Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche


Australia’s same-sex marriage postal survey: 61.6% YES, 38.4% no – live

Read here


Andrew Wilkie: Community says YES to same-sex marriage “While the LGBTI community should never have been subjected to this costly and divisive postal vote in the first place, I’m delighted that a yes vote has been returned,” Mr Wilkie said. “This is a win for those who’ve worked tirelessly to end the discrimination in the Marriage Act. It’s also a win for the thousands of same-sex couples who just want to have the same rights as everyone else. “But the fight isn’t over. Malcolm Turnbull must reject the disgusting bill being circulated by some conservative members of the Liberal Party, which would entrench new forms of discrimination and bigotry in Australian law …

Rodney Croome: Love wins the day as Tasmanians and Australians vote for equality

TT Media here for the range of reactions

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Second Opinion

    November 26, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Never mind the bakers and the florists!

    What will concentrate the mind is the dictate that a Ring of bells be provided as the culmination of an SSM marriage.
    The final provocation. An indignity. A Triumph of the Will.
    It certainly will not be pretty.

  2. abs

    November 25, 2017 at 1:27 am

    it is noted Lynne, that you have nothing to back your absurd position:

    “the evidence which shows the harms of smoking equals the evidence which shows the harms of SSM?

    no straight answer.

    i will not make assumptions as to why you do not back it, but it cannot be backed through evidence: scientific nor broadly experiential.

    have you ever consulted with a habitual smoker? you know…blood-clot cough stuff…..?

    if you are unaware of the mountain of rock solid evidence that smoking will kill you (if one lives long enough;), then perhaps you should check your appetite.

  3. Lynne Newington

    November 24, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    My reply was enough….your a big boy now feed yourself.

  4. abs

    November 24, 2017 at 12:20 pm


    “There is enough evidence out there – you just have to decipher it yourself impartially”.

    Well, it is your statement – so start citing the evidence.

  5. Lynne Newington

    November 24, 2017 at 9:08 am

    #58 and #69 … Lynne, are you seriously saying you think that the evidence which shows the harm of smoking equals the evidence which shows the harm of SSM?

    There is enough evidence out there – you just have to decipher it yourself impartially.

    Better still, find a mother who has lost her son …

  6. abs

    November 24, 2017 at 2:37 am

    Lynne #58 …

    “In my opinion it’s a fair comparison with doom and gloom predictions you mention and what I touched on earlier. Without prejudice, both come with a warning by professionals on a psychological or health level affecting our loved ones”

    Are you seriously saying you think that the evidence which shows the harms of smoking equals the evidence which shows the harms of SSM?

    Straight answer.

  7. lola moth

    November 23, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    #64 … The government’s inability to do it’s job and deal with issues in a timely manner does not reflect the importance of any matter. This particular government would need more than one term just to scratch it’s own arse, and while SSM really only needed a week to sort out, this government is determined to stretch it out for maximum discomfort to all.

    If the government of the day refuses to deal with issues properly it does not mean those issues are not important and should not be dealt with. Many of our elected representatives do not believe that climate change is a big issue, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push them to deal with it in a professional manner.

    We can’t blame the issue itself for the way our Prime Minister deals with it. There was a quick and easy fix for SSM but our leaders were too inept to deal with it properly.

    Your list above is full of important issues that need dealing with immediately, but this government is not capable of the job. I personally would not trust this mob to handle such important issues.

  8. Lynne Newington

    November 23, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    #62 and #63 … Religion is the height of hypocrisy. It’s entire doctrine revolves around lies, hypocrisy and deluded deceit. As with most disruptive sociological issues, this one as you say, is pure hypocrisy, but isn’t that the hallmark of an ideologue?

    I have to say I had the right intentions those years ago and can live with that. It’s the latter I can’t accept and a saving grace that I don’t.

  9. Lynne Newington

    November 23, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    And politicians caught up with citizenship issues don’t have to repay their salaries collectively over a period of time … million of $s worth of taxpayers money.

  10. Peter Bright

    November 23, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    Russell #64, you are so right!

    In my view the country’s Liberals are national traitors; political plants in it for selfish gain via their manipulating masters – those unscrupulous business interests determined to accumulate wealth for themselves by any means they think they can get away with.

    The Liberals’ most common mantra is “Jobs, jobs, jobs!” but they lie in masking their specialty, namely “Profits, profits, profits!”

    In truth the Liberals don’t give a monkey fart about jobs for the workforce, and they see it as trash to be exploited to the full regardless of all human and environmental consequences.

    If a working man is on a salary of $50,000 pa and there’s a machine which can do the job for $49,000 which will Big Business choose? Yep, of course!

    There is money in destruction, for example the Adani mine and the environmental wreckage that will follow.

    The current crop of federal and state Liberals are not genuine governments for the Australian people, and in my view the people should give them the biggest heave ho that’s ever been delivered.

  11. Russell

    November 23, 2017 at 10:34 am

    Re #61
    Just as I thought.

    Yes busy ignoring the Indigenous meetings held at Uluru.

    Busy taking our freedoms and personal security away.

    Busy abandoning the refugees they put in indefinite detention on someone else’s land.

    Busy illegally occupying and bombing other countries at the USA’s request.

    Busy stuffing up the climate.

    Busy ruining Australia’s major waterways.

    Busy pandering to gays for a non-binding waste of time and money.

    Busy installing an antiquated and inadequate broadband network 10 years after it should have been completed, which still won’t help anyone outside the major cities and towns.

    Busy not investigating banking corruption.

    Busy not auditing its members for dual citizenship status.

    Busy not getting all the ill-gotten monies back from those who have so far been caught.

    Busy using tax-payer money on personal real estate spending sprees and holidays.

    Busy giving contracts to each other and their families.

    Busy shifting excess monies off to tax havens.

    Busy trying to hand $1Billion of Australian taxpayer money over to an Indian billionaire to cart our resources off to increase climate change and have open slather on one of the largest and most important water basins in the country for the next 60 years!

    Busy avoiding any sort of ICAC.

    Yes they’ve been busy, lola. Doing sweet fa good.

  12. Tony Stone

    November 23, 2017 at 10:02 am

    #62 … Religion is the height of hypocrisy. It’s entire doctrine revolves around lies, hypocrisy and deluded deceit.

