation of social life. This is fundamentally unstable. People don't take kindly to having their personal lives regulated for very long while rich mates of the government are free to do what they wish. And it seems that those on Howard's side of politics no longer wants to minimise the intrusion of government but to actually increase it. How the Liberal tradition has changed.

DavidJS

Have you heard the storyline of the new Heath Ledger movie, Brokeback Mountain? It looks to be very interesting and a damning critique of the social cost of gays trying to fit het life-styles. It is directed by Ang Lee - (Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) - I will be checking this one out.

I agree with everything you have posted, I find Richard Kings article timely and ironic. Can't really see the Libs embracing gays (so to speak) - not with the recent veto on gay marriage. Yet a number of gays I know vote Liberal - guess its the economy.

Cheers

I'm sure many gays do vote Liberal. Given that federal Labor threw its lot in with the Coalition over the same-sex marriage issue last year, gays (especially those mortgaged up to the eyeballs) would be asking themselves if there's a real difference between the ALP and the Coalition. And John Howard appeared stronger on economic issues than Mark Latham so there wasn't a great deal of incentive to vote Labor. Sure people like Anthony Albanese have come up with practical pro-gay policies (such as around superannuation) but Albanese, Wong and Plibersek don't run the party.

The most fundamental problem is that both Coalition and Labor have moved away from policies based on individual freedom and opted for policies emphasising their ability to protect us from bad things. Or rather, protect conservative-inclined voters from bad things - terrorists, gays, [insert evil-doer here].

DavidJS, another great post. I'm assuming in the last section when you talk about "conservative" voters you are using a different version of conservative to the one often used in Australian politics. I'm more concerned about the excesses of government than about terrorists, gays, etc. Not so sure about fundi christains but their excesses are generally being played out via the government rather than a hands on approach.

There are definately reaons some of us who do support personal liberty etc tend more to the "conservative" side of politics than the "left", how to match those reasons to the current government is another issue except that the alternatives seem even worse. In my dealings with moderates of a left persuasion I often find we have some common objectives in mind, what differs most is the way we want to get there. Different story for extremists of any persuasion.

As with most things balance in politics has ebbs and flows, right now the hardliners hold the power in the "conservative" side of politics, hopefully in time a more balanced approach will come back (I'm guessing that opponents won't see it that way but thats politics).

R0bert

The conservatives I am referring to here are John Howard's core constituency. Those more likely to vote Liberal/National (depending where they live) first and put religious based parties such as Families First or Christian Democrats further down the ticket. These people you'd think should be worried about the encroachment of government on everyday life and be cynical of government. But no, to be a Howard conservative is increasingly to want a "nanny state". Nanny with a big stick who can chase the nasty people away.

Whatever he did in office, Reagan's mantra was "get the government off people's backs". That was the conservative philosophy. Now conservative parties seem to be the biggest busybodies outside authoritarian regimes.

DavidJS

You got it!

The usual definition of a conservative used to be one of the rights of the individual and pro small government.

However, Johnnies connies (do U like that?) are another breed entirely. Look at all the legislation that has been rushed through which curtails individual freedoms from workers through to media. Although I won't be holding my breath to see if anything comes of Alan Jones' latest foray into sedition. Some people are definitely more equal than others in Howard's world.

Even old Malcolm Fraser (looking more like a leftie every day) states that the 'liberal' has been dropped from Liberal.

To think that people used to complain about Labor's nanny-state - it looks pretty tame compared to the rule by fear we are experiencing now.

And fear not only is contagious it seems to grow with repeating. For this reason I believe that things are going to get worse still. It would not be a far leap from 'Leb-bashing' to gay-bashing among the yob element.

Well, DavidJS and R0bert, on that gloomy note I wish you all the best that Australia and the coming year has to offer - may you be spared the worst and revel in the best.

Dianne

I've said my piece on gay marriage, but am interested in the discussion over whether the Liberals should be liberal or conservative.

Take a look at the major parties...

Labor was more socially conservative than the Liberals 55 years ago, take for example women within the workforce. It was a threat to the unions' position of power. After the DLP split, Labor was jolted to the left, more so in states like Victoria and ACT, less so in NSW and Queensland where the split was less prominant, and the people more conservative. Labor is moderately conservative; a unionist party with a powerful left-wing lobby. In some states, like Queensland, it's as conservative as the opposing National party.

