Dear Paul,

I wonder, was it allowed to walk naked in public BEFORE the Victorian era? Since the Victorian elite was so double-faced as you noted yourself, how can you tell for sure that behind that mask of Puritanism was not a dirty deal with the textile industry?

It is obviously disgusting how a secular government, itself immoral to the core, attempts to impose morality (or its concept thereof) on others. This does not mean that morality does not exist, only that it is immorally enforced.

«There is no difference with SSM laws»

A correct analogy would be between laws that prohibit nudity and the laws that prohibited homosexual acts.

Existing law does not forbid homosexuals to marry, but rather denies them a government service. As that "service" is in fact a disservice, the right thing is to cancel it altogether, not to expand it.

---

Dear Leoj,

Yes, all references to personal relationships have no place in legislation: not only legal-marriage, but "de facto" too. Both should go out the window.

If for any reason you still want your relationship recognised by a public body, then register your relationship with a body that you can respect.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"how can you tell for sure that behind that mask of Puritanism was not a dirty deal with the textile industry?"

No more than I can prove there was no dirty deal with space aliens to make people wear clothing. Can you provide evidence that there was a dirty deal, with anybody?

On the question of fake morality as it relates to the SSM issue. I would not be surprised if many of those who are pushing the immoral aspect of homosexuality, and therefore demanding a "No" vote do not themselves engage in immoral acts, such as self masturbation, or havuing at sometime engaged with a prostitute. Something that the churches that condemn homosexual acts also condemn as being against gods law. Maybe those people are also double-faced as you put it.

//I wonder, was it allowed to walk naked in public BEFORE the Victorian era? Since the Victorian elite was so double-faced as you noted yourself, how can you tell for sure that behind that mask of Puritanism was not a dirty deal with the textile industry?//

Haven't you guys heard of Lady Godiva? Possibly just a myth, but an old and enduring story even if it is a load of cobblers. You should have a read, Yuyutsu - folktales are very instructive. Lady Godiva's story gives us a fairly good indication of the attitude towards public nudity at the time it was created. I won't give away any spoilers.

I have a short announcement to make:

Following the abusive threat of Senator Bernardi to send robots to intrude on people in the privacy of their homes (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/cory-bernardi-behind-robocalls-to-urge-millions-to-vote-no/8998500), I no longer support the 'No' campaign and had I known in advance about Bernardi's repugnant intentions before I voted, I would have surely boycotted this survey.

That's big of you Yuyutsu, but I could not understand your logic for voting in the first place, given your stance on government intrusion in peoples private lives. You did give reasons why you voted.

The "No" campaign is equally intrusive as the "Yes" mob. One side wants the law a certain way, the other side wants it another way, but they both want a law.

I can't understand the logic of that joker, Senator David Leyonhjelm who claims he is for the rights of the individual. Despite that there is Leyonhielm a member of a political party sitting in the parliament making lots of new laws.

Takes this from the Liberal Democrats;

"The Government is comprised of politicians and public servants with no special insight or wisdom." Does that include Leyonhielm?

"it (Government} constantly tells us what is best for us and how to run our lives" Every time Leyonhielm votes yes for a new law, he does exactly that.

"The Liberal Democrats believe government have neither the expertise, nor the rights to tell people how to run their lives." If Leyonhielm actually believed that, he would not be in there doing exactly that.

Call the Cory Hotline today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo1weahou0k

//Following the abusive threat of Senator Bernardi to send robots to intrude on people in the privacy of their homes... I no longer support the 'No' campaign and had I known in advance about Bernardi's repugnant intentions before I voted, I would have surely boycotted this survey.//

I hear you, Yuyutsu. I hate being called by robots - especially if they're going to play me a recording of Cory. Apparently this guy is so out of touch with the Australian public that he doesn't know that EVERYBODY hates telemarketers and their ilk. This is why we have the 'Do Not Call' register - although what's the bet that Cory, in his hubris, will go ahead and ignore the register?

I don't mind the 'no' campaign advertising, leaflet dropping etc. I may disagree with what they say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it - unless they say through the medium to a telemarketing call, in which case they can go fornicate themselves.

For those of you who are as annoyed about this as Yuyutsu and myself, I propose engaging in a bit of direct democracy. Here are Cory's phone numbers (so good of him to provide them):

http://www.corybernardi.com/contact

Since Cory so fervently believes that we're all desperate to hear the sound of his whiny voice, I'm sure he'd be equally thrilled to receive lots of phone calls from people telling him their opinions on telemarketers.