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