Well - it has passed. Same Sex Marriage is now
legal in Australia.

After so much division - only four members voted
no against the Bill, while nine abstained.
The overwhelming majority passed the Bill.

How do posters feel now that this has happened?

We had so much discussion prior to this happening.
I thought it may be interesting to see what people
feel now. And if anybody has changed their mind
to what they felt previously?

I support same sex marriage and always did.

I agree that churches and other religious organisations should be allowed to refuse to marry same sex couples. Churches are someone else's club and those people get to write the rules. I wish they had allowed military chaplains to refuse to conduct services.

I don't believe businesses should be allowed to refuse to cater without being sued. Businesses owned by religious organisations were exempted and I agree with this.

Please correct me if I have my facts wrong.

On the ABC this morn there was a discussion about how the "Gay" lobby can progress from here and change the minds of the people who voted 'No' so that there is close to 100% acceptance.

I'm pleased that my local MP stuck to his word and voted 'yes', despite being against same-sex marriage, because that was what the majority of his electorate wanted.

Meanwhile, the Betoota Advocate has a brilliant satirical piece mocking the loopy conspiracy theory that it is all a cunning plan to destroy the family unit:

'“Phase One Complete” Says Militant Homosexual' (http://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/phase-one-complete-says-militant-homosexual)

"The leader of a vast secret network of homosexual terrorists hellbent on corrupting Australian family values to their very core has today ordered his foot soldiers to turn their attention to their next target, after successfully destroying the institution of marriage."

I'm not sure that there will ever be 100% acceptance.
Look at the 4 politicians who voted no and the nine
who abstained. It's unlikely they will ever change their
minds. They haven't to date, and that's fine. We've heard
all the arguments - again, and again, and again.

But at least finally the 45th Parliament has finally voted
and legalised same-sex marriage on Thursday 7th December 2017.
It's been a long journey and undoubtedly one about which
many have mixed feelings.

At least the postal survey told us what we already
knew via opinion polls. That roughly 6 out of 10
Australians were in favour of same sex marriage.
And now it's official.

Three of the four no voters in parliament were Queenslanders.

Bob Katter (Kennedy), LNP MPs - David Littleproud
(Maranoa) and Keith Pitt (Hinkler). They were joined
by Liberal MP Russell Broadbent from Victoria who
joined the lonely crew on the no side of the House.

Nine MPs, all members of government were absent from
the chamber at the time of the vote.

They were - Deputy PM Barnaby Joyce, Treasurer Scott
Morrison, Former PM Tony Abbott, assistant ministers
Alex Hawke and Michael Sukkar, Liberal MPs - Andrew Hastie,
Kevin Andrews and Rick Wilson and Nationals MP George
Christensen.

Yes, Foxy, if anything good has come from the unnecessary survey, it’s that the opponents need to accept what the polls over the last 13 years should have already told them: that the majority wanted marriage equality.

However, as Magda Szubanski noted a few days ago: with the unknown (and unqualifiable) human cost of such an ugly campaign, who could really know if the survey was worth it in the end? Simply passing the law and letting the opponents lump it may have been the better option. At least this way there is a greater air of legitimacy to the change, though.

Is Mise,

What do you reckon? Complete arrogance, naivety, or just plain disrespectful of the 40% who voted NO? These ardent Leftists really think that people who find homosexuality totally disgusting, and genuinely regret having the tradition of marriage hurled out on a perverted whim are going to change their minds? Tell them they are joking. Hang on, though. They are probably not joking as they now smell blood and the possibility of dragging society down a lot further yet. Even poor fools who were conned by the call for 'equality' will now know that they were actually conned. Too late of course. Yeah, 60% voted YES, and we are not likely to hear anything about the 'tyranny of the majority' from the Marxist Left, who have contempt for majorities when they don't act as they are supposed to.

So, it's now legal, and the smug bastards are over the moon. That will not make a jot of difference to to NO voters, who will have even more contempt for them. We now have two parallel societies, just because of a lousy 3% of lousy people. But, 'legal' does not mean 'right'.

I suppose that some, maybe many, SSM activists will suffer unsettling anticlimax. There will be a large hole in their lives. What to do now? - A reminder of Spike Milligan's skit, 'What are we going to do now?' (repeat over and over)

I am sure you can stand down now Foxy. Returning to bayonet the vanquished few left on the field (or in the Parliament) is never a good look.

Hopefully the Parliament, both Houses (and the ABC), might get some time for those 'wicked' problems now. 'Struggle Streets' anyone? Nope, all are leaving on holiday abroad.

Dear AJ,

Most of us learned early in high school that our
Representative Democracy was - that we elect members
of Parliament to make decisions on our behalf without
the need to take contentious issues to a public vote.
But instead of doing their jobs our Members of
Parliament handed the reins over to us and in the
process gave a megaphone to the most hateful elements
in Australian society, on both sides of the argument.

That's why today many people will have mixed feelings
about this entire process.
And if that wasn't enough our Prime Minister
then ceded the parliament floor for 2 whole days to
allow every MP to do what voters are sick of hearing
them do - argue. We had to hear the same crackpot
rubbish again, and again, and again. Especially
from people like Bob Katter.

But at least it is now official. Despite the long
haul that it's been. Some will be celebrating, but most
will simply be tired and glad that it's finally over.

The 'Use By' date for SSM activists, both sides, has expired. Everyone is going on the Summer hols.

Maybe a soft cover, 'What to do with left over SSM activists' and recycled quickly as egg cartons.

Here is what LGBTI politicians had to say about
the passing of the same-sex marriage bill in
Parliament, in their own words:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-bill-parliaments-lgbti-politicians-in-their-own-words-20171207-h00kp2.html

It's quite moving.

Not feeling so gay as you once did? Feeling a big let-down? Anticlimax? Lost the highs of virtue-signalling and sledging? YOU could be suffering from Post-SSM Activist Syndrome!

I am really looking forward to doing the reading
"The Art of A Good Marriage" by Wilferd Arlan
Peterson at a close friend's gay wedding next year.
It will mean a great deal.

The words are quite beautiful. And well worth a
Google.

"Happiness in marriage is not something that just happens
A good marruage must be created
In marriage the little things are the big things...

There's more on the web.

Enjoy!

Dear Foxy,

The state's recognition of SSM came at no surprise at all.

Yet, I am disappointed about the collusion between church and state and the resulting preferential treatment and protection of established "religions" over the unprotected personal religious and moral convictions of individuals that are not affiliated with the powerful churches.

«Well - it has passed. Same Sex Marriage is now legal in Australia.»

It always was.

---

Dear Benq,

«I don't believe businesses should be allowed to refuse to cater without being sued. Businesses owned by religious organisations were exempted and I agree with this.»

So those affiliated with the big organised churches can do whatever the like with impunity, but those who are not might be ordered to break their vows or face the courts (including those who undertook such vows that were perfectly legal at the time). This you consider fair?

---

Dear Ttbn,

«So, it's now legal»

Why, it was legal all along and no law previously prevented two people of the same gender from marrying.

Nothing changed and nothing happened to the tradition of marriage, because the registration of "marriages" by the state has little to do with the actual fact or otherwise of marriage.

As I previously wrote. Now begins the real test. If the Gaiz think they have won something, good for them. But as history and the records show, in every country where this Gai marriage was passed, there was a sudden and sharp rise in the incidents of VRO's, hospitalisation, separations, divorce, assaults and more bad things all suddenly came from the Gai community and all between the Gaiz. The Gaiz did not think this through. They created a 'shitstorm' and now it will dump very heavily on those who would least expect it. If you recall I gave a 'heads-up' by saying watch out look over your shoulder. To which I was vilified for making veiled threats. If I want to make threats I will do so I don't need to hide behind something like they do. Anyway according to the newspaper of the day, I was right again. The poofter bashing campaign was raised a couple of notches and yes Gaiz got their Christmas jollies a little early this year. So enjoy your new found status, but remember, keep looking over your shoulder!

Foxy, I am surprised at some of the names who were absent from the vote. It smacks of a conspiracy to save face and follow party line. If one is not there to vote, they won't be showing their hand. If that is true then these pollies are hypocrites one and all. Abbott made a big deal about voting NO and when the time came, he wasn't there? It's clear to me that these people are gutless and rather than stand and fight would rather crawl under a rock and shiver in fear. Had these morons voted as they suggested, NO, I wonder what the outcome would have been. Instead it was arranged and agreed behind closed doors, for the greater good of the bloody party, let's sell out Australia to the whims of a very small and irrelevant minority. I'm not the only one who has noticed this let down. I hope it costs them at the next election. As for the SSM act, it's OK we now have time to pick away at the act and slowly amend it to the satisfaction and work-ability of the NO camp and the real Australian majority, not just those in the postal vote.

//The poofter bashing campaign//

Campaign? There is no campaign, ALTRAVING. Poofter bashings are random acts of violence by a thankfully very small number of sociopaths (because they're the only people that think it's a good idea).

//but remember, keep looking over your shoulder!//

Good advice, ALTRAVING. Very good advice indeed ;)

Dear Yuyutsu,

Same sex marriage was not legally allowed under the
laws of the land in Australia. It will now at least
bring institutional recognition. We have all heard
the accounts of people not being able to go into
medical facilities to say good-bye to their dying
partners or they have not been given recognition in
hospital situations. Legal marriage will now change that.
And that is only right that we all are treated equally
under the law. I'm sure that you will agree.

Dear ALTRAV,

Six out of 10 Australians are in favour of same sex
marriage. And your concerns about people committing
violent acts probably only applies to a small
minority in our society. Most normal, decent people
would not commit acts of violence. Those that will
commit violent acts will have the full force of the
law thrown at them. That's not to say that people
who are homophobic will probably stay homophobic.
Attitudes are changed by hard work and constant
education. Our hope lies with the younger generations.
And the families and friends of gay people.

I agree with you about the nine politicians, all
members of government who chose to be absent from the
chamber at the time of the vote. They could still
have abstained from voting - but they should at least
have stayed in the chamber as members of government.
It was not a good look and I hope that their electorates
will take note.

Here's a few thoughts that you may enjoy:

"Mate, Mate
Let's get this straight
Gay marriage is finally here
Gay marriage is no longer bad
And it's no longer queer

Love makes the world go round
Now all of us can spin
She's now allowed to marry her
And he can marry him

We've made our choice
We've had our voice
What we've done is simply great
Australians strongly said YES to love
The hate will have to wait."

cont'd ...

My husband and I have been invited to a dinner party
this evening to celebrate the passing of this
legislation. It should be interesting as there will
be some well known personalities in attendance.
I'm looking forward to the evening.

Six out of ten Australians are NOT in favour of fake, homosexual marriage. Six out of ten Australians WHO VOTED were in favour or were conned into thinking it was about equality. Foxy is now making up her own statistics to defend her warped thinking.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby was tweeted 'eat sh.t Kyle' after the fake marriage bill passed. This from a supporter of those yapping “What a day for love, for equality, for respect”.

No chance of the 'victors' being magnanimous, then.

The there's Turnbull's ugly, red-faced, triumphant ranting on the floor of Parliament.

How is he going square that away next election with the 63% of Coalition voters who voted NO? The people who worked so hard for in his SSM campaign are never going to vote for him. And the Smith bill has crapped all over people asking to be free of homosexual discrimination. Even Coalition dag, Scott Morrison said, “...that to pretend the Smith bill satisfies the concerns of No voters shows “a lack of understanding and empathy”.

The aftermath of the fake marriage victory is going to be very nasty indeed,with all the nastiness coming from the Left, fake marriage urgers and stirrers.

Dear Foxy,

«Same sex marriage was not legally allowed under the laws of the land in Australia.»

But it wasn't disallowed either; and in a democracy, any action that is not explicitly disallowed by law, is legal.

«It will now at least bring institutional recognition.»

Assuming this is a good thing.

Tell me please, if such recognition is all such sweetness and honey, then why aren't [legally-]married couples allowed to request the state to withdraw that recognition?

«We have all heard the accounts of people not being able to go into medical facilities to say good-bye to their dying partners or they have not been given recognition in hospital situations.»

Yes, this indeed is a problem which needed fixing.
However, I do not agree with the specific way in which it was being fixed (or was it really fixed?).

«Legal marriage will now change that.»

Only for those who agree to undergo a legal marriage. What about the others who still want to be able to say goodbye to their dying partners?

«And that is only right that we all are treated equally under the law. I'm sure that you will agree.»

I hate to disappoint you, Foxy, but I don't.

But without going into a deep philosophical debate into the general case and why I disagree with that premise as if everyone ought to be treated equally under the law, let us with your permission remain focused only on this particular issue of marriage equality.

In my view, the correct solution for this particular inequality, was to eliminate the institution of state-sanctioned marriage altogether, including to repeal the Marriage Act altogether and the removal of any other references to the words "married", "marry", "marriage", "marrying", etc. from all Australian legislation.

Don't you agree that this too would result in marriage equality?

Yes indeed. What about homosexual couples who do not wish to 'marry'? The ones who voted NO along with heterosexuals in the 40%.

That's the trouble with cultural Marxists like the vixen and her mob who want governments to make decisions for them, protect them, and live their lives for them by enacting laws; they can only think group-think; they need a gang; they can't think outside the square. These people are like pack animals. There is little about them that is individual. They can only think and do what the group says they can. In this case, they have been totally unaware that people who do act and think as individuals are are also to be found among homosexuals.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We have covered this ground many times before with
you. And yet you still persist. Same-sex marriage
has not been legally allowed ever since then
Prime Minister John Howard amended the Marriage
Act in 2004 to read that marriage was to be only
between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of
all others.

Now this has been changed.

ttbn,

Nobody is going to force anyone who doesn't want
to get married to get married. The law now allows
those that do want to get married and have their
marriages legally recognised to be able to do so.
There is nothing sinister about that.

As for your earlier reference to my making up
statistics. That again is nonsense. The statistics
are crystal clear. The results of the postal survey
told us what we already knew via the opinion polls.
That 6 out of ten Aussies were in favour of same-sex
marriage. The people who did not vote had their
chance to be heard. They did not use that opportunity.
The ones who did vote decided for them. They have no
one to blame but themselves. And carrying on about it
now is a bit late.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, we have covered this ground many times before, yet you still persist.

Australia has no law against picking your nose - hence picking your nose is legal in Australia: you don't need a law to tell you that it is OK to pick your nose.

No Australian police ever arrested anyone for picking their nose, nor for marrying a same-sex partner. No Australian court ever convicted, fined or jailed anyone for picking their nose, nor for marrying a same-sex partner. Such activities were always legal. You didn't used to receive a certificate, nor extra privileges from government for marrying a same-sex partner (now you do, provided you inform the government about it), but you didn't used to receive a certificate nor extra privileges for picking your nose either (you still don't).

Dear Foxy,

«Nobody is going to force anyone who doesn't want to get married to get married.»

True, not force - but still pressure.

Unmarried couples are still prevented from going into medical facilities to say good-bye to their dying partners, so this may pressure them into legally-marrying, even when they otherwise don't want to legally marry.

You see, the marriage-equality issue could have been used as a lever to, once and for all, solve that painful situation - but the opportunity was missed and unmarried couples (heterosexual or homosexual, it really makes no difference) will continue to suffer.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There were/are no laws legislated concerning the
picking of noses or the scaratching of butts in
this country (although exposing your rear-end is
a different matter). However there were laws
legislated - - called the Marriage Act that
did not allow same-sex marriages to be legally
recognised.

I think that we're going to go around in circles
once again - and you just either don't seem to
get it - or you don't want to get it.
Either way - I don't have the time to continue this
argument with you.

Cheers.

Well SSM is now lawfull, shows how far downhill we have gone.

I will continue to call it 'poofter marriage' or 'SS Union' and I see marriage slipping on popularity simply because it will now be associated with dirty sex. That is the sole reason homos were disrespected.

Hard to believe that 60% of Australians now approve of anal intercourse

//Hard to believe that 60% of Australians now approve of anal intercourse//

Funny, my survey form didn't say anything about intercourse.

Guys OK lets just accept we lost this one at this time. The good news is we now have something to chip away at in getting a balanced set of laws and not biased ones. We were disadvantaged in the lead up to the vote because the scumbag left are such low-life and as ground dwellers they used any kind of underhanded and dirty tactic to achieve there desired result. So now we don't have to run around on someone else's timetable or agenda. We can take our time because that's one of the things we are good at, so when we are finally ready to bring them down, one at a time if necessary, we will slowly achieve our goal, at our pace and time of choosing. During the campaign we had no idea where they were going to attack and how. Now they are all celebrating thinking it's all over, now is when they are at their weakest. Personally I can't wait for the first court case to test these new poofterism laws.

Foxy,

Nobody said people would be forced to marry. You either have a serious cognitive problem or you are into the cooking sherry, or worse.

You are clearly unable to grasp that 60% of people who voted YES is not 60% of the Australian people. 4 million did not vote, and huffing and puffing about them not availing themselves of the vote doesn't change the fact. You (and I) have no idea what the people who didn't vote think about SSM. If their arms were twisted, they might go YES of NO but, as it stands, there is absolutely no way of knowing what percentage of ALL Australians think on this matter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid, or on something.

Banjo and Altrav,

Way to go!

Banjo, please don't call it 'poofter marriage', the gay and lesbian community are most upset to think a handful of crusty old conservatives like you don't agree with what the vast majority of Australians voted for. They crave your approval, don't you know that?

That's it ALTRAV, you can form some clandestine secret organization and devote the rest of your life to overturning the decision of the millions. Call yourself, 'The National Front of Bigots' if you like, and hold your meetings in some dank and dingy basement somewhere, all three of you. ttbn you can be the first Chairman of this new fun club. Good luck!

