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