A psychologist writing on the Redditt network has said that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, like heterosexualism and homosexualism:

“The idea that sexual attraction to children is an “orientation” is highly controversial as it suggests that offenders cannot change.
But, writing on the Reddit networking website, the psychologist said it was possible to treat child sex abusers on “the understanding that the attraction may always remain”.

to THE AGE
     Who are these ‘Ngunnawal elders’ who are ‘asserting their ownership’ over land in Canberra’s parliamentary triangle (‘Talks fail over Indigenous activists’ occupation of eatery’, 9/11)?  I question their authenticity as well as their claim and behaviour, especially when their spokesperson bears two European names.
     The Aboriginal people lost control of this continent long ago and nothing can be done to reverse that historic change.  Today’s descendants of those tribes must accept that reality.  The huge folly of the ‘constitutional recognition’ campaign, now exposed for all to see, has alerted most Australians to the danger of separatist movements.  We need to defend our nation and the full force of the law should be brought to bear on these public nuisances in our capital.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     Magnanimity towards a loser is an important aspect of our cultural tradition. That is why, if the postal survey results in a clear yes for same-sex marriage, the Government should move cautiously and judiciously in framing enabling legislation.
     This is not a situation of ‘those who opposed change seeking to be the authors of a bill for change’  (‘”Blizzard” of changes likely for bill’, 10/11), but of reasonable requests for adequate and fair protections for dissidents being incorporated as part of the bill.  It is not a matter of further attempts to ‘delay the inevitable’, but of respecting the substantial number of no voters.
     Waleed Ali is misleading (‘When yes means yes but’) in suggesting that the no campaign has ‘lost’ on its key themes of ‘protections for parents, freedom of speech and religious freedom.’ It is more likely that the yes campaign has won on what was perceived as fairness to same-sex couples. Thus these key themes should be weighed carefully by those framing legislation.
     Nigel Jackson, Belgrave, Vic

to SUNDAY AGE
     The Government is right to have rejected the Uluru Statement from the Heart’s recommendation for a constitutionally enshrined ‘indigenous Voice to Parliament’ (‘Coalition contempt for our first peoples’, 5/11).  The proposal is fundamentally inequitable and endangers the integrity of the nation.
     A distinction needs to be made between ‘the Aboriginal people’ (meaning those of the past, the present and the future) and living Australians who have some or whole Aboriginal ancestry.  No one has dispossessed anyone in the latter group; nor are they the only indigenous Australians.  As for the dispossession of ‘the Aboriginal people’, it is a fact of history that no-one can undo in any way.  No one living today can justifiably be blamed for it.
    There is widespread goodwill towards contemporary Aboriginals, and Aboriginal culture and history are rightly recognized and celebrated throughout the land.  Thus reconciliation needs no tampering with the Constitution.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     There have been monarchies and republics for thousands of years, so neither model is more ‘anachronistic’ than the other (‘Symbolism matters: why I’m a staunch republican’, 6/11). Nor is it true that our monarchs have ruled ‘through no other merit than birth’; they had good genetic endowments and long periods of training to prepare them for their arduous responsibilities.
     Then again, Her Majesty the Queen is not accurately described as an ‘unelected foreign monarch.’  She shares her ethnicity with most of us; she is constitutionally an Australian as well as a Briton; and she has been chosen (‘elected’) by a respected system, even if it is not by the kind we use to change our governments.
     I wonder why Dan Crowley is so enamoured of having a national president subservient to popular whims and vested financial interests, rather than a leader bequeathed by a process rich in tradition and sanctified by religion.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     The current state of ‘moves towards indigenous constitutional recognition’ has not ‘reached a damaging impasse’  (‘Angry Pearson turns on Turnbull’, 6/11).  Rather, it has been fruitfully clarified by the Government’s sensible and well argued rejection of the ‘voice to Parliament’ and then by the dogmatic and intemperate responses of those disappointed by the result, including Noel Pearson.
     Greg Sheridan summed up the situation well  (‘Just being Australian is good enough for us all’, 2/11).  Opponents of constitutional recognition have proved justified in their fears that there would be ‘no end point to the process’, since any concession would be followed by demands for more, leading to an inexorable slide towards the division of the continent into two nations.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

 http://theconversation.com/social-media-study-points-to-a-close-result-in-the-same-sex-marriage-vote-84436
     The Yes site may need help from Yoko Ono, the woman who made a major contribution to the world by helping to break up the Beatles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6vnXJVAnu8