Well thank you Paul1405. I'll be sure to have your ticket waiting for you at the door. Don't worry it won't be some dank place. The venue will have to be out of the reach of the left as they will do anything to disrupt proceedings, just like in Massachusetts in the US. I can tell you are looking forward to it too. No rush we have all the time in the world now. One thing is for sure, the queers will be the masters of their own fate. It has already begun. The first Australian queer divorces are being prepared as we speak. These queers are a joke. They thought they were so smart at beating the system, they got married overseas. But they can't divorce overseas because they are not from that country originally. LOL I'd like to know how they were 'married' in the first place? Watch how ya go now.

//No rush we have all the time in the world now.//

Haven't quite figured out how democracy works yet, have you ALTRAVING? It isn't time that you need, it's numbers: more people who agree with your bizarre views on homosexuality. Numbers that you're never going to get when all your arguments are rubbish.

And in fact, time is not on your side with this one. The data from the survey (and other surveys) indicate that homophobic views are the most concentrated in the oldest demographics, and very rare amongst young people.

I'll tell you ALTRAV, I have one up on you. A few years back we attended a legal gay marriage in New Zealand. What happened was the two guys stood in front of a celebrant, in most pleasent surroundings, made their affirmations, the celebrant did his bit according to law, etc, then pronounced the couple married. The assembled, very smartly dressed guests friends and family, watched on etc, reception after. harbour cruse the next afternoon. I think you get the idea, about the same as many heterosexual wedding I have attended. New Zealand is still there, the sun still comes up in the morning, Kiwi's still go about their daily business, not much has changed since that day.

"Paul1405. I'll be sure to have your ticket waiting " Don't bother I would not want to catch rabies, from some rabid bigots who are hanging out in some dingy basement, crying in their jocks. "woe is me, woe is me!"

The entertainment industry, Hollywood and 'those' US gender studies/ humanities academics have moved on. Forget the Gays and alphabeticals, the next big thing is to convince the Useful Idiots of is 'Pansexual'. - Where the 'mainly'(yeah, right!) heterosexual 'bros' or 'sista's' up with the same sex, preferably a 'friend' (the Left 'Progressives are great on storytelling) for some sexual action.

Of course humanities academics, the 'arts' and the entertainment industry have always had a dubious reputation where substance abuse and sexual capers are involved and yes, there were always those types who would mount anything with a heartbeat. But 'pansexual' makes it all legit, huh?

Meanwhile the exasperated public can look forward to a run of cheap series and movies where the hero gives blow jobs on the side to his 'best mate' while his assertive career feminist partner gets on with her career (and gets served on the side by her girlfriend).

OK, so when will 'Safe Schools' ( a Marxist misnomer if there ever was one!) be ushering in 'pansexuality', or will the 'genderless' push already cover that?

Paul 1405,
Greens mates, the CFMEU, outlaw bikies and ors are already closet 'pansexuals', having their 'girlfriends' in the Big House. The Greens would be wanting to ensure their ex-lag supporters are comfortable in their 'pansexuality'. -Maybe another 'rights' pony for the Greens to bareback, now that SSM is old hat and the Gay horse is stuffed, yesterday's hack?

Should be,
"- Where the 'mainly'(yeah, right!) heterosexual 'bros' or 'sista's' TEAM up for sexual interludes with the same sex, preferably a 'friend' (the Left 'Progressives are great on storytelling) for some sexual action.

ALTRAV,

Well, if the poofs don't care about whether or not we approve of them (as per the Green Hornet), then they won't care about you calling their fake marriages poofter marriages.

Following the rejection of amendments to the SSM bill which would have protected us from the vindictive homosexual mob, it is now being said that the enquiry panel – set up without consultation – is merely reflective of the SSM lobby. That it is headed by the HR Commissioner clearly indicates that democracy and human rights is a dead issue in Australia.

Being married is not going to change certain attitudes.
However it will bring institutional kinds of
recognition which was after all what the intent of all this
was. Of course it won't change the small minority's
views in our society. People who are homophobic are going to
stay homophobic. However, who cares about them. They are on
the wrong side of history and will end up on the dung heap
where they rightly belong. They can rant and rave - but their
voices are like farts in a blizzard - and just as effective
now. They've been out-voted and we can now ignore them.

Yay!

Poor leoj, Australia's answer to Heinrich Himmler, another member of the rabid right with a very bitter pill to swallow over what is the triumph of the yes vote, and subsequent new laws, on same sex marriage. That pill must be the size of Ayers Rock considering the difficulty the crazies are having swallowing it. The poor little sods have been left climbing the walls of the asylum with a total loss of reality. Get a grip on it boys, and then go to town, but such incoherent rantings and ravings will not cut the mustard, today or ever.

Toni, as far as I have Been able to assertain, the results of the survey do not specify which age groups voted yes or no, only how many voted.
So you cannot say that most of the no voters were old because we don't know. Certainly we can't rely on random surveys because they were all very wrong about the level of support for SSM. Remember how all surveys predicted a 70% support but the vote actually only came up with 48% support of the whole community.

Foxy, you are wrong, 40% isn't a small majority. 5% is a small majority and that's the number of people we had this whole upheaval over.

Big Nana,

Here are the facts from the Australian Bureau of
Statistics:

61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO.

Of all eligible Australians who expressed a view on -
"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples
to marry?" The MAJORITY indicated that the law should
be changed with 61.6% (7,817,247) responding YES.
And, 38.4% (4,873,987) responding NO.

Nearly 8 out of 10 eligible Australians (79.5%) expressed
their view.

ALL states and territories recorded a MAJORITY YES response.
And only 17 of the 150 Federal Electoral Divisions recorded a
MAJORITY NO response.

And that's the facts!

Foxy,

"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO."

That ain't the facts as the whole population didn't vote, nor did the whole of the eligible to vote population do so.

Dear Is Mise,

ALL states and Territories recorded a MAJORITY YES
response and only 17 of the 150 Federal Electoral
Divisions recorded a NO response.

Nearly 8 out of ten eligible Australians (79.5%)
expressed their view.

And those my friend ARE the facts as given by the
Australian Bureau of Statistics.

//That ain't the facts as the whole population didn't vote//

They weren't all eligible. Does anybody really think it's a good idea to grant suffrage to small children? Thought not.

//nor did the whole of the eligible to vote population do so.//

Well too bad for them, they had every opportunity to do so. They probably just couldn't be bothered on way or the other.

There is no point in telling Foxy that 60% of Australians did not vote YES. She is incapable of understanding. There is thick, very thick, and then there is Foxy. I am very glad that we have Big Nana here to remind us that all women are not like the obsessive old vixen.

Well folks he's back.

Poor ttbn.

Stalking me again on this forum.

I am irresistible to him and he's
obviously a fan.

Get a life, you poor old thing.

"The ABS reports that more than 79.5% of voters enrolled with the Australian Electoral Commission submitted their form with a clear vote cast for either side of the debate.

Simply put, this means that slightly fewer than half of all eligible voters (49.0%) voted Yes and a little less than a third (30.5%) voted No. The rest did not vote or their preference was unclear.
..
So does this mean that we now know what all Australian eligible voters think about this issue? Can we conclude that a majority of eligible voters are in favour of same-sex marriage?

What the numbers can’t tell us
The number one point to understand about these results is not what they are telling us, but what they are not telling us. It is tempting to believe that the survey outcome means that 61.6% of Australians are in favour of same-sex marriage, and 38.4% against. This is not true.

While the response rate was high [as is usual for Australian elections], we know that 20.5% of eligible voters didn’t take part.
..
But all we are really able to say is that these figures (61.6% Yes and 38.4% No) are representative of those eligible voters who chose to vote, rather than being representative of all eligible Australians. These two populations may be very different."
http://theconversation.com/what-the-numbers-say-and-dont-say-in-the-same-sex-marriage-survey-87096

Stale news though. For the Left gender studies academics it is already on to the next big thing (wait for it!):....'Pansexuals'. Or is that gender fluidity? There is no 'slippery slope' though. Or is there?

Dear Leoj,

What does it matter how many voted when the question itself was illogical nonsense, or in the least misleading?

How can anything be legalised while it is already legal?!

How would you respond to the following survey question:

"Do you agree that the law be changed so that all triangles become triangles?"

//Pansexuals//

Sexual attraction to gods with goat legs? Hate to burst your bubble, leoj, but Pan is just a myth. As are fauns and satyrs. I guess you could always try and find a bloke who was into roleplay, and maybe you can find a sexy faun outfit for him to wear.

Of course, if the goats legs and horns that really do it for you rather than human bits, there are always goats. Although I should warn you that that is illegal, and socially unacceptable.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Australia since
9th December 2017.

A bill for legalisation passed the Australian Parliament
on 7th December 2017 and received royal assent from the
Governor-General the following day. Same-sex marriages
entered into overseas have been recognised in Australia
since 9th December 2017.

Have a nice day.

If Labor forms our next government – which it probably will – within in 100 days it will appoint ANOTHER commissioner to the HRC: a full-time LGBTI commissioner to ensure that the darlings are not discriminated against. This will cost a million a year over four years.

Pansexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

'Who and what is a pansexual'

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-sexuality-and-romance/201711/who-and-what-is-pansexual

The rider of the 'wrecking ball' is one fo the forerunners of the easily led and will encourage more 'useful idiots', the SJWs.

 Melissa Kang, writes: “The marriage equality bill has passed, and the mandate to deliver inclusive sexuality education in schools is more pressing than ever. LGBTQI+-inclusive sexuality education should embrace diversity in the classroom, the staff-room and in whole-of-school policies.”

Dear Foxy,

I respected your wish when you earlier wrote:

«Either way - I don't have the time to continue this argument with you.»

This does not render your view correct.

To the best of my knowledge, same-sex marriage has never been illegal in Australia. Even in those dark days when same-sex sexual relations were illegal, I am not aware of any law that prohibited couples of the same gender to marry (provided they remained celibate). Please correct me if you know of any such historical law which prohibited same-sex marriage (other than the Marriage Act, which only discusses issues around the recognition and registration of marriages by the state, but is mum about what individuals may or may not do in private and/or within their churches).

It will not be stopping at that.

You can stop being obtuse now, Yuyutsu. It's not clever.

Apologies Yuyutsu, my reply was directed to ttbn.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The following link should clarify things for
you:

http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/Getting-married.aspx

There are contact details also given to the Attorney-General's
offices in Canberra. They will happily answer any questions you
may further have regarding marriage in Australia.

Enjoy your evening.

The poor No bodies on the forum, running around like headless chooks. Their nonsense that a majority did not vote yes to SSM is simply ridiculous.

What about that Barnyard Joyce the so called moral Catholic, what a hypocrite. " In stark contrast, Mr Joyce’s family was nowhere to be seen in an official capacity during the five weeks of the by-election nor as he declared victory at the Southgate Inn, Tamworth on Saturday night." Is there a baby on the way? To be born out of holy wedlock to a moral degenerate who can't control himself.

//'Who and what is a pansexual'//

So, long story short, turns out that they're just bisexuals in new hats. Well you could have just said that in the first place, leoj.

Anyway, I don't know what you're so up in arms about. It's not like bisexuality is a new idea, even if some mad hatters have made it a new hat. And people do like new hats (no, I don't why either. Just fashion victims, I guess). I've always assumed that those with homophobic inclinations would be more accepting of bisexuals, because at least they're attracted to the 'correct' people some of the time.

//The rider of the 'wrecking ball' is one fo the forerunners of the easily led and will encourage more 'useful idiots'//

Miley 'That's Your Karmic Retribution for Achey Breaky Heart, Billy Ray' Cyrus? Seriously?

Is there anything in the whole world that is simultaneously so wretchedly pathetic and nearly-choke-laughing funny as a some old geriatric who thinks he's really in touch with 'the youth'.

Nobody likes Miley, dude. She was a no hit wonder whose main claim to fame was wearing insufficient clothing (which would be nice if she actually hot) and nobody cares anymore. Maybe it's time to switch off your computer (or at least disconnect your internet), go for a walk in the sunshine and fresh air, meet some real people, and while you're at it ask some young people if they're Miley Cyrus fans. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Although do try not to be too creepy, otherwise they'll probably think you're some paedo trying to groom them with free tickets and report you.

Foxy,

Are you thick or have you been on the Pimms No1 Cup?

You said "61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO"

They didn't, plain and simple; your statement that they did is wrong.

Dear Is Mise,

What on earth is Pimms No 1 cup?

I actually prefer Grey Goose vodka.
It's so smooth and you can mix it so beautifully.

As for my being wrong?

They're not my stats.
They're the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
You can Google them for yourself.
And if you think that the Bureau is wrong -
Well - you tell them, not me.

Paul is another one who doesn't know the difference between a majority of those who voted and the majority of Australians.

Dear Foxy,

The link you provided says:

"To be legally married in Australia, a person must:

*-* six conditions *-*
"

Fine, so that's what it takes to be LEGALLY married and that changed slightly, but if you marry without doing any of the above, then while you would not be recognised by the state as legally-married, your act of marriage would still be legal.

When you do something illegal and you get caught, they throw you in jail, but nobody in Australia had or would have thrown same-sex couples in jail if they were caught marrying in Australia without informing the state authorities. Same-sex couples could have done so in the open at least for decades, they could have had their marriage sanctioned by clergy, they could have had their whole family attend their wedding and no policeman would even squeak about it (unless the celebrating crowd became too rowdy and disturbed the neighbours).

While you cannot for example legally marry you brother in Australia and while it may currently be illegal for you to have sex with him, nobody would charge you with any offence just for setting up a wedding with him, inviting a priest/celebrant to preside over it, exchanging rings and vows and celebrating the occasion with all your family and friends - there is nothing illegal about it, just as there was nothing previously illegal about two people of the same gender marrying each other.

In protest at the diabolical decision of the vast majority of Australians in approving the sexual depravity, that is same sex marriage, the leadership of the 'No Bodies' have agreed that as a protest they will unanimously abstain from all sexual relations with their family pets, goats included, for 24 hours starting at midnight tonight. The holy one however has given a dispensation for group president Bob, to go for it, Bob is legally married to his long time love, Doris the Donkey!

What a bunch of hypocrites!

Equality was not merely about SSM it is about removing Democracy, diversity and opposing opinion to State views, especially the Christian world view.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmona.sh%2F6MAZ30h4jga&h=ATMr9VP0qSWTD_I63_5Y-IjXr7tTDMrpcgLU1PAi9wjhb-Sn9nw98244joWEqeWGTVLSOy3jGQsNeo1BgCC9LUPVKb3oE47TYy6g9-UTfeWsEVYwYOhkq8K4waY0chU6_P6WYVN_RGx1Ak-jXzO_-JqRbdYZGiLyryxK9xEzXj_Ye69bzKpJwdsd8c1oz6OJFwXWn78yNhFEEs1cnJlCyk94eWQuMflYuB15K0bQOdC6xZQDyAFQuqJUsAVKp6I0uYKnN07yjur5DkPiiiDzhrRXApymDB2S

The Marxists are not attacking Islam! This allows in the nation as the Muslim population grows blasphemy laws and Totalitarian rule. Divide and conquer and allow change in the constitution. Witness Britain, Sweden, and Canada as they move toward Muslim Rule.

""//Hard to believe that 60% of Australians now approve of anal intercourse//

Funny, my survey form didn't say anything about intercourse.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 10 December 2017 5:32:24 PM""

It implies anal, dido as the ultimate sex experience is now Marriage.

Nor did it say we must now move to eradicate Christianity and their ministries to the World which is the new agenda according to Monash University.

//Equality was not merely about SSM it is about removing Democracy//

//This allows in the nation as the Muslim population grows blasphemy laws and Totalitarian rule.//

//It implies anal, dido as the ultimate sex experience is now Marriage.//

O....kay

Been smoking the wacky tobaccy this morning, Josephus? Might want to go easy their pal. You're starting to become incoherent.

Also, when you say dido is the ultimate sex experience (I assume you mean the singer and not the long dead Queen of Carthage), how would you know? Pretty sure you've never shagged Dido, dude.

There are many things that were not said by those cajoling people to support fake marriage. Now that they have got their way, the Marxists are starting to tell the truth. The truth can be freely read - from the mouths of the Marxists - now by those really interested to see how right they were to oppose SSM, and also by those poor fools who were conned by the idea of 'equality'. The latter group will probably be too embarrassed to look for the truth, though.

ttbn, I'm on your side and I have given directions as to some of the negative outcomes of this SSM excrement and the smell it is going to permeate through this country, just like the Massachusetts disasters that has befallen that state since the SSM was unleashed on an otherwise unsuspecting people. If you have any further excrement to add to the Gaiz overflowing bucket, I for one would like to add some more negative facts to what is already an overwhelming and sizeable list. The queers and their sympathisers stupidly believe they have won something. Well just like them, we can play their game too, they said if the answer came up NO then they would bring such a shitstorm down on us so that we would change the vote to YES sooner than later. Well here we are. Now that the dust has settled and we can now see the enemy, we can now begin the job of chipping away at their new cosy little laws.

Whatever happened to the stoic Aussie?
The laconic digger? The 'She'll be right mate"
attitude? The "Fair-Go for all?" It looks like
the megaphone's been given to the hate-mongerers
on this forum who are whinging about who should
be allowed to marry based on the way they have
sex.

There are people in this world who really have something
to whinge about - the starving kid in Somalia, the Thai
sex-trafficking victim pimped out to a Chinese businessman,
the family who has been sitting in a squalid refugee camp
on the border of Afghanistan for 10 years or the limbless
victims (soldiers and civilians) in Iraq. These are the
people who should be complaining. Not ones on public
forums upset over someone else's sex lives and rights to
marry.

