Dear Shadow Minister,

Of course violence is not OK.

And of course the anarchist's headbutt of Tony
Abbott had nothing to do with the same-sex marriage
campaign. We see some awful actions undertaken by
certain people on both sides of political campaigns.
But we don't assume that everyone is guilty of
them. It just takes a few nutters to give things a
bad name. The following link explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/it-was-nothing-to-do-with-samesex-marriage-anarchist-dj-who-headbutted-ton-abbott-speaks-out-20170922-gymu2z.html

I cited the other link of the street artist because I
assumed that you did have a sense of humour - and I
thought you may see the funny side of his actions as
opposed to the violence of the other guy.

Both men expressed their feelings in totally different ways
and this was an illustration of the direction that political
campaigns can take for different people.

Here's another link that presents another perspective:

http://theconversation.com/on-marriage-equality-australias-progressive-instincts-have-been-crushed-by-political-failure-83796

Toni Lavis,

Any self-respecting leftie should be waking up to the stupidity of allowing the State to further limit social bonding options. The State can do that automatically in many more cases now, thanks to Eighties rad feminist Gillard. Now marriage to top it off and push in the reinforcement rods? And what for, to line the already bulging wallets of the already privileged middle class, mostly bureaucrats, academics and pollies?

Particularly where there are already doubts, evidence, that what is already in place is not working for many people and is creating casualties. Instances of the last mentioned would be individuals, couples, who lose their assets of years of saving to legal processes, and the sheer numbers of alienated people, adults and children, parents, carers, grandparents.

However for social, health, housing, transport, energy and a host of other reasons we should be encouraging innovation in different living and alternative bonding, arrangements.

I will leave it at that because any with wit should be stimulated to think of high rise group housing in lieu of those terraces and stand alone houses in Sydney for example. Maybe homosexual group housing is an option to consider? What about the aged, where it is abundantly obvious that the Seventies ideal of a unit or single room in an everything provided low rise facility in a way-out-there suburb fails them in all of the valued dimensions, social, health, autonomy and financial? They live impoverished lives and die early from boredom and the diseases of physical and mental activity. Why shouldn't they be able to continue life as their fitness dictates, including socially and sexually? Possible with development of high density housing in inner city. What about no need for private transport? Shared gardens too.

Honestly, the faux leftists and so-called 'Progressives' are anything BUT progressive. 'Their' solution is to rub the Xtians' noses in the do do. A certain but pyrrhic victory. They should be running a mile from marriage and demanding change to Gillard's presumptuous 'initiatives'.
Old School and authoritarian? Yes.
Innovative, human, adventurous and caring? No.

"self-respecting leftie". Is there such a thing, leoj?

Research shows conservative and progressive brains
are physically different, with right-wingers being
much more susceptible to fear.

So the next time you want to chat someone up here's
what you do. You just figure out if they're Labor,
Greens or a Coalition supporter and then you either
make them think or scare the life out of them.

Piece of cake.

What research was that then Foxy?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- The United States Declaration of Independence

//Any self-respecting leftie//

And what about those that aren't lefties? I'm guessing you didn't watch Q&A on Monday night - too many lefties - but if you did you would have got to hear conservative American journalist Bret Stephens making the following comments:

"You know, you made the argument for equality. As a conservative, I make the argument from a standpoint of freedom. People have a right – at least in America and it ought to be everywhere – to pursue their own happiness. That’s fundamental.
And by the way, that’s fundamentally a conservative idea, that the individual in his or her pursuit of happiness ought to be the primary concern of a fair-minded government. Government should not stand in the way of your ability to make the most important decision of your life, which is who you love, and to love them with dignity and openness in a sense that this is absolutely OK for not just for yourself but for everybody."

Now, I don't consider myself a Tory, but I found myself nodding in agreement far more with Bret than I did with Penny Wong or Sarah Hanson-Young. That's pretty much my view position on SSM, except without the 'as a conservative' bit. Other than that we're in furious agreement.

I'd be interested to see how you'd respond to the very reasonable arguments of a self-confessed Tory, since you're so desperate to turn this into some sort of political football instead of engaging with the arguments put forward. Which, by the way, is making the ad hominem fallacy: arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not the identity of the person making them.

Although I suspect it's just going be 'no true Scotsman...'