    Maybe these homosexual demanding to be recognised by religious homosexuals in deep denial, who use religious institutions as avenues for their abusive practices, are masochists and looking for more psychological abuse to satiate their masochistic agendas.

    In fact anyone involved in religion is a dual sadist/masochist, you’d have to be, when you consider the history and practices of the insidious god cult.

    As with most disruptive sociological issues, this one as you say, pure hypocrisy, but isn’t that the hallmark of an ideologue.

  13. Lynne Newington

    November 23, 2017 at 9:24 am

    #57 … Of course some homosexuals are pushing the agenda of being married in churches, otherwise why would they push to be married in a church?

    For Catholics at least why not, it’s downright hypocrisy and this is just one example.


  14. lola moth

    November 22, 2017 at 11:19 pm

    #59 … “Why don’t you just give us one example of anything, preferably worthwhile, the Turnbull Government has done in the last six months, or year.”

    Um … um … you win. There is nothing worthwhile this government has done, ever. Plenty of harmful negative stuff though, so they have been busy.

  15. TGC

    November 22, 2017 at 11:06 pm

    With the increasing numbers of men accepting that they are homosexual – and many women lesbian – in both cases the numbers heading into the 40% mark – heterosexuality will soon be a losing cause.

  16. Russell

    November 22, 2017 at 7:30 pm

    Re #50
    “Perhaps you should consult Hansard to find out what the government has been doing while other people have been obsessed with the SSM debate.”

    Why? I watch the news. I have eyes and ears, and even the internet!

    Why don’t you just give us one example of anything, preferably worthwhile, the Turnbull Government has done in the last six months, or year.

    The only people obsessed with the SSM debate are the religious freaks, do-nothing politicians, bogan morons, gays and the gullible media.

    If I knew beforehand how pathetically petty people were going to be about the issue I would have voted NO.

    It is NOT important!

  17. Lynne Newington

    November 22, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Posted by abs on 23/11/17 at 12:12 PM

    In my opinion it’s a fair comparison with doom and gloom predictions you mention and what I touched on earlier.
    Without prejudice, both come with a warning by professionals on a psychological or health level affecting our loved ones.

  18. Tony Stone

    November 22, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    #56 … Doug, the origins of marriage come from religious institutions and actions. It was first brought into the language around 1250 by priests and derives from english, french and latin.

    Since that time and until the last 70 years, marriage was a very religious ceremony, which could only be conducted by a religious institution. So by definition, origins and history, it is a religious act.

    Today you can get legally attached anywhere, but all it’s origins and standards, are religious in origin and nature.

    Of course some homosexuals are pushing the agenda of being married in churches, otherwise why would they push to be married in a church. When there are clearly other legal forms of relationship agreements, in your words marriage, not involving religion.

    My brothers partner has the right understanding, he classes those like Croome and his ilk, as being morons only interested in destroying societies just to get their own way.

    Of course religions will be exempt from marrying homosexuals, when you consider almost all politicians are some form of religious crank, they will do all in their power to maintain the status quo. Even whilst they support the legislation, they will not allow it to happen as the agenda pushers want, by adding exemptions for just about everyone who can be involved in the act of marriage.

    So all this was a waste of money, time and social cohesion. Which is what you get when you are dealing with the craziness of ideologues.

  19. Doug Nichols

    November 22, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    Re #52 … As abs has pointed out, the dangers of smoking are fact, so ignore them at your peril. The supposed dangers of same-sex marriage, as spelled out ad-nauseum by Christopher, are of his own invention. I don’t see the connection!

    #53 and #44 … Tony, you have twice now implied that marriage is a religious institution (“ordeal”, you called it!)

    Ministers of religion are permitted to marry couples and, when they do, that would be a religious ceremony. However, as you would have to know, not all marriages are like that. A member of my family got married recently. The ceremony took place in a bush setting on the NW coast. Religion most definitely played no part in the ceremony and will play no part in their lives.

    You say in #53 that “homosexuals are pushing their own agenda onto others, by demanding religions accept them into their bizarre and deranged ideologies and marry them”. No they’re not. Quite the opposite. It seems certain that churches will be able to (and in most cases presumably will) continue to discriminate against homosexuals by refusing to marry them (the ones – possibly the few – that would choose a church wedding if they had the option, that is).

    Why do you persist in claiming that marriage is (always) religious?

  20. abs

    November 22, 2017 at 3:03 pm

    so Tony, what do you call, ‘pushing their agenda”?

    Are you asserting that gay people wanting to marry like non-gay people equates to ‘pushing their agenda”?

  21. abs

    November 22, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    except Lynne, the dangers of smoking are fact.

    what are you even talking about??

  22. Tony Stone

    November 22, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    My post, #48, regarding post #46, should have been for, #47.

    #51, My comment relates to every nutter that comes along and tries to push their agenda onto others and not just homosexuals.

    My brother is a homosexual, but you wouldn’t know it and has been in a relationship for over 30 years. They don’t brag or flaunt it, their lives are just like everyone else.

    It’s the same with a very close friend who’ve known since about 9, you wouldn’t know his sexual preferences. It was only when he discovered my brother was homosexual and it was fine by me, that he let on.

    When he told me, just laughed, thought all along his reluctance with women was because he was very shy and both had a really good laugh about it.

    MY brother has had a relationship agreement for as long as they’ve been living together, not interested in marriage, or being recognised as homosexual. They are just happy in their lives and are enjoying it, as are every one of their friends that I know.

    They all laugh about this marriage rubbish and the most common comment I hear from them is, who would want to be accepted by religion, yuck they say, nothing could be worse than that.

    Within my business, there were at least 6 homosexuals working for me and probably many more. None were a problem, but have had issues with other employees and customers, including homosexuals, who demand their outrageous behaviour and approach to people should be accepted.

    Worked for a homosexual lady, managed her Canberra catering service. She used me as her token male when going to events non accepting of her preferences. Drop dead gorgeous she was, her partner was just as beautiful and no one, except me and her 2 sons knew she was homosexual back then.

    You could say a small minority of unhinged homosexuals are pushing their own agenda onto others, by demanding religions accept them into their bizarre and deranged ideologies and marry them.

    Personally, it gives me a really good laugh seeing all these ideologies of varying insanities, desperately having goes at each other, demanding they should be heard and no one else.

    It’s a perfect reflection of the state of our societies, fracturing, fighting, gender labeling and abusing.

