And that Lexi was the point I was making. I have no way of reading the conscience of a candidate for an election, so conscience votes are a way of the electors loosing control, & handing it to parliamentarians.

The only good thing about the party system is that it gives the voter a chance to evaluate the policies they are voting for.

The only reason to want a conscience vote is if your preferred option is other than the policy of the parties elected, & you home to force individuals to your way of thinking.

As for homosexual marriage, [I refuse to let them co-opt a perfectly good English word in gay, they will always be poofters to me], I can only say I would never be stupid enough to marry again, if they want to, they are welcome to it, the fools.

I think there starting re-runs of a country practice:).....just in time to watch this old bat rambling on about the good old days, that by contrast, are days we never want to see again:), ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvMO56bdVT8

Must bring back some good memories for some:)

CACTUS

Try this for size. Its called the Slippery slope.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/three-in-marriage-bed-more-of-a-good-thing/story-e6frg6z6-1226218569577

Dear Hasbeen,

As I stated earlier - the importance of a conscience
vote is that it enables members of the front bench
to vote one way or the other and not put their
position on the front bench at risk (from either
you or the Party line).

As for how you feel about same-sex marriage. You are
fully entitled to your opinion. What you're not entitled
to - is impose it on others.

In any circumstances - sanctioned intolerance of opinions
such as yours should be no more acceptable than
anti-gay prejudice.

Enjoy your week-end.

Dear Banjo,

Same sex marriages are not the same as polygamous marriages.

However, as I stated I am married to a woman and expect to stay married to her until one of us dies.

I ask you the same question that I asked in regard to same sex marriages.

How will legalising polygamous marriages affect my marriage? I doubt that either of us will seek another mate.

Why is it that legaising sexual unions are more of a concern than the acceptance of deadly devices? Any form of marriage should involve consent of all parties. A person blown apart by a land mine has not given consent.

Bible bashers who object to same sex marriages have to admit that polygamous marriages were acceptable in their book of fairy tales in the past. There is even less reason for them to oppose polygamous marriges since the humanoid god they worship was, according to their book, the descendent of polygamous unions.

Of course there is such a thing as the slippery slope. Clubs and spears have led to depleted uranium, cluster bombs, land mines, nuclear weapons and other instruments of murder. I am concerned with that slippery slope and the acceptance by the Australian government of the use of those devices.

Polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands) occurs very rarely in a few isolated tribal societies. These societies include some bands of the Canadian Inuit,[citation needed] although the practice has declined sharply in the 20th century due to their conversion from tribal religion to Christianity by Moravian missionaries. Additionally, the Spartans were notable for practicing polyandry.

Societies which permit group marriage are extremely rare, but have existed in Utopian societies such as the Oneida Community.[citation needed]

Today, many married people practice various forms of consensual nonmonogamy, including polyamory and swinging. These people have agreements with their spouses that permit other intimate relationships or sexual partners. Therefore, the concept of marriage need not necessarily hinge on sexual or emotional monogamy.

Christian acceptance of monogamy

In the Christian society, a "one man one woman" model for the Christian marriage was advocated by Saint Augustine (354-439 AD) with his published letter The Good of Marriage. To discourage polygamy, he wrote it "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful." (chapter, paragraph Sermons from St. Augustine's letters were popular and influential. In 534 AD Roman Emperor Justinian criminalized all but monogamous man/woman sex within the confines of marriage. The Justinian Code was the basis of European law for 1,000 years.

continued