Stop this nonsense. The Marriage legislation has passed.
Stop stoking your sense of entitlement. Think what you think.
The world will continue to change despite you.

Foxy,

You posted the erroneous figures, don't try and blame someone else because you posted garbage; it's your mistake.

Pimm's
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pimm%27s+no+1+cup+alcohol+content&rlz=1C1CAFB_enAU718AU718&oq=pimms+no+1+cup&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l5.15713j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Eugh, it's got gin in it :(

Steer well clear of that then.

Dear Is Mise,

Here is the link for you:

http://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/

Now apologise!

Is Mise, I looked up the stats and Iv'e come away with a feeling of 'somethings not right'. As I'm in WA I took particular note of my state's stats. From memory we have well in excess of 2.5 million people in this state. The stats say that only 1.2 million 'eligible' people voted. Surely half our state are not children? I can't put my finger on it but there is something odd about the stats. Maybe you can elaborate, I can't.

Foxy,

"Of the eligible [ELIGIBLE, note!] Australians who expressed a view on this question, the majority indicated that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, with 7,817,247 (61.6%) responding Yes and 4,873,987 (38.4%) responding No. Nearly 8 out of 10 eligible Australians (79.5%) expressed their view."

That is vastly different to,
"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO"

which is what you posted, in actual fact 61.6% 0f 79.5% voted "Yes" and 38.4% of 79.5% voted "No", which as I indicated earlier I accept as a majority in favour of the proposition.

So there is nothing to apologize for, except in the future, if you take exception to being considered a dill.

Well, well, well.

Looks like someone's getting a little too inquisitive for their own good.

It's nothing, ALTRightActiVist, and you'll drop it if you know what's good for you.

Walk away, ALTRAV. Just walk away.

Dear Is Mise,

Read what the Australian Bureau of stats said in
the link I gave you.

I quoted directly from that link.

If you have trouble understanding what they said
then it's your problem, not mine and if you have
any questions or disputes with their figures
contact them, not me. I am merely quoting them
and they are after all a credible and reliable
authority. Now if you think that makes me a dill,
well my friend, what does that make you?

The next agenda for the Left is the move to a Marxist Republic. The cry will be nothing will change, it wont affect you!

Australia day will change and the Christian calendar including holidays such as Christmas nativity and Passover etc. will go because it is not equality to Ramadan and is offensive to a minority. Any symbols that represent Christianity will be removed such as the crosses including the Southern Cross from our flag. Anything that is considered an opposing view will be called "HATE" speech and bigotry and silenced.

The Marxists have not finished yet!

Foxy,

You have seen this before,

"What the numbers can’t tell us
The number one point to understand about these results is not what they are telling us, but what they are not telling us. It is tempting to believe that the survey outcome means that 61.6% of Australians are in favour of same-sex marriage, and 38.4% against. This is not true.

While the response rate was high [as is usual for Australian elections], we know that 20.5% of eligible voters didn’t take part.
..
But all we are really able to say is that these figures (61.6% Yes and 38.4% No) are representative of those eligible voters who chose to vote, rather than being representative of all eligible Australians. These two populations may be very different."

by,
Scott Sisson, Professor in the School of Mathematics and Statistics, UNSW
Peter Baker, Senior Lecturer, The University of Queensland

http://theconversation.com/what-the-numbers-say-and-dont-say-in-the-same-sex-marriage-survey-87096
[given at page 9 of this thread, leoj, Monday, 11 December 2017 2:31:19 PM]

and from the same article,

"The ABS reports that more than 79.5% of voters enrolled with the Australian Electoral Commission submitted their form with a clear vote cast for either side of the debate.

Simply put, this means that slightly fewer than half of all eligible voters (49.0%) voted Yes and a little less than a third (30.5%) voted No. The rest did not vote or their preference was unclear."

Dear Josephus,

The Marxists will never take over this country
you need not worry about that. That is nonsense.
There are enough people that make up the
population of this country who have fled from
dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. There is
now way that they would ever allow this country
to become what you are describing. No way!

Cannot trust you Foxy.
It only took 5% communists to overtake the USSR; volume of people mean nothing. Activists change the mind of people by their slogans with a promise for a better life for some minority.

In the next 20 years Christianity will become an underground faith in Australia, as Islam becomes dominant as in Sweden, then followed by activists Marxist atheists.

Dear Josephus,

You can trust the history of this country.

Which political party has had the most support
throughout the years?
And do you know why? Thanks to the very people
who fled those dictatorships and totalitarian
regimes. They and their children and their
families would never support Marxism, communism,
or any form of dictatorship. And now with the
growing numbers in our population that have
managed to escape these type of regimes - you
can add these people to the mix of standing
against what you fear. And the stoic Australian
"True Blue" spirit will always survive.

//In the next 20 years Christianity will become an underground faith in Australia//

Care to make a wager on that?

//as Islam becomes dominant as in Sweden//

Islam isn't dominant in Sweden. My aunt married a Swede and lives in Sweden with Swedish kids. I talk to them all the time. I think I would have remembered if they'd mentioned something like that.

It's fake news, dude. The Swedes know about it, and they all think it's hilarious... the cousins once asked me if Aussies are so ill-informed about Sweden that also believe that Swedish people really talk like the Swedish chef off the Muppets. To which my reply was: yes, of course they do? Have you guys heard yourselves talk? It sounds exactly like this:

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

But not at all like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlG9aSMCpg

//then followed by activists Marxist atheists//

Nah, sorry, I don't have any funny puppet/muppet videos about Reds under the Bed.

Frankly, I find the idea of people who are still paranoid about Marxists 30 years after the end of the Cold War to be amusing enough.

A J Philips, what do you mean. I'm not very good with sarcasm as I have previously said, so if you or someone could help a feller out and explain the meaning of why only half the population voted.
Thanks.

//I'm not very good with sarcasm as I have previously said, so if you or someone could help a feller out and explain the meaning of why only half the population voted.//

Well, there are two schools of thought here. The first says that not all of the population were allowed to vote, and of those who were not all could be bothered to vote, and wouldn't be it great if everybody learnt some basic mathematics.

And the second says that hybrids of humans and reptilian aliens from the constellation Draconis cooked the books in order to get gay marriage legalised as part of their evil plan to enslave the human race. Which is obviously nonsense.

Why would we need to go messing about with marriage legislation when we have plasma cannons and exo-skeletons and cloaked ships in orbit waiting to deliver 'rods from god' to any recalcitrant human rebel scum?

No, the reason us Illuminati tinkered with the postal survey was to wind up rabid homophobes like ALTRAPIST. Because hey, it's fun.

Josephus, "The Marxists have not finished yet!". There should be no problem there, all you religious fundo's have to do is call upon your mythical god to unleash his vast army of angles in their chariots of fire to smite the blasphemers. Can't you do that?

It's OK Toni. I'm still none the wiser. Someone might take a moment and give me a brief explanation. Sorry I didn't get what you were saying. I have to assume it was sarcasm.

Foxy,

I read the link and nowhere did it say

"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO"

which is what you said.

I suggest that you go back and read the link again and learn to quote accurately.

Dear Is Mise,

Read the link from the very beginning under
"National Results - Response". And then
take a look at the charts in big letters
that follow.

I can't do any more for you.

Perhaps you need new glasses.

Whatever the quibble, the short story is a clear majority in those bothered to return a survey, and a totally reasonable assumption that such majority is reflected in those who did not respond with this further supported by statistically valid random sampling.

As a result, homosexuals will be able to marry and further enjoy public acceptance and quiet enjoyment of that state, with the normal legal protections.

Some commenters state they will use more derogatory terms, particularly in relation to common sex practices. These weaklings have never had the courage to police such activities in heterosexuals, so it seems odd that they are so fascinated by homosexuals *in particular*. They also lack the guts to challenge or police the still extant requirement for fidelity in *all* marriages, and no wonder given the stats. I wonder how such commentary on their own marriage would be met?

One commenter is concerned on this and other threads with issuing "warnings" about the public safety of homosexuals from attackers. Since he is so well-attuned with the minds of such criminals, he might also warn *them* that the public will reasonably expect diligent forensic investigation and maximum penalties, plus punitive damages. Given the clear public and parliamentary support, I believe our courts will waste no time in making this clear and in *directing* police to investigate carefully where there may be lingering reluctance. There will be no "chipping away" at such clearly supported law anytime soon, and never at all given the arguments presented so far.

Rusty.

Rusty Catheter, you are not the moral police. You do not speak for the majority. If heterosexual couples indulge in anything which is as disgusting as the queers, I would be the first to condemn them, not condone them. As you clearly would. As for the SSM result. Nothing is clear. There is always another side to a story. You appear to lack the courage to state the truth about Gaiz and 'their' infidelity. The stories about Gaiz and their subsequent malaise after SSM was made law in the US, simply shows your ignorance and your determination to deflect, and ignore truth and facts. Like all the rest of your misguided elk, you take a comment of factually based concern and immediately proceed to contaminate it with your pre-concieved and long nurtured prejudices, turning all things good and natural, into vial and defamatory self ingratiating foul minded thoughts and responses as only you and your camp can and do so well. As for your running off crying to the 'law' and describing so eloquently how the law will deal with anyone who dares touch one of your precious Nancys, again you miss the point. By then it's too late. As for being dealt with by the law, you don't worry your pretty little head about that. Worry about the state of the victim. Instead of wasting your efforts on stupid emotional responses, look up Massachusetts and the passing of the SSM laws there. Then you have the right to comment. Oh and BTW the 'look over your shoulder' comment was as a result of the news reports both here and in the US, and whether you believe it or not it was made because of genuine concern for the queers.

//Sorry I didn't get what you were saying. I have to assume it was sarcasm.//

Nope, no sarcasm there. You'll have to find another excuse to pretend not to be able to understand what I wrote.

//Someone might take a moment and give me a brief explanation.//

People already have, but because they weren't the explanation you wanted to hear (that it was all a big conspiracy orchestrated by people you dislike) you've pretended you can't understand them.

But here it is again: not everybody was eligible to vote, and of those who were not everybody voted. That is why not everybody voted. Nothing suspicious, no evidence of vote tampering or electoral fraud, just good old fashioned arithmetic.

And I know that this answer will disappoint you, because the truth is more boring than exciting conspiracy theories, and that you'll therefore cry 'sarcasm' and pretend to not understand what I have written. Nevertheless, that is the explanation.

In today's Australia it is mostly accepted that
gay people are people too. Although they still
appear to be a threatening presence to some
in our community.

We've heard all the NO
arguments over and over and over again -
linking homosexuality with paedophilia, with
Marxism, with freedom of speech, with political
correctness, with the demonization of traditional
values, with anal sex, and many, many other
accusations, including the anti-Safe Schools campaigns.

Linking homosexuality with paedophilia is as unsubtle
as conflating halal food with terrorism. And the fact
that some have chosen a now irrelevant ideology of
Marxism tells us that some people are firmly stuck in
the 1950s and are still fearing the existential fears
of that time.

They are defending orthodoxy - by which they mean the
notion that "normality" is a white, Christian, patriarchal,
and heterosexual one. Anything which suggests otherwise
is regarded as a heresy.

They should realise though that Marxism is as powerful a
totem of evil in 2017 as Satanism, that is to say - not at
all.

But people are entitled to continue to bring forward their
arguments and their imaginings, and fears. The world will
continue despite them and life in this country will be
that much fairer as a result of the passing of legislation
which Parliament and so many Australians approved.

Not very observant, ALTRAV?

The US Survey of Family Growth recorded that roughly 30% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal sex, about one-third of those ongoing. Even allowing variation, Australia will have more heterosexuals doing so than the total number of homosexuals. In short, heterosexuals do it, probably one in ten of couples you know, and you do in fact lack the fortitude to police the matter.

I don't *need* to worry about infidelity of *any* sort, and believe the marriage act is weakened by a requirement that is routinely ignored, unpoliced and unenforceable. In contrast you have harped on about heterosexuality as if it was the *only* important part of the old definition, yet ignore infidelity among heterosexuals. It's common as paternity testing shows so go for it tiger - start talking just as loudly about adultery at the local and see how long before someone instructs you to shut up.

Don't dismiss the law too rapidly. Forensic evidence can be slow to process. If your concern is genuine warn your heroic mates that *when* caught they can count on maximum penalties, both punitive and exemplary. Maybe your own browser records could help find them? I *do* worry about the state of the victim - you are speaking of premeditated grievous harm and murder so expect that compensation and punitive damages will ruin the perpetrators and their families. They too should worry. If they make the mistake of parroting your attitude near a judge they'll get contempt as well. A given judge may not like the new law, but they like bogans dismissing it even less.

"genuine concern for the queers"? Really truly? Sounds more like you relish every imagined boot to the ribs. Your heroes may be able to trap and gang up on the odd solo or tipsy individual, the homosexual community has never been free of such threats. Most *are* careful and I know none that do not actively participate in high-level martial arts. Your thugs may get as good as they give, though I suspect they don't tell their friends when the "poofters" win.

Rusty

//Your heroes may be able to trap and gang up on the odd solo or tipsy individual//

But do bear in mind that law enforcement and security agencies keep a very keen eye on communications between these sort of violent extremists. If they discuss their poofter-bashing plans on any sort of electronic device, there's a fairly good chance they'll find themselves caught in a sting operation, when the 'poofter' they go to bash turns out to be a cop with all his mates waiting to pounce. It's a stupid and risky game to be playing, this poofter-bashing.

Though the term Communism is no longer a threat in the West, the agenda of Left wing politics have adopted much of the Marxist philosophy and call it Socialism. Socialism is rampant in Australian Universities. The constant attack on Western values like democracy and religious diversity: freedom of expression, diversity religious belief, sanctity of marriage being a mother and father the family unit are to be eradicated, and the views of the ruling Socialist elite are to be enforced. This will happen In Australia as more Chinese, their descendants and those that rely on Government for their welfare believe the future lies in power to and the good will of the ruling Class.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxism

Dear Josephus,

Have you ever studied at a university? If you have
then think back. Universities do not "indoctrinate"
students. Their aim is to do the opposite by
encouraging students to engage in critical thought.
They want their students to become independent persons
with the capacity of forming their own nuanced opinions.

Of course it is understandable that some people do find
this a threat and do label anyone who disagrees with
them as indoctrinated foot-soldiers of the Left.

However, instead of unfounded criticism,
what they should do is embrace the teaching of
critical analysis at universities as that is part and
parcel of the reasons that institutions of learning
exist.

cont'd ...

Now back to the topic.

We have talked so much. There has been so much debate,
It has been a long journey for so many people and
every Australian who wanted to have a say has had one.

Parliament has passed the legislation - with sweeping
support from the Nationals, Liberals, Greens, the
crossbench and Labor.

We can all now just get on with our lives and look forward
to a fairer and more equitable society.

Before I leave this discussion I'd like
to wish everyone all the Joys of the
Festive Season, all the Magic of Christmas,
and may the New Year 2018 - bring you Health,
Happiness, and many Beautiful Days shared with
Family and Friends.

All The Best.

Obviously you also have not been to university recently. Hear what Professor in human rights Paula Gerber has to say. Equality is not over yet it has just begun.
https://www.facebook.com/Monash.University/videos/10155510463863937/

Dear Foxy,

«Before I leave this discussion I'd like to wish everyone»

So you are leaving now?

Does it mean that I need not expect an answer and can now close this page?

ALTRAV,

It was more of a piss-take than sarcasm. You’re quite conspiratorially-minded (e.g. your belief that 9/11 was an inside job).

You’ve expressed suspicion over the results of the survey a few times now - as though tampering had occurred to favour a ‘Yes’ outcome - and I thought that’s what you were probably doing in your post to Is Mise, so I thought I’d have a bit of fun with that by pretending to warn you off from looking too closely at the figures (as though everyone not on the Right was in on the conspiracy).

Toni Lavis and I had similar fun with Armchair Critic at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7679#236451.

I was also poking fun at the fact that so many of you Rightists are paranoid enough to believe that there’s a vast conspiracy involving some alleged “New World Order” (whatever that is (because granting that the other side may actually have sincere and noble intentions is simply unthinkable - especially when hating them makes ignoring what they have to say so much easier)).

--

Josephus,

Well, I’ve been to a university recently (and did a social science degree, no less), and I can vouch for just how much the idea that universities are indoctrinating students into Marxist ideology *snigger* is paranoid, Rightist BS. Multiple perspectives are taught, and tutors encourage (provoke, even) debate in workshops and tutorials among students to get them thinking about the various perspectives (all of which can usually be categorised into a more simplified Left vs Right).

Almost half the essays are what are referred to as “critical analyses”, where students are expected to critically analyse an article, or a psychological or sociological perspective/theory, and marks are awarded for a student’s ability to critique and back their critique with evidence, not for how well they can recite Marx.

This idea that they sit students down and tell them what to think and how to think is laughable. You people are a joke, and I get a good chuckle reading this type of paranoid garbage from you lot on OLO.

AJ Philips,
Obviously you did not listen to Paula Gerber and her Human rights agenda on the link I gave.

Josephus,

Yes, I did watch the clip, and at no point does she mention Marxism (or anything else unreasonable, for that matter). You Rightists just use "Marxism" as a placeholder for anything you don't like.

You lot need to find a new line, if you want to be taken seriously. Perhaps try addressing issues instead of dropping the name "Marx", and thinking that's enough.

As a devout "Marxist". I would like to post a few of my favourite quotes by Marx that hopefully will sway those Rightest to the cause;

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know."

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

"Please accept my resignation, I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member!"

and

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception."

ha ha

Rusty Catheter, "The US Survey of Family Growth recorded that roughly 30% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal sex"

What does that prove? A hole is a hole? There are men who would penetrate a lump of sliced liver too.

