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.