I have never felt that the differences of opinion expressed on OLO have anything to do with hate.

"Why do you, guys, still wish to live in one country where the same laws apply to all?"

Laws override opinions,and those laws ensure our rights to hold opinions. Do you know of any country where people all have the same opinions? Why would anyone want to live elsewhere just because of differing opinions? There is no such place.

When, in Australia, have almost half the population who didn't vote for a government been 'oppressed' by any government with a slight majority? Or a large majority. We have an opposition, a senate rarely dominated by the government, as well as independents - plus a judiciary in the form of the High Court.

"Let us divide Australia into smaller independent states where every one can live decently and happily according to their own religious or otherwise values!"

Now, that really takes my breath away. It's difficult to believe that anyone could even think that, let alone articulate it.

Yuyutsu,
Haven't you noticed that it's the minority groups throwing spanners into the works, not the majority ?

That in no way reflects the majority.
SteeleRedux,
IT IS the majority of people in business, people like yourself who exploit the commercial welfare that is negative gearing !

Dear Ttbn,

Opinions are only opinions when held by the weak.
When held by the strong, they become laws.

Your breath was taken away when I suggested to divide Australia, but my breath was taken away and I was dumbfounded when Paul wrote: "Hi Belly, how about a law that only allows baptism/christening etc for those who can make a conscience decision to "join the faith" as an adult."
(such laws indeed existed in the U.S.S.R)

So you have people around here who would, if they could, instead of allowing you to educate your own children with the values you so cherish, take them away to be indoctrinated in ways that are so foreign to you.

Why would you like to remain as one "nation" with such people with whom you have so little in common?

Now if instead it were Paul who was writing your exact last post, then I would have asked him why he would like to remain as one "nation" with such people who would, if they could, prohibit by law homosexuality and gender-change.

The only reason why neither of these practices is currently prohibited by law is that for the moment, neither Paul nor yourself have a majority in parliament - but this could change anytime, so why should anyone have to live in constant fear of that happening?

While I would not be personally affected by a prohibition of neither baptism/Christening nor homosexuality/gender-change, if I had a child/grandchild then as a Hindu I would want to have him/her invested with a sacred thread (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanayana). Since Paul would not allow it, by law if he could, then why are we to be bound together in a single state like back-to-back chicken?

"So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives. Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.”" [Genesis 13:8-9]

ttbn, Yuyutsu, you both make valid arguments.
The idea of smaller states giving rise to more freedom of choice based on the laws of that new state.
The limiting factor is that you can never have enough states to satisfy everyone.
Because there are too many different people, BUT it is possible with a LITTLE compromise, unlike now, where one has to make HUGE sacrifices and compromises to accommodate the laws and rules made for a different people with different beliefs.
The reason why it is a good idea, however, is the USA.
It has, I believe, 52 States.
I have always preached that if one state does not suite your lifestyle, there are many others that will.
This current system is untenable and discriminates beyond belief.
This system of govt was designed to make it easy for the govt and it's departments, such as the judiciary, law enforcement and so on.
I much rather a system where our elected officers (the ministers) had an open line of communication to his constituents, and every bill gets sent to every constituent for us to examine and decide on.
The answer of which is tallied up just like the vote, and this way at least it is a system, for the people, by the people, giving us back our right to govern and control our own destiny and future.
As it is now, it's almost like we send little sony Jim off to Canberra with a wish list, but when he gets there he throws out the list and does exactly what he wants, and all in our name.
ttbn, I am one such person that would have gladly moved to another state to realise my wishes, but because we have this 51% rules system and mentality, I have been oppressed ALL my adult life, and because of this it has made me very cynical and suspicious of everything and everyone, as you can verify by my record on OLO.
This form of centralised govt is good for the system, but absolutely bad for the people.
It just doesn't work!

Dear Individual,

«Haven't you noticed that it's the minority groups throwing spanners into the works, not the majority ?»

In this particular case, yes I have, but while the specific issues at hand have no personal impact for me, in many other matters it is the mainstream major parties and the laws they make which hurt me most.