View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
regan is true fullback
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 Location: Granville. nsw
|
Post subject: | |
|
Quote: | The Sydney Morning Herald says Shortens leadership group discussed the issue behind closed doors last week and, while no final decision was made, they appear likely to vote the plebiscite down.
The paper says Labor fears Turnbull will put no effort into the yes campaign, allowing the well-organised and well-resourced no campaign to steal a march and ultimately carry the day. guardian 28.8.16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
A crazy and expensive opinion poll.
Just let them join the circus, the family courts will be busier.
There were 121,197 marriages registered and 46,498 divorces granted in Australia in 2014. Over the past five years there has been a gradual increase in the median age at separation and divorce. This aligns with a gradual increase in the median age at first marriage. _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
What'sinaname
Joined: 29 May 2010 Location: Living rent free
|
Post subject: | |
|
Stuff gay marriage, I want a plebiscite on AFL umpiring favouring Hawthorn. _________________ Fighting against the objectification of woman. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I reckon Labor are just in this for the political opportunism. If they delay the plebiscite, they keep the heat on Turnbull and potentially get to make this an election issue. Wouldn't be the first (or second, or third) time that they've thrown gay people under the bus for the sake of political gain.
As for the Greens, they've just fallen for the anti-plebiscite hysteria totally. How the hell has the left and gay rights movement managed to collectively convince itself that a public vote is going to make people kill themselves? It's just absolute nonsense and emblematic of everything that's wrong with identitarian leftism, where democracy and public debate are too dangerous to exist.
I saw an internet post that sums up all this idiocy the other day: "There will be no equality even if people vote yes, because unlike heterosexuals we have to ask 15 million people for permission." How else is equality supposed to be won? Armed revolution? Is asking for the permission of 150 people who 15 million people voted in as representatives so much better?
And, lest anyone think I'm letting them off the hook, the biggest villains here are the government, whose craven cynicism got us to this point in the first place. All these idiots have conspired to screw up the simplest thing in the world following majority public opinion, majority MP opinion and the lead of most developed countries in the world by ending marriage discrimination and letting hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples celebrate their love and commitment. An elderly gay man at work died a few days ago, unable to marry his long time partner, and many more will die without being able to marry the people they love if we have to wait another three years for this. And why? Because the Coalition, Labor and the Greens couldn't organise a screw in a brothel. A plague on all their houses, I say. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
^
I agree on all counts.
The issue too many are stuck on is that the Libs should just do a parliamentary vote so the plebiscite is unnecessary. While that's correct it is what it is and the Libs aren't going to change, so you play the cards you're dealt and the Greens and potentially Labor have played the hand badly. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Since this thread has already gone away from the original premise, secondary question.
If there is a plebiscite, should both the yes and no campaigns get public funding? I can see pro's and cons for it.
Another option that I'm not even sure is workable would be to hold the plebiscite with a ban on media campaigning by both sides. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
regan is true fullback
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 Location: Granville. nsw
|
Post subject: | |
|
Quote: | Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's promise of a "civil" debate over same-sex marriage is unravelling, with the group behind an anti-equality smear sheet distributed in suburban Sydney revealed as members of the Liberal Party.
The group "Children's Future", which has firm links to the secretive Catholic religious society Opus Dei, has made the false claim in leaflets that legalising same sex marriage would trigger the controversial Safe Schools program becoming "compulsory" in all Australian schools, even if parents objected. Melbourne Age 23.9.16 |
The Opus Dei cult was started in Spain in the 1930s by the fascist dictator General Franco and his boyfriend the extreme right wing priest Jose Escriva. Its chief claim to fame is murdering thousands of government opponents and adopting their kids out to "good Catholic families"
It has high influence in the Catholic Church particularly in the Philippines and in most Latin American countries.
in 2002 Escriva was canonised as a saint by the virulent anti communist John Paul II.
Last edited by regan is true fullback on Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
It's almost as if the Liberal far right want the plebiscite to be sabotaged. I couldn't possibly imagine why... _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
Post subject: Re: Plebiscite on gay marriage. Why and why not? | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | I'm not doing a poll deliberately, I'm interested in people's opinions.
Leaving aside the politics of why Turnbull wants to do it and why Labor has been opposing it (cos that's politics) there's some reasonably valid arguments on both sides of the debate.
In my opinion, holding the plebiscite provides a legitimacy of outcome that you don't get when the government just legislates something. Legislation is overturned and modified all the time.
Like it or not, there are a number of people who don't agree with gay marriage, and simply vilifying them by calling them homophobic, redneck or insulting their intelligence (which are the standard tactics) won't change that. Nor will legislating for something without what is clear evidence that the majority agree with it.
Opponents of the plebiscite will point to the potential for divisive and, yes, even genuine homophobic comments and that's a reasonable prediction based on history.
But what about the opportunity of the pro side for education?
Won't those same comments be made if legislation was just pushed through?
Is the opposition to having a public debate just a form of censorship?
Thoughts?
NB, can we try to keep the politics out of this and address the issue? |
Howard changed the marriage act to specify that marriage is between a man & a woman. This he did through legislative change because he's a conservative bunt (sorry can't write the letter c) of the highest order.
In the same way we need to have legislative change to make a simple reversal for that act of political bastardry by the bunt Howard. _________________ âI even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didnât keep âem under long enoughâ Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Apparently Gruen did a good episode on how the yes and no campaigns would approach the plebiscite the other night (for those who don't know, it's a TV show that analyses advertising and advertising campaigns):
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/gruen/LE1506H008S00 _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'm sympathetic to some of these arguments, but what does it say about our society when a public discussion about an issue independent of all other concerns is considered inherently dangerous? _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
Who are my mates? _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: Re: Plebiscite on gay marriage. Why and why not? | |
|
watt price tully wrote: | stui magpie wrote: | I'm not doing a poll deliberately, I'm interested in people's opinions.
Leaving aside the politics of why Turnbull wants to do it and why Labor has been opposing it (cos that's politics) there's some reasonably valid arguments on both sides of the debate.
In my opinion, holding the plebiscite provides a legitimacy of outcome that you don't get when the government just legislates something. Legislation is overturned and modified all the time.
Like it or not, there are a number of people who don't agree with gay marriage, and simply vilifying them by calling them homophobic, redneck or insulting their intelligence (which are the standard tactics) won't change that. Nor will legislating for something without what is clear evidence that the majority agree with it.
Opponents of the plebiscite will point to the potential for divisive and, yes, even genuine homophobic comments and that's a reasonable prediction based on history.
But what about the opportunity of the pro side for education?
Won't those same comments be made if legislation was just pushed through?
Is the opposition to having a public debate just a form of censorship?
Thoughts?
NB, can we try to keep the politics out of this and address the issue? |
Howard changed the marriage act to specify that marriage is between a man & a woman. This he did through legislative change because he's a conservative bunt (sorry can't write the letter c) of the highest order.
In the same way we need to have legislative change to make a simple reversal for that act of political bastardry by the bunt Howard. |
You're stuck on ground zero.
The argument that we won't support a plebiscite because we shouldn't have to have one is useless. The fact is, if you want it under a liberal government, it will be through a plebiscite. So I started this thread to debate the merits of the plebiscite. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|