    Forget about same sex marriage, this is just a fore runner and view of what our societies are headed for within the next 2 years.

    Ideologues of every description are going crazy as their hoped for reality of the ideological beliefs and self righteousness, crumbles all around them.

    Look at all political system round the planet, all collapsing, as they all fight with themselves and do nothing of worth.

    The only thing they have left is to attack and that’s what we are seeing around the globe. When you add the diets of the average human is so chemically saturated, as to be negatively effecting their minds, it’s perfectly understandable, we are seeing the end of societies as we know them.

    What comes next, will not cater for ideological homosexuals, god nutters, economic clones or any form of belief. It will be those capable and not badly psychologically collapsing, who will see the outcome of this present era. the rest if humanity and all our urban areas, will become war zones of internal attrition.

  23. Lynne Newington

    November 22, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    “… all the arguments put forth (together with doom and gloom predictions) boil down to a simple position, which is, ‘i have a belief, so i appoint myself to decide on what rights your gay relationship is afforded’

    I guess one could use the same “belief” in relation to the dangers of smoking……
    We should take note of it ….whether accept it or not.

  24. abs

    November 22, 2017 at 10:57 am

    this comment by Tony really captures the absurdity of those who oppose SSM

    “it’s when they try to push their agenda onto others that makes me take a stand”

    People who oppose gay people marrying are actually pushing their own agenda onto the lives of gay people. Additionally, all the talk about SSM being “meaningless”, and” purely psychological”, is actually more relevant to the opposition to SSM. For gay couples, SSM offers, tangible and meaningful change in life (this has been well documented).

    as for Christopher’s comments (which have been regergitated over and over again), he has freely admitted that his position is ideological. His argument is interesting and broadly has merit

    i think i would agree with him on many aspects regarding the impact of commercial interests on the family unit in society: there are many parents out there who seem to be happy for commercial agendas to steer their parenting direction and decisions.

    however, on an individual level, all the arguments put forth (together with doom and gloom predictions) boil down to a simple position, which is, ‘i have a belief, so i appoint myself to decide on what rights your gay relationship is afforded’

  25. lola moth

    November 22, 2017 at 9:19 am

    #46 … Perhaps you should consult Hansard to find out what the government has been doing while other people have been obsessed with the SSM debate.

    Just because an issue doesn’t affect you doesn’t mean it should be ignored. Some issues take years to resolve but we don’t push them aside because they are trivial matters to a large section of the community. I am sure that the REAL issues you would like discussed are unimportant to some people but you would not like them to be treated as trivial.

  26. Lynne Newington

    November 21, 2017 at 10:30 pm

    I’m probably sticking my neck out here, but I personally dread the thought of the breakdown of these relationships, they can be exremely vicious….and I believe the male partners suffer the most psychologically that can lead to suicide.
    Being a mother, I was also a volunteer and partime house mother caring for young boys fully aware of their vulnerabilties and insecurities in the course of everyday living let alone anything else.

  27. Tony Stone

    November 21, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    #46 … Why do ideologues have to change what people write to suit their agenda? It does nothing for their credibility or veracity.

    Have never said I haven’t seen homosexuals discriminated in my life, just not in the major industries I work in, hospitality, entertainment and tourism.

    Have seen and experienced lots of discrimination, after 72 years on the planet. But have always been in the minority in how I see and treat others, in particular women and homosexuals.

    To me homosexuals are just people who want to live differently and that’s fine by me – it’s when they try to push their agenda onto others that makes me take a stand.

    The hardest thing in life I found, was getting women to accept an equal position in a relationship and still do Yet to meet a women who wants to and knows how to be an equal in a relationship. They want equality, but don’t want to become equally responsible.

  28. lola moth

    November 21, 2017 at 4:11 pm

    #44 … It is lawful discrimination that the SSM debate is about. I agree that marriage is not for everyone and it’s certainly not for me, but marriage is a legal contract that covers legal issues that a simple relationship agreement does not cover. The legal rights of a spouse should be the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals and everyone in between. Gay relationships currently do not have the same legal protections as married couples. Changing the law to allow gay couples to marry gives them the protections of laws that other couples already enjoy.

    I am glad you have never seen homosexuals discriminated against in your lifetime. Unfortunately I have seen gay men being arrested just for being gay. Homosexual sex was illegal until fairly recently so for you to have missed witnessing the discrimination you must be very young.

    When I was young, women didn’t have the same legal rights as men. They could not work in many industries and if they did manage to get a job that men also did they were paid only three quarters of a man’s wage by law. Women could not enter the public bar of a pub either and there were ‘ladies lounges’ in the back rooms of most hotels. Women were legally forbidden from many places and socially forbidden from many more.

    In the 1960s women marched for equal rights and eventually won them in Australia in the 1970s. When I speak about equality I don’t mean social acceptance and people treating each other as equals – I am speaking of being equal under Australian law. All Australians should have the right to the same legal protections.

  29. Russell

    November 21, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    Re #38
    “A couple of weeks spent changing a law so that all Australians have the right to marry the person they love is time well spent. It’s not like we didn’t deal with other issues while SSM was being sorted.”

    A couple of weeks! JESUS! They’ve been at it for MONTHS! They don’t NEED a couple of weeeks. It’s a total diversion from REAL issues.

    What exacty have they been doing apart from SSM in that time?

  30. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    November 21, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    Re #26 … Looking at your response Doug, it seems to me that you just aren’t reading my stuff for purposes of understanding it by following the argument and critiquing it, so much as reading for objection and getting denial leverage. And the reason I can tell is that none of your objections are actually responses to the arguments being led.

    You have taken a quote which is perfectly intelligible once you contextualise it. The fossil fuel lobbies may never ‘get’ climate change science because they cannot afford to, but outside their corporate ranks are other corporates who at least can see that there is concrete evidence coming out of the climate science community that has to be responded to because it is already being felt.

    One can have an evidence-based debate with such people, because while they might not like it, there is just too much concrete evidence to ignore. All the attempts to construct the climate science community into a bunch of left wing ideological disruptors and scammers is demonstrably hogwash and will, in the end, only fool people whose prejudices now completely overwhelm their judgement.

    However, when we have sustainability debates in the social sector it is much harder because any social modeling/analysis is profoundly influenced by the social and ideological prejudices/assumptions/values of the modeler. Even when using evidence-based scientific formats, the questions themselves and what is being looked for (and not looked for) are deeply ideological.

