Labor’s Deputy Leader Tanya Plibersek has called on the party to stop pussy footing about on the issue of gay marriage and remove the arrangement whereby Labor MP’s have been given the luxury of a conscience vote on the issue. Labor’s platform supports same-sex marriage and Ms Plibersek believes it’s high time the party took positive action to support that policy. Ms Plibersek intends to raise the matter at Labor’s national conference in July.
The ramifications of forcing all Labor parliamentary members to support the party policy is, with some support from pro gay marriage Coalition members, the policy could become law with a vote of the National Parliament. This is something gay people and their supporters have hoped for, for quite a long time. With the majority of Australians now supporting gay marriage Tanya’s proposed action seems well overdue.

A self centered lot who wish to normalize sodomy and have no concept of a healthy family society.

Paul,

Do you oppose a conscience vote on the subject?
I thought that the Greens were all for conscience voting.

Perhaps the question could be put to the people at the next election, if the majority of voters are in favour of a travesty of marriage then it's a sure fire winner and all will be hunky-dory.

I can't see the advantages of marriage for homosexuals as at the moment two men who want to dally together can both get the full dole and still live together, if they marry then the payments will be cut; ditto for females.

I did watch "Q and A," last night and heard
Tania Plibersek's explanation regarding
the stand that she felt the Labor Party should
take on same-sex marriage. However, my personal
opinion is that she should have waited and
discussed this matter with her colleagues at
their July Conference. Many people have deep
religious beliefs on this issue - and possibly
a "conscience vote," would be a more appropriate
way to resolve this matter rather than the
"binding" vote that she is proposing which will
probably cause even further problems for the Party.

As MP's are the parliamentary representatives of the party, and therefore the grass roots membership, and if something has been voted as party policy, I cannot see why when it comes to the vote those MP's should be able to override party policy and vote against that policy. If on the other hand the party has no particular policy on an issue then MP's should have a conscience vote. The Labor Party like The Greens has a defined policy on gay marriage, the Coalition as far as I am aware have no defined policy. Or is one of Abbott's captains calls a defined policy.

I can only assume most homosexuals are public servants, & want to get married to take advantage of the public service pension schemes generous treatment of spouses. Otherwise why would anyone who could not breed set themselves up for all the disadvantages of mirage.

Thus the public service union are bring pressure to bear, forcing Labor to make a fool of itself.

Except for items which have appeared in the party platform there should be no compulsory voting on any issue. Parliamentarians should be free to vote according to their conscience, the wishes of their constituents or the good of Australia and the world if they feel that is not compatible with the directive of the party room.

I favour allowing same sex marriage but would not compel those who do not favour it to vote for it.

Hi Foxy, and welcome back, hope you are ok.

I see the role of MP's differently, they are not in parliament in isolation, I believe in party solidarity. MP's should firstly argue in Parliament, and in the broader community in support of party policy, on behalf of the memberships and those who voted them into office. The place for contrary argument is where party policy is determined and voted on, state and national conference. Secondly MP's should vote to reflect party policy, where party policy exists.
If an MP's feels that strongly on an issue and in all good conscience cannot support party policy then they should resign from the party. if they do indeed feel that strongly.
There is plenty of scope for politicians to argue their point of view publicly and privately before party policy on an issue has been determined, but once determined the party should expect solidarity from that very important voting member.

Dear Paul1405,

We disagree. I don't think a parliamentarian should ever be forced to vote against his or her conscience. That should prevail over party solidarity. If a politician is not in complete agreement with the party platform he or she should not run for office. However, on other items the parliamentarian should be free. Otherwise we do not have a representative democracy. I want the parliamentarian who speaks for my district to take the wishes of his or her constituents into account when he or she votes. Otherwise it is wrong to call our system a representative democracy if all the parliamentarian represents is the wishes of the guiding spirits of the party. Party solidarity is incompatible with democracy in my view.

I'm not sure about the proof 'most Australians support gay marriage'.

The only poll results I've seen, including spot TV polls, was conducted a couple years ago and only about 2000 interviewed. The question "Should the law be changed to allow gay marriage?" was not specifically asked. The question from memory was more open such as "Do you oppose gay marriage?"

Personally I am not opposed to gay marriage but I wouldn't vote for it if given the opportunity.

The only way to know if Australians want to change the law is put it to the vote at the next election. I would hope both sides of the debate would be willing to accept the democratic outcome.

only seared consciences would want to 'normalise' the abnormal.

Nothing should be compulsory.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your kind words.

The way our current political system seems to
work is according to party platforms - and
politicians usually are made to toe the party
line as we know. Personally I would
like a "conscience vote" to be allowed as well as
letting the public have more of a say on these
really important issues. A Referendum would be
one way to possibly sort things out.

Religious leanings should not come into voting of public matters. If persons want that sort of relationship there should be another word to cover the relationship, so mail being sent to the lady of the household would be recognized as female. The word marriage has already been taken as man and woman. Man and man or woman and woman could be registered as [ similar relationship.] with full man and woman advantages and disadvantages.
Is it that important of an issue, referendums are usually to do with constitution. Does it matter if a union is held at church or a beach.

Bear in mind that that total membership of the ALP is only about 40,000 nation wide, they don't represent the values and aspirations of the wider community at all and their "grass roots" are the bourgeoisie and public servants. I've never met a "working class" ALP member save for a couple of old die hards in their eighties, they've all been academics,businessmen or bureaucrats, the type of people who run for the local council.

Jay,

I was a working class member of the ALP, I was recruited in a branch stacking move by a then sitting MP.
I didn't know that a stack was the purpose but as my father and his father had both been members (although expelled for expressing views that didn't sit well with the party) I decided to give it a go. I lasted about 6 months till Paul Keating did his 'other residence' bit to the tune of $10,000 from the Public Purse.
A few days later I got a couple of raffle ticket books, in the mail, from the party to raise funds.
I wrote "I resign and I have $10,000 good reasons" on one of the books and sent them back collect; never heard from the ALP again.

I have met many supporters but few members.

Is Mise,
Given the widespread "ghosting" in the branches the true number of ALP members may be as low as 20,000, according to this article:
http://insidestory.org.au/the-parties-democratic-deficit

Paul1405, "As MP's are the parliamentary representatives of the party, and therefore the grass roots membership, and if something has been voted as party policy"

No that is NOT true at all. The factions decide Labor pre-selections and Labor policy.

Of course the totalitarian Greens would believe that the 'Party' should decide and have final say, with all members being required to act as automatons, in lock-step together.

How typical of the leftist 'Progressives' aka Fabians aka International Socialists who have taken over the Labor Party to be doing their best to destroy the social institutions like marriage. They readily admit they don't even want marriage to exist and would abolish it now if they could.

Like the feminists who oddly support Marxism (while appealing to capitalism for a leg-up as materialistic capitalists themselves), the 'Progressives' are for highly centralised State control, restriction of individual choice and anti-family.

Where is the electoral office supervised poll that proves homosexuals are in favour of State control and bureaucrat/court decision deciding their personal relationships? Homosexuals are a small percentage of the population and of that small percentage it is only a small number (most likely public servants) who would favour gay marriage.

The 'movement' for gay marriage is a front for a few 'gay pride' activists but mainly the self-described leftist 'Progressives', the international socialists who dabble in social policy for their own secondary agenda, personal influence and power.

Male lefties were very lazy and shortsighted allowing the feminists in particular to bully them and to control the agenda. The gays among them must be wondering how they lost control over their own lives and if that is really what they wanted.

I think it should be a conscience vote.

......

Aside from that, who couldn't be entertained by another otb special!

His posts are a veritable celebration of repetitive jargon to denigrate the left - each baring little difference to the ones before - no matter what the subject matter.

Here's a quick tally (hope I got 'em all)

Leftie/leftist - 3 (mentions)

Progressives - 3

Fabian - 1

Feminists 2

Socialists - 2

Marxism - 1

Most entertaining - and all from one frothy post!

They are labels they go by and laden terms/symbolism they use.

However, like some on OLO (and the frivolous sequinned, pear-shaped Abbottophobic one would be among them), they wouldn't recognise the real Left if there was a large street sign sign showing them the way. The real Left are rolling in their graves at the BS and pretences of this lot.

Labor does need to clean out the gaggle of superficial 'Progressive' elitist careerists who abuse their positions in the Party for their own ends, to gain power and benefits for themselves (illegally where some are concerned).

It is impossible for Labor to return to its roots and represent members where corruption has ensured that all votes are weighed against members in favour of factions that are controlled by Union heavies. Heads the factions win and tails the members lose, quite simple and undemocratic.

Now, will someone volunteer to play Poirot's forum parlour game of 'Tit-for-Tat', where Poirot never makes fair exchange and Abbottophobia rules? Where is Shadow Minister with his rolled up newspaper and unerring aim?

Galaxy Research Polling (2009 - 2012) shows -

* 64% of Australians support samesex marriage
* A majority of Christians (53%) support samesex marriage
* 76% of Calition voters want Mr Abbott to allow a conscience vote
* 75% believe the reform is inevitable and -
* 81% of young people (18 - 24 years) support samesex marriage

These figures are a significant advance on 2004 figures, when a
Newspoll commissioned by SBS found that 38% of Australisns
support the reform.

There are heaps on other polls on the web that present
the same statistics including a survey done recently by
the Liberal Party's own polster.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-shows-growing-support-for-samesex-marriage-20140714-3bxaj.html

Fox,

There is a credibility gap there of Capertee Valley proportions.

If such huge numbers support 'gay marriage' why aren't the political parties capitalising on it?

Is there some shifty in the definitions, numbers and comparisons you make? Prove the limitations of the surveys were taken into account and you are comparing apples with apples.

After all, the real poll is how representatives vote and not so long ago politicians went back to consult their constituencies and when they came back there was NO majority support for 'gay marriage'.

There is a good video available somewhere on how the cosmetic industry (an example chosen) is able to prove absolutely anything is beaut for women and by independent research including surveys.

It is all in the words, or in your case, in the narrative.

otb,

It is not "my" narrative Sir, but those
of Galaxy Research Polling (2009-2012).
I have merely presented their findings.
As well as an article from the Sydney Morning
Herald.

While you Sir, have not presented any evidence
to us in this discussion to substantiate
any of your sweeping generalisations/and or - claims.
Until you do so - I cannot take you seriously.
Present us with facts and evidence - and you
may have more credibility. Currently your words don't
actually matter. We've heard them all before.