Dear Josephus,

I have been to university for more than just
one degree. As an undergraduate and for
a Masters - so I do know what I am talking
about. I have also worked in universities
both in this country and overseas - so again
I know what I am talking about.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have answered your questions many times.
I've now lost interest in continuing to
argue with you.

Enjoy your day.

AJ Philips, if you have an open mind and consider ALL sides of a debate, you too will begin to question EVERYTHING. Only the naive, lazy, arrogant or ignorant will always believe things at face value. Live long enough, experience lie's and let downs and you too will seek the truth. The fact that I question EVERYTHING makes me a little more aware than most people. I don't recognise emotions in a debate. If I say something which is not true then I would be greatful if corrected, not angry. As for 9/11. Why would you find it so hard to believe it was 'an inside job'. Do you know that it wasn't? Is it beyond the reach of this current technology? And why is it you reject the idea that there are a handful of very wealthy people controlling world events. I choose to use the words, 'new world order' because that usually gets the desired response. My comments are based on information garnished from day to day reports media and anywhere it pops up. The one thing I have learned, and this is probably where you are coming from, is that for every story about something being one way there are several more saying that it's the other way. So who do you believe? That's where you have to consider ALL the facts and then make up your own mind. So if I appear to malign certain people like the Rothschilds and the Bilderberg Group and use words like New World Order it is because there is evidence out there to back my suspicions/conspiracies. You want proof, fine look up 'the true story about the Bilderberg Group and the name Daniel Estulin.

leoj, eeeuuw. Really? So we now know that 30% of Americans are mentally ill. So what was your point? Ummm how do you know about the 'sliced liver club'. It must be a very exclusive club, I've never heard of it. That's unusual because I like liver. If it's cooked in butter, a little seasoning, not too much. Oh sorry I digress. Anyway, enjoy your liver.

ALTRAV,

Very few women would choose anal sex and for all sorts of valid reasons. They are being bullied and (emotionally) blackmailed into it by selfish, risk-taking men who have no regard whatsoever for the woman's feelings, preferences and welfare. The men are being influenced mainly by the porn industry. Although the abuse of women by not allowing them proper access to cheap and reliable contraception is also a factor.

Parents, particularly mothers, cannot rely on government any more to do the right thing. Mothers must take it upon themselves to prepare and arm their daughters from an early age with defences against the deceitful, risky, creeps who would lie to them and pressure them into anal sex. Girls and young women have to support one another with the necessary intel and advice to be proactive with a flat 'NO!' from the outset.

Leoj, your comments left me thinking I somehow want to harm or denigrate women. I can assure you the further-est opposite is more the truth. I don't know what I am responding to other than to say; For me there is nothing more desirable than a woman. As a 'real man', I love women, almost to the point of being accused of unsavory things. A real woman is all that real men desire and long for, so I'm not one of those 'soft cocks' I believe you may be referring to. The 'women I abhor and dislike with a passion are those who by pushing the 'equality' mantra have in fact demeaned women. There are so many areas where women are different than men and in so being are better for it. Consider this men have always been drunken slobs, fighting, abusing, conducting themselves beyond disgusting. Now take a snap shot of todays women. Drunken sluts, fighting, abusing, also conducting themselves beyond disgusting. Just look at the news or U tube. So yes when I say maggots you can fill in the rest. Back to my point. Who in their 'right mind' would want to be equal to that garbage? A friends wife who works in a pharmacy was shocked to overhear a group of three or four girls discussing how some of them were feeling horny and were going to pick up a guy at the club and have sex with him. That kind of thing was not so obvious before. Now women are acting like men. The good news is there has been a slight turn around from the men after watching how women conduct themselves I think it's made men look at themselves and seeing themselves in these maggots has brought them back to their senses a little.

//The fact that I question EVERYTHING makes me a little more aware than most people.//

The available evidence suggests otherwise.

//I don't recognise emotions in a debate.//

I don't think you recognise much at all, ALTRAPIST. But I do know from observation that all your arguments are based purely on emotion, and that you consider reasoned debate to be anathematical.

//If I say something which is not true then I would be greatful if corrected, not angry.//

Well that is clearly a lie. You've said that alpha males exist, and when I pointed out that it wasn't true, you became angry rather than grateful.

/Do you know that it wasn't?//

Yes.

//And why is it you reject the idea that there are a handful of very wealthy people controlling world events.//

Because the empirical basis for that hypothesis is much, much weaker than the empirical basis for the competing null hypothesis.

//They are being bullied and (emotionally) blackmailed into it by selfish, risk-taking men who have no regard whatsoever for the woman's feelings, preferences and welfare. The men are being influenced mainly by the porn industry.//

Oh dear, another tory who seems to be unfamiliar with Htichens' Razor.

Evidence or it never happened.

//Although the abuse of women by not allowing them proper access to cheap and reliable contraception is also a factor.//

Women have ample access to cheap and reliable contraception. It's covered under the PBS, and there are non-profit NGO's like Family Planning who will subsidise them or give them away for free.

//Mothers must take it upon themselves to prepare and arm their daughters from an early age with defences against the deceitful, risky, creeps//

Like weird, grubby old men taking an undue interest in other peoples sex lives (but particularly those of young women... giggity).

Fifty bucks says leoj's browser history is chockablock full of teen anal porn.

//Girls and young women have to support one another with the necessary intel and advice to be proactive with a flat 'NO!' from the outset.//

Intel and advice? Jesus mate, it's just sex, not the D-Day landings. If chicks don't want to have anal, then all that is required is to say 'nah, I'm good' if the fella asks.

//Leoj, your comments left me thinking I somehow want to harm or denigrate women.//

Yeah, why am I not surprised?

Epic Freudian slip.... 'I somehow want to harm or denigrate or women'. Nice to hear you finally admit it.

//For me there is nothing more desirable than a woman. As a 'real man', I love women, almost to the point of being accused of unsavory things.//

You still haven't worked out the difference between lust and love, have you ALTRAPIST? It will come with maturity - took me quite a few years AFTER puberty. So you've still got a long way to go yet.

//Consider this men have always been drunken slobs, fighting, abusing, conducting themselves beyond disgusting.//

Well I don't know what sort of 'men' you associate with... but it doesn't sound like the blokes I hang out with. Except for the drunken part, every now and then.

//Now take a snap shot of todays women. Drunken sluts, fighting, abusing, also conducting themselves beyond disgusting.//

And I don't know what sort of women you associate with either... but again, it doesn't sound like the chicks I hang out with. Except for the drunken part, every now and then.

You seem to have a real problem with drunkenness. On behalf of the 98% or so of the population who like a few beers every now and then, we would greatly appreciate if you would take your teetotalism and stick it where the sun shineth not.

//So yes when I say maggots you can fill in the rest.//

Fly larvae. Tremendously useful creatures, maggots. Wonderful for cleaning up necrotic tissue whilst leaving healthy tissue alone, and then of course there are the forensic applications of entomology.

[Delete for abuse.]

"Teenage girls pressured into ‘painful and coercive’ anal sex because of porn

Straight young people are increasingly having ‘coercive’ anal sex because of porn

Teenagers are increasingly being pressured into anal sex – sometimes ‘coercive’ – according to disturbing research published in the British Medical Journal. Straight young people are now engaging in sex acts which are often dangerous, and sometimes ‘coercive’, after seeing certain types of hardcore pornography.

Girls are said to be increasingly affected by the competition among teenage boys, in which they spur one another on to try and have anal sex. One person told researchers: ‘Men wanted to tell their friends that they had had anal.’

The data collected in London, a city in the North and the rural South West, was collected for a submission to the BMJ. The rise was often linked to ‘coercive’ pressure The shocking rise in the number of people having ‘coercive’ anal sex was blamed on pornography.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found heterosexual men were increasingly watching anal porn online. Top searches on PornHub and other pornographic websites often feature the terms associated with this type of intercourse. Researchers found that more and more women being pressured into having painful anal sex because it has been normalised online. Worryingly, teenagers have internalised terms like ‘accidental’ penetration of the anal area. Teen girls are increasingly likely to accept these so-called ‘slips’."

tbc..

continued..
Researchers wrote: ‘In some cases, anal penetration of the woman… was described by men and women as having happened accidentally… Once they’ve ‘slipped’, many teenage boys are said to refuse to even slow down the pace of intercourse, as painful anal sex is becoming normalised. These techniques were considered ‘normal’ by teens who responded to the study and girls were simply expected to be in pain.

Researchers were shocked to discover that teens are becoming so used to anal sex it affects how they speak about it. Many people who had anal sex blamed it on ‘slips’ (Picture: Getty) They wrote: ‘Young people’s narratives normalised coercive, painful and unsafe anal.’ However the researchers are now hinting at authorities’ need to act. They added there must be ‘harm reduction efforts targeting anal sex to help encourage discussion about mutuality and consent, reduce risky and painful techniques and challenge views that normalise coercion’."

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/18/teenage-girls-pressured-into-painful-and-coercive-anal-sex-because-of-porn-6788524/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: http://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

This is what Universities in Sydney are now teaching law students

https://www.facebook.com/Sunrise/videos/10154660830335887/

Ahh yes, how silly of me to have forgotten that all men are actually secret rapists (some feminists will back me up). We just can't help ourselves... a bit of 'uncovered meat' and we're all over it like a fat kid with a cupcake (some Imams will back me up).

Anal rape? Oh yeah, we're all down with that. On account of being secret rapists and all.

I don't think you understand how it works these days, mate (just out of interest, when did you last get a root?). If the girl says no.... she means no. That's it, end of story, no 'accidental rape': no means no. It's not that hard, leoj. Why do you struggle so much with the concept?

Toni L, stop twisting what are actual events just so you can make yourself feel better. Before you even think about trying to defend your ignorance, look at what I said regarding media and news reports on the actions of these women of today.
Leoj, I don't think anyone will believe the 'oops, sorry, slipped into the wrong hole' argument. I do believe all the reasons given, even peer pressure. Now, everyone don't take this the wrong way, but because there was a doco' on this very topic, I have to mention it. Not that I agree. Far from it. Anyway the doco' was about anal sex (primarily regarding queers)and it was revealed that by rubbing something against a section of the spinal column it caused an arousal, and in men ultimately an erection. By this stage I'm ready to get the bucket. Then they casually follow this statement up by going to several animal husbandry places. Next they followed up by demonstrating. They put on this big plastic condom like glove which went up to their armpit and casually proceeded to insert their whole arm into the animals arse. As if that wasn't bad enough they began pulsing back and forth and other weird movements and to my shock and horror not only did this huge beast 'crack a fat' but it eventually ejaculated which was promptly collected and sealed for the lab. WOW! not something I would have expected in a million years. The reason I am mentioning this here is, I wonder if there is any truth in this that anal sex arouses the recipient? Or is this only something that is particular to animals?

//it eventually ejaculated which was promptly collected and sealed for the lab. WOW! not something I would have expected in a million years.//

For once, I am struck dumb. Over to the Nine Inch Richards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pB7PzdLzSA

Toni, that's it? That's all you can come back with? A picture of a feminist being aroused by some yokle slack jaw red neck? I think you may have punched through the floor finally. There is no going any lower, this has got to be your lowest. So leave it at this and keep what little self respect you may think you still have left. It's been weird. Have a nice day.

//There is no going any lower, this has got to be your lowest.//

Bit rich coming from a misogynistic pig-shagger, ALTRAPIST.

More on teenage girls pressured into ‘painful and coercive’ anal sex because of porn and straight young people increasingly having ‘coercive’ anal sex:

"Pornography has changed the landscape of adolescence beyond all recognition

As a study reveals a sharp rise in the number of schoolgirls at risk of emotional problems, Allison Pearson says we need to embolden our daughters to fight back against pornography - however embarrassing it may be..
..
Her patients were deeply ashamed at presenting with such injuries. They had lied to their mums about it and felt they couldn’t confide in anyone else, which only added to their distress. When Sue questioned them further, they said they were humiliated by the experience, but they had simply not felt they could say no. Anal sex was standard among teenagers now, even though the girls knew that it hurt...

.. The girls presenting with incontinence were often under the age of consent and from loving, stable homes. Just the sort of kids who, only two generations ago, would have been enjoying riding and ballet lessons, and still looking forward to their first kiss, not being coerced into violent sex by some kid who picked up his ideas about physical intimacy from a dogging video on his mobile.

.. more than four in 10 girls between the ages of 13 and 17 in England say they have been coerced into sex acts, according to one of the largest European polls on teenage sexual experience. Recent research by the Universities of Bristol and Central Lancashire found that a fifth of girls had suffered violence or intimidation from their teenage boyfriends, a high proportion of whom regularly viewed pornography, with one in five boys harbouring “extremely negative attitudes towards women”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/11554595/Pornography-has-changed-the-landscape-of-adolescence-beyond-all-recognition.html

It was also reported that schoolboys are being tricked and coerced in anal sex and other risky practices by other males, " Boys and girls can fall victim to 'sextortion'.

Gentlemen,

The topic of this discussion is the "Same-Sex Marriage
Bill Passes in Our Parliament." Now I don't mind
having started this discussion and having a few
diversions. That's the norm on public forums. But
this has gotten way out of line. If you wish to
continue to discuss the problems of teenage sex,
anal sex and whatever else seems to take your fancy -
kindly start your own discussion and not spew all over
mine.

I really don't care to hear your thoughts on anything
other than the topic that I have raised.

Thank You.

' . more than four in 10 girls between the ages of 13 and 17 in England say they have been coerced into sex acts, according to one of the largest European polls on teenage sexual experience. Recent research by the Universities of Bristol and Central Lancashire found that a fifth of girls had suffered violence or intimidation from their teenage boyfriends, a high proportion of whom regularly viewed pornography, with one in five boys harbouring “extremely negative attitudes towards women”.'

the obvious outcome of adopting secularism, safe schools and conscience deniers. I suspect Sodom and Gomorrah was more respectable than what our god deniers in hollywood and unis have produced. When most of Parliament celebrate perversion you can easily see where we are at.

runner,

We've heard all those arguments before.
It's an age old ploy of dehumanizing people by
stirring up feelings of hatred for them.
Good work for a self-proclaimed Christian.

It reminds me of the Nazi author of an animated
children's book from 1938 Germany who wrote this
to his young readers -

"Just look at these guys! The louse-infested beards!
The filthy, protruding eyes, those stained, fatty
clothes...Jews oftentimes have an unpleasant
sweetish odour. If you have a good nose, you can
smell the Jews".

The publisher was later executed as a war criminal.

cont'd ...

runner,

Sodom & Gomorrah ?

Parliament celebrates perversion?"

Really?

Goodness me. And I suppose that the Australians who voted
YES did so because they're perverted as well.
This blatant tactic of painting people in this way is
alarmingly effective at keeping you from seeing
gay people as fellow human beings. It also shields you
from the realization that you are, in fact, a bigot
and not a hero who is out to save our society from an
infiltration of moral degenerates.

Society needs to be saved from the hatred within you.

May God forgive you.

It is a disturbing read,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/11554595/Pornography-has-changed-the-landscape-of-adolescence-beyond-all-recognition.html?placement=CB3

"Pornography has changed the landscape of adolescence beyond all recognition"

..A GP, let’s call her Sue, said: “I’m afraid things are much worse than people suspect.” In recent years, Sue had treated growing numbers of teenage girls with internal injuries caused by frequent anal sex; not, as Sue found out, because she wanted to, or because she enjoyed it – on the contrary – but because a boy expected her to. “I’ll spare you the gruesome details,” said Sue, “but these girls are very young and slight and their bodies are simply not designed for that.”

Her patients were deeply ashamed at presenting with such injuries. They had lied to their mums about it and felt they couldn’t confide in anyone else, which only added to their distress. When Sue questioned them further, they said they were humiliated by the experience, but they had simply not felt they could say no. Anal sex was standard among teenagers now, even though the girls knew that it hurt."

Foxy, I must agree with you on staying on topic. I'm sorry if I may have been part of the problem. I find that when anyone say's anything that I believe to be wrong or I simply don't agree with, I have to respond. I will have to remind myself to scrutinise any comments in future and if they are off topic I will not respond or at least advise that they have drifted off topic. Thanks for 'the heads up'.

Hi Foxy, the worse side of Christianity is that intolerant side. Some so called "Christians" like runner will spew the most disgusting filthy bile in an attempt to portray those they detest in the worse possible terms. Planting seeds of hatred into the minds of others with unsubstantiated claims by association.

The Nazi's were very clever at manipulating the minds of children. Both Hitler and Goebbels were Catholics. Wow! what does that tell you about the Pope? For those who may not know it, the Pope is also a Catholic, and possibly a good man, but we just don't know, a Catholic never the less. What crap!

Dear ALTRAV,

Thanks for hearing me.

I do appreciate it.

Dear Paul,

The sexual abuse of children by the clergy is horrendous
and intolerable and the failure of the churches to
deal with it effectively has done immeasurable harm to
victims. We can only trust that the recommendations of
the Royal Commission will be followed and that the Vatican
will back these recommendations. The pope needs to take
note as the clerical profession has taken a severe
battering and the respect for the priesthood is, understandably
at an all time low.

leoj,

You really seem obsessed with anal sex. However you need
to realise that people can acquire HIV through intravaginal
sex. That condoms exist. And that education is the key -
especially of young people.
In any case as I stated earlier - start your own thread on
the subject and stop diverting mine.
Thank You.

Now that SSM is legal, the next inequality to be fought for is lowering the age of consent, to decriminalise sex with teenage children.

The new age of consent will probably be 12 years for girls as puberty begins around that time. No need for parent or legal consent at that age to marry. You see; currently under sharia law the marriageable age is 9, but western girls are too young at 9 to marry. The argument will be that they already engage in sex so they should be allowed to marry older men.

