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.