Lol! - otb,

"(and the frivolous sequinned, pear-shaped Abbottophobic one would be among them)"

"Now, will someone volunteer to play Poirot's forum parlour game of 'Tit-for-Tat', where Poirot never makes fair exchange and Abbottophobia rules? Where is Shadow Minister with his rolled up newspaper and unerring aim?"

I have to tell you that whenever you wax lyrical like that, I always imagine it's in the voice of Frank Thring.

david f, when I vote for a member of a party, which is how most of us vote, I have no idea of that candidates conscience, or personal feelings or opinions are on most subjects. I believe most voters are in a similar position.

That being the case I expect them to vote the party policy & in fact any inferred party policy. If they do not wish to do this, they should stand as independents.

They don't because most are elected as members of a party, not individuals, & would attract little following in their own right. If they wear the shirt to get elected, they must were that shirt in all things in parliament.

'* 64% of Australians support samesex marriage
* A majority of Christians (53%) support samesex marriage
* 76% of Calition voters want Mr Abbott to allow a conscience vote
* 75% believe the reform is inevitable and -
* 81% of young people (18 - 24 years) support samesex marriage '

what about the 2% muslims Foxy? They seem to have a lot of say for such a small group.

Dear Hasbeen,

If one does not vote for the individual but the party why have representatives at all? Just record the number of electorates won by various parties when there are parliamentary votes and don't waste money on paying pols who are supping at the trough. We don't need suits sitting there whose vote is predetermined.

Dear runner,

The Galaxy Research Polling did not mention
Muslims as a separate group. However, for your
information, according to Heath Aston (political
reporter), Sydney Morning Herald,
the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils
(main Islamic organisation in Australia)
has joined Christian groups in calling
for a Referendum on samesex marriage."

I hope this helps.

The results should be quite interesting.

Some of the religious fundies are appalled at the idea of having male gay sex normalised. Fair call, where will the illicit fun be in it for religious extremists wanting to feel dirty if it's all normal.

Seriously though my preference is for the government to get out of the registration of relationships all together rather than expanding the net. Especially where the registration of the relationship does not appear to have any real legal meaning beyond that which people can fall into just by sharing the same home enough times.

R0bert

Hasbeen said <<I can only assume most homosexuals are public servants>> no, no, they are all hairdressers and ballet dancers, except for the two girls (partners) I met the other week, they were members of the Australian Armed Forces. The girls were a bit surprised I didn't know that there are quite a few gay women in the army.

Hasbeen I find myself agreeing with you 100%, with this <<That being the case I expect them to vote the party policy & in fact any inferred party policy. If they do not wish to do this, they should stand as independents.>> or resign altogether.

For the Labor Party this is no longer a moral issue, since the party has formulated a policy. So much for the Judeo-Christian moralizing by some, that should now have no bearing on how parliamentary members vote. Any Labor member who feels that strongly to the point that they cannot in all good conscience vote for gay marriage they should simply resign from the party. There have been many instances in the past where members have resigned from political parties because they felt strongly on a particular issue.
If I was a member of Parliament I believe I could support party policy on almost all issues, but as a pacifists if party policy was to commit Australians to war I would inform the leader that I could not vote in support of such policy and would tender my resignation, as simple as that.

Personally I support gay marriage, having gay married friends (We actually attended their legal wedding in Auckland New Zealand in 2014) and nothing about them or their relationship has changed our minds on the subject. Both myself and my partner have gay family members and friends with partners, and we are just as accepting of them as we are of others and their relationships.

I was a high school student 25yrs ago.
Back then there was a ingrained culture of resentment and of making fun of homosexuals.
Most of my high school peers would be around 40 now.
I doubt whether the majority of these men have changed their stance since high school, so exactly what people does this percentage tolerance of gays represent?

I'd suggest it is the younger generation.
The ones who have had so much gay stuff pumped into their minds in every television show that they truly think it's normal.
These younger people will even make fun of you for being straight these days - that's how messed up they are.

Yet we are supposed so sit back and buy into these so-called statistics.

Well I call bs and nothing more than clever social engineering to force other peoples ideals upon us.

Its always the gays that whinge and whine, I bet they work tirelessly to try and force the rest of us to change, and I'd like to know which politicians are accepting donations from gay lobbyists.

Paul we agree for once. Hold a referendum, implement the result, then forget it.

However it is a non issue really. Come the introduction of Sharia law, those homosexuals will be running for the hills, or beheaded, so really just a storm in a teacup, soon to be consigned to history.

david f now you're talking. I'd love to do away with politicians & have an administrator run the country according to which ever ideology won the a plebiscite held every 4 years.

At least we could get rid of the chicane of the senate. I would rather see which ever party/ideology won have all policies implemented as voted for. At least then we should get a good idea quite quickly, which ones worked, & vote accordingly in future.

This is what happens when persons in good conscience decline to participate in the support of homosexuals marriage.

"In 2013, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Aaron and Melissa Klein, politely declined to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, as a result of which they were taken to court and charged with discrimination based on sexual orientation.

On Friday, Oregon's Bureau of Labor recommended that the Kleins be fined a total of $135,000 to compensate "for the emotional suffering they [the lesbian couple] experienced."

Seriously?

Because a Christian couple cannot, in good conscience, bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, they are fined $135,000?

Let that sink in: $135,000 for not baking a cake.

What if Orthodox Jewish wedding photographers declined a job because it was on the Sabbath?

What if Muslim caterers declined a job because it required pork?

Would they be fined?

Yet these Christian bakers have not just been fined, they have been fined a ridiculous amount.

Really now, what kind of "emotional suffering" did the lesbian couple endure?

The women listed a total of 178 symptoms of their suffering—not 7 or 8 or even 17 or 18, but 178 symptoms—90 from one and 88 from the other.

As reported by Kelsey Harkness, "Examples of symptoms include 'acute loss of confidence,' 'doubt,' 'excessive sleep,' 'felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,' 'high blood pressure,' 'impaired digestion,' 'loss of appetite,' 'migraine headaches,' 'pale and sick at home after work,' 'resumption of smoking habit,' 'shock,' 'stunned,' 'surprise,' 'uncertainty,' 'weight gain' and 'worry.'"

All this—and much, much more—simply because a Christian bakery said, "It's contrary to our religious beliefs to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony."

Is it possible that these women were not exaggerating?

Yes it is.

But that doesn't mean that the Kleins should be fined $135,000. Instead, it means we should question the overall emotional stability of these two lesbians since it is almost impossible to believe that they really suffered all this simply because a Christian company said they could not participate in a lesbian "wedding.

- See more at: http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/49357-the-american-attack-on-christians-reaches-an-all-time-low#sthash.EKKg61AJ.dpuf

https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/videos/vb.300341323465160/486012274898063/?type=2&theater

Hasbeen, Unfortunately the first "Administrator" who's name is Adolf has, following the burning down of parliament house by The Dissidents, just declared martial law and appointed himself "Administrator" for life. No more voting necessary.

Josephus, "in good conscience" my A, a pair of bigots more likely.

Aaron and Melissa Klan refused to bake a chocolate wedding cake for a black couple because of their conscience.

Aaron and Melissa Blogs refused to bake a rainbow wedding cake for a profoundly disabled couple because of their conscience.

Jake the bus driver made the black couple and the disabled couple stand in the back of the bus because of his conscience.

If you are in the cake baking business you bake cakes for all, regardless, there is no relationship between cake baking and moral judgement. Did these cake bakers have a long list of moral question they asked before agreeing to bake a cake"

Q1 Have you had sex before marriage? (If answer yes no cake)
Q2 Will your future children be brought up in the Christian faith?
(If answer no no cake) etc etc.
I agree with the judge.

Paul,

I don't agree with your heading, I don't even think that any marriage should be compulsory.
Of course you didn't mean that homosexual marriage should be compulsory but, I guess, that as a Green making misleading statements has become a habit.

Dear Paul,

Forcing another to work for you against their will, let alone against their conscience, is called 'slavery'. The judge was therefore wrong because slavery goes against the American constitution.

Regardless, assuming that this bakery was private and received no public funds or orders, one's shop is like one's home and one should be able to only invite in those s/he wants.

It's not that I approve of the behaviour of those particular bakers, but the proper response for this incident is not in the legal field, but simply when those bakers find themselves barred by the owners of dozens of other shops and services.

Over the past couple weeks here in Noosa a gay group has been asking the Council to declare its support for gay marriage. The Council's response was the marriage law is outside Council jurisdiction and therefore Council will not comment one way or the other. Noosa Council is a very progressive green council.

Since Council's decline to participate there have been a barrage of letters to the editor in the local paper deriding council, threatening to vote them out, accusations council is pandering to the elderly retired residents, being homophobic, etc, etc. There letters are very aggressive and in my opinion nothing short of bullying.

I find the behaviour of this group offensive and regretfully not out of character.

I support Marriage equality and would like to see a bipartisan conscience vote, as I think that it would eventually get through.

However, I see Tanya Plibersek's move as a political stunt to shore up her personal support in her inner city seat that is under threat from the greens. This is unlikely to be accepted by the labor caucus and will likely torpedo any chance of bipartisanship if it is.

Labor is being torn apart. It is struggling to meet the demands of middle Australia in the battlers who while workers are typically more traditional, and the left leaning inner city mob that are far more liberal. A conscience vote means MPs can pander to a particular demographic they represent, a forced vote risks losing more votes than it gains.

Once gay marriage is introduced constant bullying by gay couples against others conscience happens. My previous link is just one example of an extreme case.

The ultimate 'conscience' vote would be a referendum.

However gay activists who do not represent gays and leftist 'Progressives', who always presume to know what is best for others, are opposed to a referendum. Democracy is not for them, they want their views to rule. It is either their way or the highway.

It is ridiculous to talk about 'conscience'. It is simply more of the cultural war, promoting the ultilitarianism that excuses anything they want, but conversely is subjective whenever they want it to be. It often wrongly assumes there are no others affected by a decision than those making it. For example, any sex is OK provided the participants agree and no-one outside of them should(!) be affected, so shut up!

Gay marriage is one of the large hammers that leftist 'Progressives' and feminists use to destroy the society and values they object to. They sledge the 'traditional' family and would prefer to get rid of marriage entirely. So much for supporting 'gay marriage equality', when it is just a stepping stone for rule breakers to destroying their hated institution of marriage.

If homosexuals want a legal union that is fine by me but they can leave the word marriage out of it. Marriage is already taken and means a union between a male and a female. Homosexuals can find their own word to describe their union.