To deny this is blatant bigotry, sexphobia, discrimination and inequality, same argument as SSM.

So, Josephus, you think rapists are being unfairly discriminated against and want equality for them? What about their victim's rights?

Good luck selling that one.

AJ Philips,
That is opposite my agenda, but the push by the left; you watch what the new equality agenda will be.

AJ Philips,
You talk about rapists, I talk about consensual marriage laws.

Josephus,

A person as young as 12 is not mentally or emotionally mature enough to give their consent. We are both talking about rape.

AJ as many things in life, there are so many varying views and opinions. As much as I hate to admit, what Josephus is saying is old news. The story was aired about a year or more ago, when all this SSM rubbish began. Apparently there are people who are in love with, wait for it, 'children'. There is a name for it, but as I was disgusted with this whole new world we seem to be embracing without any thought or consequence for the future and the people there-in, I chose to not retain any details. Suffice to say, these people have a name and demand that they be heard and supported otherwise it will be seen as discrimination and all those pathetic words the SSM camp used to make their point. I warned of things to come, let's see how many sicko's are going to get down in the gutter on this one. These people are serious they openly admit that they are in love with children and therefore are just as entitled to seek happiness as anyone else. Funny is it not pedophilia no matter how you try to twist it?

ALTRAV,

Are you talking about NAMBLA? Yes, groups like that are disgusting. But comparing them to gay people is fallacious, and for the reason I’ve already highlighted in my posts to Josephus.

<<… these people have a name and demand that they be heard and supported otherwise it will be seen as discrimination and all those pathetic words the SSM camp used to make their point.>>

The difference being, of course, that the supporters of same-sex marriage have a case. Groups like NAMBLA don’t. Apples and oranges. The comparison is fallacious.

AJ you see, here is a prime example of a point I have been trying to make. To me and others of my persuasion, we 'don't' see a big difference in the two. We dislike them both equally. But because you favour the Gaiz, you find reason to justify their stance. The NAMBLA will come up with as many reasons, probably more to justify THEIR stance. It is no different for straight people making an argument against ALL of these groups. So how can YOU justify the SSM thing and reject NAMBLA? This new paradime has now set the cat amongst the pidgeons and in doing so has given the NO camp a very strong point in their favour. I did say that now the bill has passed we will be seeing things that will ultimately chip away at SSM.

Dear AJ,

We've heard it all before - the arguments that all
gays are pedophiles, all lesbians hate men, or that the
next thing we know they'll all be marrying dogs and horses.

That homosexuality is disgusting argument is an age old ploy
of dehumanizing people by stirring up feelings of disgust
for them. They tried it with the Jews. Now Muslims are
the flavour of the month next to gays.

The blatant tactic of painting these people,
especially gays as depraved creatures rife with
infectious disease who enjoy
wallowing in each other's faeces and smelly butts is
alarmingly effective at keeping anti-gay bigots from seeing
these people as fellow human beings.

It also shields them from the realization that they are, in fact,
bigots and not heroes who alone have the courage to protect
us and our society from an infiltration of moral degenerates.

But hey, anal sex is not limited to gays. Not all gays have
anal sex. Straight people can acquire HIV through intravaginal
sex. Condoms exist. Vaginas don't always smell of roses
either. Gay people are no less repulsed by faeces than are
any other human beings.

They want people to believe that lofty emotions such as
love and romance are only for actual straight human beings
(like them) and not for filthy animals fornicating and
spreading disease.

As I said - we've heard it all before - over, and over, again.

FOXY, ANYONE,ANYONE who engages in any form of filth is not a 'normal', 'healthy' human being. That obviously includes the degenerate heterosexuals as well. You have to soften your stance a little on this SSM thing. Just because a few people are born with a dis-order only means we can feel sorry for them but to push this wheelbarrow of shame and vilification at anyone who thinks that SSM is wrong, IS WRONG! I for one don't care about being called whatever because I look at whose doing the name calling. In this case I expected exactly what I got. Nothing surprising there. You have made argument after laborious argument in favour of SSM. We get it enough already. What we don't get is why you don't get the negatives of this SSM. God knows I've thrown enough out there. And furthermore my views as well as any other NO camper are of equal value to the YES mob. So just because the bill has passed does not suddenly make the NO camp become believers, quite the opposite. Just ask the anti Trump brigade about the acceptance of their US election result.

Speak for yourself, ALTRAV.

<<To me and others of my persuasion, we 'don't' see a big difference [between paedophiles and homosexuals].

Because there are plenty of homophobes who are still capable of understanding that there is a big difference between paedophilia and homosexuality. I just mentioned a difference earlier.

<<But because you favour [gay people], you find reason to justify their stance.>>”

How about you tell me why my reasoning is not sound then?

But, yes, I do favour them, and for the reason I mentioned earlier. You make it sound like there's some sort of a subjective bias going on here.

<<The NAMBLA will come up with as many reasons, probably more to justify THEIR stance.>>

The difference being, of course, that none of them are sound.

<<So how can YOU justify the SSM thing and reject NAMBLA?>>

The fact that one is rape and the other isn’t. I was discussing precisely this with Josephus.

<<This new [paradigm] has ... given the NO camp a very strong point in their favour.>>

And that is...?

Anyway, I’ve told you why homosexuality cannot be equated with paedophilia; I was going to ask you how exactly you justify equating the two, but I can see now from your post to Foxy that you have no objective or rational reason for doing so. Your entire position is one big fallacious appeal to disgust.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_fastidium

AJ thanks for the link. I draw particular attention to the 'validity versus truth' paragraph. As I said previously, the YES are not going to convince the NO's and NO's are not going to convince the YES'. End of!

I’m not sure which paragraph you’re referring to, ALTRAV.

<<I draw particular attention to the 'validity versus truth' paragraph.>>

I don’t think it gets you off the hook, whatever paragraph it is that you’re referring to. Perhaps you could link to the relevant section for me.

<<As I said previously, the YES are not going to convince the NO's and NO's are not going to convince the YES'.>>

Well, that depends on the individual now, doesn’t it. If you could provide me with a rational argument as to why same-sex marriage should not be legislated for, then I can guarantee you I will change my mind.

"The new age of consent will probably be 12 years"

Josephus, you will need it lowered more than that if you want to put all your paedophile clergy in the clear. Why don't you push for say, no age limit then all your clergy can argue "It was consensual!" BTW how many pedos have been exposed in your church? 10, 100, 1000, none? because all of them are still in the closet?

Before you come on here with all your sanctimonious clap trap you should firstly take a look at your own church, and what you personally have done to clean it up, the answer is most likely nothing, and then look up the meaning of the word hypocrite

Dear Josephus,

«Now that SSM is legal,»

It always was.

«the next inequality to be fought for is lowering the age of consent, to decriminalise sex with teenage children.»

So naive to think that government would do anything with our good or the good of our children in mind, or even that sex has anything to do with it - it's all about political power: politicians do what they perceive as good for themselves and for no one else.

Government will not allow marriage at younger ages because they want the children locked up in schools where they can be indoctrinated to pursue and be enslaved by the industrial-technological-consumerist lifestyle (talking about child-abuse...): if a teen-aged girl was to be married, then she could have babies and/or financial security and would no longer be motivated to attend school, thus she would not be brainwashed into becoming part of the work-force, a cog in the machine and a tax-payer, so they understandably fear.

A girl who lives in a natural society would be completely mature and quite capable of consent by the age of 12 (this is not to say that girls are never forced to marry without consent in natural societies, which is bad, but the capability is there and in some cases girls do in fact freely consent). Admittedly, girls who grow up in present "modern" society are typically not mature enough due to the distractions, unnaturalness, confusion and complexity of industrial society - and government is only too happy to cash on this immaturity.

No, government will not allow it, whether or not it is in the girls' true interest, even in cases where common-sense prevails and everyone could see that she enthusiastically consents: they will always think about themselves and their social-engineering projects, never about the girl.

Yuyutsu,

When people say "legal", when discussing this topic, they mean "legislated for". Stop taking people so literally just to push your bizarre anarchist/libertarian hybrid worldview. No-one cares. Go away.

We already have a larger population in our community, who are larger than the Homosexuals that will marry, who approve of child marriage to persons of 9 years, and perform it undercover. Such matters are now discussed in Sydney Law degrees. Half of the Worlds population approve of child marriage and in the third world sell their girls to prostitution to earn money for the family. Our Church supports Destiny Rescue working in Third World Countries to remove children from the sex trade and give them respectable employment, and anyone working near or with children or the vulnerable in our Church have to pass Police clearance regularly. There have been NO convictions!

https://www.destinyrescue.org/aus/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMItfCQxbqP2AIVgTUrCh2s2Ac-EAAYASAAEgJon_D_BwE

Once Again - I hope that you will all enjoy
this Christmas celebration
And All The Best for the New Year 2018!

Foxy, "anal sex is not limited to gays"

Again, it is entirely misleading and wrong to imply as this does, that heterosexual women are willing parties, seeking and appreciating anal penetration.

In fact the reverse seems to be true and women are being sexually bullied and abused, as already discussed in previous posts. -Posts that were in response to another poster's statement, page 17, where the same misleading bald statement was made without necessary qualification.

It was not a subject that I raised and it would be a travesty, despicable, if such an impression was allowed to stand when so many women and girls are being treated so abominably.

It is a disturbing read,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/11554595/Pornography-has-changed-the-landscape-of-adolescence-beyond-all-recognition.html?placement=CB3

leoj,

Give it a rest - nobody is implying anything of
the kind.

Start your own thread on the subject. Leave mine
alone!

leoj,

Earlier on page 17, ALTRAV had indicated that *if* heterosexuals had anal sex he would be the first to condemn (though he lacks the guts to confront). It is not an "if". His position since is that he is somehow an expert on something he had not been aware existed just a few hours earlier. Your own position is similarly (and transparently) ignorant. You harp on as if no anal sex exists that is not coerced. Some is not, granted, but you have not disentangled this from other coerced sexual activity. Given that only about half to a third of all attempts lead to any sort of repetition makes it clear that a great many are experimentation and voluntary. Quite aside from that I know two couples who do do so as part of their normal activities, so your hypothesis that coercion is the *only* motivator is crap. You may know some too, though you may not be a fit person for them to confide in.

The harms you mention include some serious matters and are a strong argument for better and more thorough sexual education. Some of the saddest stories in sexual health include older couples who had no idea they were doing it wrong and no normalised avenues for seeking advice. One horrific example was a childless woman who had been enduring painful urethral intercourse for years yet whose husband, like some present, was "certain" he knew all he needed.

Like surgery, ask those who do it routinely for advice, not those who never heard about it till three days ago. Like driving, those who have never practiced on dirt roads or skid pans have no idea what to do when they *do* start to slide.

Since both heterosexuals and homosexuals have anal sex, and since none of them are inviting you to join them, it is hardly a problem is it?

Your own marriages remain unaffected, just as they were unaffected by *other people's* sex practices just a short fortnight ago.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter, "You harp on as if no anal sex exists that is not coerced"

That is your straw man.

This was my reply to ALTRAV,

"Very few women would choose anal sex and for all sorts of valid reasons. They are being bullied and (emotionally) blackmailed into it by selfish, risk-taking men who have no regard whatsoever for the woman's feelings, preferences and welfare. The men are being influenced mainly by the porn industry. Although the abuse of women by not allowing them proper access to cheap and reliable contraception is also a factor.

Parents, particularly mothers, cannot rely on government any more to do the right thing. Mothers must take it upon themselves to prepare and arm their daughters from an early age with defences against the deceitful, risky, creeps who would lie to them and pressure them into anal sex. Girls and young women have to support one another with the necessary intel and advice to be proactive with a flat 'NO!' from the outset.
Posted by leoj, Thursday, 14 December 2017 12:34:35 PM

I linked to this news report that cited its reputable source, the British Medical Journal.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/18/teenage-girls-pressured-into-painful-and-coercive-anal-sex-because-of-porn-6788524/?ito=cbshare

I could have added the involvement of illegal drugs, prostitution and other nasties that boost those anal sex numbers you quoted for heterosexual women.

Anal sex seems to be all about men, wouldn't you say and women are getting the usual bum deal. It is most unlikely that anywhere near a majority of those women who reported having anal sex actually sought and enjoyed it. And what about all of those 'slips'?

So what exactly is to be gained and by whom by pretending that a sizeable proportion of heterosexual women are willing and appreciative 'bum' girls. It is not that way at all now is it?

leoj,

*Your* fallacy is that "Very few women would choose anal sex".
More than you think do, and it is clear they would not tell you.
I know it for a fact that some do, and they have considerable capacity to enforce their own preferences, being financially and domestically independent.
Just as in homosexual couples, people are not stopping because you say so. Perhaps they feel that proper preparation and lubrication minimises harm. Perhaps they have information not known to the bible-belt porn watcher who has no idea.

Given that people are allowed to choose to harm themselves with tobacco, perhaps they really have a right to do other things that you do not like.

The scenario *you* paint is common to all sorts of coerced sex. If you are concerned about it, you need to make realistic suggestions. Policing and enforcing a prohibition? Already a failure.
As you suggest, there may be unreasonable male expectations. Another commenter is entranced by the "alpha male" myth and I think it is exactly this mentality that is the most likely offender.

How about genuine support and services to help people who *are* coerced, that take their allegations seriously and are funded to provide alternatives for people who may perceive they have none. Good crisis care, accommodation, support in leaving an abuser and non-judgemental medical help.
Proper sex ed that includes, yes, warnings, but also advice on how *to* and on legal rights.

These help people across the board. Just saying "don't" won't work any better than it did for the ciggys.

In any case, the male homosexuals seeking marriage do not seem to be quaking in their boots at the prospect, nor giving a stuff about your own dire warnings. Perhaps it is not as bad as you think?

Rusty.

Rusty Catheter,

First, the 'bandwagon' (fallacy) - 'everyone is doing it', a monstrous lie in any event where heterosexual women and anal penetration is concerned, is being employed for the cynical, selfish benefit of whom? The research reported in the prestigious British Medical Journal (link already given) contest that for starters!

Then you posit, or was that threaten adverse political effects?, that 'they' the heterosexual women who allegedly desire and demand anal penetration, 'have considerable capacity to enforce their own preferences, being financially and domestically independent'. Is that also, 'all the best people are doing it'? What obvious bollocks and irrelevant anyhow!

Followed up with other fallacious nonsense such as the Straw Man, "'people'(sic) are not stopping because you say so". Insinuating that as the messenger, I might be trying to impose my own views on women and girls and somehow blocking their access to that highly desired anal sex you claim they are after (and in droves, yeah, right!).

I have been very clear about what I am objecting to. Rather than re-stating that yet again, here is one of my posts,

<Foxy, "anal sex is not limited to gays"

Again, it is entirely misleading and wrong to imply as this does, that heterosexual women are willing parties, seeking and appreciating anal penetration.

In fact the reverse seems to be true and women are being sexually bullied and abused, as already discussed in previous posts. -Posts that were in response to another poster's statement, page 17, where the same misleading bald statement was made without necessary qualification.

It was not a subject that I raised and it would be a travesty, despicable, if such an impression was allowed to stand when so many women and girls are being treated so abominably.

It is a disturbing read,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/11554595/Pornography-has-changed-the-landscape-of-adolescence-beyond-all-recognition.html?placement=CB3
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 17 December 2017 9:04:16 PM, page 26>

leoj,

You're at it again. With your generalisations and
sweeping statements. The statements made earlier
that stated not only homosexuals have anal sex and
also that not all homosexuals have anal sex happen
to be facts. Yet you go on about women and young
girls being forced to have anal sex. That may be true
for some - but what does this topic have to do with
the subject of this discussion. This discussion is
about the same sex marriage bill being passed in our
Parliament and yet you continue to read all sorts
selectively into statements that have nothing to do
with the topic. If you want to continue to go
on ranting about women being forced into anal sex - start
your own discussion - because you are breaking the forum
rules by continuing to do so on my discussion. You're off
topic, and you keep posting the same thing over and over
again.

Go Away and take your megaphone elsewhere.

It is relevant.

Yet again, below is the statement on page 17 of the thread that gives the misleading impression that heterosexual women, in numbers, are well disposed towards anal sex. That by implication, women generally are accepting by desire and choice of anal penetration, and consent is freely being given, which is absolute rot.

[Rusty Catheter to another poster], "The US Survey of Family Growth recorded that roughly 30% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal sex, about one-third of those ongoing. Even allowing variation, Australia will have more heterosexuals doing so than the total number of homosexuals. In short, heterosexuals do it, probably one in ten of couples you know, and you do in fact lack the fortitude to police the matter".

Even the most basic scrutiny immediately reveals the restrictions, the myriad of problems, in trying to draw any conclusions from that '30%'. For example, many of the women could have been drug users complying (or plying) to get fixes. And what about the problems of informed consent? But then other negative information emerges, such as men are calling 'slips'(!) and likely progressing with the violation.

The article in the British Medical Journal is relevant and is discussed in this news report,

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/18/teenage-girls-pressured-into-painful-and-coercive-anal-sex-because-of-porn-6788524/?ito=cbshare

leoj,

What does all this have to do with the topic of this
discussion?

Please explain.

Foxy,

It is a monstrous lie that heterosexual women - in any significant numbers at all - are desirous of, demanding and enjoying anal penetration. That is a fantasy and a fabrication. The reverse is seen to be true. Heterosexual women recoil from anal sex and for all sorts of very good reasons, not the least being the nasty stereotype of women's role that most hoped was challenged and buried decades ago,

You make it rather obvious from your persistent attempts at gags, censorship and puppeteering in this thread that it is somehow crucial for you (and your activists' talking points) to USE women, heterosexual women, as cannon-fodder in a campaign to normalise anal sex. I still hope that isn't the case and that you will not continue to be so callously dismissive of women's needs, just to suit your political activist agenda, whatever that might be.

