We've got a whole bunch of political issues at the moment that are doing the rounds in the media. From NBN, carbon tax, Refugees, cattle slaughter, who would be the best PM, which party should we vote for, who has the best policies - and so on. Will we have an early election,
will we have new leadership of both the two major parties? All are interesting questions and eventually the answers will appear. However I'm wondering who will be the first politician and or party that will
do what New York has done - and that is legalise same-sex marriage in Australia?

Instead of having a plebiscite on the carbon tax - why not a Referendum on same-sex marriage. Let the people decide. After all isn't it time that a secular country like Australia not stick with legilsation that is antiquated and does not represent all of its citizens. Why should a religious few continue to dictate to the majority? Our laws should be about "inclusion," not "exclusion." Especially concerning commitments and life-choices between consenting adults.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/times-up-for-teardown-tony-20110624-1gjiv.html
Try this RObert, the cartoon was drawn in reference to this story linked to the same page.
good one both sides seemed fairly treated too.

Hi Lexi, well put. I am hetrosexual but do have gay family and some freinds. The only difference between straight people and gay people are their sexual partner preferences. I beleive Gay people have as much right to choose how they live as we straight people.
They earn a living, pay tax, vote etcetera as do us straight people so they are entitled to live their lives as they wish and have equal opportunities.
We all exist by the theory harm no one and love each other as ourselves. My understanding is, that means freedom to choose what we do in life and unless we harm someone then we commit NO offence.

Dear Lexi,

"Why should a religious few continue to dictate to the majority? Our laws should be about "inclusion," not "exclusion." Especially concerning commitments and life-choices between consenting adults."

It is indeed wrong for anyone to dictate anything to others, regardless of numbers and who has a majority. I do also need to point out that just because certain people belong to religious orders it does not follow that they are in fact religious or that others who do not belong to religious orders are irreligious.

As for "Our laws", legislators have no mandate to either include or exclude anyone. They should stick only to their minimal tasks of protecting society from violence and fraud.

Now if you truly want to separate the church and state (which I support), then every reference to the word "marriage" should be removed from all legislation, not just "same-sex marriage". Commitments and life choices of consenting adults (that includes consenting adult choices of people who are not yet legally-adult) are their private affair and the government should stay right out of the picture!

Belly that was an interesting article. It will be interesting to see if Abbott does switch tactics as an election draw's nearer and if so how well he does.

R0bert

Interesting thread.

May I suggest that my favourite MP, Joe Hockey, would find the shortest route to the treetop boardwalk cafe and sit back with his mates with a drink while cracking jokes about the others' futile journeys. When I say he's my 'favourite' MP, that's because I think he makes a great shadow treasurer. More affable than Wayne Swan, but perfectly suited to the shadow cabinet.

I think the trouble with this whole hiking trek is that the hikers themselves don't know where they want to go. Some have a destination in mind, others have a different destination; the vast majority, though (and I qualify that this is just my opinion), either have no destination in mind or have a destination but not the conviction to follow it. Perhaps it's because we have so little faith in our leaders that we don't believe they'll ever get us there. I think that lack of faith is well-founded.

As Belly says, the media has a lot to do with this (interesting [and very apt] misspelling, Belly: Medea was the wife of Jason in Greek mythology, and eventually brought about his downfall). To weave it back into our hiking trip, the media is the collection of inaccurate guidebooks carried by the trekkers. The leader has one, which makes him (or her) take a lot of wrong paths. Each of the hikers carries another, which make clear that the leader has taken the wrong path while presenting a range of other (wrong) paths to the hikers. The result is misguided dissent - the hikers don't trust the leaders, but they don't have the right answers themselves.

Interesting times.