    For instance, if I initiate a research project on the relative ‘caring’ attributes of homosexual couples compared with heterosexual ones, the question is loaded both contextually and inside the question itself.

    The first assumes that the heterosexual social infrastructure is in a fit state to be compared with anything, which it isn’t. The inter-gendered sexual politic is a mess, which means almost anything will do in a storm, as long as it floats … sort of.

    The second is that suggesting ‘caring’ is all that parenting is about assumes it is qualitatively no more than say being a nanny, child care worker, teacher or youth worker. ‘Caring’ neatly sidesteps issues related to gender modelling over a single reproductive cycle and what the very long term gender distortional impacts might be on that modelling over say five to six generations, which is what sustainable societies look to as a measure.

    And getting past that one in a sustainable society, in relation to any enterprise or ‘innovation’, is a toughie whether talking economic or social infrastructure.

    Why would any society still in possession of its senses risk leveraging increased ‘gender plasticity’ unless it had been colonised by a sectional interest that stood to benefit from such a change – particularly a society that has been systematically trained to uncritically fudge, crib, bluff and market such interests into its notions of ‘fairness’, ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.

    Such pseudo-scientific research is just bound to produce the self evidently obvious results its sponsors are looking for, which is that there are no differences in ‘caring attributes’ between same sex and inter-gendered couples and now it is ‘scientifically’ proven and that therefore homosexual gender ‘equality’ is now scientifically legitimised. Ho ho ho .

    There is no such thing as values free social perception because every perceptual activity involves hierarchies of values, priorities and axiomatic beliefs that are neither provable nor disprovable.

    This is obvious when you watch old films. The prejudices, assumptions and techniques of filmic discourse of another period seem so quaint and obvious to us because they stand in such contrast to what now pertains. But we are blithely unaware of just how bathed we are, in prejudices and assumptions of our own, that will largely only reveal themselves when enough time and larger reality model change has occurred for us to ‘see’ them.

    The only way we can ‘see’ a social model at all is to use another social model that we cannot ‘see’, because we are inside it. 

    This is why ideological debates tend to be intellectually disengaged in the way pointed out at the beginning of this Comment. What is being fought over is not negotiable, which is why intensifying ideological conflict is so often a precursor to war. And the ‘marriage equality’ brouhaha is part of a suite of issues that, taken together, represent a clash over regime legitimacy.

    The market libertarian neo-cons are regime partners with the social libertarian humanists because they share exactly the same privatising and deregulatory agenda emanating out of the larger organism of indulgence capitalism …

    They are equally destroyers of worlds and equally alienated from the life process of the natural world and the human politics of life giving.

  31. Tony Stone

    November 21, 2017 at 9:43 am

    #41 … I have not had a difficult life, just an interesting informative one. Nor do I have any problems from my life or upbringing, just a wealth of knowledge and experience. You either learn from your life and evolve with it, or you become a victim of you own miserable uselessness.

    In this day and age inequality is purely within the mind unless you are ideologue, then it’s an essential aspect of your psychology. So you are stuck with it and its bizarre outcomes.

    There is no such thing as equality as we are all different, but there is equality of opportunity for all in a country like ours and it is open to all who are willing to take responsibility for their lives and get on with it.

    It’s only the useless and inadequate who are making all these demands. There are adequate means of legally qualifying a relationship of any kind available to everyone. Marriage is a religious ordeal, not something a sane logical person would become involved in knowing what its outcome can produce.

    A simple relationship agreement is all sensible evolving people need, and of course, a dedication to grow and evolve together.

    I have never seen a homosexual discriminated against in any of the industries I’ve worked in, nor others have been associated with. Any problems they have are brought on by themselves and their demands, not others or employers, and are treated no different to anyone else.

  32. Doug Nichols

    November 20, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    Second Opinion, all we need is confidence that Yes outnumbers No. We got that. We got it pretty emphatically.

    To bring the tally from its announced figures down to 50-50 would require roughly a fifth of all the Yes votes to have been stolen ballot papers that would otherwise have been No votes.

    Given that the ballot paper thieves would have no way of knowing which way the intended voters were going to vote (so a lot of their illicit Yes votes would have been Yes anyway), and given that we can reasonably assume that there were thieves acting the other way as well, the actual proportion of stolen Yes votes would need to be quite a lot more than a fifth. And that still only gets us to 50-50!

    I don’t understand your concern at all.

  33. abs

    November 20, 2017 at 6:18 pm

    Second opinion, if there were significant numbers of stolen survey letters that is problematic, yet I don’t see evidence to say that the result would have been different.

    Again, what you cite has nothing to do with 95% confidence, statistical significance, confidence intervals etc, which are statistical terms.

    The survey is accurate in that of the 80% or so of registered voters who voted, 61.6% voted YES and 38.4% voted NO. This is a result of the whole population of voting Australians who responded. There is no application of the statistical term ‘95% confidence’ with this result. That becomes applicable if a random sample of the Australian voting public (say 10,000 ) were asked to vote, with the result used to estimate the hypothetical vote of the whole population.However the SSM survey invited all voting Australians to participate. We cannot make accurate assumptions about the 20% who did not vote.

  34. lola moth

    November 20, 2017 at 5:09 pm

    #40 … I agree it could have been sorted earlier without the huge cost to the taxpayer and without the nastiness that came with the postal vote but the government decided it wanted to do it that way.

    I appreciate that you have had a difficult life but telling others that their problems due to life-long inequality are ‘meaningless crap’ does not help your argument. I am sure you would not like your problems dismissed in the same way.

  35. Tony Stone

    November 20, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    #38… “A couple of weeks spent changing a law so that all Australians have the right to marry the person they love is time well spent. It’s not like we didn’t deal with other issues while SSM was being sorted.”

    It has been many months of disruption and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this load of meaningless crap. It would be nice for you to address the other issues we have supposedly dealt with during this time that will be of benefit for our future.

    The big problem is we are in the control of deranged politically correct fools who seem to think their sheltered elitist lives have somehow been terrible.

    You admirably express that view with your comment that being a woman makes you a second class citizen, which is a huge laugh especially when you have experience of being seen and treated as below second class.

    How does your second class citizenship compare to a male who grew up on the streets because they wouldn’t adhere to the women in their family’s demands, that they believe in a non existent god and locked him up in a religious home, to be beaten and abused.