How is it that you can duck the i port of the research in the British Medial Journal (BMJ, previous link)? - It is likely that many women (and regrettably, girls) are subjecting themselves to anal sex that they do not want and would not choose if it was up to them. Their selfish partners are using emotional blackmail and other unfair nasty practices to get what they want and disregard the physical and emotional welfare of the women who are just convenient holes. - Back to the Fifties?

Maybe you should be having a few thoughts about that BMJ report and the negative consequences of the promotion of anal sex for women and girls. It stretches credulity that anyone who claims to be one of OLO's women posters could ever countenance supporting/building a lie for political purposes that heterosexual women are wanting and enjoying anal penetration - or that a condom and lube overcomes all of the risks and 'makes' them enjoy it.

Third para above, 'i port' should be import.

Foxy,

I read the link again and nowhere did it say

"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO"

which is what you said.

I suggest that you go back and read the link again and learn to quote accurately.

Pay particular attention to the fact that nowhere on the link is there a statement that 100% 0f the Australian population voted, which is what you are saying.

It'd be nice if you, just once, admitted that you were wrong.

leoj,

I do not have a political agenda.
My views are not set in concrete.

I rely on facts which is an occupational
habit being a reference librarian and having worked
in special, public, university, libraries both in
this country and overseas for decades.
I have been professionally trained to delve into
issues.

I therefore respond to irrational, inflexible
attitudes toward entire categories of people.
And to statements rooted in generalisations that
ignore the differences among individuals.

Now your statements generalising women and anal sex -
are simply false. You are in no position to speak
on behalf of ALL women. And my pointing this out does
not mean that I have a political agenda, or that I
am pro anal sex or anti women or that I am trying to
gag or censor you.

We've been down this route many times and it is your
well worn tactic every time something is pointed out
that does not agree with your viewpoint.

Again, you are breaking the rules of this forum by not
sticking to the subject. But then you already know this.
So I shall leave it there.

I do not usually enjoy engaging with you for obvious reasons.

Dear Is Mise,

You do need to have your eyes tested.

It's all there on page 1.

But if you can't see it - I can't help you.

Foxy,

I have pointed out several times that I am merely addressing the remark of another poster back on page 17 (and you put your oar in as well), correcting any misunderstandings that result where raw data is interpreted without the necessary restrictions.

If you disregard peer-reviewed research in the prestigious British Medical Journal because doesn't fit your idealism then so be it. But don't be blaming me as the messenger.

Why is it that the pro-anal sex push are so determined to use heterosexual women as the cannon fodder to legitimise penetrative anal sex? It is obvious fudging and lies through misleading a trusting public. However, saying that 30% had been exposed to anal sex is more a red flag that something is going awry, that women are being abused surely? And that the advances made by women are being rolled back.

Does someone have to spell it out for you? While 30% report having anal sex, it is anal sex that is being done to them. The pro-anal activists deliberately mislead when they use that number.

Few women would ever seek anal and for rather obvious reasons, denial of their womanhood for starters. Then there is that nasty stereotyping of women, as holes for men to use for their own gratification. The usual men demanding anal from women come from the background of familiarity and preference for it from their sex with male partners. It stand to reason too, that these men are very high risk of STIs where women are concerned - and more so because they are demanding anal and more likely to NOT use a condom.

For posters with inquiring minds who want facts, here is another useful and relevant research report,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3904497/

Off subject!
My wife worked for a leading gynaecologist in Cornell University Hospital in the 1960s and his advice to women was, to stay vaginally healthy was not to wear briefs as they spread bacteria from the anus to the vagina. Faeces does not need penetration to cause bacterial infection.

leoj,

You are doing MORE than "merely addressing the
remark of another poster back on page 17".

You have carried on about the subject of anal
sex throughout this discussion - you've been on
a roll beginning with page 19, 20, 21,22,23,
then back again on page 27, 28, 29. That is much
MORE than "merely addressing..." that's being
obsessive.

And NO ONE is pushing the topic of anal sex apart
from YOU!

Dear Josephus,

Again, there is plenty on the web on this subject.
Which we can all access.
However leoj has more than covered this topic.

Thank You.

Foxy,

Nowhere in that reference does it say, as you mistakenly claim, that 100% of the Australian population voted, nor does it even claim that 100% of eligible voters attended the polls.
It makes a claim in the 70 percentile.

Maybe you need glasses or a comprehension course.

If I missed a vital part of the information that you gave and I am thus wrong, kindly point to the exact reference.

Foxy,

The lie is in how you are twisting and turn things isn't it? The answer is NO, I am not as you say carrying on about anal sex.

What I am doing, but you are constantly trying to derail, censor and block, is to correct the misleading impression given by the pushers of anal sex (and you are definitely one of them from your behaviour), that significant numbers of heterosexual women are choosing anal penetration of their own volition and preference - which is absolute bollocks.

What is worse, there is evidence that substantial numbers of those heterosexual intercourse are likely sexual abuse and even rape. -Rape is lack of consent isn't it? What else then to call 'slips' and particularly where the violation is continued and reportedly even more violently?

You have made no attempt whatsoever to address the facts put forward and you obviously don't want anyone else to do it either. It is part of your modus operandi to constantly bury posts you object to with meaningless trash and that includes ad hominem.

Who the hell do you think you are that you imagine you can be there directing people what they can and cannot write. And then acting as moderator alleging that others have 'broken rules' because they happen to want to correct a misleading 'factoid' in the interests of correctness and balance.

To repeat a question you are ducking, 'Why is it that the pro-anal sex push are so determined to use heterosexual women as the cannon fodder to legitimise penetrative anal sex?'

Dear Is Mise,

The ABS has published the postal survey results
online. Feel free to access them and interpret
them as you please.

Cheers.

leoj,

Glad to learn that you are no longer carrying on
about anal sex.

Perhaps now you could contribute something to
the topic of this discussion.

Cheers.

Foxy,

Shew me where I'm wrong, please.

It worries me that I may have got it wrong and that I am doing you an injustice in thinking that you are stupid.

Dear Is Mise,

Quite frankly I've lost my appetite for dragging
this discussion any further. The Bill has passed in
our Parliament and the exact breakdown of stats is
available online by the ABS. You can look it up
for yourself. At the moment I'm tired. We had
a violent storm in Melbourne last night. Thunder
and hail. And several of the sky-lights on our
house we smashed by hail-stones the size of rocks.
And we're told there's more to come. It was a very
scary experience. And we have a lot to do before
Christmas.

Anyway - I'll leave it there.

cont'd ...

Here is the link that I cited earlier:

http://www.marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results

If you go down the column on the left-hand side until
you come to "results" then click onto that it will
give you the national response.

Dear Foxy,

My sympathies with you on the hail damage, severe storms are not a nice experience.

Regarding the survey, I followed your directions and found that,

"Of the eligible Australians who expressed a view on this question, the majority indicated that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, with 7,817,247 (61.6%) responding Yes and 4,873,987 (38.4%) responding No. Nearly 8 out of 10 eligible Australians (79.5%) expressed their view."

That is not,

"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO."

as you stated.

See the difference?

A Lie repeated and not challenged becomes the truth.

There are elements that are trying to legitimise and normalise anal sex.

Plainly, it would help their propaganda campaign considerably if it could be claimed that large numbers of heterosexual women seek and enjoy anal penetration.

Obviously you have done your part, Foxy. You have been intransigent in refusing to admit the lie and the nasty sexism (and it is 1950's sexism that rolls back the gains of decades since) that is embedded in the anal sex propagandists' false inferences regarding heterosexual women. You don't even want it discussed. That is because any examination finds the facts, the truth. And the truth dispels the lie that is so necessary to those who are determined to promote and normalise anal sex.

If some men want penetrative anal sex there are other men who are seeking to service them.

Dear Is Mise,

Our Prime Minister stated:

"It is a big country 150 electorates
and 133 that's nearly 90% voted YES.
Let's not lose sight that it was a
YES vote!"

The following link explains further:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/stunning-fact-that-shows-how-comprehensive-the-yes-victory-was/news-story/6e9173fef9322faa2cfd99ed9c58880a

leoj,

A second study done by Sydney University
has found the following:

http://www.sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=14315

According to Professor Chris Rissel -

"The proportions of men and women who reported experiences
of oral or anal sex has increased significantly -
from 79% to 88% among men and from 67% to 86% among women."

Prof. Rissel states that "This is consistent with increases
in the lifetime experience of oral and anal sex in other
countries".

Prof. Rissel may be contacted at Sydney University for
further information.

Apples and oranges. Incidence does not prove preference, or even consent.

You just don't get it do you, Foxy? What about you find some studies that give some weight to females' sexuality?

Also, where it is the male partner (and usually with prior anal sex experience with males) who is overwhelmingly the the one taking the initiative when it comes to anal sex, what might that indicate to you as possibilities for further research? Research that should also look into denial of effective conception to women.

leoj,

I have provided you with information regarding
the subject you wish to discuss - that of anal sex-
from an institution of learning in this country despite
the fact that I have indicated to you that this
subject is your interest not mine and has nothing
to do with this discussion.

If you want to continue to further discuss this subject
at greater length, as I suggested earlier - start your own thread
or contact Prof. Chris Rissel at Sydney University.
He is an expert on the subject.
I'm not.

Kindly respect my wish to not engage on this matter with
you any further.

Thank You.

Foxy,"..the subject you wish to discuss - that of anal sex"

More straw man. You are perfectly aware that my interest is in challenging and dispelling the misleading impression, the big lie, being spread by unprincipled, manipulative activists, that there are significant numbers of heterosexual women who are requesting and enjoying anal sex.

I have already challenged your most recent 'evidence'. See above.

There is however abundant evidence to suggest that heterosexual women do NOT favor or enjoy anal penetration, that anal sex is diametrically opposed to the sexuality of women, a sexuality that deserves further study and emphasis.

Anal sex is a disturbing return to the 1950's compliant, serving woman, and her anus is just another hole for selfish Lotharios guided by the Porn industry, or in so many cases, men who have anal sex with their male mates (men who have sex with men, ie., MSM) and want the same deal, access to an anus, from their female conquests. That is very high risk sex for women, as is shown by research into the transference of HIV to women.

Worryingly, the direction that research should be taking and urgently, is into the emotional and physical abuse of heterosexual women by their anal sex demanding partners.

If some men want penetrative anal sex there are other men who are seeking to service them. QED, leave heterosexual women alone.

Sadly, girls already have enough issues to contend with, body image for instance.

They need lots of care, support and help from parents, their mothers especially, to deal with men who are browbeating them into highly risky behaviour, as 'bum girls', that is aimed exclusively at servicing and satisfying males, and because of a porn industry (and cynical activists).

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/18/teenage-girls-pressured-into-painful-and-coercive-anal-sex-because-of-porn-6788524/?ito=cbshare

Foxy,

Regardless of what the PM said,
It was not,

"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO."

as you stated.

See the difference?

Now that SSM has been legalised in Australia opens the way for religious freedom protections to include sharia law to be practised in Australia.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/15/religious-freedom-review-appointee-has-argued-for-limited-sharia-law-in-australia

The Australian Constitution protects us but is ignored. SSM violates the Australian Constitution because it does not conform to Christian moral law.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FdCf0Z7cq1AY&h=ATPPSjgg3BkzYTvQeyeo48yeRvBAoCIoiDYYV-RsdEsqonINRx6fgte7VhKs9glfUttst-hvIMlWSHBPmiI_8zsyROLoLk60cGrlPG0UuivR_jLxBqjJgqUxClm9pDUATA8bOm9DMqh-

Josephus, you make a very good point. That alone should be enough for a legal challenge to the SSM laws if the govt have not given due and just consideration to religion. I try not to believe that pollies are just a bunch of consumers with absolutely no special qualities justifying their elite position, but unfortunately it is so. It's no wonder they make such asinine decisions over the years. Anyway I would like to see what provisions they have made to accommodate the religious groups in Australia.

Josephus,

Please site the section of the constitution stating that laws must conform to "Christian moral law" (we'll worry about what constitutes Christian moral law later on).

You see, neither throughout my time in law school, nor my reading of the Constitution, not once do I remember reading anything of the sort.

I hope you've done your homework.

'The Australian Constitution protects us but is ignored. SSM violates the Australian Constitution because it does not conform to Christian moral law."

Geeezz!!

I remember many years ago I could access the constitution quite easily. Not that long ago I attempted to look it up again but was met with all manner of rubbish but was unable to get the original constitution as I had done for many years prior. What the hell is going on? Is someone trying to stop us from referring to the constitution? Is there some sick agenda in play? Anyone got any thoughts?

Try,

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx

leoj,

Prof. Chris Rissel of Sydney university made it
quite clear in the link that I cited earlier that
"The proportions of men and women who reported
experiences of oral or anal sex has INCREASED
significantly - from 79% to 88% among men and
from 67% to 86% among women."

"This is consistent with increases in the
lifetime experience of oral and anal sex in other
countries".

There's more to read in that given link on this
subject. You are the one in denial - blaming god
knows what. This is the second such study on the
topic done by an institution of higher learning.
You can deny all you like - but the facts are
recorded. And medical specialists and researchers
use them.

You seriously need to move on - you've flogged this
subject to death on my discussion.

AJ, I think Josephus is referring to ChapterV number 116 of the Constitution.
Josephus, jump in if I'm on the right track. Firstly the heading says; 'Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion'. Then the actual explanation is as follows:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
WOW! I can't believe it. Josephus I think you will find that there will be dispensations in this new crap law to cater for this. What I am more concerned about is whether the law is going to interfere with freedom of trade and charge those who choose to refuse queers, as is his right. I don't see the big deal. Muslims (true Muslims)won't deal with non Halal establishments, every race has their particular habits or quirks. I don't see this as any different. If someone doesn't want to serve the queers there are a thousand more that will. They may even be run by queers. I am sure straight people have been refused service, by simply being told, we have run out of stock or similar. The customer will never know and therefore can't go running off to complain.

I believe our constitution envisaged religion to encompass personal practise and implied Christian denominations as has been taught in schools from the beginning. Religious freedoms must only be personal and not imposing on other persons.

However Islam is a theocratic sharia political system imposing halal taxes on food consumed by all, payable to the Islamic community for their benefit alone. This in itself is a violation of a free society, as it is imposing its religious beliefs on persons not of their belief system, and offers them no benefit. To give protection to imposed religion on unbelievers is a violation of their rights.

Islam if given religious protection I believe will be seeking right to marry children as young as 9 years, and the right to shame killings for a woman who has been raped; the right to have multiple wives. These are happening under cover already in Australia, a couple of cases have exposed.

Foxy,

Saying things doesn't make them true. Nor does linking to an academic and claiming that he supports your view. I have already challenged claim before. But you sidestep and present the same again.

There is NO evidence whatsoever of significant numbers of heterosexual women requesting and enjoying anal sex.

However, there is abundant evidence to suggest that heterosexual women do NOT favor or enjoy anal penetration, that anal sex is diametrically opposed to the sexuality of women, a sexuality that deserves further study and emphasis.

To stress again for your benefit, anal sex is a disturbing return to the 1950's compliant, serving woman, and her anus is just another hole for selfish Lotharios guided by the Porn industry, or in so many cases, men who have anal sex with their male mates (men who have sex with men, ie., MSM) and want the same deal, access to an anus, from their female conquests. That is very high risk sex for women, as is shown by research into the transference of HIV to women.

Worryingly, the direction that research should be taking and urgently, is into the emotional and physical abuse of heterosexual women by their anal sex demanding partners.

If some men want penetrative anal sex there are other men who are seeking to service them. QED, leave heterosexual women alone.

Plainly you are so far into your advocacy of anal sex that you never get to meet any women. You might try explaining to them why it is so important, crucial, to the normalising of anal sex for those anus-targeting MSM that heterosexual women must be the cannon fodder.

Heterosexual women are eagerly demanding and enjoying anal sex? Bollocks! How many women do you know who want to be 'bum girls', self-administering enemas, having disgusting mishaps in the sheets and having the running bums later?

leoj,

You should know that the Fox Trot contains a number of side steps!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5100311/Up-one-five-millennials-anal-sex.html

It is widespread, organised, sexual abuse of girls and women and happening right now.

Most would weep at the numbers. But promoters of anal sex, particularly the MSM anal sex activists, rejoice in the numbers of girls and women cajoled, emotionally blackmailed, tricked (the infamous 'slips') and raped.

The higher incidence of females reporting an anal sex interference affecting them is being twisted by anal sex MSM activists into 'lets pretend that those numbers are all women who happily request and enjoy penetration of their anus and violation of their femininity and rejection of their sexuality' by some thrill-seeking, dominating, selfish MSM who doesn't care about their welfare or feelings, or health!

You should be ashamed of yourself, Foxy.

Is Mise,

That one is has been taking the MSM's role in the fox trot. Women and girls (boys too) being thrown under the bus to promote anal sex for MSM and arrogant, selfish, thrill seeking men influenced by porn?

The youthful targets that boost the numbers and the circumstances under which the molestations take place, eg many involving drugs, are red flags for likely sex abuse and rape.

leoj,

Here's another article for you from the Daily Mail in
the UK. Perhaps this one just may sink in as to what's
being said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827078/What-s-number-Australian-women-say-average-NINE-sexual-partners-fellas-claim-nearly-double-number.html

The country's LARGEST study of sexual activity and attitudes
found that over 92% of heterosexual people are having vaginal
sex. 86% of men and 80% of women are engaging in oral sex and
25% of men and 19% of women have had anal sex. Oral and anal
sex was more common among 30 to 49 year olds.