They already have taken the word 'gay' to describe homosexuals and now only want the word marriage in effort to get some respect for their sexual activities.

"If homosexuals want a legal union"

Those who presume to know what is best for homosexuals and everyone else have already passed laws to regulate homosexual relationships. 'Relationship' being the politically correct term.

While previously gays have been adult and able to sort their living and leaving arrangements, they must now rely on government bureaucrats, lawyers and courts to inform them of the status of their private affairs. The lawyers are laughing all of the way to the bank.

Those who always presume to know what is best for everyone including gays of course, stated that in exchange for 'recognition' gays should be happy with State regulation of their private affairs and bureaucratic intrusions into their private living arrangements. So much for that outlaw lifestyle!

BTW, in the interests of transparency of policy, what is the latest number of homosexual couples registered with Social Security and what are the savings in dollars?

Banjo,

You are right, they already have legal, State sanctioned common law relationships ('relationship' - feminist new speak).

All that remains is to find a new word to describe their unions. However the feminists and 'Progressives' have already decided that too haven't they? It is 'relationships'.

So, 'Gay Relationship' it is. (Non existing) 'Problem' solved. QED (quite easily done)

Paul1405, Your reasoning is so infantile it is ridiculous. No person denies a disabled child a cake. Disability is not a matter of conscience.

' No person denies a disabled child a cake. Disability is not a matter of conscience.'

well Josepus, I wish you were right but many check to make sure baby has no disability before deciding whether to give birth or terminate.

Dear runner,

Evidence for your claim, please.

Some so called Christians hide their bigotry behind their religion.
Josephus, nothing more infantile and offensive than religious ratbags such as Jehovah Witnesses banging on your door and wanting to ram their clap trap standards and beliefs down your throat. Religious nutters of all descriptions simply want to forcibly impose their moral standards on the rest of society. They think they have some god given right to do so.

If a Christian cake shop owner, in all "conscience", can refuse to sell a cake to gay people. Then an atheist hair dresser could refuse a haircut to a priest. A pacifist mechanic could refuse car service to military personnel etc etc, a white supremacist hardware shop owner could refuse to sell nails to black people. These "conscience" decisions could extend to everyone from cab drivers to landlords. When is it no longer a matter of conscience and becomes a matter of bigoted discrimination?

Is Mise the thread title, and my opening post, gay marriage, Labor party policy, compulsory, a bit of a play on things, or did it go over your head?
I wont even ask what the one issue Shooters Party policy on gay marriage is, I assume like everything else they do not have a policy, too consumed with their shooting policy.

Yes, Paul, it went over my head.

Dear Paul,

<<Then an atheist hair dresser could refuse a haircut to a priest.>>

Well he could, but then he would lose:

Instead of refusing, he told the priest "You are a holy man, I can't take money off you!"

- The next morning he found 15 silver coins on his door-step.

Then a Muslim Imam came for a haircut and the hairdresser told him the same:

- The next morning he found 15 gold coins on his door-step.

Then a Rabbi came for a haircut and again the hairdresser refused any money:

- The next morning he found 15 Rabbis on his door-step.

...

Now seriously, I went through all your examples and see nothing wrong: perhaps some of the cases are not truly a matter of conscience? even then it is wrong to force someone to do something against his/her will.

Yuyutsu "Now seriously, I went through all your examples and see nothing wrong: perhaps some of the cases are not truly a matter of conscience? even then it is wrong to force someone to do something against his/her will."

Very true Yuyutsu. Forcing women wanting abortions to continue with unwanted pregnancies or labour would fall under that category too of course?

The Labour Party deciding there is no need for a conscience vote about gay marriage are quite right in suggesting that all their members would naturally choose to follow the party line, because to deny gay people the right to marry is a form of discrimination.

The Liberal party can't really say anything against Labour's decision because the PM is forcing his party members to vote against gay marriage, whether they like it or not.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Jokes based on stereotypes may be funny to those who share those stereotypes. To those who do not share those stereotypes they are merely ugly statements of prejudice. The avaricious Jew is a common ugly prejudiced stereotype. That is how I regard your joke about the atheist hair dresser. It is an ugly statement of prejudice.

The joke is better when its politicians in the punchline.

R0bert

<<The Labour Party deciding there is no need for a conscience vote about gay marriage are quite right in suggesting that all their members would naturally choose to follow the party line, because to deny gay people the right to marry is a form of discrimination.>>

Suse, the above encapsulates what this whole thread is about. The fact that support for gay marriage is Labor Party policy. I think some have a unrealistic and distorted view of what the roll and function of an elected representative is. I have sat on a few candidate interview panels and one question "Do you have any major problems with any of the parties polices?" A prospective candidate could say "I am not entirely happy with the parties policy on gay marriage." The follow up questions would be to find out if that person could still vote in support of that policy, if they could not, then there would be serious doubts about their candidacy asperations. They are not asked to agree with policy 100%, but do they feel they can support policy when necessary. Party policy once determined is binding on all elected representatives of the party.
For every one elected there is a team of members and supporters behind that person that worked hard to get them elected alone with the mass of voters who supported them. Getting elected does not make one a free agent to do and please as they wish Once elected a representative has a very wide set of obligations. If one wants to act as a free agent then run as an independent or join a party that has little in the way of policy.

So we see The Labor Party forces its members against conscience to follow Party line otherwise they are not a representative. I always thought Labor supported a dictatorial leadership. Wars have been fought to give persons the right to individual freedom, obviously Paul believes Government is best served by a Dictator.

There are homosexuals and there are gays.
I wonder how many people who support same sex marriage have ever been to a Gay bar or worked with homosexuals? From their writings I sense a level of pity in the attitudes of so called Christian and liberal supporters, as if allowing people of the same gender to marry will stop them abusing crystal meth and gang banging in public toilets, as if the way they behave is the result of discrimination and not just "their way". Homosexuals have always been free to form monogamous relationships as long as they simulated a normal relationship, what we see now is the never ending Bohemian freakshow that is the Gay subculture asserting itself and demanding that their ever fluid definition of gender and human relations be accepted as the norm.
A social norm is a benchmark,if two people of the same gender want to have a wedding and live together it's fine by me as it would be with most people but the lunatics, the transgenders and the addled left wing freaks are dominating the discussion. I don't see any progress being made as long as the public public relations campaign being dominated by crazy communists and people with obvious mental problems demanding that people be fired from their jobs or bashed because they don't accept every disgusting,idiosyncratic tic of the Gay milieu.

Would not the changing of the legal definition of marriage be an act of discrimination against all those people who support the current definition of their marital status?

If homosexuals (happy and carefree or not) want a term to describe their union, then I'm sure that they can invent one; they don't have to take and change the meaning of 'marriage'.

Dear Suse,

<<Forcing women wanting abortions to continue with unwanted pregnancies or labour would fall under that category too of course?>>

Yes (but why only women?), forcing people to do anything against their will is VIOLENCE. This is the category and I believe that we agree that it is wrong.

<<because to deny gay people the right to marry is a form of discrimination.>>

It is, but of a different category, because in this case no violence is involved.

Here simply, the government refuses to supply a particular service (i.e. marriage registration) to certain people. It does not, to the best of my knowledge, point a gun and threaten homosexuals with jail if they marry.

I am not a fan of rights. As I wrote several times in this forum, better don't rob our freedom away in the first place, then you don't need to return us back the remaining small change as "rights".

People should have the freedom to marry two goats, a washing machine and a flag, if that's what they want. It's none of the government's business.

---

Dear David,

<<Jokes based on stereotypes may be funny to those who share those stereotypes>>

I wonder who still shares it nowadays - not me or anyone I know. I believe that this particular stereotype is long dead and buried, allowing everyone to have a good laugh, including the Jew who told me this joke.

Paul,

The greens are just as guilty of bigotry and racism, using a tenuous connection with Israel to boycott local Jewish businessmen with a half baked motive of palestinian support.

Shadow, I am big enough to say I agree with you on that. At the time, 2011 during the NSW State election there were also those who distributed non-complient anti Green material in the Marrickville electorate on that subject. Material which contained a number of untruths. You can take this opportunity to attack The Greens on an unrelated subject.
The question is do you agree with Plibersek that Labor's parliamentary members should comply with party policy and vote accordingly? I say yes, what do you say.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Members of a group are free to tell such jokes on one another. Outsiders aren't. The stereotype is very much alive.

Previous Labor federal governments have already installed compulsory common law marriage for homosexuals whether they want it, desire it, intend it, or not.

There is already FULL State recognition of their 'relationships', which is the new-speak of feminists and leftist 'Progressives' and deliberately sidesteps the institution of marriage that they despise and would do away with tomorrow if they could. The changes to the de facto, common law, new-speak 'relationships', also made bigamy acceptable to the State, bypassing the laws against it.

Was the electorate consulted? No! It was all done behind closed doors.

The proof is that State bureaucrats and courts can and do inform homosexuals of their relationship status and over-rule the will/intent/choice'decision of the person/s concerned. So too are homosexual 'relationship' break-ups subject to State regulation, whereas before the choices, decisions and agreements were made by the individuals themselves.

Homosexuals have NEVER wanted to be included in the Marriage Act. That is just a few Gay Pride activists aping the US lead, but mainly, overwhelmingly, it was the strategy of the feminists and 'Progressives', who hijacked homosexuals for their own secondary agendas.

Homosexuals were lazy and crazy to ever allow the feminists and political 'Progressives' to dictate to them, leading them by the nose. The few young gay pride activists who were used as a front by the feminists and 'Progressives'- both with long discredited Marxist agendas - let homosexuals down.

The rest is history, but probably only obvious to same sex unrelated people living together and the older homosexuals whose pensions are under review, or await the compulsory inspections and interrogations from Social Security dob-ins.

Compulsion is what the totalitarian leftists are all about. No surprise at all that a Green would be pushing central State control and loss of individual choice.

In the good old days (in this case 35 years ago), I knew two couples that lived in the same house in a terrace of two story houses.

Both couples were on the dole and someone dobbed them in , Social Security (or whatever it was called then) arrived at the front door and started asking questions.
One of the boys said that they had it wrong he and his mate were homosexuals and they shared the downstairs bedroom and that the girls were lesbians and shared the upstairs bedroom.
This was accepted and SS went their way and never troubled them again.

Just why a couple who are on the dole and actively looking for work should get less because they are sleeping together has always escaped me, when one considers that others who are sharing accommodation, but are not in a relationship get full benefits.

Homosexuals have been conned.

What has been overlooked are the homosexuals who do not want marriage; are they then to be registered as de'fucto?