     The statistical argument, stripped down, is that Tweets mentioning the same sex marriage issue were looked at.  Once those making multiple references were removed, this brought the Yes number down to 57 percent. But, then over 55-year olds were under-represented, so once the adjustments were made, the Yes figure went to 49 percent.
     I think though that this team did not factor in the multicult factor, of Chinese and Muslim opposition to same sex marriage. That will bring the percentage down even more.
     Hopefully, the Yes side will be defeated soundly. But, don’t slack off, you are doing well with your phone calls and door-knocking. Give yourself a big hug and pat on the back!

to THE AUSTRALIAN
    An opinion poll of unproved reliability that involved a mere 1500 people (‘PM rebuffed on indigenous voice’, 30/10) is no evidence at all that the Government decision on an indigenous ‘voice’ to Parliament ‘has been blown out of the water’. The claim is out of all proportion to reality.
     More importantly, the call by Referendum Council member Megan Davis for ‘a mechanism that compels the Government to listen’ sends shivers down my spine. There is ideological bullying as well as a woeful fanaticism here. The majority of Australians won’t buy it!
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

to THE AGE
     The significance of the Government’s decision to reject a first people’s ‘voice’ to Parliament is being misrepresented (Letters, 30/10). Aboriginal leaders already have and will continue to have the means ‘of expressing their voice and vision on behalf of their people’ and will certainly be listened to by governments fully aware that most Australians wish our Aboriginal fellow citizens well.
     Nor is the decision ‘a silencing of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders’. They remain as free as ever to publish their views and promote policies of their choice. Moreover, it is anachronistic to argue that ‘this is colonial politics’ or motivated by ‘white paternalism’. Finally, it is reasonable and not ‘absurd’ for the Government to defend ‘equal civic rights’. That is one of the core issues.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     We live in one of the wealthiest, freest and happiest nations in the world, and yet Rob McCasker (31/10) views our political order as ‘a system that continues to fail Indigenous Australians and all Australians.’  He provides no evidence at all to support his claim that the Government’s rejection of the ‘voice’ in Parliament was ‘driven by cheap and nasty politics.’ His speculation is almost certainly groundless.
     Those who wish to benefit the descendants of our first peoples should admit that it has now become apparent that any kind of constitutional recognition carries unacceptable dangers to the stability and security of the nation. No matter how it is phrased, no referendum will succeed. Unrealism about these matters will help no one.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Mark Leibler claims (‘Voice of the people spurned’, 31/10) that the Government’s decision to reject the proposed indigenous ‘voice’ in Parliament has deprived Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders of ‘a form of recognition that might make a difference to their lives.’ How? What difference? What change that cannot be made by avoiding risky tampering with the Constitution? It’s too vague!
     So what if ‘more than 1000 First Nations people’ participated in the Uluru process? That is a miniscule number out of the whole body of the nation. It is not even clear to what extent those attendees truly represented the opinions of other indigenous Australians. Nor is it certain that the ‘voice’ would not have become a de facto ‘third chamber’ of Parliament, one that might receive greater powers under some future ALP government.
     The Government’s decision has protected the integrity of the nation. We want no Catalonian division here.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic.

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     How amazing to learn that a law professor was able to persuade some netball parents in five minutes that the indigenous ‘voice’ to Parliament should be supported (‘Pollies, not people, the real obstacle’, 3/11)! How could the rest of us not see that it’s all so simple? It’s odd, however, that nowhere in Rosalind Dixon’s statement can we find a single reasoned argument justifying the proposed change.
     By contrast, Simon Breheny (‘Decision on “indigenous voice” a big win for liberal democracy’) gives us at least six such arguments to justify the Government’s decision. The most important of these is that any ‘advisory’ voice does not need to be constitutionally enshrined. Adequate recognition can be achieved without any tampering with the Constitution.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     It is regrettable that Noel Pearson has not learned anything from the Government’s decision on constitutional recognition (‘Prime Minister’s rejection is a kick in the guts for Aboriginal Australians’, 28-29/10). Instead he has resorted to a mixture of emotional special pleading and discourteous attacks on the Prime Minister and Tony Abbott.
     It does not help when he engages in excessive claims (‘Turnbull has broken the hearts of all Australians of goodwill.’) and misleading attributions (implying that Greg Craven, Anne Twomey, Julian Leeser and Damien Freeman are ‘true conservatives’, while ignoring the real conservatives on this issue such as Keith Windschuttle, Frank Salter, Greg Sheridan, Andrew Bolt and Gary Johns).
     Pearson has badly damaged any claims he has had to statesmanship.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

