Submitted by Sheepdog on Thu, 08/10/2017 - 15:26
I'll simply repeat what I said earlier in this thread, re' the no voters making this about "the children"
"If these zealots believe having children is a vital part of marriage, then they should be protesting vigorously every time a pair of single heterosexual divorcees remarry in their 50s. A heck of a lot of divorced boomers remarry. My dad, bless him, remarried in his early 60s, to a lovely English woman in her late 50s. The marriage was about love, companionship. A priest married them. Absolutely no chance of children...
Using the "children" argument to be against ssm is pathetic. Pure conflation to mask homophobia."
I got my letter in the mail the other day, i haven't sent it yet, to be honest i kind of feel a little bit guilty voting NO even though i haven't done it , i don't think there is any good reason to vote NO, all I've seen is piss poor arguments, i really couldn't give a fuck who gets married.
Maybe i will just not send it in.
God I'm even tempted to vote yes just to get this issue out of our faces, I'm sick to death of it, and I'm sick to death of fucking rainbows too.
Ada gula, ada semut!
Indo - There could be a couple on the other side of the country that are madly in love and this issue might be consuming them. Why not just let them be happy ? It's not going to make a lick of difference to you or me what they do.
If your conscience is making you feel guilty at the thought of voting no, Indo, then that really says something.
Simple as that.
Indy speaks loud. I rest my case.
Hopefully, I'm wrong, wrong, wrong.
But I'm not holding my breath.
I voted yes , and my wife voted no .
I don't agree with the process , and I believe that the word " marriage " should be removed from all the legal rights that the LGBTQ......... (whatever acronym its up to now ) are actually fighting for .
I find it abhorrent that same sex couples want anything to do with a religious pretence . Infact I find in this debate the strongest atheists are also the strongest advocates . Does my head in .
Anyway back to the vote . Both myself and my wife have a lot of time for the Gay friends we have . Children not having access to a mother and father is what irks my wife . I'm more a practical person that would prefer that the law move away from a Christian state . Having said that I have genuine fears of the ethnic and religious enclaves that are dividing our major cities . So perhaps holding onto the status quo of political structure is a good thing .
Anyway , I have a huge dislike for people shaming , beating , people of perceived " lesser intelligence " , less progressive into something they have every right to oppose . So I'm usually a cunt that would want to vote NO purely for reaction to being told , but it appears that I do have a conscious / empathy. Because once I read the question and how it was worded I instantantly changed and ticked the Yes box .
Unfortunately just like everyone else I see this as a bullshit exercise , as the details of how the constitution would be changed the avenue and depth from trivial to substantial change inregard to legalities of estates , legal access , children's guardians all the way to educational changes .
That is my biggest worry , that we are already changing curriculum beyond stupidity . - Merry Seasons !!! , no flags ! , no anthem etc .
Remove religious tax free loopholes . It's getting to the point that we are seeing entire communities living within are almost sovereign societies , feeding off the surrounds , but returning very little . And at its most extreme exporting gain away .
Sorry to digress .
" SA's Reserve Capacity "
I made a decent curry in the slow cooker today.
And had a body whomp.
Fixed a troublesome doorknob and all.
Marriage isnt a religious monopoly.
Its comercial /legal agreement binding two people to the govt legalsystem, for tne purpose of ownership and distribution of assets.
This system is allready in place in this country.
For instance if you live with your mate bob , share accounts and assets, and bob by the way is the same sex as you , then you could be a same sex couple under the law and will be taxed as a married couple , in fact by this govt you will be a married couple in all legality that suits the govt except being able to say so yourself.
Churches have a right to marry couples if they wish and not if they dont. Who would care if a fundamental rightwing organisation like a church wont do some weddings. They beleive in fairy tails any way.
Any argument that marriage is formost to create famillies is also alota shit. I know allot of couples (hetero) who have married knowing full well they will never have kids together. And there is no shame or uproar.
If you beleive only in the traditional marriage from the bible are you saying that you wish organised marriages where an often 13 yr old girl gets to meet her often older husband for tne first time at the wedding. Often genitally mutalated and owned by the husband as his FIRST wife.
Or do you wish to just cherry pick the bits you may want depending on yyour religiion.
I do nt feel com fortable around some gay men if it feels like im getting intrest in that way but its easy to fix , women have to do it all the time and homopobia is no excuse to refuse to acknowledge a law allready in place and is policed with strict govt controls through ccentrelink and the Tax office.
Allowing same sex marriage just prevents the liberal govt being two faced about a system already in place.