To deny the fact that some women do have anal sex is simply
being blinkered and narrow. And that is something you should
not be proud of.

Hey guys, easy. I don't know anything about this subject and quite simply it sickens me to even have to read about it. I'm only jumping in because I'm coming to Foxy's aid. What little I can garnish about her on this forum, she does NOT appear to be in favour of what you accuse her of. I don't recall any post that left me nauseous after reading like some of the ones I have lately. In fact my stoushes with Foxy have been that she stuck up for women, not the contrary. If I am wrong I must have missed those particular posts that show her in a different light.

Dear ALTRAV,

I've already explained my take on things
several times in this discussion. However
it becomes very difficult on a public
forum especially when you're dealing with people
who are psychologically disturbed.

These people have a distinctive set of traits
that include conformity, intolerance, and
insecurity. These are typical of personality
patterns that tend to have anti-intellectual
and anti-scientific attitudes. These are
people who are disturbed by any ambiguety
in sexual or religious matters, and they see
the world in very rigid and stereotyped terms.

They usually come from a family envornment
in which the parents were cold, aloof,
disciplinarian, and themselves bigoted.

I don't imagine that is the case with you
coming from the background that you do.

Well, thanks for the kind words Foxy, I don't know if I am not a little like the person/people you describe in your previous post, but being deprived of any encouraging comments I will take what I can get. Even from a worthy, driven combatant.

Foxy,

Once again you wrongly equate heterosexual women and girls having experienced anal sex as them wanting, requesting and liking anal sex. That is false. It is a fallacious leap. It is a lie.

You are an advocate for anal sex and you want to legitimise and normalise it in the general community. So you want to maintain the lie that heterosexual women are seeking anal sex. You'd throw heterosexual women and girls under the bus to legitimise anal sex for the MSM lobby.

You side step simple incontrovertible facts. There is abundant evidence to suggest that heterosexual women do NOT favour or enjoy anal penetration, that anal sex is diametrically opposed to the sexuality of women, a sexuality that deserves further study and emphasis. And that anal sex is a disturbing return to the 1950's compliant, serving woman, and her anus is just another hole for selfish Lotharios guided by the Porn industry, or in so many cases, men who have anal sex with their male mates (men who have sex with men, ie., MSM) and want the same deal, access to an anus, from their female conquests.

Also, that anal sex is very high risk sex for heterosexual women, as is shown by research into the transference of HIV to women. You must believe that few women have any regard for their emotional wellbeing, their sexuality and their physical and mental health. Women are not so ill-informed, but they are being bullied, tricked and forced into the very undesirable, risky sex they don't ask for or want.

Higher numbers of anal sex being inflicted on heterosexual = Red Flags for sexual abuse and discrimination against women. The direction that research should be taking and urgently, is into the emotional and physical abuse of heterosexual women by their anal sex demanding partners.

ALTRAV,

Section 116 of the Constitution contradicts Josephus’s claim, as you seem to realise. Anyway, it doesn’t look like Josephus is willing to argue that one any further, so I’ll leave you two to your paranoia.

AJ honestly. I can't argue with double negatives. I know I'm no linguist, but just stop and think about it for a minute. Why would anyone write something to reject religion when their whole premise is based on religion. Do you guys go out of your way to deny anything you know is a threat to your argument or stance? OK, because I am not as quick as you guys, do me the honour of breaking it down and explain it to me, so I can see where I went wrong.

I have no idea where the double-negative was, ALTRAV.

<<I can't argue with double negatives.>>

Could you point it out to me? Something Josephus had said, perhaps?

<<Why would anyone write something to reject religion when their whole premise is based on religion.>>

I don’t know. You tell me. And while you’re at it, could you please explain the relevance of this comment of yours, too? After all, the Constitution wasn't based on religion. Are you perhaps being flexible with your definition of the word 'religion' like theists and climate change deniers can be?

<<Do you guys go out of your way to deny anything you know is a threat to your argument or stance?>>

No. Why’s that? Have I done that somewhere? Are you actually trying to claim that marriage equality is unconstitutional? Not even Josephus appears to be taking that one any further.

<<OK, because I am not as quick as you guys, do me the honour of breaking it down and explain it to me, so I can see where I went wrong.>>

Wrong where? About the Constitution requiring that Parliament adhere to this dubious notion of “Christian moral law”? Tell me where it says such a thing, and I’ll be happy to oblige.

As for s 116 of the Constitution, it literally rejects such a notion. I’m not even sure how that could be explained in any simpler terms. To require that Parliament adhere to the “moral law” of any religion would be to “establish” a “religion” and “impose” a “religious observance”.

What part of that do you not understand?

AJ you are not well. I will break it down for you.

Firstly, let's begin with the heading: 'Commonwealth 'NOT' to legislate in respect of religion'. The header should tell you where the text is going.
The text:

The Commonwealth 'shall not make any law' for establishing

any religion, or for 'imposing any religious observance', or 'for

prohibiting the free exercise of any religion', and no religious test

shall be required as a qualification of any office or public trust

under the Commonwealth.

The paragraph that says you are wrong, and you know you are, is 'prohibiting the free exercise of any religion'.
So now that I've 'put up', YOU can shut up!

The problem being, ALTRAV, that same-sex marriage doesn't prohibit the free exercise of religion.

So, no, it is in fact only you who should to "shut up" now.

You don't think some homophobic lawyers wouldn't have thought of that already, had you been right?

I just thought, ALTRAV, since lawyers apparently have no scruples, how about you approach a firm specialising in Constitutional law with your (or Josephus's) discovery (which they apparently couldn't discover themselves) and see what they think? You might want to brush up on the case law surrounding s 116 before you do, though. You do know what those cases are, don't you?

Yeah, didn't think so.

AJ I find your comments are going around in circles. I'm not interested in your ramblings any more because once I read 116 even someone as thick as me realised, and I wrote, that surely they made provision for 116 in the queers act. And I was right, because I did, so I don't understand what kind of sick mind would knowingly and intentionally mislead people into believing that 116 had the opposite meaning. What is the matter with you people. I might be slow but you people are sick and should be committed. Goodbye!

So in other words, ALTRAV, you have no idea how same-sex marriage violates s 116 of the Constitution. Nor do you understand how banning same-sex marriage could be supported under s 116. Neither do I.

Bye bye.

We are most fortunate to have a team of Constitutional lawyers on the forum from the rabid right to explain everything. Following is the learned one himself ALTRAV explaining the Constitutional implication of all this SSM stuff for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ

ALTRAV all I can say is, don't give up your day job, flipping meat patties down at Burger King, you sure need it!

Am I on some parallel universe? I'm not getting the 'vibe' of all this sarcasm. Will someone actually speak English and explain why 116 is not relevant? I know laws are written in some far away language but I'm pretty sure that 116 says you can't stuff around with religion. Having seen 116 I explained that the SSM law obviously catered to 116. I haven't seen the new SSM law so I am not privy to it's content and wording. So when you guys have finished playing in the sandpit you might decide to clarify your ramblings for us lesser mortals. Because right now I feel as though I'm having a one sided conversation.

ALTRAV, I'm looking forward to seeing in you action in the High Court, challenging this SSM law. Constitutionally, yes it certainly is the vibe, Mabo, ummm... no its defiantly the vibe. Do you act 'pro bono', or are you more the $10,000 a day man. If your wig and gown is in the cleaners, I'm sure there are plenty of the rabid right legal eagles on the forum who will lend you theirs. Like you, they are also never backward in coming forward with their learned legal opinions.

Then on the other hand you could get over it, and all the fundos and the die hard's could accept the No's lost, and the Yes's won. End of story.

leoj,

Your foaming, ranting, raving and accusations hurled at
me are a waste of time. I have never promoted anal sex
as you claim. All I have done is produced evidence that
contradicts your sweeping statement that women do not
have anal sex. That is wrong. The country's largest
study of sexual activity and attitudes found that
19% of women have had anal sex.

Giving you evidence supplied by researchers from the
University of NSW, La Trobe University, and The University
of Sydney who spoke to 20,000 people aged between 16 and
69 - is just that - evidence. It does not mean that this
represents my personal point of view.

I realise that you have many claims and saving women is
your latest aim. That anal sex is bad, my dear, don't you
do it, it is queer.

So feel free to continue with your foaming, ranting, ravings
but kindly leave me out of it

ALTRAV,

I have already explained to you why s 116 is not relevant. Your only response was to assert that same-sex marriage prohibits the free excercise of religion. When I said that it didn't, you simply dug your heels in without explaining how same-sex marriage prohibits the free excercise of religion.

If you could explain how same-sex marriage prohibits the free excercise of religion, then I'd be happy to respond. Religious people don't have to get married to a person of the same sex if they don't want to. So, what's the problem?

Foxy, ..'19% of women have had anal sex'

Have been exposed to anal sex, you mean. Are you still pretending that is good news for anal sex advocates? That it somehow 'proves' that many heterosexual women are requesting and enjoying anal interference form MSMs (males who have sex with other males) and thrill-seeking idiots encouraged by the pornography industry, with the entertainment industry not far behind?

Where many girls are being preyed upon and from UK figures 29% are exposed to sexual experience before age 16 (many are pre-adolescents), does it surprise anyone that the same grubs who take advantage of vulnerable school kids wouldn't also be having a go at their anuses?

How many of the reports of some exposure to anal sex,because they are just raw numbers, right?, are the sad ticks of the survey box by women who were taken advantage of when they were vulnerable and couldn't do much about it, or the violation, 'slips' was planned by some sly grub?

You might reflect on previous advice to you which of course you also ignored, that many women who have had an anal sex are drug addicts. What about kids or women for that matter whose partners demand penetrative sex and use their butt for contraception and hey, no need a condom :( because condoms are for contraception.

You just don't get it do you? But why not? And why is it so necessary for MSMs who are seeking to legitimise and normalise anal sex, to be able to claim, to spread the big lie, that heterosexual women are requesting and enjoying anal penetration?

And, Foxy, what could be the explanation for far more women reporting some f exposure to 'anal sex' (whatever that means), than the number who tick the survey box for the anal violation ever happening again?

Pushed/tricked into it once against their better judgement and inclination but never again? A lot are probably kids and drug affected who were taken advantage of. But some too are affected by that Fifties stereotyping that denies women their sexuality - the need to please men.

More inconvenient facts that you side step.

Speaking of inconvenient facts, here's one of Foxy's posts.

"Here are the facts from the Australian Bureau of
Statistics:

61.6% of the Australian population votes YES. [1 wrong]

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO. [2 wrong]

Of all eligible [note the word 'eligible'] Australians who expressed a view on -
"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples
to marry?" The MAJORITY indicated that the law should
be changed with 61.6% (7,817,247) responding YES.
And, 38.4% (4,873,987) responding NO.

Nearly 8 out of 10 eligible Australians (79.5%) expressed
their view." [not 10 out of 10 of 100% as Foxy would have it].

Note how [1] & [2] are contradicted by the rest of her post?

Is this a case of repeating a falsehood enough times?

leoj,

You've made so many claims on this forum.
Saving women seems to be your latest aim.
Good for you. I wish you every success.

Is Mise,

The information was given by the Australian Bureau
of Statistics. Take your complaints up with them.

Is Mise,

Here's a link that confirms the points being
made throughout this discussion:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/stunning-fact-that-shows-how-comprehensive-the-yes-victory-was/news-story/6e9173fef9322faa2cfd99ed9e58880a

But you go right ahead - but of course they're all wrong!

My apologies for the typo.

Here's the link again:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/stunning-fact-that-shows-how-comprehensive-the-yes-victory-was/news-story/6e9173fef9322faa2cfd99ed9c58880a

@Foxy, Friday, 22 December 2017 2:40:21 PM

Why is it so strategically crucial for MSMs who are seeking to legitimise and normalise anal sex, to be able to claim, to spread the big lie, that heterosexual women are requesting and enjoying anal penetration?

But there is NO evidence whatsoever of heterosexual women's interest in anal sex. In fact heterosexual women en masse loathe the very thought. For starters, everything about anal runs counter to women's sexuality. Then there are the other offensive to women features, the preliminary ritual of purging the faeces, the runny brown stains later, the damage to sensitive tissue, vastly higher risk of disease and so on.

Anal sex is the fantasy of some men. -Because they already practice it with their male partners and are already anus-focussed, or are influenced by the porn industry to which they now enjoy ready, private access online.

Of course these grubs would be putting pressure on women, but especially on girls. Of course they would be seeking to convince young girls and women that 'everybody is doing anal', for obvious purposes. There is abundant evidence of the despicable targeting of girls, school girls. Links have been provided prior.

'Bum sex' is absolutely NOT popular with heterosexual women and for damned good reasons. It is fringe, experimental, risk taking and very likely sexual abuse and sometimes rape being committed against women and now girls, by selfish, aggressive porn loving men and MSM.

One only hopes that the Marxist 'Safe Schools' being pushed by Left 'Progressives' in Australia is closely scrutinised by parents, especially by mothers.

leoj,

Could you please provide us with some evidence that
ALL women in Australia find anal sex repugnant.
I believe that some definitely would - but ALL?
Really?

There are many professionals that seem to disagree
with you on the web. What are your sources in this
country for your claims?

To express disgust at something like that puzzles
me because when it comes to consensual sex - sex therapists
tell us that - anything goes. Really - ANYTHING.
But they of course stress the word - consensual.

I don't think that you can or should speak on behalf of
ALL women. If people are capable of making the decision to
have sex, they are capable of deciding how they are going
to have it. They don't need you to decide for them.

Foxy,

Nothing but straw man from you :(

It is YOU who has to prove that heterosexual women are, as you would have it, eagerly requesting and enjoying anal sex and in significant numbers. But you duck and side step. No surprise that you duck, because heterosexual women do NOT request 'bum sex'. That comes from men and it has to do with stereotyping, negative stuff for women, that is well studied.

By all means go ahead and give that proof you say you have. You haven't given any so far.

Also, "Why is it so strategically crucial for MSMs who are seeking to legitimise and normalise anal sex, to be able to claim, to spread the big lie, that heterosexual women are requesting and enjoying anal penetration?".

On the other hand, it is easy to find reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that disproves the lie that significant numbers of heterosexual women are requesting or even participating in 'bum sex',

'Lets Talk about Real Sex'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLy9bDayMJY
- Watch the first 4 mins or so and the remainder is interesting too.

- Dr Cath Mercer is a Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Sexual Health and HIV Research at University College London, and she is one of the lead researchers on Britain's National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. She is a trained demographer with an interest in sexual mixing, that is, who has sex with whom. Her interest lies in the transmission of STIs (sexually transmitted infections) with regards to the interaction between biology and behaviour. And not just the individual's behaviour, but also their partners and their partners' partners. In her talk, Cath explores changes in sexual behaviour and sexual partnerships observed in Britain, considering the effect of the internet and social media on sexual behaviour.

Examine: does the commonwealth impose the observance of Christian Holy Days for instance? When the Constitution was written certain things were already in place such as the celebration of Christ Jesus birth, so Christian holy days are implied in work contracts recognised by The Commonwealth. Are they imposing a religious observance by allowing penalty rates for working on Christian holy days? The Common law of Australia envisages a Christian view of moral law.

The Commonwealth 'shall not make any law' for establishing

any religion, or for 'imposing any religious observance', or 'for

prohibiting the free exercise of any religion', and no religious test

shall be required as a qualification of any office or public trust

under the Commonwealth.

Given the total rubbish one of the sore losers is posting about Foxy, could it be possible that he is actually having anal sex with himself? Afterall most of his diatribes he posts are rather anal at the best of times.

Nowhere on this Forum has Foxy ever advocated anal sex, to say she has is a fabrication.

To set the record straight I don't have a problem with those who participate in such activity, be they gay or straight, they can do what they bloody well please. I say go for it, not my call!

Foxy,

"Here's a link that confirms the points being
made throughout this discussion"

It doesn't confirm that

"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO."

as you said.

So apologize for posting such misleading information and for insisting that the ABS are complete dills, they would never and never did post that which you ascribe to them.

Josephus,

Your point about public holidays is why the High Court has typically interpreted s 116 narrowly (unbeknownst to ALTRAV, apparently).

A lot of things could be considered a breach of s 116 if we were to stretch the bow long enough. One could claim that the previous exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage was also a breach of s 116, if one wanted to push things far enough. Courts ordering that children of Jehovah’s Witnesses receive blood transfusions, against the wishes of their parents, is absolutely a breach of s 116.

Contrary to popular belief, however, (and to the utter dismay of right-wing Formalists) the law is not black and white. It can’t be. Common sense must prevail when absurdities arise or justice demands it.

<<The Common law of Australia envisages a Christian view of moral law.>>

No, it doesn’t. It “evisages” secularism, if anything. Any overlap is likely co-incidental, or the result of modern Christianity having been dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages by secularism

Trying to follow a “Christian moral law” saw 245 years of slavery in a country founded on freedom. This notion of “Christian moral law” is a dubious and highly subjective one fraught with all sorts of problems as to what exactly it constitutes. Secularism is the only alternative, and one which has proved highly successful.

Let's look at the moral Law: It is built on avoiding personal guilt unlike other cultures that are built on avoiding shame of family or Tribe.
1. We must each give allegiance to one Character values. The preamble to the meaning of all other values.
2. We must keep one day in seven as a rest day because we are not slaves, nor make others slaves in our care. This principle established 3,000 years ago. Christians observe either Saturday or Sunday as rest days from work and also applies to all their employees.
3. We are to give respect and care to parents especially in old age.
4. We shall not murder [unlike cultures that murder a family member that has brought shame on the family e.g. a daughter who has been raped.]
5. We should not commit adultery or rape. It violates a boundary of another person or relationship. A practise considered common in pagan society.
6. We must not give false witness against another person. Honesty of even an opponent is vital to a civil society.
7. We must recognise and respect others personal boundaries of property and relationships.

