Dear Toni Lavis,

I also watched QandA on Monday evening and I agree
with you. The conservative journalist made a very favourable
impression on me as well - certainly better than some
of the other panelists. Thank You for giving us his quotes
here on the Forum.

Dear ttbn,

There are quite a few studies listed on the web about
the differences in conservative and progressive brains.
If you were to Google "Differences in Conservative and
Progressive Brains" or "Biology and Political Orientation,"
they should come up. There's examples of studies done
in Scientific American, Wikipedia, and other sources.
Your choice as to which ones appeal to you.

“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."

What has this to do with SSM? Do only married people love each other? Cannot unmarried couples also have dignity and openness?

Sounds like discrimination to me.

Governments should have no role in anyone's personal relationships. It most certainly should not be sponsoring or endorsing fake marriages for homosexuals as both the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Greens are shamelessly doing now.

Foxy,

I believe your 'studies' are junk science and psycho babble. I understand that the slur against conservatives would have appeal to you, though.

Toni Lavis,

What you and Foxy (seeing you are joined at the hip according to dependent Foxy) are avoiding is the disadvantage the public are labouring under in being forced into a black or white, yes or no, vote on something that is only the tip of a whole bundle of seemingly intractable problems, wicked problems, that are NOT being discussed and every time anyone asks for elucidation s/he is shooed away and sledged.

As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, the discussion of SSM has been the preserve of the political elite, which includes activists such as yourself and Foxy, who have the inclination and time to dwell on the subject, avidly watching Q&A and Googling endlessly. very likely it is your meal subject too.

But the greatest majority of people have not been privvy to access to those sites inner sanctums of activists and so on. The public is more concerned with other things such as providing for themselves and family and they have other, usually broader interests.

It is completely unreasonable that they should be put in gthe position of having a y or n vote only and are to be excluded, as before, from knowing about and discussing the practical issues that could impinge on them and their loved ones. Besides, feminists and 'progressives' 'know', they are adamant, that marriage is broken and has always been hugely disadvantageous to women. So why are they suddenly all for it and pushing it onto homosexuals?

Go outside the Family Court and interview the sad and much poorer victims (feminists and 'Progressives' would call them victims and in this case they are) of marriage. What about the delays of years and alienated children? No interest in fixing any of that, not even in talking about it.

Trust 'them' to turn marriage on its head and do more political deals behind closed doors? What, when 'they' haven't 'fessed' up to their mess?
You are kidding, not likely and NO. Clean up the messes before proposing SSM.

I wonder why the politicians would not reveal just what legislation they will be debating if the YES vote comes out on top before they issued the 'survey' papers. If the vote is NO, that will be the end of it until Labor gets into power and enforces a non-democratic decision as they have threatened they will; but a YES vote doesn't end the matter entirely. We don't know how far they will go to 'protect' the fake marriages.

We are being kept in the dark. We are allowing ourselves to be put to sleep. This is how totalitarian regimes are created.

//the discussion of SSM has been the preserve of the political elite, which includes activists such as yourself and Foxy//

So because I post on OLO I'm a politically elite activist? Sorry to burst your bubble, but if the Venn diagram is to be constructed that way, you're as much as of a politically elite activist as myself.

//who have the inclination and time to dwell on the subject//

Et tu, brute.

//avidly watching Q&A//

Avidly? It's only on for an hour a week, and not all 52 of the year. I watch more porn than that.

//and Googling endlessly//

Actually, that bit is true. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

//It is completely unreasonable that they should be put in gthe position of having a y or n vote only and are to be excluded, as before, from knowing about and discussing the practical issues that could impinge on them and their loved ones.//

Whilst that is a lovely utopian ideal, Joel, a representative democracy where everybody is a representative is entirely impractical and little better than anarchy.

//So why are they suddenly all for it//

Are you sure they're all for it? Have you really asked them all? What did I just say about not being taken in by that charlatan the 'Amazing' Phanto? He doesn't know how to read minds, and he'll just spend your tuition fees on gin. You've been had, lad.

//and pushing it onto homosexuals?//

And once again I must remind you that everybody gets a free vote in the survey, and that if the 'yes' vote is carried, nobody will be forced to get gay married. This isn't about anybody pushing anything onto anybody, Joel.

No rebuttal to Bret's argument, then?