Three of the reasons I favour same sex marriage:

1. I am a man worried to a woman I love deeply. It is a source of great happiness to me. We are committed to each other, and the commitment is recognised. I wish happiness to those of the same sex who feel that way about each other.

2. One of the reasons for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases is promiscuity. Encouraging committed relationships lessens promiscuity.

3. One of problems we face is population growth. No species including humans can increase indefinitely. People get married to one of the opposite sex and breed. Some of them would rather be in a same sex union if that were available. That sort of union does not produce children.

Increasing the sum total of human happiness, concern for public health and lessening population growth are reasons that I favour allowing same sex marriage.

Josephus,

Leaving that joke to one side, homosexuals cannot opt out of the State regulation of their private lives that was introduced by Labor. Their choices were abolished by regulations that now apply whether they like it or not. It is compulsory.

The gay rights crew - without consultation - announced that homosexuals could like it or lump it. Loss of their previous choice and RIGHTS was in exchange for 'recognition'.

That was only to be expected of the totalitarian, anti-humanist feminists and 'Progressives' though. As leftists they presume to always know what is best for everyone else.

David F,
Malthus deployed in defence of same sex marriage, now I've heard everything. It's a characteristic of the left that when something does not compute they go deaf and blind and their memory doesn't work anymore, one of the central points of the pro case (your case!) is that same sex couples should have access to adoption, surrogacy and IVF so that they can HAVE CHILDREN!
Promiscuity is part and parcel of the Gay subculture, so is drug use and criminality, gay relationships are not usually monogamous, if there's a homosexual alive who met his sweetheart as a teenager and has been faithful ever since he needs to be captured and studied as one of nature's conundrums.
I don't have any Gay friends these days because I grew up, got a real job outside hospitality and stopped taking drugs and going to nightclubs. Have you ever been to a Gay club David? If so did you go into the toilets at any point and what did you witness there? I'm sure many young men would emerge from repeated participation in drug fueled toilet stall orgies with a good dose of PTSD, I still can't get the images out of my head and I wasn't even the one being repeatedly buggered. Hey I felt welcome at clubs like Mandate, 3 Faces and Bassline because I was there with friends and fellow druggies but any illusion of Gays being "normal people" was quickly dispelled upon seeing them at their sport and away from the gaze of polite society.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

People usually respond to the way they are treated. Treat homosexuals as you would anyone else, and they will respond. I have never been in a gay club so I have not seen what you have seen. Treat people as though they are abnormal freaks, and they will behave as abnormal freaks do.

Paul,

I have already stated that I support marriage equality. The question then on my part is whether it is the quickest and best route to getting this legalised, and in my opinion it is not.

I read a very interesting political analysis a few years ago with regards this issue which put the issue in a different light. The conclusion was that those who supported marriage equality while in a majority were very unlikely to change their vote based on a party's position on the subject, while those opposed to ME were far more likely to change their votes, and these people are concentrated in the marginal seats. As counterintuitive as it sounds, ME is roundly supported in strong liberal, greens and wealthy area, but far less so in the working class areas.

In short, for a significant No of Marginal seats, the ME is a vote loser. A compulsory vote in Labor would guarantee a compulsory counter vote in the coalition and a serious loss for labor.

On the other side of the coin, if labor has a conscience vote, there is not much benefit to the coalition to maintain a compulsory vote.

Shadow,

Gee, we are not at loggerheads, why not! Forgetting for a moment that this is about a somewhat emotive issue in the community. What is your opinion on a political party formulating a policy, then as in this case, allowing its Parliamentary members a free vote. Why bother with the policy in the first place, it tends to come back and bite you later on. The Catholic right is still very strong in the ALP, Rubb and Abbott had something in common, they both like to go off and pray on a Sunday.
To put it simply Tanya Plibersek seems to be saying to the Labor Party we went to the trouble to formulate a policy, cut the nonsense of a conscience vote and start voting in a way that reflects that policy. Unlike the US where its routine for party members to cross the floor and vote with the other side and think nothing of it, here in Australia its big news when that occurs, we are shocked at maverick behavior by MP's. PUP suffered from it very early on, and Bob Katter had the guts to quite the Nationals because he could not support certain aspects of Coalition policy. So. if they need be, there are a few outs for those racked by their conscience.

Paul 1405,
So is it merely brinksmanship on the part of the Labor Left? Is the Plibersek faction calling the leadership's bluff on same sex marriage?
People can change their views on same sex marriage, I did but I wonder if Labor really can walk the walk?

Jay,

The machinations within the Labor Party are well known, the gay marriage policy seems to be a 'Claytons' policy. Possibly the anti faction led by mostly the right Christian element within Labor, which is still very strong, did look to have out maneuvered the pro group with a "We'll give you your policy, but we wont give you the vote." I do not believe it is a straight right/left faction thing, our three local Labor members, 2 state 1 federal, all from the Labor right, 2 pro, 1 negative. The policy, even in its present form ,would not have got up without at least some center/right support. Now the pro group have "called" the other side on the issue through a leading party figure in Tanya Plibersek,
Unlike some, I have gay friends, I have a close family member who is gay, thinks The Greens are screwy and votes Liberal. I have been in gay establishments and attended parties, birthdays, engagements, wedding, numerous times in the past two years, with a mix of people. I have not seen what you describe, but then again I have not seen straight people at rave parties either, high on drugs and out of control, it takes all kinds. I am not pretending being gay makes you a saint, gay people have as many vices as the rest of the community. Although they tend to have more money than average.

cont

cont

p/s A wild night with our gay friends is dinner, in or out, talk of the days events etc, a couple of drinks, and home. I have had gay couples stay with us, we have no problem putting them up in the double bed in the spare room. A while back we attended a 21st for a young straight bloke, well the party got out of control, cops at 12, footy mates off their heads with who knows what, and fighting to boot. Went to a gay couples engagement party on the north shore of Sydney, they are in business got money, a very lavish catered for party etc, the scotch was all black label, as was everything else, no trouble, there could have been drugs, there was a lots of people in attendance, I don't know. When we attended the legal gay wedding in NZ, the couple put everyone up in a $300 a room hotel for two nights, paid for all meals and the next day paid for a fully catered harbor cruise, even wanted to pay our airfares from Australia, I wouldn't let them. Remember it talks all kinds in this world.

Dear Paul,

Any reason your friends had their wedding in New-Zealand?

Surely they could do it in Australia, except for the paperwork, which doesn't make a difference anyway and even if they still wanted it (why?) then they could simply go to New-Zealand, before or after, to arrange it.

Paul 1405,
As I said there are Gays and homosexuals, your friends would appear to be the latter, the word Gay in this context comes from 19th century London street slang, the "Gay life" was drinking, drugs, whoring and crime.

It's also pretty obvious that support for sames sex marriage by the captains of industry is purely for commercial reasons, take a look at this video, is this a marketing campaign or a show of community pride? It's hard to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWZBKMwFSH0
Usually the majority of the participants in Gay pride parades are not even gay and a good number of them are paid to be there or otherwise incentivised to attend by their employers.
In fact the whole "debate" is driven by Facebook and Google and their liberal minded boards, all of a sudden a movement founded with the explicit goal of destruction of the family is now pro marriage?
We said years ago that capitalists were going to take over the internet and impose their agendas and skew everything their way, in 2007 Murdoch was the boogeyman with Myspace but in reality it was the Lefties and Liberals who ended up dominating the web. !00% of the directors of social media companies are pro Gay marriage, pro Feminism, anti Racism and so forth, social justice is now a capitalist project, it's even absorbed the hard left and your beloved Greens.

Yuyutsu, gay marriage is recognised as legal in New Zealand.

Jay, I cannot comment on your sweeping statements. <<Usually the majority of the participants in Gay pride parades are not even gay and a good number of them are paid to be there or otherwise incentivised to attend by their employers.>> Where do you get that stuff from? etc etc. I doubt many employers would advertise the fact if those claims of yours were true.

Dear Paul,

<<Yuyutsu, gay marriage is recognised as legal in New Zealand.>>

I know, but it's not illegal to conduct an unrecognised private or religious marriage in Australia (I did check about it, and it is so as long as no claim to it being "legal" is mentioned in the ceremony, or better still if the word "legal" is completely omitted from the protocol). Then the couple can quietly slip off to New-Zealand a few days before or after and do the legal thing there (if they even care to).

".. all of a sudden a movement founded with the explicit goal of destruction of the family is now pro marriage?"

Simply amazing, isn't it? The easily-led swallow it. It sure helps that the education system is feminist controlled and radical feminist zealots have been beavering away for decades with their Marxist-inspired propaganda to maintain the push. All funded by the exasperated taxpayer whose interests and preferences run counter to the push.

The national broadcaster is a big help to the movement with $1.3 billion, again courtesy of the long-suffering taxpayer, to prosletyse for 'Progressive' politics and providing endless opportunities for the message for be spruiked and keeping Australia-bashing clowns like Phillip Adams on the payroll.

The Labor Party is hopelessly divided by factions. Plibersek is just another careerist politician riding the feminist wagon who is serving her own personal interests and is shoring up a large superannuation for life. She is likely to jump ship if she doesn't keep moving to better seats on the feminist gravy train and before there is any accounting of what she has(n't) produced. Career politicians have to keep moving to avoid accountability and the hard work of course.

That is why there is always such a push for freeby directorships on public and private boards. They need the private company jobs because the public agencies are already stacked with their types.

Homosexuals have been hijacked by interests with their own secondary agendas to serve. As if they ever wanted to be like heterosexuals, with their 'relationships' (rad fembot new speak) and break-ups being decided by public bureaucrats, lawyers and courts. Homosexuals were sold a pup by the self-described "Wolves in sheep's clothing", the leftist 'Progressives', whose driving aim (and ideology) is precisely as they say themselves, International Socialism. Any wonder the homosexuals and 'gays' alike are now regimented and controlled by Big Sister State.

Another otb special!

Love his balanced rhetoric.

Mentions:

Feminists - 4

Progressives - 2

...and "zealots, socialism, Marxists, fembots and Leftists" - 1 apiece.

I challenge otb to write a post without mentioning feminists, progressives, Marxists, leftists, socialists or zealots.

After all, I can write a post without mentioning Abbott.

