Dear Paul,

«I want to walk naked down George Street in Sydney at 12 noon Friday. Can I? yes. Will I hurt anyone by doing that? no. Well, why am I getting arrested? I don't know. Can you explain?»

Sure you should be able to do this and it's wrong to arrest you.

The reason you get arrested, is that some government in the past (perhaps even back in England) received bribes from the textile industry. While there is no longer a textile industry here, the law remained and nobody can remember how exactly it came about...

Hi Yuyutsu,

We both know that being naked in public, has nothing to do with the textile industry. Rather it has a lot to do with prudish Victorian attitudes of past elites, despite the fact it did not impact on them directly, other than the sight of naked bodies in public offending their sensibilities. These elites in their wisdom created laws to protect their prudish beliefs. and have their moral attitudes become the accepted norm. From the church pulpits they convinced the rest of society, the poor majority who had no say, that their moral attitudes was the correct one, and therefore their laws were justified. The same applied to other moral laws like vagrancy.

There is no difference with SSM laws. At one time the elite were so opposed to homosexuality that they made it a criminal offence and locked such undesirables in jail, as punishment. Today through the liberalisation of society, locking up is no longer acceptable, but prejudice still remains, now it requires a whole lot of argie-bargie of asking the vast majority if its okay to change a moral law which does not effect them anyway.

Paul,

The elite were opposed to homosexuality ?! Don't you know anything about Victorian England ? One married for an heir, then - as long as it was done discreetly - both parties could shag around with whoever you like, hetero or homo ? Oscar Wilde's crime was to flaunt it: what sort of influence might that have on the lower classes ?

That raises the questions: Has homosexuality usually - not always, but usually - been a preference of the upper classes ? Did Marx approve of it, anywhere in his writings, even obliquely ? I don't think so.

Anyway, it's legal now, so

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Paul,

I'm not sure of homosexuality being accepted by the
upper classes. Take the case of Prince George, Duke
of Kent, who was destined to become Australia's
Governor-General but when he died in mysterious
circumstances in a plane crash at the age of 39, the
man was simply air-brushed from royal history. No statue
was erected to him, no memorial bears his name.

Interesting.

Hi Joe and Foxy,

The upper class of Victorian England was full of people who had double standards when it came to morality. Openly prudish in the extreme, but privately they go up to all sorts of mischief. It didn't stop them from passing anti-homosexual laws.

Paul1405,

You refer to 'liberalisation' yet you are usually opposed to it, to economic liberalisaton for instance.

"Liberalization (or liberalisation) of the economy means to free it from direct or physical controls imposed by the government. This may be similar to deregulation" [Wikipedia]

But how in the world can Gillard's regulation of homosexual relationships and the proposed limitation under the reconstructed Marriage Act ever be construed as 'liberalisation'? It is arguably the reverse.

Lipstick on the pig doesn't change anything and nor does all of that rainbow bun ting and chanting 'equality'(sic). Up until Gillard's radical feminist tinkering with de facto 'relationships', homosexuals were adult enough and free as birds to resolve their break-ups and any belongings themselves. Now the Federal court is involved and public servants can deem a homosexual's relationship for him/her. They are also required under force of State violence and incarceration as required, to register their private relationships under some circumstances.

Liberalised? BS! But the already entitled and well-off gained, many being in sinecures in public employment and politics. So the abuse of the rights and finances of the less well off herd and the political capital of protesting was worth it you say.