Shit sorry that was a long rant
God says NO....Nature says NO...Saint Paul The Apostle explains why...Romans 1 : 18 - 32
If god says no then why did he create homosexuality ?
Summed up pretty nicely by Henry...
This is the main thrust if you can't be bothered clicking on the link ...........
“This marriage inequality flap you’re having is below your country, it is below your conversation. You should just get rid of it, let two men get married. You’ll wake up tomorrow morning, everything will be fine. You keep on going.
“This is really below the intellectual quotient of the conversation that Australia should be having, now and forever. It really is below you.
“It makes you look bad. In my country, those people who hate two men getting married … makes my country look bad.
“You should squash it and move on, as fast as you can.”
Hey Southey I actually made the same point with my wife a few months back. We have the option of getting married completely free of the church or any kind of religious affiliation, yet the churchies moan and bitch about anything being changed. These days there is the option of being married in a religious ceremony, but marriage is in no way a religious institution anymore.
I have no idea why the LGBT refused to accept a new act of parliament etc enabling them to marry and insisted on amending the existing one as to me the current one is bullshit, but there ya go.
As it stands 50% of all marriages end in divorce with plenty of broken families and kids who are worse off etc so I doubt giving the LGBT community (one who may appreciate it more) the right to marry will affect it by much. If anything it may improve things.
I have friends who married overseas but can't have their wedding recognized in oz. They waited for years for the legislation in oz to change before getting sick of it and marrying overseas. I'll be voting yes just because there would be thousands more out there, either married or waiting who are already in committed married relationships just waiting for this government to pull its finger out and give them the slip of paper to have it recognized at home.
Like many other issues it is natural that conservatives would be opposed to SSM. The momentum for change will no longer be stemmed so its hoped all sides conduct themselves with common decency and respect to minimise any potential for harm. I have voted YES.
The parliament should have resolved this issue long ago.
It's such a time wasting issue its staggering how much air time we've given it.
Time and money.
had no choice but to put a big cross through the whole paper and mailed it back . it is a waste of time and waste of money. allow me to vote proper or not at all. not good enough.
Optimist writes "God says NO....Nature says NO...Saint Paul The Apostle explains why...Romans 1 : 18 - 32"
Yeah....... Well...... The bible says lots of stuff...
So you voted no then Happy?
You had no choice Happy - why is that?
Just because it was a waste of time and money?
And did anybody else read that bit that says your response cannot be connected to you and just think yeah, sure.
Actually it's just a scam for the government to collect everyones DNA from when you lick the envelope, so don't forget to use a damp cloth instead.
Seems pretty straight forward Indo, we all got a barcode.
Not that I give a fuck, it's just that nothing would surprise me.
At the same time, I saw some chem trails overhead when I was ticking the box which was mighty suspicious if you ask me!
"had no choice but to put a big cross through the whole paper and mailed it back . it is a waste of time and waste of money. allow me to vote proper or not at all. not good enough."
Care to elaborate happyas?
I value your - what appears to be - reasoned, rational, non idealogue must fall in line type position on issues.
One hundred years on young Jimmy joins a hereditary site, queries on his old man, finds he was officially married to Uncle Ron twenty-five years ago ..
"reasoned, rational, non idealogue must fall in line type position on issues".
Major logic fail/post-truth spasticity.
And Peterb, I'm hoping little Jimmy couldn't care less (if he's had intelligent and open-minded parenting, he probably won't) but if he does, he's just learnt an important lesson about the realities of the world.
Yes that's right boys and girls, the real world.
I think, from memory, happyas is actually pro andym, so don't get a bee in ya bonnet....yet....
And I do think he takes reasoned positions. Open to arguments, opinions and persuasions. He even asks for them....
Much to be respected about that.
Nothing worse than a pleb-like righteous preacher man...converting only the pleb like minded pre-converted.
Whilst isolating all those that possibly could be
That's what debate and democracy is supposed to be. Or once was....or something....
But not at this time and place in space
Now uncle Ron wants to marry Jimmy's sister , all ok so far?
Look out, Cory Bernardi is pulling out the old Slippery Slope argument.
You equating homosexuality to incest?
Stay classy pete.
Syppo I'm not seriously thinking I can change people's opinions on deeply felt issues like this on a surfing website.
I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find anyone more neutral than me andym.
Really couldn't give a shit either way. So far the arguments have been so shit either way I'm even more disinterested than before.
Both sides are lame and contradictory in my book so neautral I stay
Are you a religious man peterb?