Paul, OTB,
Tech companies are sponsoring the Pride marches and using their paid employees as a literal rent-a-crowd.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/29/apple-inc-employees-pass-out-free-itunes-song-cards-at-san-francisco-lgbt-pride-parade
Gay marriage was never part of the Gay agenda, whatever is afoot now has nothing to do with Stonewall or liberation or much of anything relating to the lives of homosexuals.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/huw-lemmey/losing-pride

Paul,

Marriage equality exists in all but name. Gay partners have pretty much all the same rights as married partners, so while I support ME, I as an issue of principle rather than a serious human rights issue, which puts it fair and square into the domain of the conscience vote.

As MPs are elected to represent a constituency, party bloc voting is largely a construct to enable important, and often unpopular legislation to pass, but is being used more and more for everything. This relegates back bench MPs to the role of puppets.

Labor has been under scrutiny from the media for its low profile, 'small target' negativity.

Shorten has no policies to offer. He using this as a distraction and a hopeful wedge, and to poach some political itinerants back from the Greens (who are playing the same political games).

Labor and the Greens tried to use the Bali drug traffickers as a distraction and to wedge Abbott. The tactic failed miserably.

They have also revived Gillard's Class War, with a typical example being Labor's ill-conceived and half-baked attack on negative gearing. Dangerous stuff that risks a run of investment$$ away from housing, where successive federal governments have been dumping government responsibilities onto the private sector to provide and manage welfare housing. Gentrification, foreign investment and foolish politically correct government policies have at State and local government levels wiped out available boarding houses and other cheap share housing, especially in inner city areas. Any run of Australian investors - they are mainly small investors - away from housing will be very, very difficult to turn around.

You'd think that the public would be waking up to the distractions in lieu of practical policy and planning.

Poirot, "I challenge otb to write a post without mentioning feminists, progressives, Marxists, leftists, socialists or zealots."

Poirot, I challenge you to write a post where you actually say something, anything, that isn't just another snipe.

Poirot,

I'm holding a full house, 3 Feminists and a pair of Progressives. What's Beach got, 2 pair, zelots and socialists with a lousy fembot. He's into me for 10 Markists now. Next hand, your deal Beach, Leftists or better to open! LOL

Jay, hardly anything clandestine or sinister there, Apple doing a bit of promotion with the Gay community and its supporters, some would say good business sense.

Things have moved a long way since The 1969 Stonewall Riots, a cosmic shift in attitude from most sections of society towards gay people, I see that as a good thing, and support equality for all our brothers and sisters, be they gay, be they black, every last one of us, on this mud heap we call Earth. You view may well be different.

onthebeach...That was from olo history the biggest rant yet:)...Are you sure your going to be alright:)....The world changes...I wonder who's up to date?.....Reminders...The women/bear/pig is just the same as the man/bear/pig and some.

Tally

Paul, it's a bit more than promotion, social media (ie liberal/left capitalism) is the driver of the gay marriage push, we wouldn't even be discussing it if not for Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter.
No it's not clandestine and I didn't suggest anything of the sort, in fact I'm of the opinion that it's more to do with business than sexuality. The big tech brands market their products in such a way as they become part of a person's lifestyle, not just an accessory but a way of life. Homosexuality is something one does, like using a phone or a tablet it's not something one is or an essential quality, as such it can be seen as a commodity in the context of this discussion.
Up until five or so years ago most people had no opinion one way or another on same sex marriage, now they do because of social media and the tech companies lifestyle branding.
Take the San Francisco Pride march, about 15,000 or so active participants, the corporate contingents, Apple, Facebook,Yahoo, Kaiser Permanante, Wells Fargo to name a few, made up between half and two thirds the number of marchers and other special interest groups (Atheists, Christians, Jewish groups, anti circumcision etc) and non homosexual supporters were also there in large contingents.
The number of actual homosexuals involved in "Gay Pride" is small and seems to be dwindling and there were actually contingents in the 2014 SF parade protesting that "Pride is about celebration not incorporation".

Congrats, otb : )

Hasbeen,

"Poirot, I challenge you to write a post where you actually say something, anything, that isn't just another snipe."

Lol!...that's a laugh from the guy who, if he's not blowing his own trumpet, plods around the forum resorting to base and brute sniping toward anything or anyone he dislikes.

Here's a few recent examples of Hasbeen "saying something"

"It is rather worrying that clowns like this bloke can actually get into our diplomatic service, & worse, be our representative anywhere..."

"Yes we are in trouble, but we don't need this dill to tell us..."

"He really does qualify as a fully hide bound idiot.."

(and all those comments were directed to an article author, against directives from the moderator not to insult article authors)

"What disgusting crap NathanJ..."

"Graham, surely we get enough lefty idiot propaganda from the ABC SBS, & other media, without adding to it here."

"Jay I don't know how you can be bothered with that arrogant fool, Craig Minns."

Just a wee collection of Hasbeen's inimitable style on OLO - he who accuses moi of sniping while he skips merrily around the forum with gay abandon insulting anyone with whom he disagrees .

Hypocrite.

Poirot

Name calling is the lowest form of intelligence as you know:)...but since your the highest form of intellect, you might want to give us all you have to this problem?. Your baby boots fits you well.

Move on!

Tally

As usual with this issue, I still find it absolutely baffling as to why anyone would care whether gay people could legally marry or not.

They would have a ceremony, get a signed piece of paper, and go home to get on with their lives.
How could that possibly affect anyone else, or the rest of society?
They already have their own brand of sexual activity, and many already have kids, all perfectly legal, so why on earth will the addition of a marriage cert cause so much angst for others.?

It should be no one else's business.

It is difficult to believe that the right of all
Australians to marry still arouses controversy
today. Most of us - (younger people in particular)
believe in the right of consenting adults who
want to marry, should be able to do so - if they so choose.

What could be fairer than giving everyone the
same opportunity to marry - if they so wish?

I suppose that all this fuss comes from the belief
that there is only one "right" form of marriage
and family form. Then naturally any change will be
interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole
institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns; that each of these patterns may be, at least
in their own context, perfectly viable, and above all
that the family, like any other social institution, is
changing through time, in our own society and in others.

A conscience vote for politicians should be allowed.
And a Referendum for the public on this issue could
be the way to settle this matter.

Suse,

It is discrimination against those that hold that their marriage to a person of the opposite sex is demeaned by same sex marriage.

Changing the law is discrimination against such people.

Foxy,
Wrong, there's never been a range of different definitions for marriage, that's only been under discussion for a few years.
The goal of the Gay movement has always been the destruction of the family, for Pete's sake it's the first point in their manifesto and there's a whole section on monogamy as being inimical to homosexuality:
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp
"COMPULSIVE MONOGAMY. We do not deny that it is as possible for gay couples as for some straight couples to live happily and constructively together. We question however as an ideal, the finding and settling down eternally with one 'right' partner. This is the blueprint of the straight world which gay people have taken over. It is inevitably a parody, since they haven't even the justification of straight couples-the need to provide a stable environment for their children (though in any case we believe that the suffocating small family unit is by no means the best atmosphere for bringing up children."

Cont:
"Monogamy is usually based on ownership-the woman sells her services to the man in return for security for herself and her children-and is entirely bound up in the man's idea of property furthermore in our society the monogamous couple, with or without children, is an isolated, shut-in, up-tight unit, suspicious of and hostile to outsiders. And though we don't lay down rules or tell gay people how they should behave in bed or in their relationships, we do want them to question society's blueprint for the couple. The blueprint says 'we two against the world', and that can be protective and comforting. But it can also be suffocating, leading to neurotic dependence and underlying hostility, the emotional dishonesty of staying in the comfy safety of the home and garden, the security and narrowness of the life built for two, with the secret guilt of fancying someone else while remaining in thrall to the idea that true love lasts a lifetime-as though there were a ration of relationships, and to want more than one were greedy. Not that sexual fidelity is necessarily wrong; what is wrong is the inturned emotional exclusiveness of the couple which students the partners so they can no longer operate at all as independent beings in society. People need a variety of relationships in order to develop and grow, and to learn about other human beings.

It is especially important for gay people to stop copying straight-we are the ones who have the best opportunities to create a new lifestyle and if we don't, no one else will. Also, we need one another more than straight people do, because we are equals suffering under an insidious oppression from a society too primitive to come to terms with the freedom we represent. Singly, or isolated in couples, we are weak-the way society wants us to be. Society cannot put us down so easily if we fuse together. We have to get together, understand one another, live together.

Two ways we can do this are by developing consciousness-raising groups and gay communes."

Joy of Melb -you sure know a lot about the gay community for a straight man. Are you sure you are batting for your preferred team?

Foxy, it is certainly a case of frightened people not understanding the world of today and clinging to the old days of homophobia. They must all live in a hate filled void.

Is Mise, if anyone feels their own marriage would be affected in any way by gay people being able to get legally married, then they most certainly don't have very good marriages in the first place!

@Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 2 May 2015 11:54:46 AM,

The Gay Liberation Front Manifesto London, 1971, revised 1978 you linked to betrays the unmistakable hand of the radical Marxist and gender feminists, and their primary agenda of societal disruption and overthrow.

Young, naive, self-obsessed Gay Pride followers got it wrong, as did the lazy leftie homosexuals. They were very short-sighted to allow the Marxist feminists to bully and wrest the tiller away from them. Nothing like some attention to make easy gulls, especially where men are concerned.

I'm not sure if this will help - but
the following link gives 12 explanations
about marriage equality:

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters

There are a number of existing alternatives to traditional
marriage and family arrangements, such as single-parent
families, cohabitation, serial monogamy, reconstituted families,
childless couples, communes, "open" marriage, gay couples and
gay-parent families, and remaining single.

Many people continue to marry, however, and although a range
of alternatives is likely to be tolerated in the context of
growing individualism of post-industrial societies - some
people still view their own patterns of marriage, family,
and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, (and usually
God given as well).

Much of the current concern about the fate of the modern
family and the institution of marriage stems from this kind
of ethnocentrism. Those that assume there is only one "right"
family and marriage form, will naturally interpret any
change as heralding the doom of the whole institution.

A conscience vote by politicians, and a Referendum, would
settle the matter.

Foxy writes

' Those that assume there is only one "right"
family and marriage form, will naturally interpret any
change as heralding the doom of the whole institution'

and those who want to promote the unnatural order of things will demonise those with decency and be dumb enough to ask why our Western civilsation is crumbling. Obviously they care little about future generations or the right for children to a mother and father. Another 'stolen' generation will have to be apologised to.

Dear runner,

Kindly supply us with evidence to your claims.
No credible study has ever been found that
children are negatively impacted by being
raised in a lesbian or gay household.