The Liberal Party is a broader church: some socially "liberal" members, but also very conservative ones. Howard often opposes these conservatives, especially over gun ownership, but realises that his electoral sucess depends on his image as a steady, conservative fellow. Seeing the impact of Queensland's vote on the Coalition's recent success it's obvious that this conservatism is falling on acutely-listening ears.

The National Party also calls itself a broad church, but also calls itself a conservative party. It is the only party to affirm monarchy and family explicitely. The National party does not support classically liberal economics theories to the degree of their city cousins, and it's the same with their social policy.

The Libs are more liberal than the Nats, but don't have the willingness to restructure society which Labor does... and that's what I feel this article was asking for. Libs are about tolerance, but won't go futher, because they would disenfranchise a majority for the sake of a minority. As long as the gay movement attach itself to iconic issues such as some form of socially recognition of union, of adoption, of access to IVF, and promotion of gay lifestyles within the school system, it won't gain traction amongst the Liberal shot-callers. Then again, if the gay movement is to detach itself from such issues, it would cease being a movement, for it wouldn't aspire to much.

DFXK, good post. Being raised a Queensland farm boy I have tended to have a preference for the Nats and thought that they were more into personal liberty than the libs even if not being bleeding edge on social reform. As you said less willing to restructure society than labor.

Your comment about the Qld Labor party was interesting. I tend to think that they have addopted the worst aspects of the BJP govt without the good bits. Back to a topic I seem to hit regularly in one form or another lately (it makes an interesting benchmark item) is Beatty's treatment of calls for legalised nude beaches, utter refusal and the perception I got from media reporting was that the labor member who raised the issue again recently will find it a career limiting move to have done so. Very conservative.

Your comments about the ties to issues make a lot of sense, many "conservatives" are fine with gays but don't want the issue in their face (in private between consenting adults etc).

From what I have read in DavidJS's posts he does not fit the stereotype public profile and is not very threatening, too often the image is of the Mardi Gras (how do you spell that) and requests for personal services on toilet walls. Both of which tend to be kind of threatening.

I don't know how much any of that is adding to the overall discussion. I doubt that even a dropping of some of the more aggressive agenda's will help with a government which has such strong ties to the churches.

Thats enough ramblings for one post.
A great christmas to all and especially those who I count as friends on this site.

R0bert

There are words that offend like "gay"' I would call it "grey"' areas of human lust when men want to have sex with men and women with women .Read God's word in New testament Romans Chapter 1, it is as up to date as today's fresh bread , not archaic as some say and a word that was invented to please the homosexuals of the day is "homophobic", (not in dictionaries 'til recently)how about us Christians invent words like Christianphobic,Jewaphobic,Isalma phobic,all these religions don't agree with men or women having sexual relations with each other.

In the beginning God created man and wom - an for help (sex) mates.Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.If all were homos than there would be no humans anymore .The vagina was made for man to procreate. Lust and perversion are the names of homosexual relationships with sex diseases rampant,why is AIDS no longer a major topic in the media ? Can we trust the media?
Just like body piercing is a trendy thing ,so is having a Gay mate a trend ,as I see hetro going homo and vice versa for a while.
No body is born GAY it is taught and bought at a price.

Boys without a male model (dad) are mainly victims of the GAY set. Weak mother's are also involved with ruining their little boys in the bath tub up til teens as well.Come on Australia don't go down that path and blame religion it is religion that has ruined Christianity.Which is a lifestyle robbed by religious zealots .

Dobbadan you say: "The vagina was made for man to procreate."
Don't women get to procreate too?
What if a woman doesn't want to procreate - does she get a say in the use of her vagina?
Also I thought maybe the vagina was also made for women to urinate from as I think the urethra is located in the vagina.

David JS, I think you spoke too soon and the "ill-informed garbage" has now emerged....

Dear Pedant,

You are much in need of edification. The uretha is located outside and above the vagina entrance. Unlike men, our procreation organ is designed only for pleasure and reproduction. Please check your basic anatomy. BTW the clitoris is located at the very apex of our genitalia and has no other purpose than pleasure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genitalia

As for dobbadan - eyes rolling in head - my vagina was made for me, just like my eyes were made for me to see and read absurdities such as your post. There is a crime called rape - suggest you think about that. Your post would have to be one the most primitive pieces I have ever had the misfortune to read.

Scout - thanks for the clarification.