These principle are no longer applicable in Western society nor can they be displayed in public or taught in schools as they identify a religious faith. Yet our Constitution was drawn up by people who practised and believed them.

This is the basis of Moral Law. Jesus summed it up in two principles.
1. Give full allegiance in mind body and spirit to one Holy Character values. God is identified as purist of character, actions that care for humanity, and wisdom the improves society, e.g. Christ Jesus.
2. Care for others as you would desire they care for you.

Dear Paul,

Well I give up. I've tried to explain to Leoj
the facts from various links including from
the largest report this country has ever seen
on sexual activity that was done by various
researchers from various universitieis
which clearly stated that 19% of
Australian women did have anal sex. However that was
not enough for Leoj. There is plenty of material on
the web which he can access - including Cosmopolitan
magazine that covers the myths and
misconceptions of anal sex,
that many young women read. Than there's
Dr Kat Van Kirk,
Prof. Chris Rissel, even Bettina Arndt, to name just
a few who all have
opinions and stats on the topic.

I am not an advocate of anal sex. I regard sex
to be a private matter between consenting individuals.
And what other people do is not something I am interested
in.

However, as one sex therapist pointed out -

"I would say such negativity towards certain acts is what
drives the divide between a couple. If your partner is
afraid of broaching a subject for fear of being shot down
in flames and labelled as a sexual deviant, then that can
only breed contempt and resentment. This applies noe matter
what gender you are. I think if you're capable of making the
decision to have sex, then you should be aware of the diversity
of human desire."

To express disgust at something like that puzzles me
because when it comes to consensual sex -
it's really a personal matter
between the people involved. It's clearly a personal choice.
And of course education is the key as to what that choice
entails and the risks involved - that goes without saying.
Some people will definitely not want any part of it, whilst
others may be willing to experiment however to make broad
sweeping statements and generalisations on behalf of ALL -
is plainly wrong. Ant to carry on about this subject
throughout this discussion is equally disturbing and smacks
of obsessive behaviour - or of something more serious.

Is Mise,

In this discussion I have quoted from the
Australian Bureau of Statistics word for word.
I shall provide you with another link that
again confirms the findings of the ABS.
If you read this link you will find that it clearly
states:

"The ABS this morning revealed Australians voted
YES to same-sex marriage with 61.6% in favour and
38.4% against."

Then if you continue you shall see -
"HOW AUSTRALIA VOTED"

61.6% YES
38.4% No

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/how-australia-voted-on-samesex-marriage/news-story/856052cb744b25f734d04c1714e202e7

Foxy,

Yet again and it is tedious, nothing but straw man from you :(

It is YOU who has to prove that heterosexual women are, as you would have it, eagerly requesting and enjoying anal sex and in significant numbers. But you duck and side step. No surprise that you duck, because heterosexual women do NOT request 'bum sex'. That comes from men and it has to do with stereotyping, negative stuff for women, that is well studied.

You haven't given any proof at all so far. To add, just giving names doesn't mean that the said researcher supports your opinion.

This too, unanswered, "Why is it so strategically crucial for MSMs who are seeking to legitimise and normalise anal sex, to be able to claim, to spread the big lie, that heterosexual women are requesting and enjoying anal penetration?".

However, it is easy to find reputable, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that disproves the lie that significant numbers of heterosexual women are requesting or even participating in 'bum sex',

'Lets Talk about Real Sex'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLy9bDayMJY
- Watch the first 4 mins or so and the remainder is interesting too.

You might consider this researcher's comments on the sort of 'proof' you come up with from your Googling, Foxy.

Any incidence of note affecting heterosexual women would be a bellwether of things going very wrong for women and especially for girls - as revealed by this, cited earlier (but of course Foxy has the anal sex advocate's eyepatch in place),

"Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found heterosexual men were increasingly watching anal porn online. Top searches on PornHub and other pornographic websites often feature the terms associated with this type of intercourse. Researchers found that more and more women being pressured into having painful anal sex because it has been normalised online. Worryingly, teenagers have internalised terms like ‘accidental’ penetration of the anal area. Teen girls are increasingly likely to accept these so-called ‘slips’."
...
Researchers wrote: ‘In some cases, anal penetration of the woman… was described by men and women as having happened accidentally… Once they’ve ‘slipped’, many teenage boys are said to refuse to even slow down the pace of intercourse, as painful anal sex is becoming normalised. These techniques were considered ‘normal’ by teens who responded to the study and girls were simply expected to be in pain.

Researchers were shocked to discover that teens are becoming so used to anal sex it affects how they speak about it. Many people who had anal sex blamed it on ‘slips’. They wrote: ‘Young people’s narratives normalised coercive, painful and unsafe anal.’ However the researchers are now hinting at authorities’ need to act. They added there must be ‘harm reduction efforts targeting anal sex to help encourage discussion about mutuality and consent, reduce risky and painful techniques and challenge views that normalise coercion’."

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/18/teenage-girls-pressured-into-painful-and-coercive-anal-sex-because-of-porn-6788524/?ito=cbshare

Foxy,

WOW! You finally got it near right,

"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO."

Which is not the same as,

"The ABS this morning revealed Australians voted
YES to same-sex marriage with 61.6% in favour and
38.4% against."

Your so-called quote is so obviously wrong, you didn't quote the ABS you misquoted them.

Wake up!!

It is what interpretation is placed on the numbers that matters. Here is the straight talk on that,

"The ABS reports that more than 79.5% of voters enrolled with the Australian Electoral Commission submitted their form with a clear vote cast for either side of the debate.

Simply put, this means that slightly fewer than half of all eligible voters (49.0%) voted Yes and a little less than a third (30.5%) voted No. The rest did not vote or their preference was unclear.
..
So does this mean that we now know what all Australian eligible voters think about this issue? Can we conclude that a majority of eligible voters are in favour of same-sex marriage?

What the numbers can’t tell us
The number one point to understand about these results is not what they are telling us, but what they are not telling us. It is tempting to believe that the survey outcome means that 61.6% of Australians are in favour of same-sex marriage, and 38.4% against. This is not true.

While the response rate was high [as is usual for Australian elections], we know that 20.5% of eligible voters didn’t take part.
..
But all we are really able to say is that these figures (61.6% Yes and 38.4% No) are representative of those eligible voters who chose to vote, rather than being representative of all eligible Australians. These two populations may be very different."
http://theconversation.com/what-the-numbers-say-and-dont-say-in-the-same-sex-marriage-survey-87096

leoj,

None the less, the YES vote won in what was a voluntary vote, in such cases those who didn't bother to vote are deemed not to care either way, so YES is clearly the winner.

Dear Is Mise,

Go back to the link I gave you in my previous post
and read the entire link please.
You will find that the quote:

"The ABS this morning revealed Australians voted YES to same-
sex marriage, with 61.6% in favour and 38.4% against."

It's just above the big letters of HOW Australia voted -
the national results.

What the heck's the matter with you?

Is Mise,

I don't care either way about the result. So it is 'whatever' from me.

It has (pre-)occupied the national broadcaster and politicians in the federal parliament for years.

Hoping for some action finally on those 'wicked' problems.

Foxy,

"What the heck's the matter with you?"

My problem is that I think that you can't quote accurately.

You quoted the ABS as saying
"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO."

that is not on their site so how could you quote it?

You most have made it up.

Where have you been Leoj, doing your Ripvanwanker act again, "Hoping for some action finally on those 'wicked' problems" With the rabid right backed up by the Christian fudo's, and other lunatics, they tried everything they could to avoid the inevitable. Finally painted into a corner they wasted over $100 million of taxpayers money on a public survey which only confirmed what we all knew, that the vast majority of Australians supported gay marriage. Laws are now in place which reflect the wish of the people. End of story.

Issy, stop pretending to be a dumb arse nit picker, and accept what is fact. You never know if you butter up Leoj, he may let you into his little secret about solo anal sex, something he's perfected. Leoj is so preoccupied with discussing that particular aspect of sex on the forum, I'm sure he gets off on it.

Merry Christmas Issy, Leo, Foxy. I'm off to the big celebration at a Family Christmas gathering tonight with the tribe.

Time for a bit of a Christmas hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnJ8jsw4BSo

Boy, Paul1405 has got to be the sorest winner I've ever heard. I'd hate to be around when he loses. We all know I'm pissed off that the Yes won, even though I hold on to my values and beliefs and I feel a sense of waters being muddied over this result, but they are my beliefs like it or not. Sure us NO campaigners will not accept the outcome because there have been too many questions along the way. Now that it's over there are still more questions, if only about the veracity and strength of the numbers, when all the 'bar' talk was NO. If we were in the US we would call this the 'college vote' as I believe the outcome ,socially, has been an untrue representation of the actual and true feelings of the real and majority of the eligible voters. Had they all voted, I believe it would have been very close, but also the outcome would have been different. But, there you have it. Paul, you won, enjoy your Christmas and the rest of your life. You live to argue another day.

Dear Paul,

Enjoy Your Christmas.

I've been cooking for the past two days.

Tomorrow evening is our special family feast -
and as always it's at our house with all the
traditional Lithuanian Christmas-Eve dishes
all sea-food and salads and yummy desserts.
Christmas Day lunch is the Glazed Ham, Turkey,
Christmas veggies et cetera. I usually do that
as well but this year my daughter-in-law has
volunteered to do it (Yay!). Still,I am bringing
a turkey - to help.

Enjoy all the magic of Christmas - and may the
New Year bring all of us Good Health and Happiness.

And as my brother would say -

"Give them heaps!"

Suddenly lost interest in arguing s 116 of the Constitution, ALTRAV? Funny that.

AJ, I don't remember 'arguing' about 116. Funny that.

Paul,

"Issy, stop pretending to be a dumb arse nit picker, and accept what is fact."

I've accepted the YES vote from the day it was announced, read my posts, all that I'm doing is trying to get Foxy to admit, that for once, she is wrong and that she made up what she attributed to the ABS.
What she quoted was wrong.

Is Mise,

I quoted directly from the ABS.

You refuse to believe that.

I did not make it up.

You refuse to believe that.

There are many sources on the web that also
confirm the findings of the ABS - you can
look them up for yourself. They also repeat
what the ABS has stated. You refuse to
believe that.

And of course, we are all wrong and you are
right!

We get it!

No, ALTRAV, it's not funny at all.

<<... I don't remember 'arguing' about 116. Funny that.>>

In fact, I find it to be quite concerning. To refresh your memory:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8052#250203
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8052#250224
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8052#250226
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8052#250229
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8052#250241

Foxy,

"And of course, we are all wrong and you are
right! "

Right!!

I think this topic has run it's course. I've already moved on to other topics. Catch you all on the next one. Bye and Merry Xmas.

That's right ALTRAV, it was all over before it started. When the result of the vote was announced, a resounding victory for the YES campaign. you and the other NOeeee's should have headed for the hills, like some little boys with their pants on fire. Instead a few blowhard-diehards, like yourself, tried to distort the result with your own brand of convoluted irrational nonsense. Then again the whole No campaign was irrational nonsense from the start.

Dear Is Mise,

I'm not fighting to be right.

But I will fight when I am right.

I trust your judgement.
Implicitly.
You're just wrong.

This discussion has run its course, well and truly.

My Christmas Eve went beautifully.
So much excitement with the grand-children.

We're leaving soon for lunch at my daughter-in-law's.
And later, visiting mum.

I received a very pleasant surprise last night -
The gift of Magda Szubanski's book, "Reckoning".
I imagine it will be Brave, compassionate -
and hilarious.

Have a nice day everyone.

Foxy,

You said,
"Here are the facts from the Australian Bureau of
Statistics:

61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO"

If you can shew me just where the ABS said that I'll boil down my best Akubra, reduce it to a paste, flavour it with Vegamite and eat it.

The blokes and ladies at the ABS would never be so stupid as to claim that the whole Australian population are entitled to vote.

Dear Is Mise,

Curly hair
Don't care!

Foxy,

You said,
"Here are the facts from the Australian Bureau of
Statistics:

61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO"

If you can shew me just where the ABS said that I'll boil down my best Akubra, reduce it to a paste, flavour it with Vegamite and eat it.

The Australian population is, at last count, 24.13 million the number who voted was 12.7 million [50%] or half of the population, so how can you claim, with a straight face, that the 61.5 % of the population voted YES?

Is Mise, as much as I'd like to agree with you, but unfortunately even I have to agree with Foxy. What is not being clarified here is the word 'eligible' voters. Not everyone can vote, mainly because of age so the figures are segmented into sections of the population. So the true assessment, whatever the outcome, has to be based on 'eligible' voters and not ALL the Australian people. The figure you have quoted is the Australian population, or in another word, 'everyone'. I still believe the outcome would have been close but different had the non-voters actually given a crap about the future of this country and it's well being. We know too well from history we have a 'she'll be right' bunch of bogans as the main stream Aussie. My mantra is like the Americans say; How can I soar like an eagle, when I have to fly with turkeys'?

ALTRAV,

What don't you understand about the statement,

"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES"

When clearly 61.6% of the Australian population [24.13 million] didn't vote YES.
61.6% of those eligible to vote voted YES which is an entirely different thing to Foxy's claim.

Foxy, of course, will fight to the death to avoid being shewn to be wrong but the fact is that 61.6% 0f 79.5% voted "Yes" not 61.6% 0f 100%.

OK Is Mise, I cede to a greater, wiser, force. Merry Xmas. See you on the other side.

Dear ALTRAV,

Here are the facts from the Australian Bureau of
Statistics that I gave at the beginning of this
discussion in the following way:

61.6% of the Australian population voted YES

38.4% of the Australian population voted NO

The Bureau then went on to clearly explain that:

Of all eligible Australians who expressed a a view on -
"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

The majority indicated that the law should be changed with
61.6% (7,817,247) responding YES.
And 38.4% (4,873,987) responding NO.

The ABS further stated that - nearly 8 out of 10 eligible
Australians (79.5%) expressed their view.

All states and territories recorded a majority YES response
and only 17 of the 150 Federal Electoral Divisions recorded
a majority No response.

I posted this earlier in the discussion and Is Mise can't
seem to comprehend what is being said. He's focusing on
his claim that I am saying that all Australians voted in
a certain way. Which is not what is being said at all.
He needs to re-read what was/is being said. But I'm too
tired to continue arguing with him. He's got a mental
block of some kind.

Foxy,

" He's got a mental
block of some kind."

Yes, he can't comprehend how the statement "61.6% of the Australian population votes YES" is not wrong, particularly as you go on to clarify the situation and give evidence that your statement is way off the mark.
Bye the way why did you change 'votes' in your earlier statements to 'voted'?

You can't be quoting the ABS accurately if you change what you have attributed to them.

Foxy,Is Mise, I was trying to explain that the numbers given were of 'eligible' voters and not ALL Aussies. Maybe I just don't explain myself clearly enough. I must admit being a little confused with the numbers such as 61% of 80%. I think we are all getting bogged down with the difference in the figures like 80% of eligible voters as opposed to 100% of all Aussies. I hope everyone stands back for a minute and see's what we are all on about. Thanks.

Dear Is Mise,

I can understand that you can't comprehend what is
being said.

See ya!

Foxy, "Here are the facts from the Australian Bureau of
Statistics:
61.6% of the Australian population votes YES.
38.4% of the Australian population voted NO"

- Plainly that is a deceit some political propagandists will be maintaining unless challenged every time and it is obvious why they would be doing that.

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

The facts,
"..slightly fewer than half of all eligible voters (49.0%) voted Yes and a little less than a third (30.5%) voted No. The rest did not vote or their preference was unclear."
http://theconversation.com/what-the-numbers-say-and-dont-say-in-the-same-sex-marriage-survey-87096

Foxy,

Why can you not comprehend that the statement

"61.6% of the Australian population votes YES."

is wrong?

Let me write it another way,

61.6% of the Australian population of 24.13 million votes YES.

Did they?

Issy, may I advise you on this; "Blow it out your whatever!"

Issy a recount now shows that 163% OF AUSTRALIANS VOTED YES! Do you want a link for that

https://www.omrlp.com/

Dear Paul,

It has already been explained to Is Mise several
times that of all eligible Australians who expressed
a view on - "Should the law be changed to allow
same-sex couples to marry?"
The majority indicated that the law should be changed with
61.6% (7,817,247) responding YES.
And 38.4% (4,873,987) responding NO.

Nearly 8 out of 10 eligible Australians (79.5%) expressed
their view.

The result was announced by the ABS - telling us that
61.6% of eligible Australians voting YES to same-sex
marriage and 38.4% voting NO.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/stunning-fact-that-shows-how-comprehensive-the-yes-victory-was/news-story/6e9173fef9322faa2cfd99ed9c58880a

It can't be made any clearer.

Oh how bloody tedious!

The very best estimate of the 20% that could not be bothered is that provided by statistically valid random sampling, therefore about 70% yes.
Next best is the survey itself, giving 60%.
Even a lazy 50/50 estimate is reasonable.

All of these give an aggregate "yes" higher than the survey itself.

Gripers who somehow think the 20% of non responders would be different than the very substantial sample would need better grounds than any so far provided. ABS demographic breakdowns indicate that that more young adults did not respond than the elderly. If anybody *really* thinks a full vote of all eligible adults would not return a "yes", they should offer to pay for it, just as they should have to pay for the last unnecessary survey. I would predict a reduced "no" and increased "yes", simply because some nos have died in the interim.

The only questions now are about how gays can go about getting married and conducting their lives in quiet enjoyment.

Rusty.