Jay, you are getting desperate, quoting from the Jesuits of all people, hardly likely to present unbiased facts, now are they.
Going back to the 1970's, things have moved on from there. I am surprise your not quoting from 'Mein Kampf' on the subject. But I got to say most of your posts are interesting, and you do offer something different.

Poor old Beach is again in a total spin, confusing his Marxist/Feminists with his Feminists/Marxist, forever the believer in some great commie plot to bring down the world as we know it. Conspiracies abound in this blokes mind.

Runner, no one has a problem with your version of marriage and families, its the other way around. To you based on your religious belief, not only does everyone else have to accept your moral standards on marriage and families, they have to embrace them as well, or burn in hell.

Is Mise, you remind me of 'Horace Rumpole' and "she who must be obeyed." A couple of my all time favorites, both you on the forum, and Rumpole on TV.

Hippie, there is not much to say, unless Jay admits to wearing a pink tie or something. He will have to give you the answer to satisfy your curiosity.

Foxy and Susie, All I can say is thanks, after reading the rubbish, (see above) I come to your posts, and they restore my faith in this forum, that at least two people post things of value, for the rest of us to read. Thanks again.

Suse,

"Is Mise, if anyone feels their own marriage would be affected in any way by gay people being able to get legally married, then they most certainly don't have very good marriages in the first place!"

That is not what I said; comprehension failing you again?

Paul, you are welcome :)

Is Mise, have you already forgotten what you wrote?

No one can 'demean' or 'discriminate' against you or your marriage simply by supporting legal gay marriage, or marrying someone of the same sex.

I say again, only those who are not secure in their own marriage would feel threatened by even the possibility of the legalization of gay marriage, because to allow legal gay marriage should not affect anyone else at all.

Conservative Hippie, Suse,
So when I hold gays to their word it's homophobia but when you make silly comments about my sexual preference insinuating that I'm some sort of self hating Gay it's not?
We've gone over this before, there is no independant study of homosexuality, there is no independant coverage of Gay issues in the media, 100% of the reliable information comes from pro Gay sources, there is simply no other credible source on the topic.
To be a Gay is to reject monogamy and family life and commune with one another, that's your Gay community in a nutshell, that's Gay pride as it's written and practiced as anyone who's been absorbed in it's milieu will attest. You may want to Christianise Gays and remake the Gay commune in the image of straight society, I on the other hand value eccentric, the bohemian and the dissolute as much as I love the prudish, the conformist and the temperant.

Suse,

In the institution of marriage, as it now stands, it authorizes by either the State or Church for a couple to play in the fun parlor.

Homosexual marriage, if it comes about, will authorize playing in the garbage disposal unit and give such perverted romping the same status as normal sexual relations.

Those who don't like the present marriage arrangements can go to buggery.

Calling homosexuals married is one of those phases that equally called free love, and love child family. It is a distortion of what is good relationship.

Dear Josephus,

My wife and I have a good relationship. I don't see why people of the same sex can't also have a good relationship. How is it a distortion?

How will it hurt you if two people of the same sex have a committed relationship?

Is Mise, homosexual relationships ARE 'normal', as I am convinced they are born gay, and thus what they do is 'normal' for them. It is just different to what heterosexuals do, but is no less normal.
It is also a well known that some heterosexuals indulge in anal sex, especially in some very religious families where contraception is not allowed and they don't want too many children!

Just because some old guys who lived thousands of years ago wrote a book saying homosexuality is an 'abomination' does not make it so.
If that were the case, wouldn't we all be out there stoning all those naughty heterosexual adulterers then?
It is time to grow up and move on from irrelevant old holy books .....

David F,
The bigger question is why does "straight" society suddenly want to assimilate a parallel society which was consciously built on a platform of separatism and an ideal of communalism and mutual aid?
All of the principles and the nomenclature of the marriage equality movement were constructed out of whole cloth during the latter half of the first decade of this century, this is a social justice issue manufactured by the social justice industry.
Look at the AME site and scroll through their partners:
http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/
This is a corporate agenda, Marriage Equality is to the new capitalist class what women's suffrage was to the old capitalist class, today's middle class reformers are channeling Richard Pankhurst and Constance Lytton.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

I appreciate the comparison you made.

"Marriage Equality is to the new capitalist class what women's suffrage was to the old capitalist class, today's middle class reformers are channeling Richard Pankhurst and Constance Lytton."

Woman's suffrage is what we should have regardless of whether or not the old capitalist class supported it. We should have it because women should have as much say in public affairs as men.

Marriage Equality is what we should have regardless of whether or not the new capitalist class supports it. We should have it because Marriage Equality extends the recognition of a committed relationship to a part of society previously denied such recognition. People in a stable marital relationship are less likely to have health problems and are happier. This lessens the cost of mental and physical problems to society and increases happiness.

David F
In the UK 1409 same sex couples have tied the knot in the year since such unions became legal, that's 2818 people out of a population of some 53 millions and anecdotal evidence suggests that most of them had been together for years if not decades beforehand.
This isn't an issue of need, or discrimination or anything else, it's partly political tactics, to a large extent driven by new economy capitalist self interest and supported by the narrow demographic of the upper and middle classes who are also the shareholders in the corporate partners of Marriage Equality and the main political activists and body corporate of the major parliamentary parties.
The term "Doctor's Wives Issues" about sums up the great middle class causes, same sex marriage and LGBTIQ rights, climate change and support for illegal immigration.

Suse,

Then cruelty to animals is normal as I'm convinced that some people are born with a lack of empathy to animals.
Murder is normal because some people are born with a built in tendency to kill their fellows.

The fact that some men sodomize their wives doesn't make it normal, what's your take on a bit of marital buggery if the wife doesn't want to do it?

Sodomy is a perversion and to call the union of sodomites marriage is a denigration of a normal union.

Jay, the fact that this issue and others are supported by some sections of the middle class of our society, and it would seem in the case of gay marriage also strongly supported by other classes of society, that does not in itself make it an inherently dishonest cause. Unless you are still a believer in rigid class boundaries and still hold to the old 'class warfare' mentality of yesteryear.

Dear Is Mise,

Of course a sexual practice should only be carried on if all parties are in agreement. As far as anal sex goes I knew women who liked it. What is called a perversion to some is a source of pleasure to others. If you don't care for a particular expression of sex don't do it. If all concerned and involved are in agreement that a particular sexual practice is desirable it makes no difference that others may call it a perversion. Anal sex is not my cup of tea, but if others like it that's their business. I don't tell others what to do.

A wonderful bunch are the Persians
Who enjoy sex and other diversions
They have sex in the day
In the usual way
And reserve the night for perversions

david f,

Pulling wings off flies is a source of pleasure for some people but others would call it a perversion.

Paul,
No I don't see it as warfare and yes the old class system is no different to the new class system, it is the way of things, the working classes and the middle classes need each other and the differences of opinion disappear as soon as someone's toilet is blocked of their front room needs painting.
Politics in general is a middle class pursuit and the concept of noblesse obligé should, and in the main does still keep the bourgeoisie from abusing their power.
Gay marriage is a trivial issue, what could we expect based on the overseas experience, maybe 500-1000 people a year to enter into same sex marriages with a 15% divorce rate?

david f, "What is called a perversion to some is a source of pleasure to others. If you don't care for a particular expression of sex don't do it. ...don't tell others what to do"

You might not want to inform others of risks but the State has a responsibility to do so.

The State should not be encouraging nor implying that practices that are harmful are OK. No responsible doctor should be advising anal sex. That would be against medical ethics. Rather it would be a case of advising against it and giving reasons. Where it is apparent that it is occurring anyhow, the further ethical responsibility is to very strongly advise, among other things, that condoms be used, strictly.

It is apparent for example, that 'bare-backing' (gay slang) is popular among gays who are into risky sex and is largely responsible for the increase in HIV. Also for the jump of HIV to young heterosexual women with childbearing futures, from sex with bisexuals, particularly bisexuals who do not declare their risks sex to their female sex partner.

The government's chief doctor and the health department should be proactive in advising young women of the risks and that they DO NOT have to go along with demands for anal sex and other risky sex.

There should be a legal requirement for male bisexuals to declare to their prospective female sex partner any prior history of sex with men BEFORE having sex with them. It puts her health and that of any future children at serious risk. The woman must NOT be denied such information.

Dear Is Mise,

I wish you would read my posts carefully. My first sentence:

"Of course a sexual practice should only be carried on if all parties are in agreement."

A butterfly cannot agree to having its wings pulled off. A child cannot give informed agreement.

Dear onthebeach,

I agree with your post. People should be informed of risks.

Beach, you finally make a reasonable and sensible post without all that Marxist nonsense thrown in.

People should always be informed of health risks, like the ones you describe.

Dear otb,

Best post from you yet.
Congratulations!

Yes I agree all parties should be aware of previous sexual activities of each other before agreeing to have sex.
STD's are occurring in great numbers of all sexually active people.

I would imagine that gay men are well aware of the dangers of anal sex, but are willing to take the risks, just like smokers, drug takers and drinkers do.

Gay women don't have any more risks with sexual activity than any heterosexual couple that I am aware of. Maybe just allowing them to legally marry would be ok then Is Mise?

Suse,

"Gay women don't have any more risks with sexual activity than any heterosexual couple that I am aware of. Maybe just allowing them to legally marry would be ok then Is Mise?"

Lesbianism is a bit of a joke and those who indulge in simulated copulation with a male via a trap-on dildo are the funniest of all.
Provided that those who so indulge keep their apparatus clean and do not buy (or make) ones that are liable to breakage and resultant sharp or jagged ends, then I have no objection, provided that they don't want to call their union 'marriage'.

I remember that the "Itci Kitchi" Music Hall in Tokyo used to present a Lesbian act among their repertoire of bare breasted dancers etc.
It always brought the house down.

Lol! Is Mise, you must be very naive if you think it is only lesbian women who use sex toys!
Many women, including married women, use them, as do many men.

Again I ask, how will gay men or women getting married, when they are already indulging in the wild thing and living together and bringing up children, going to affect your marriage in any way......exactly?

Dear Is Mise,

We all have our preferences as far as sexual
practices go. Not all of us like the same things.
Therefore one should not assume to stereotype
people.

I imagine that being homosexual is not about what
sexual practices you do or do not engage in,
rather it's about who you want to have sexual
relationships with. There are many ways for each of
us to express our sexuality - and find what gives us
pleasure. I'm sure that not all homosexuals love
sex with penetration, whether with a dildo, vibrator,
fingers, hands or any other object.
We need to allow for individual differences and not
look at things in very rigid and stereotypical terms.