Any non religious types out there with arguments against?
im in favour of SSM.
but its not a vote, its an anonymous opinion. its non compulsary so who knows what the end result will be, presumably lots of conservative seniors with plenty of time on their hands will outvote young people so the whole thing appears rigged to me. its a waste of money as proper use of opinion polling could already provide the govt its answer at less than 10th the cost and without wasting an entire nations time to ask a single question, and why am I 'voting' on issues designed to help navigate through liberals internal party politic problems, proper party leadership is supposed to do its job, not ask me to do its job for it.
most importantly of all, we live in a system of equality for all and so I should not be asked to vote on issues of equality. this is its own right is allowing discriminatory behaviour.
i assume labor will fix this.
well said happy ass
GuySmiley - 'Brexit, another example where a conservative government couldn't sort out its own internal divisions, relinquished its responsibility to govern and decided to put a divisive and dishonest poll to the people.'
Bit short sighted mate, just a few weeks before the 1970 general election which made him Prime Minister, Edward Heath declared that it would be wrong if any Government contemplating membership of the European Community were to take this step without `the full hearted consent of Parliament and people'.
However, when it came to it Heath didn't have a referendum because opinion polls at the time (1972) showed that the British people were hugely opposed (by a margin of two to one) against joining the Common Market. Instead, Heath merely signed the documents that took us into what became the European Union on the basis that Parliament alone had passed the European Communities Bill of 1972.
Huge chunks of the UK economy were sold off as part of the deal, manufacturing for example. This hit hardest in places like Wales, the Midlands and Northern England with little in the way of a plan B.
Since then the EC has morphed into something all together different than a trading bloc with layers upon layers of legislation all handed down from an un elected European parliament.
Many people in the UK have been waiting for an opportunity to leave ever since we joined.
Dandandan - having been born and raised in the UK your British Pakistani mate should be well aware of our recent history and how we ended up in the mess that is Europe. Playing the race card because she was on the losing side in the Brexit vote speaks for itself.
Same sex marriage - vote it in, everyone can move on.
Happyas said: "i assume labor will fix this."
I admire your optimism, as unfounded as it is. If the 'no' vote gets up then SSM is off the agenda for a decade or more.
Don't believe me?
Ask the Australian Republican movement.
Issues have a limited time in the sun, and once they're done that's it. A later generation may address it but politics is too brutal to be pursuing losing battles.
IMO if the SSM public vote says NO and therefore Turnbull doesn't put it to a parliamentary vote the issue will stay live until the next election where Labor will campaign for it. Politically, it will be another nail in Turnbull's coffin.
...if the vote says 'no' then the vote says the people don't want it.
People can argue the finer points all they want about due process but at every future turn the conservative answer will be 'the people have already spoken', and in a way they have, which makes any subsequent battle a time-consuming, resource-draining, energy-sapping endeavour. What government can afford it.
Sounds bad? Well that's only if Labor win a majority govt, which isn't proving likely. It gets worse if it's hung. Reckon Shorten would be brave enough to use up his slim political capital in an issue that's already been voted down by the public?
Lastly, consider the tectonic movements away from progressive politics toward national interests - Trump, Brexit et al - and see where SSM fits into the new schema.
It's a one shot deal.
If the public vote says NO don't you see a spilt in the LNP? The Nationals are all NOers as far as I'm aware and say add 25% of sitting Liberals to the NO camp. Do you think the YES Liberals are going to stay quiet on the issue after the vote and in the lead up to the next election? A NO vote is the worse possible outcome for Turnbull for the very reasons you mention. It will split the LNP as the climate/power/clean energy target debate also has the potential to do .... of course there is the little issue of dual citizenship the High Court will deal with next month that could sink Turnbull further .... by-elections at the end of the year during the time parliament could be voting on SSM!
If this were an election or any other political type thing most would keep their preferences to themselves.
Everyone knows that its social suicide to try and convert die-hard Liberals/Labor voters or reason with their beliefs etc so its easier to just never mention it.
With SSM it seems the reverse is true and everyone states their position upfront and then seems surprised when they are hassled by people with opposing views.
This whole thing doesn't have to be a big shit fight if people would just get on with it and not advertise their reasons or try and justify it. Its meant to be bloody anonymous!
Stu's right on the money here too with the one shot deal - if it comes out as a no it'll be dead in the water. I'm sure the issue will drag on but you can guarantee that if its not a clear yes then the next time this issue is put to parliament it will be the most negative divisive argument yet as the notion of forcing it on the public will appear undemocratic.