  36. Second Opinion

    November 20, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    abs #37 … I too, wondered where that came from.
    The all important requirement is to achieve a ninety-five percent confidence level in the result.
    The Postal Survey was just that; a survey. Not every enrolled voter replied with a vote, and therefore was not counted.
    The ABS, being steeped in statistics, would ordinarily apply to each decile, a correction for any aberrations, at the very least.
    I have read of instances where the ABS letters were allegedly taken en masse, from post-boxes.
    Penny Wong wrote to congratulate a “No” voter.
    The ABS must declare it’s confidence in the result.
    The figures released might be just the actual numbers of votes cast, in which case it is doubly important to check for irregularities.
    Of course, the entire Postal Survey was ill-conceived; an exercise in obfuscation by intent.
    Only a referendum, requiring attendance at a polling booth, would provide closure … but that was way too inconvenient.

    Radio National’s “The Minefield” gave a considered response to the Postal Survey shortly after it’s release.

  37. lola moth

    November 20, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    Re#36 … There will always be more important issues that need dealing with but that doesn’t mean we should ignore issues that may not have a direct impact on us personally. I am not Aboriginal but that does not mean that I think indigenous issues should be put on the back-burner because they don’t relate to me or aren’t important because I get no benefit from it being discussed.

    A couple of weeks spent changing a law so that all Australians have the right to marry the person they love is time well spent. It’s not like we didn’t deal with other issues while SSM was being sorted.

  38. abs

    November 20, 2017 at 11:01 am

    Second opinion, i don’t think you understand the statistical terms that you are referring to, eg confidence percentage (do you mean confidence interval?) and 95% confidence.

    These statistical terms do not relate, the way you imply, to illicit voting (is there even any evidence of illicit voting?).

    They are statistical terms that relate to statements made as projections from a population sample result to the whole population

    ” applied weighting that make due allowance for actual, as opposed to expected numbers IN EACH cohort, then the figures released are not a reflection of the actual vote, but are a statistic.”… what do you mean with this statement?

  39. Russell

    November 20, 2017 at 10:14 am

    Re #33 & #34
    And Indigenous Australians are third or fourth class citizens (and only just recently) in their own country.

    I think there are much more important things which should be dealt with.

  40. Second Opinion

    November 20, 2017 at 12:12 am

    Doug, at #30 … The ONLY POLL that matters Is the Postal Survey just released. If the ABS has, true to it’s charter, and in it’s conduct of this Survey, applied weighting that make due allowance for actual, as opposed to expected numbers IN EACH cohort, then the figures released are not a reflection of the actual vote, but are a statistic.

    To achieve the ninety-five percent confidence in the outcome, any irregularities must be identified and exposed.

    It is not nearly good enough to assume anything.

  41. lola moth

    November 19, 2017 at 9:55 pm

    #33 … I was born a second class citizen solely because I was born female. My grandmother was widowed with four daughters by the time she was 30. My mother was divorced with two kids by that age also. From them I learned how men and women were treated differently. My brother was the only male in the family. It did not register with him how privileged he was until he became an adult. It registered with me very early.

    I was brought up by very strong women and I did indeed inherit grit from my mother, but I also inherited a sense of what is right and just. I will always fight for equality across the board for all Australians and SSM seems to be the last hurdle for gay Aussies to become equal Australians.

  42. Lynne Newington

    November 19, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    Hi Lola, you were born a second class citizen for the above reasons given?
    Surely not.
    I’m sure you would’ve inherited much of the grit shown by your mother in times gone by.

    If I missed something I’m sorry and no need to elaborate….

  43. lola moth

    November 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm

    I understand that to some people marriage equality was not something they wanted to spend a lot of time and money on fixing, as there are other issues that are more important to everyone, such as climate change. But when the laws of the country you live in make it legal and normal to discriminate against you, you get to feeling that your daily unequal life is worth the attention of the nation for a little while so the problems you are presented with every day of your life can be solved quickly, and the country can get on with fixing the planet afterwards.

    When I was a child I was not allowed to join the Bondi Nippers. I would sit on the beach watching my brother race with the other boys but because I was a girl I couldn’t join in the fun. At school I was not allowed to study woodwork, tech drawing, metalwork, or other subjects I found interesting because I was a girl. There were heaps of sports I couldn’t do that my brother could.

    My mother was divorced and she worked two jobs but was still only paid, by law, three quarters of what male colleagues were paid for the same work. She couldn’t get a mortgage because she was a single female. If she was married she would have needed her husband’s permission to take out a loan.

    I was born a second class citizen in my own country so I know how it feels to not have the same rights as the guy next door. When you are discriminated against every day of your life for the way you were born, equality becomes the problem you want fixed more than any other.

    Surely the country can spare a few weeks on this issue to resolve the problem once and for all without grumbling about how petty a problem it is for those it doesn’t affect.

  44. TGC

    November 19, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    #28 … “Why isn’t the Federal Police investigating all this?”
    Because of the well-known ‘corruption’ in high places.

  45. Doug Nichols

    November 19, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    #28 … if it has happened it is reasonable to assume both sides were at it, in which case the number of garnered Yes votes will be approximately equal to the number of garnered No votes. If you were hoping to upset the result by correcting an imbalance caused by illicit Yes voting, the imbalance would have to be in the order of millions! Furthermore, when you consider that the final result closely matched the opinion polls, the chances of rigging on this scale seems extremely unlikely.

    I reckon the result is easily reliable enough to be taken as the verdict of the people.

  46. second Opinion

    November 19, 2017 at 11:37 am

    I would be most interested to have the ABS undertake and release an analysis of their confidence percentage in the result.
    That is, to examine the possibility of the garnering of multiple copies of the sent letters with the intention of swaying the result.
    This was always possible, and therefore probable.
    The survey is not reliable until this is done.

    The unspent $20million will see this done.

  47. Russell

    November 19, 2017 at 10:35 am

    Re #10
    “Penis + Vagina = Normal. Anything else, is NOT!”

    What about test tube, surrogacy and IVF then?

    Despite the postal vote being 60/40, it isn’t binding and may well turn out to be a total waste of $120million. Another in a long line of fizzers.

    On the other hand, the estate inheritance excuse to vote yes was false. There already exists the solution in the form of one’s Will to decide that. If your partner loves you enough he/she will leave their estate to you, or whoever he/she wishes to.