     The chattering class have been screaming loud about Mal Turnbull’s decision to abandon the report recommending an indigenous advisory voice to parliament, along with a separate commission to oversee “treaty-making and truth-telling.” “Truth-telling”? That smacks of something out of South Africa, doesn’t it?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/turnbull-broke-our-hearts-on-recognition-says-indigenous-council/news-story/b4ed8aba821d60321c83461bdd7e9559

Let me quote from the above article:

     The papers have been celebrating the appointment of Senator Lucy Gichuhi, Australia’s first African-born senator. She held second spot on the Family First ticket, and received only 152 direct votes, but by the magic of our political system, when it was found that the election of Bob Day was invalid, she entered parliament, joining the Australian Conservative Party, as Family First no longer existed:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-05/family-first-bob-day-election-ruled-invalid-by-high-court/8417204

     Senator Gichuhi is opposed to same sex marriage and has this to say:

     Paedophilia is the next big thing of the evil elites. A vote will be taken in a few days to lower the age of consent to 13 years:
http://yournewswire.com/european-union-age-consent/

“Laurent Henry proposed the motion which “could free thousands of unjustly convicted prisoners” if the parliament decides to pass it.
“Our prisons are filled with young men that have been robbed of their youth, condemned to rot in jail for an act that should not be a crime. Why are we denying these young men the chance to play a more positive role in modern society?”, he said before the assembly Tuesday.
“Some even argue that a law on the age of consent has become superfluous and should no longer exist.”

to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Someone needs to explain to Noel Pearson and Pat Anderson why there has justifiably been ‘almost complete silence from government’ since the Uluru ‘Statement from the heart’ (‘Silence follows Uluru summit’, 25/10).  It has nothing to do with a ‘lack of responsibility’ or ‘failure of understanding’ among parliamentarians or COAG.  It comes from the sensible recognition in high places that the advisory body made demands which the majority of Australians will never be persuaded to endorse.
     Constitutional recognition of any kind has been shown to be inequitable, unjust to other citizens and a danger to our national unity, stability and security.  Waffle about Aboriginals being left ‘in the demountable out the back’ or that disadvantage cannot be tackled without ‘structural reform’ simply ignores reality.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     Julia Banks simplifies and misrepresents the ‘no’ case that legalizing same-sex marriage involves injustice to children (‘I’m a Liberal and this is why I’m voting for “yes”’, 25/10). By contrast the matter is well put by Penny Mackieson (Letters): we should not be endorsing a change to the law which will  ‘facilitate the conception of children to be intentionally separated from their biological/genetic parent or parents’ and raised by others. This is only one aspect of the matter.
     Advocates of ‘no’, one feels, have been at a disadvantage in this postal survey, because their case is much less easily presented in alluring simplifications. That is one reason why the Government should not rush into legislation ‘before Christmas’ if the ‘yes’ case wins the ballot.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     The Government has faced realities in its response to the campaign for constitutional recognition (‘Coalition rejects Indigenous “voice” to Parliament’, 27/10). The Australian people will never sign away their national unity in a referendum powered by misguided idealism.
     Claims that people are not willing to listen to what ‘First Australians’ want are without foundation. No ‘First Australians’ are alive today!
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic

to THE AGE
     Andrew Bragg is unrealistic in imagining that ‘no’ voters in the postal survey will suddenly cease discussion of the issue if they lose (‘Fair, focused debate needed as survey ends’, 26/10). Deeply held convictions will not be surrendered because of a political defeat that many will believe was achieved by ensuring that the public as a whole was inadequately briefed on the issues involved.
     He is right to urge a continuation of ‘respectful debate’ and consideration for the opinions of ‘no’ supporters. That is not compatible with his call for the legislation of same-sex marriage by Christmas. For the sake of ethical integrity and national unity, the government, if ‘yes’ wins, should proceed slowly and carefully and not act before all reasonable concerns about children’s welfare, free speech and parental rights have been addressed.
     NJ, Belgrave, Vic