Smiley I don't think its a nail in the coffin for Trudbull if the vote comes back no. It means that any moral high ground the yes voters are currently claiming would evaporate politically. It would be an awful scenario if the LGBT community is suddenly seen to be campaigning against democracy because I reckon thats how it would be framed.
@GS, I don't know what will happen to the Liberals either way, but a 'yes' vote at least hands the next Labor administration a blueprint for action. Without it the task is too fraught.
Laughing at the people who think the vote is an imposition upon them. The oppression is crushing hey guys? Call Ban Ki-Moon.
"I also think, either way, our flim-flam venture capitalist PM is cooked.
For an allegedly smart fella, he's not real good at this 'politics game', is he?"
Agree with Shatner.
A non-binding, non-compulsory postal survey. An opinion poll.
All to resolve the LNPs "family feud".
Whatever the "survey says", Malcolm's got some ducking, weaving, slithering to do inside and outside the Party room.
Is our Strong Leader™ up to it?
Maybe the media can help him.
Marriage Equality survey differs in many ways. Firstly it's not corrupted by timeline.
Usual elections are biased by timelines,meaning golden sunrise votes shape the Govt.
By default infamous pork barrel rolls with the sun back from Tassie/Vic/NSW so on & so on.
As barren barrel rolls into W.A. ..duty bound voters kill time by watching P.M. victory speech.
Normal elections also enshrine I.D. checks to limit one vote.
Marriage survey affords 2nd/3rd...20 or 30 cluster votes by entrusted dead mail keepers. Simply return to sender in supplied envelope on behalf of tenants... A Good deed even ?
Marriage Equality milestone! Australia became first nation to allow Civil Celebrants (1973).
1st wedding performed by a young woman soon Aboriginal also free to choose celebrants.
Hon Lionel Murphy's legacy extends to 75% of OZ marriages.
The Church kept on appointing their celebrants and denied marriages on epic proportions.
Church banned Oz Race,Mixed Race/Religion,Divorced,Widowed,Orphaned so on & so on.
Inside the Church homosexual unions were horrifically non consensual (Child Rape). R.I.P.
Mountains of Church's own testament negates any rights to marriage ever again.
Now playing the Religious freedom card they extend future marriage bans to LGBTIQ .
Any practicing celebrants may be asked to perform a wedding ceremony of sorts.
All have a right to refuse... albeit for universally sound reason.
Any venue may be booked for Wedding ceremony including Churches of all religion.
Church staff may decline but first consider 99% of religion is funded by LGBTIQ whole.
Should church persist spewing disharmony ...A non funded Cult compound awaits them.
Okay now i get it.
If the public say NO it will put the issue to rest, but then if the Labor get back in, it would seem like they are going against democracy to change the law.
So this will be a win win for liberals.
While if it comes back a YES vote the issue will most likely drag on and if it doesn't go to a parliamentary vote, then when Labor get in they will change the law and get browny points for it.
Wow it's a risky thing to do seeing the polls say the majority support same sex marriage.
I still don't get why they didn't make it a proper vote that counts, that way if it was a NO then Liberals could really say its wrong to go against the wishes of the Australian people if Labor wanted to change the law.
And if it was a yes, then they could just say the people have spoken we will change the law and not let Labor have the win.
We need another option on the form, a maybe box for the bloke who wants a bob each way.
It's called bisexuality , Pete.
And if that's what you're about then we're not here to judge you.
Indo, if labour dont change the vote will they call for another plebiscite in a few years, for us being a bigoted country and so backward with a no win?
Another 122 million down the drain.
(edit had yes win instead of no)
I don't think so if it's a NO we won't be seeing any plebiscite for at least ten years, if its a YES then there is no need for a plebiscite.
It's not dissimilar to the republic thing, it's kind of been put to bed for quite a while now.
What ever decision the public make now will or should decide what happens, i mean its not a vote as such, but it is still the people speaking and we are democracy were majority rules.
I doubt this charade will reach the end.( I'm calling Australia's first ever aborted poll).
A mum just found 17 ballots in kidz backyard Jungle Gym.
We stop nation for 3 months then bankrupt it with high court challenges for 2 votes or less.
Kidz do paper rounds. Kidz do junk mail. Kidz gather at unit block fronts/driveways.
Kidz fingerz are quicker than double dip rascal managers for that loose ballot wad.
Current Affair! Tell us Johnny...'Who was 1st OZ kid to vote'? 'Who is OZ youngest voter'?
Which school collects for [YES] ? Which school collects for [NO] ?
So you're saying 17 ballots buys a glow in the dark fidget spinner.
I've lost count of the money trail but I'm certain everyone said that this was worst idea ever.