    Personally, I couldn’t care less who marries who but there are much more ugent issues which need attending to.

    To me the whole thing was a complete diversion from the Government doing anything actually real and worthwhile for the last six months of the year before they go on holidays – like addressing climate change, renewable energy, a full citizenship audit of all politicians and getting OUR 600 refugees off Manus Island and resettled here or in NZ or anywhere else offered.

    Such a pathetic bunch of wankers we have in Canberra.

    Re #15
    Tony Abbott’s sister is gay and has a long-term same-sex partner. None of Tony’s kids have ever been immunised either, but he’s pushing that barrow as well. Then there’s Eric Abetz pointing the finger at all the dual citizens when three of his fingers are pointing straight back at him. Turnbull point the finger at corporate tax evaders yet he uses tax havens himself. His company (Turnbull & Partners) has also received Government contracts, which is also against the Constitution. They, like most of their ilk, are total hypocrites.

    Why isn’t the Federal Police investigating all this?

  48. philll Parsons

    November 19, 2017 at 9:23 am

    Everyone is on the bandwagons now.

    One wagon has gone off down the road of freedoms and swung to the right to carry on about things that are nothing to do with marriage, a tune we are used to since it has gone on for ages. Rumpty tumty, something for the powerful nothing for the rest as it drifts out of earshot.

    The other wagon has come to a halt so all the newbies can climb aboard and claim something of the ‘victory’ when for much of the struggle they kept their lights and views concealed whilst a few stood out for an end to persecution and for equality.

    The Greens may stand up for some minorities, but not for those who support inequality, those who torture [that rule out a save Dutton campaign] and the little clubs of wealthy who want everything slanted their way.

    The old parties will claim this and that in the hope nobody remembers the one Party that has stood for equality all of its existence – the Greens.

    Trevor forgets the changes to the law that have allowed women to become equal before it and to the wording of the vows that are meant to represent a more equal partnership.

  49. Doug Nichols

    November 19, 2017 at 12:42 am

    Yes, I am easily bored and distracted – by writing that is convoluted, repetitive, hard/impossible to understand and way off topic.

    For example, “Social software is much harder to quantify and disentangling ideology from social research and practice is in my view impossible because social theorising and reality modeling is inherently ideological.”

    It’s a beauty, but I don’t know what it means! Nor do I know what it has to do with same-sex couples being allowed to marry.

    Talking of same-sex marriage, you still haven’t explained what exactly it is that is wrong with same-sex couples getting married. I know a same-sex couple. They’ve been together for 30 years and they got married in the UK as soon as the law changed there. I can’t begin to imagine any way in which their marriage has affected or will affect my life, except that I felt happy for them when they told me, which was nice.

    In contrast, you write reams about how we’d all better watch out because the “reproductive commons” is being invaded (or whatever it is that you think is happening) and how the world is heading for disaster. It’s all very dark and threatening. You warn of all this dire stuff, but you never spell out the mechanism. How does the marriage of a same-sex couple do these things to the world?

    Tell us the mechanism.

    Here’s another question: If a same-sex couple got married and you didn’t get to find out about it, would you be able to detect that it had happened? Would it cause some degradation of the world that you could in principle notice? Is there a “Reproductive Commons Index” published in the paper that I have somehow overlooked?

  50. spikey

    November 18, 2017 at 10:00 pm

    spindoctor 101
    talk so much bullshit
    and entrench it with a feint black and white spectrum
    of fact and fantasy
    till the goggle eyed and shallow minded are overwhelmed
    by your brilliance

    who teaches you these delusions?
    or do you just make them up?

    i feel a duty to call out spindoctors
    and delusions

    are you a primary producer?

  51. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    November 18, 2017 at 9:09 pm

    Re#20 … The ‘reproductive commons’, which is a subset of the ‘social commons’, is the social software, and the infrastructure that derives from it, that templates, models, mentors, governs and institutionalises the social capital tied up in the social economy.

    At least half our net worth both individually and collectively is tied up in this infrastructure.

    As I have been at pains to point out repeatedly to those who actually listen to what is being said, that infrastructure has been systematically destroyed by the agents of indulgence capitalism through a common set of master policies of privatisation, deregulation, disinibition and degovernancing in the pursuit of the triumph of private interest over the commonwealth, whether we are talking the ecological and economic commons or the social/existential ones.

    And the obtuse and resolute denial of this by both market and social libertarian agents of capitalism is what one might expect from those determined to maintain the status quo, no matter how much damage that regime inflicts.

    Guys like Doug Nichols are regime apparatchiks in exactly the same sense as the guys down at the Institute of Public Affairs. The latter are doggedly into denial about the devastating commons’ impacts of their sphere of regime operations. Their ideological belief in the infallibility of markets means they just cannot rationally come to terms with plain evidence and rational argument to the contrary.

    Social libertarians like our Doug are in some ways even more entrenched and less amenable to challenge than their corporate opposite numbers. And that is not because they are inherently more reactionary and obtuse per se.

    While the corporates have hardly begun to consider modifying unlimited growth economy in a closed ecological system, the non fossil fuel elements are beginning to come round to responding to the mountains of not just theoretical, but concrete evidence piling up on global warming. They are still sufficiently pragmatic to realise what might happen to them if they do not respond to this challenge. They are outflanking the most obdurate extremists in the corporate sector and starting to invest huge amounts of money into getting a fix organised.

    The social/existential sector is inherently a more abstract beast. Social software is much harder to quantify and disentangling ideology from social research and practice is in my view impossible because social theorising and reality modeling is inherently ideological. That is why social science has always been pseudo science ie observing the forms of science in research that is always bulging with underlying prejudices and assumptions which are always brutally revealed when history moves on and changes the prevailing values, sets and assumptions.

    Every generation believes in its own mythology until the myths run out of steam. Every generation thinks it has the final word, until another one comes along and it is no longer the final word; something else is. And the Doug Nicols of this world are generally the last to find out that their view of the world is beached, stranded and desiccating …

    The social libertarianism that has accompanied indulgence capitalism provides an informal structure for a set of secular bureaucratic/clerical cadre who are effectively in charge of social administration through the education, welfare, health and legal/political sectors. The are regime pillars. They are no more an opposition to the status quo than the church was in the days of feudalism.

