Susie,you said, "Banjo, what 'desires' of homosexuals would be detrimental to the majority of the electorate?"

Many people have strong views on homosexuality so many will see marriage as detrimental to our society, as well as adoption by homosexual couples.

It does not matter what you and I personally think and I strongly doubt foxy's figure of 60% approve. That is hardly an overwhelming majority for a single issue anyway. It is what ALP members think.

Mind you while Rudd and Abbott may have personal misgivings about it, Gillard would have introduced it, if she thought it would win votes.

No, Shorten may regret that he put forward the idea of a quota for parliamentary representation. On what criteria do homosexuals qualify for special consideration? They are only 1.2% of our population

'Gay'l marriage wasted much of the time of the previous Parliament, largely due to the disruptive, headline seeking behaviour of the Greens.

As well, both Labor and the Greens ran the proposal up the mast during the election campaigns.

Such has been the rejection of both Labor and the Greens by the electorate that there is no doubt their intended trashing of the Marriage Act is unpopular.

The Netherlands has had 'gay' marriage for years, but as the experience there demonstrates, very few homosexuals ever took up the option. Likewise in Australia where it is a condition of Centrelink to notify couple status, very few homosexuals have complied. But why not, if they seek public notification of their 'love' as they say?

There is no doubt that 'gay' marriage is being pushed by a few activists with the aim of obtaining the gold status of marriage, and more commonly is being thrust on an unwilling Australian society by radical feminists and self-styled 'Progressives', who despise marriage and all it stands for and are determined to trash it by any means possible.

As can be seen from existing and deleted posts in this thread, there is a lot of cat-calling and bullying of anyone who even questions 'gay' marriage.

By the way Banjo, I am not a Labor supporter. I supported the Nationals candidate in my electorate because I live in a country area, and the Royalties For Regions initiative did wonderful things in my town.

I agree there shouldn't be a quota for any minority group Banjo, but I also think there shouldn't be a monopoly on political careers, or places in Parliament , for middle aged, white Christian males (Gay or not!).

So how do you think we get around that?
You can't tell me the current system doesn't favour this configuration, or that the 'ol boys club doesn't ensure that this carries on as it always has been?

How do many others, eg women, other religions, other ethnic minorities, or any other different group , ever get a chance to even try?

Suseonline, "How do many others, eg women, other religions, other ethnic minorities, or any other different group , ever get a chance to even try?"

You must have been living on another planet for the past thirty years of affirmative action. Feminist ideology and feminist policy pervade politics and the public bureaucracies.

Women have opportunity and choice. It might not suit you that they are making their own choices but they do. Otherwise, how do you explain the paucity of women in the trades like plumbing, where employers are desperate to get workers and apprentices and there is very obviously nothing to prevent any interested willing-to-work person from finding work? But then you could say that about many different vocations and it is why workers are being imported.

Computing is the same, women aren't interested, despite every encouragement. Although you would say that women should be parachuted in as senior IT managers.

What prevents you from taking up one of those occupations where there are few women?

Dear OTB,

Go back and re-read Suse's post.
She was talking about women and political careers.
Those who do get into Parliament find it
difficult to become Ministers or get into
Cabinet as we've seen from the current
government's example. In spite of incessant
rhetoric about equal opportunity the mass of
male Parliamentarians find it difficult to
equate women with positions of power.

Foxy,

Everybody 'gets' that you bounce between very narrow rails: you want to slag off at the new government and you are trying desperately to play the sexism card.

Julia Whatshername played that card better than you ever could and Labor sacked her for it after finding that the public wouldn't have a bar of it.