Suse,

You asked about health risks, so I answered you; stop moving the goal posts.

"Again I ask, how will gay men or women getting married, when they are already indulging in the wild thing and living together and bringing up children, going to affect your marriage in any way......exactly?"

They will in my eyes and in the eyes of many others lower the institution of marriage to their sub-normal level, this makes many people a bit unhappy.
The meaning of 'gay' has changed to such an extent that people who are 'happy and carefree' are hesitant about saying that they feel gay.

I couldn't care less what homosexuals get up to or what inadequate heterosexuals get up to, if some bloke can't get a woman and buys himself an inflatable doll then good luck to him, at least it won't snore; although I believe that there are programmable ones with which one can have a conversation.

But don't call such a relationship marriage.

If it is discrimination to deny homosexuals the 'right' to call their union marriage then it is also discrimination against heterosexual couples to change the meaning of the union into which they entered.

At the next election let's have a plebiscite and ask the Australian people, let's be democratic.

We can then all abide by the decision until heterosexuals start a campaign to have homosexuals excluded from using the word marriage to describe their union.

Dear Is Mise,

How will allowing two people who are in love and want
to marry lower the institution of marriage to a
"sub-normal level?

Dear Is Mise,

I am in a stable heterosexual marriage. I cannot see how allowing same sex marriage changes that in any way.

It very much affects others if they can enjoy the benefits and stability of marriage. My status and feelings will be unchanged. The status of my marriage will not be lowered in any way. Same sex marriage does not discriminate against me. I lose nothing by it.

Some people will be unhappy if same sex marriage is legal. Some people probably were unhappy when Aboriginal people became full citizens. Probably any social change will make some people unhappy. I am unhappy with the overuse of the words, fantastic and awesome, for approval of a trivial matter. Gradations of approval are lost, but I'll have to live with it. I also wish rock music will disappear, but I'll have to live with that, too.

I did not enter into marriage with the wish of denying that state to others who were at that time denied it.

The meaning of words changes whether we want them to or not. The word, gay, has changed in meaning. The meaning of the word, girl, has also changed. At one time the word, girl, meant a child of either sex.

Well said David F.

I have always wondered whether people with opinions like Is Mise are actually telling the full truth about why they feel threatened by allowing homosexual people to legally marry.

Maybe in this rapidly changing world, with religious followers rapidly declining in many churches, some people like Is Mise still clutch to the old prejudices that they believed from old fiction books like the Bible? Such as homosexuality being an 'abomination'.

Other people may feel threatened by people who are different from themselves, such as the colour of their skin, their race, their culture, their religion, or....their sexuality.
People who do feel this way must be unhappy in their own lives, that they feel the need to put others down in order to feel better about themselves.....

Gays will never get their way because marriage is only the first step. Being accepted to be in an equal relationship to a heterosexual couple will never happen so they might as well just give up because their argument is more about equality than marriage.

My marriage is real and produced children, and now grand children. So if gays do get their way, which they will in time I for one will never see their relationship as equal to mine, as will many others so go ahead and knock yourself out but don't think getting the right to be married will be the end of the fight, because this is one fight they can't win.

Dear rehctub,

Prejudices do not exist in a vacuum but are propped up
by fearful mythology. The precise mythology that says
love and parenting can exist only within certain kinds
of families and these families can only be created via
a specific type of marriage only.

A narrative has been set in stone for some people.
A young person may be unsure and can experiment but
eventually they are supposed to choose sides - as though
sexual preference determines everything else.

A culture of homophobia cannot be legislated against.

Homosexuality is still punishable by death in seven countries.

I really couldn't care less about homosexuals, they can do whatever they like but I entered into marriage within a certain definition of that state and it is discriminatory to alter that definition to pander to the wishes of a not normal sub group in society.

I have posted before of my experience with homosexual soldiers (and others who would take an 'each way bet') and all of them were good soldiers and the only problem was allocating sleeping places and who shared which fox-hole.
Picquet duty was also a problem as those on that duty needed to keep their minds on the job in hand rather than stray into dalliance in quiet moments.

Of course 'marriage' is only one more step on their perceived equality road, marriage in church will be the next step and then marriage within particular denominations.

One wonders what the followers of Muhammad will then do.

Suse'

"Is Mise, homosexual relationships ARE 'normal', as I am convinced they are born gay, and thus what they do is 'normal' for them. It is just different to what heterosexuals do, but is no less normal...."

Normal means what is common to the majority in society.
If the majority of couples in a society were homosexual then homosexuality would be normal and heterosexuality would not be normal.

"....It is also a well known that some heterosexuals indulge in anal sex, especially in some very religious families where contraception is not allowed and they don't want too many children!"

BS, if they were religious then they would not engage in sodomy and if it is well known then please give a reference.
See;http://www.sexedlibrary.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureid=1036&pageid=682&parentid=478
which gives no religious viewpoint but would seem to indicate that sodomy was not resorted to for contraception as condoms were available.

Certainly sodomy was practiced as a means of birth control in ages past but there were other methods of birth control and a ball of cow/pigs fat was effective if messy and probably a bit smelly.

Is Mise, "One wonders what the followers of Muhammad will then do"

They are doing very well as the ethnic tail that wags the Labor Party dog in marginal seats such as in Western Sydney. The big push is on by Muslim advocates is to have Muslims they support taking over as Labor candidates. That is very likely given that Labor membership don't choose candidates. The factions ironed that out a little while ago, giving themselves the veto of Labor members' choices. The outcome is that the factions will give preference to the Muslim activists to stitch up a promised few percent of the vote (hopefully a winning margin).

Amazing, how to win Labor pre-selection while having little support among members - the faction bosses' nominees win, always. The deck is stacked against the rank and file members of Labor.

At present, the Muslim lobby has been able to get Labor to reverse its previous support for Israel (remember Hawke?) to favour the Palestinians. As for what tomorrow brings, that will be interesting. Actually no it will not be interesting or surprising, because the social and political priorities of Islam are predictable. 'No-go' areas for homosexuals are probably already in existence in Western Sydney if not strongly implied. However the persons affected might be better placed to comment on that.

Is mis I agree with you that a gay relationship is not normal. Having same sex mates/ friends is perfectly normal, however, a relationship that involves sex when talking normal is one that can naturally produce a child. Gays can't do this and nothing in this time period can change that.

Dear Is Mise,

Homosexuals are a minority in Australia. So are Aborigines. Whether or not a person is in a minority is irrelevant when it comes to justice. In a just society every one is entitled to justice whether or not they are in a majority. A homosexual or an Aborigine is as entitled to just treatment whether or not they in a minority or a majority.

If we define normal by what is in the majority then whether one is normal or not doesn't matter when it comes to fair treatment.

Arguing about what or what is not normal is irrelevant in the issue of same sex marriage.

david f,

"Homosexuals are a minority in Australia. So are Aborigines. Whether or not a person is in a minority is irrelevant when it comes to justice. In a just society every one is entitled to justice whether or not they are in a majority. A homosexual or an Aborigine is as entitled to just treatment whether or not they in a minority or a majority."

I agree entirely, but it is not justice to change the definition of marriage to suit the desires of a minority group who are in no way denied justice by that definition. They are allowed by law to live together and to enjoy all the benefits of such a union.

They cannot fit the definition, the definition refers to the norm in society.

One might ask why two heterosexual people who happen to be close relatives are denied the 'right' to marry; what's wrong with a brother and sister marrying, if they love each other, particularly in these days of effective contraception and if they are unlucky enough to experience a failure, there is always abortion. Justice for all.

Dear Is mise,

The following website may clarify things for
you:

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters

rehctub wrote: "however, a relationship that involves sex when talking normal is one that can naturally produce a child."

Dear rehctub,

My wife and I have both been previously married. We both have had children in our former marriages. We have decided not to produce more children. In case you didn't know there are ways to have sexual intercourse without having children. Our union will not produce children. When we first got married we could have produced children. We had shown we were capable of it, but we decided not to do so.

I don't see how, in respect to producing children, our marriage is any different from a same-sex one. Yet we have been married 34 years so it seems stable.

It seems to me we are very much married even though we never have had children and now are too old to have them. I don't see how this is particularly different from a marital relationship which cannot produce children. Sometimes heterosexual marriages cannot produce children even though they want to.

Dear Is Mise,

The definition of marriage has been changed many times. The definition of marriage is different from place to place and from time to time. We are all the products of many generations of sexual unions - some marital others not. Many of our female ancestors had no choice at all in who they would marry. The father of the woman would get together with the father of the man and decide that there should be a marriage. it is a fairly new idea in our society that a woman would have a choice. To my mind that is the only item that I would not want changed. Everybody involved in a marital relationship should have a choice as to whether they want to be in such a relationship.

If you think there is an unchanging definition of marriage you are very wrong. It keeps changing, and same-sex marriage is just one more change. It has existed for a long time in other societies such as some of the American Indian tribes.

Dear Is Mise,

<<They are allowed by law to live together and to enjoy all the benefits of such a union.>>

Further even, no law prevents them from marrying each other. In fact no law prevents a brother and sister from marrying each other either. It's only that such marriage would not be recognised by the state - what's the big deal...

You have got to give it to the "Religious" in society, whilst loudly condemning the sexual activities of certain consenting members of the adult population, they condone by their own deceitful activity the sodomising of children by their own pedophile clergy! Hypocrisy for these people knows no bounds!

I'm still laughing, imagining Private Is Mise in his foxhole during the Boar War, suddenly being confronted by a Corporal Max Klinger type dressed in stilettos heels, and fishnet stockings, carrying a handbag instead of a gun.

"Normal means what is common to the majority in society."

I take it Is Mise, in your opinion hunting is abnormal activity, and you condemn the less than 2% of the population that participates in this deviate pastime. Those who wish to infringe the rights of the majority of the normal people by pursuing this reprehensible activity in our states national parks. I'm on side with you on that one.

Paul,

"I take it Is Mise, in your opinion hunting is abnormal activity, and you condemn the less than 2% of the population that participates in this deviate pastime. Those who wish to infringe the rights of the majority of the normal people by pursuing this reprehensible activity in our states national parks. I'm on side with you on that one."

Quite right, I agree with you, hunting is not normal in that it is not engaged in by the majority.; however that is no excuse for you to attempt to denigrate our indigenous people who still hunt.
They are a minority group, just as are shooters and the Greens.

If hunting in National Parks is such a bad thing then why did David Shoebridge of the Greens vote for it?