    Like their clerical predecessors, they blithely believe that they are the font of virtue and correctness, and I am saying that their long association with the marketing arm of indulgence capitalism has meant their ideas and practices have effectively conflated with those of the prevailing economic system in ways that have hopelessly corrupted whatever virtues were ever there, and made them incapable of even the most basic moral differentiation.

    They themselves have declared that anything that isn’t uncritical empathetic glop in service of their sacred sites is ‘discriminatory’ which once used to mean, astute and discerning critical judgement … ho hum …

    Now I know that the likes of Doug are easily bored and distracted by anything that demands a ‘bit of a think’. But I believe they are corrupt ideological has-beens whose time is nearly up, and I am going to be one of the people who is coming after these destroyers of social worlds, hopefully in tandem with going after their corporate masters who are physically destroying the biological world.

    Get used to it Doug. Your world is already dissolving, as is the entire structure of the social and economic settlements effected after WW2, even without my help. But I will do my best to hurry the process along a bit faster if I can.

    It is a duty and someone has to do it.

  52. spikey

    November 17, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    #19 see #20

    #20 hafta agree
    and i’m suss on the motivation
    and the cheer squad

  53. TGC

    November 17, 2017 at 11:26 am

    If one is standing in the Centre – as #20 obviously is – then anything to Right or Left could be considered “extreme views”

  54. Lynne Newington

    November 17, 2017 at 12:26 am

    Maybe not in our generation, but it will be interesting the affect on another.
    Like many others I personally wish every good thing to all those whom this decision afffects.
    I only hope we haven’t made a mistake when the dust settles……

  55. Doug Nichols

    November 16, 2017 at 9:42 pm

    #19 Ridiculing it seems perfectly appropriate to me. It’s impressive in length, I’ll grant you that, but it’s essentially a repeat of what he’s written several times before, using all the same convoluted expressions. He has used the term “reproductive commons” twice here and in just about everything he’s written before, but I have absolutely no idea what it means (is he claiming that same-sex marriages will prevent heterosexual couples from reproducing?). It is simply a term he has invented as far as I can tell. I think his “the end is nigh” doom-mongering is ridiculous and the tone more than a bit offensive given that he seems to focus his predictions of a nasty end on a specific sector of the community.

    I am now very tired of this line of attack. We’ve had a gut full of it over the last few months and now that the results of the national “vote” are in it would be nice if people with extreme views such as this could perhaps reconsider their positions and give up trying to lecture us all.

  56. Peter Bright

    November 16, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    Publicly slinging off at Mr Christopher Eastman-Nagle’s fine writing demeans the standing of those ridiculing it.

  57. Lynne Newington

    November 16, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    Knowledge is power and is to be envied, especially when it comes to self preservation and many die from lack of it, literally.

  58. Doug Nichols

    November 16, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    #16 … hafta agree!

  59. spikey

    November 16, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    hafta have a giggle

    where do you dig up your delusions nagle?
    who teaches you these elaborate interpretations?

  60. Lynne Newington

    November 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    I have so much respect for you Christopher, no one would know half the story.

    As I recently said to someone, some time ago in an attempt to educate myself on the subject when studying for my Marriage Celebrant registration, I was so disturbed at what I was reading from a respected Catholic recourse centre I’m not even going to give the link.There’s been no inclination to remove it over a decade.

    Cory Bernardi would be well aware of it, and maybe Tony Abbott.

    Well who knows?

  61. TGC

    November 16, 2017 at 11:03 am

    #13 … “Opportunistically engineered democratic majorities cannot change the fundamentals of our humanity.”- probably not- but they can make them much more exciting:
    Thus: Opportunity is now legally available on an equality basis for a married heterosexual couple- having produced children-two/three of each gender in the old-fashioned orthodox way-now to divorce in favour of a further marriage in the same-gender manner to someone who is exciting to know.-and quite possibly ‘wealthy’!Then in this new ‘union’ to adopt a couple of (Ethiopian?) children, boy/girl in the case of the two now husbands to each other- and find a ‘male donor’ in the case of the two now wife (wives?) to each other
    “We have never been happier and our (new) children are the most well balanced you could possibly imagine”
    (Stage direction – ‘Exit Left’)

  62. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    November 16, 2017 at 12:23 am

    People can love whom they like, whether they are married or not. ‘Marriage equality’ is every bit as ideological and nonsensical propaganda mantra as ‘clean coal’. The predictable success of the marriage campaign by the homosexual and fellow travellers lobby is a monument to the power of marketing and salesmanship and absolutely nothing else. It is emblematic of the extent to which indulgence capitalism and the libertarian consumer indulgence it has spawned have lost their way and legitimacy.

    The success of the ‘marriage equality’ campaign represents a significant, albeit minor step change in the coming struggle to define what a sustainable society is going to like as the post WW2 economic and ideological consensus breaks up in the face of the decline of the nation state and the rule of law, the laissez-faire deregulatory take down of our social and reproductive commons, the fundamentalist moral blow back against that, the rise of local and transnational criminal enterprise into ‘legitimate business’ and political power, and ecological collapse.

    In these terms, a caricature of real marriage is hardly more than a slightly ironical sideshow over an almost obsolete bourgeois institution that has been in decline for a very long time. What isn’t a sideshow and is a much more serious matter, is the attempt to hijack gender by people who are reproductively off message, and trying to pretend this is cool, normal and OK to emulate, as in Aesop’ famous tale of the fox with no tail.

    Anyone who thinks this matter is now ‘sorted’ is deluding themselves. Opportunistically engineered democratic majorities cannot change the fundamentals of our humanity.

    Ideological pretense and self indulgent attempts to undermine the integrity of gender, our reproductive commons and its governance will fail just as surely as the economic system that underpins this kind of ideological baloney.

    That process will be very messy. Unpicking what this generation is presently consenting to will almost inevitably lead to war.

    There are just bound to be convulsive shifts in the economic substructure and social/ideological superstructure of late capitalist economy, because it just can’t go on for much longer. And when that happens, all the bets come off and everyone starts playing for keeps.

    And that would be without the baggage of being saddled with the demands of a unrepresentative minority dictating on gender. When things go wrong, it isn’t good for minorities anyway, without a big fat piece of agenda in the room right next door to where we all keep ‘our beast in the basement’.

    The struggle to save ourselves from the evils of our times has hardly begun. Nothing is settled. Only the stakes are being raised as is the likelihood of these matters being eventually ‘resolved’ over a pile of corpses.

    And please spare me the shock-horror. You can already see much of the world around you degenerating into the most shocking violence and disorder. It really isn’t a good time to indulge in ideological adventurism.

    If the twenty-first century is going to be about anything, it will be about a very difficult, disordered and traumatic time that will be exemplified by enormous efforts at social, economic and ecological fortification, to save what is left of the legacy of the last five hundred years.

    But of course that won’t happen until it is far too late because everyone on all sides of our politic are as into business-as-usual as each other; all blithely ‘progressing’ their libertarian corporate and social agendas as if there were no tomorrow, which there won’t be for a lot them…

    And whoever is left will be cleaning up the mess those bastards left behind, for millennia.

    And if I were gender confused and/or misassigned, I wouldn’t just be heading for the traditional closet right now, while all the idiots are still out partying. It would be a bunker deeper than Kim Jong Il’s Pyongyang nuclear war retreat. At least he has a fair idea of the risks he’s taking.

  63. Mike Adams

    November 15, 2017 at 10:02 pm

    Thanks to Tony Stone, About time that this distraction, thought up by Malcolm Turnbull and /or his mentors, should be seen as what it is. We have far more important matters to concern ourselves with.

    Not a week goes by without a serious warning about climate change – and what do Australians do? Ignore it.

  64. Lynne Newington

    November 15, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    It will be interesting to see what passes across the table in relation to religious discrimination etc. and if we will end up in time, following Britain’s path…


  65. Ron

    November 15, 2017 at 7:23 pm

    It was a joke of a process with a forgone conclusion because anyone who said “No”, in public, was instantly the target of abuse and threats. So much for democracy!

    Despite the “result”, 40% said No, and 60% is not a resounding “Yes” by any stretch of the imagination, especially considering 20% of the population did not participate in this farce!

    Ignoring the obvious religious drivel, which undoubtedly pushed a lot of people to say “yes”, evolution says something quite categorical; Penis + Vagina = Normal. Anything else, is NOT!

    Politicians are unprincipled popularists, renown for swinging whichever way the breeze blows, and most will bend over for whichever pressure group exerts the most pressure. They can make whatever laws they like. It does not make something right!

    I am so looking forward to being able to turn on the radio or T.V. without hearing anything more about this crap. Now, I just have to try to avoid dry retching in public!

  66. TGC

    November 15, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    In document terms there will be a bit of shuffling to get the wording ‘right’- non-discriminatory; according full equaiity etc because ‘Bridegroom’ and ‘Bride’ doesn’t cover the possibilities-and we can’t be having one for them and one forus.
    Indeed the Marriage Act may need significant ‘editing’ to “make sure we don’t offend no-one” – although offending ‘Bride’ ‘ and ‘Groom’ probably won’t matter.

  67. davies

    November 15, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    An excellent result. So how wrong are all those politicians and activists (yes you Shorten and Croome!) who basically stated Australians could not be trusted with this vote and that their hate-filled homophobic bilge would see many a gay person kill themselves? Now yes, there was a little bit of hate, most of which came from the YES camp, but it was predominantly kept to the periphery.

    As an aside, Croome actually owes two apologies, one to the general public and one to the gay community. For some reason he considered the gay community to be too feeble to even hear about the merits or otherwise of same-sex marriage, let alone fully participate in such a debate!

    #5 list of subjugators is hilarious! You got Nazis, Fascists, and just the Chinese Communists so presumably no other Communists did any subjugating. Then we add to that list Tories, Republicans and Liberals …

    That’s like saying Mao, Mussolini and Hitler were the worse leaders in the last 100 plus years and on a par with Thatcher, Reagan, and Howard…

  68. TGC

    November 15, 2017 at 10:46 am

    Because those who did not vote ‘yes’ are in the minority- they will attract the support of such as the Greens who ideologically give support to ‘minorities’ -and -in #5’s telling expression- others who can “appreciate their pain”

  69. Tony Stone

    November 15, 2017 at 9:28 am

    Whilst not caring one way or the other regarding this subject, as I see it as an ideological concept, rather than real. It shows where the priorities of the ideological human race sit, firmly in fantasy land.

    Such fervour for something that is purely psychological, when the future ahead for all life on this planet is not looking very good and with marriage becoming less and less important to the majority.

    Yet we have turned this into the most important in Aus, when in reality, it is a non event and now they have this, some other nutter minority will push for their fantasy delusions to be accepted as the norm.

    Yet everyone is in denial of what is the true reality and what we face in the very near future. Everyone is happy to jump on the band wagon of delusionary fantasy, yet completely ignore what is really extremely important, a viable future for all.

    What it does show, is fantasy is more important than reality to the majority and why we have no hope for a viable safe future.

    All we can look forward to is more fantasy land concepts being pushed and the real priorities being pushed aside.

  70. john hayward

    November 14, 2017 at 10:56 pm

    This issue is not so much about freedom of religion as about the age-old demand of human authoritarians, whether they be Nazis’, Falangists, Tories, Chinese Communists, US Republicans or Australian “Liberals”, that they be allowed to subjugate and oppress any minority groups substantially different to themselves.

    You can appreciate their pain, particularly that of Eric’s, at missing out in this feast.

    John Hayward

  71. TGC

    November 14, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    #3 … You would be unwise to bet on that.

  72. philll Parsons

    November 14, 2017 at 7:32 pm

    TGC, you are being silly.

  73. TGC

    November 14, 2017 at 6:16 pm

    Well, that’s the ‘marriage’ bit decided – ‘discrimination’ on that matter comes to an end
    But it opens up the biggest challenge of all- why should men be denied the ‘basic human right’ to bear a child and women be denied the ‘basic human right’ to be able to be the mother of the child the wife is carrying for and by the other wife- if you see what I mean!
    So, the fight must go on- pressure must be brought to bear on all governments- and private enterprise too- to ensure that adequate funding is made available- immediately- so that research that leads to an end to this blatant ‘discrimination’ can be financed.
    What has been achieved thus far is merely ‘words’- what must happen is a revolution in the act so that pregnancy in both genders- indeed even in those who don’t have a gender -can be made possible just using the two persons involved.
    And there should be no need for a postal vote.

  74. Chris

    November 14, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    Will the puppet be able to marry his puller, or will he and Erica Betz compliment each other and remain good friends?
    Or is Pater’s Son the love child of Erica and Julie ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top