Talk about hypocracy!!

Paul,
Corporal Klinger was a rampaging heterosexual who was always chasing the nurses like the rest of them, if I recall my M.A.S.H lore correctly in one episode he marries his sweetheart back in Michigan but it's a good analogy nonetheless. Klinger made a mockery of army regulations and traditions but was tolerated nonetheless, when the chips were down he was reliable but neither Colonels Blake nor Potter would give in to his demands or take the bait of his endless provocations, there's a lesson for politicians there. In every group there's going to be a Max Klinger and a Frank Burns, in a sane world there'd be a Colonel Potter to say a flat No! to their outrageous demands and Pierce and McIntyre to keep them in check with compassion and good humour.

Errata, Klinger was of course from Toledo Ohio...and I claim M.A.S.H as one of my all time favourite programmes LOL.

Jay 4.30am Foxtel Classics, never miss an episode, MASH a great anti-war show if ever there was one. Max Klinger, even made corporal.

I see Tanya Plibersek has now got slapped down by just about every labor power broker.

What a surprise!

Plibersek is typical of the career politicians who got there riding a wagon and are legless whenever they depart from their script. She and others like her are fortunate that the media hounds, the ABC in particular, constantly allow her free runs and never lay a glove on her. Penny Wong is the same. Wong could talk under water with her mouth full of marbles, but soon failed to impress when she was elevated to the role of Finance Minister, where she has to be accountable.

Tania Plibersek is urging MPs to work for reform,
not argue over the process. Her argument seems
to be that Labor votes as one on all equality
issues - except marriage equality.
Whereas Mr Shorten's view appears to be that it's
best to convince than force.

Senator Sinodinos supports a Coalition free vote
on marriage equality. This is a basic Liberal
principle - freedom of individual conscience.

Clearly discussion of a Labor Party marriage equality
has not dampened the debate on a Coalition free vote,
as some people feared, but has inspired further debate
about the Coalition's and Labor's stance.

Perhaps a conscience vote will eventuate out of all
this.

david f,

of course the definition of marriage has been changed many times, so what?

We are talking about the definition in Australia today and as one who entered into the contract under a certain definition I think that all citizens of voting age should be consulted regarding any change to the contract's definition,

Let the people decide; why is there such an apparent fear of democracy?

Dear Is Mise,

I have no objection to a referendum. I have already stated that I object to forcing the Labor members to vote contrary to their conscience.

As far as the definition changing it will not affect my marriage at all if people of the same sex get married. When I got married it was not a question in my mind about the definition of marriage. I don't see how people of the same sex getting married will affect my marriage to a person of the opposite sex. If you are married I don't see how it will affect your marriage either.

david f,

It won't affect my marriage but it will alter the definition of marriage, therefore the definition of my marriage will be changed and this is what I object to.

As far as I'm concerned homosexuals can get up to all the perversions that they care to but their unions are not marriage.

They told us for years that they were different, that they wanted to be different and now they desperately want to be the same.

I do wonder how homosexuals get on in Muslim areas.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I oppose "party voting" because each Member of Parliament represents his/her constituency. It always should be a free conscious vote for every voting member.
Fancy a political party/coalition in power to order its Senators to do a "party vote" this would undermine the very reason the Senate exist for. A Member of Parliament being a member of a political party may consider his/her party policy but musty in the end vote what his/electorate desires, even if this contrary to the party's policy.
As for my views about homosexuality and any forced acceptance my post published at <http://joemiller.us/2015/05/radical-threat-federal-government-to-force-christian-schools-across-nation-to-close-doors/> may indicate what I am on about!
As much as homosexuality was practiced for thousands of years so was bestiality and paedophilia and why allow for one kind of minority group and not for the other? then again those who desire Stone Age practices may just revert to it all together. The Greens no longer making their carbon footprints flying about in aeroplanes, using mobiles, computers, etc, because being environment conscious they will show us good examples! The same with Tanya and her followers. Let them practice what they preach before expecting others to take their word for it!

Another "Christian" right winger wanting to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

"As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I oppose "party voting"" but here is a link to a yank conservative from the REPUBLICAN PARTY. Mr Miller is out to restore liberty by having the US trash the rest of the world. What was he doing in Iraq?

Then there is Kath the little woman who is out to "help women to catch a vision for Truth." by providing "homemaking tips". I am sure Kath has a delish scone recipe for you girls, in that way you can please your man, and possible avoid the nightly beating!

Go get em' Joe and Kath!

I posted the link as to my post on it and not as to what was stated in the article. That should have been clear from my earlier post.

'Then there is Kath the little woman who is out to "help women to catch a vision for Truth." by providing "homemaking tips". I am sure Kath has a delish scone recipe for you girls, in that way you can please your man, and possible avoid the nightly beating!'

Of course Paul would not be half interested in the truth that domestic violence including murder is at a much higher rate among the homosexual community that the hetros. Just does not fit his grubby little narrative.

Dear runner,

Kindly supply us with evidence to your claims.

"Get your facts first - then you can distort
them as you please."
(Mark Twain).

Oh Foxy you know things have to be bad when even the beloved BBC need to face some facts

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648

by the way there are many studies confirming this fact if you simply want to google.

Dear runner,

I am pleased that you did get your facts.
I read the article with interest - especially
the reasons for why this behaviour occurs among
some homosexual couples. Which confirms that in order
to understand any issue we need to look critically at the causes,
circumstances, context. or any other such considerations -
the same as we do with domestic violence among heterosexuals.
There's even more on the subject of the causes that you also
can Google on the web.

Of course, some people are more interested in condemnation
than in explanation. Explanations to some seem tantamount to
sympathising and excusing. This is what all too easily leads
onto the questionable practice of stereotyping. Continued
stereotyping, however can encourage "counter-stereotyping"
and the result is usually a complete breakdown in communication.

cont'd ...

Dear runner,

this is a bit off subject - however on another
discussion you refer to the "good old days."
Seeing as I've currently used up my posts on
that discussion I'll refer you to a link
that gives another perspective on the "good old
days."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/was-life-better-in-the-good-old-days-20141102-11f2yh.html

'this is a bit off subject - however on another
discussion you refer to the "good old days."

Please give me the link as I don't recall using that term.

Dear runner,

Take a read of your "nostalgic comments"
on my capital punishment discussion.
It just may jog your memory. Page 26 -
may help.

Paul,

"Another "Christian" right winger wanting to tell the rest of us how to live our lives."

Do you mean like the Greens?

There was a bizarre incident in Paris on ANZAC Day involving The Australian Ambassador to France, Stephen Brady, Brady's partner of 32 years, Peter Stephens, and the Mad Monk Tony Abbott.

At the official greeting of Abbott someone from "Team Abbott" request that Peter Stephens should be kept out of sight and stay hidden in the Ambassadors car. We don't want gays coming out of the closet, and embarrassing dear old Tone now do we. Shocking behavior again, by you know who. Bradly rightly refused the demand and offered his resignation over the whole sorry incident.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ambassador-to-france-offers-resignation-after-bizarre-abbott-airport-incident-20150505-ggunu9.html

Paul,

From your link,
"Mr Abbott hosted a farewell dinner for Mr Brady and Mr Stephens when the couple left Canberra to take up the Paris job.

The prime minister also invited them to a staff dinner in Paris on April 26."

from your post,
"Shocking behavior again, by you know who...."

Given the above from the SMH it probably wasn't Tony, so tell us who.

Come off it Is Mise, you can't sugar coat this one. This kind of represhesable behavior by a member of 'Team Abbott' is the responsibility of the team captain, Abbott!
Stephen Brady is one of Australia's most distinguished career diplomats, having only this year being awarded an Order of Australia. Abbott's term as PM is also going to be distinguished, distinguished by his thoughtless behavior.
We can only imagine what Abbott had to say when he met the US first lady, Michelle Obama.
We need to start a concerted campaign to convince the rest of the world, that Tony Abbott is the Prime Minister of Austria.

Dear Paul1405,

Some Americans don't know the difference between Austria and Australia. One time when I was in the United States I placed a person to person call to my wife in Australia and woke up a woman in Vienna.

True David maybe Austria is not the place, not far enough away, I'll rephrase that.

We need to start a concerted campaign to convince the rest of the world, that Tony Abbott is the Prime Minister of Antarctica.

I can just hear the howls of protest from the penguins now.

"Mr Abbott hosted a farewell dinner for Mr Brady and Mr Stephens when the couple left Canberra to take up the Paris job."

Reprehensible, Paul?

What motivated "Team Abbott" to request Peter Stephens to be hidden in the car. How many times have companions of the opposite sex been requested to hide in cars or closets etc when their partner has been required to meet the Mad Monk? No one has come forward and said "As the wife of the male ambassador I am regularly asked to hide in a broom cupboard when the PM's in town." Seems Stephen Brady a very experienced diplomat went off his brain at this bizarre suggestion. I wonder why, if its so common place?

Gay hosting in Canberra, makes homophobia okay in Paris?

I'm pro gay marriage. I don't see what is wrong with that.

What is wrong about gay marriage, as proposed, Luca, is that it would expand a government function.

Government should not be involved in personal matters, marriage included. If gay (and non-gay) people want to marry without the government's blessings, then they are already free to do so.

Homosexuals already have equal rights to live together as lovers. Persons of the same gender cannot create a marriage, as marriage is a biological term meaning the uniting of the uniting of sperm with ova with the potential to create a child in their image. Births, deaths and marriage are all biological events that the Government records because it effects population statistics. That is the reason defacto relationships are recorded as it has that potential.

Dear Josephus,

If a marriage is registered by the state it means whatever the state chooses it to mean.

Davidf, If the term marriage can mean anything then it does not describe in specific terms the union of a man and a woman and a descriptive term needs to be found to describe exactly a lifelong agreement between a man and a woman to engage in copulation to produce children. The state has no interest in other relationships as it does not effect or change population.

Dear Josephus,

I am married to a woman, but we have no children. We did not intend to have children when we got married. I guess you wouldn't consider us married. I guess you wouldn't consider king Solomon married to all his wives. The meaning of marriage changes with the times.

The meaning of the term marriage has never changed. It has always meant a biological union of a man and a woman, any changes is a recent distortion to its meaning. It has never meant homosexual acts.

Dear Josephus,

http://members.tripod.com/~berdache_two/twospirit.htm tells about the culture of the American Indians. Some tribes recognise same sex marriage. I don't know why it bothers you so. Nobody is forcing you to enter such a union. However, it certainly has been a recognised form of union.