Submitted by Sheepdog on Thu, 08/10/2017 - 15:26
I'll be voting "yes".
Just can't believe the amount of money being wasted on a plebiscite in any form.
We all know the majority are all for it, it's just weak Malcom sticking to a crappy election promise. They break these all the time, how about you be a strong leader and just put it to a parliamentary vote, save the time, money and anguish for LGBTI community.
Could be spent better elsewhere.
The plebiscite is non-binding so if the majority vote yes, what happens then?
Surely this thread is a Swellnet low point.
Never before has an issue that affected such a small minority of people with such an inevitable result been used to muddy the waters of political discourse in Australia to such a degree and for such a duration.
I don't actually have a problem with same sex people getting married.
But I'm sick to death of people and the media pushing this issue.
The government should have just said No it's not happening, if and when labor get back in they can change it if they like.
And just said end of story move on and got on with real issues.
However despite the fact i really don't care either way, I'm going to go to the effort to vote NO just because i don't want to reward those who have kept pushing and pushing this issue.
Because their like a bunch of spoilt children that whinge and whine when they don't get things there way when they want and don't stop until they get what they want.
Anyway why is it suddenly so important?...why didn't labor allowing same sex marriage when they were in? Or why can't they just wait until labor get back in?...I mean obviously that why labor doesn't want a plebiscite because they want to be the ones who change this and get the browny points. (yes i know a plebiscite was going to be non binding and be a waste of money)
Not only does the digital age mean I can't slam down the phone in anger also prevents me wiping my date with the ballot paper and return mailing.
Ya gotta admit though Blowin, it's been a genius move to give this so much oxygen. Classic case of look-shiny-thing to distract from the fact they couldn't run a chook raffle let alone the country.
‘IF YOU UNDERSTAND, things are just as they are;
if you do not understand, THINGS ARE JUST AS THEY ARE.’
"Surely this thread is a Swellnet low point."
And of course there's this classic in WAX ON:
Surf's up, kooks!
My fave though:
The bullshit bar has been set, comrades.
"However despite the fact i really don't care either way, I'm going to go to the effort to vote NO just because i don't want to reward those who have kept pushing and pushing this issue."
That's some serious spite.
The LNP Family Feud.
Hoping the "survey says..." will somehow save Mal & the boys' sorry arses.
In their "debt & deficit disaster", we've got 100 mill + OF OUR MONEY to waste on this non-binding farrago?
Indo's a kook. A bullshittin' kook at that. Get an indo dog up ya.
Blowie, what's your gay brother's take? Being someone this might actually impact for real? Is he like "Christine Forster" to your "Tony Abbott"?
What am i bullshitting ?...I bet you think im against gay marriage yeah?
Ive stated my view before in one thread somewhere, i have no problem with gay marriage or what or how people live there lives, but i am against same sex couples being able to adopt or do IVF, because the child doesn't have a choice and humans haven't evolved to be able to reproduce so its going against nature.
Plus as a parent i know there is many things i can't provide that a mother can.
So ideally as a human right every child should where possible have a mother and father.
Notice the word "ideally" before you put scenarios where a parent has died or separated etc.
'i am against same sex couples being able to adopt or do IVF, because they child doesn't have a choice and humans haven't evolved to be able to reproduce.'
Indo everything you've said before I've been 100% ok with, even you saying Andrew Bolt is in the centre of politics.
But what you just said is fucked!
Pretty simple Andy the right of the child should have precedent over the right of the couple.
@SB, can we leave family members out of it?
The rights of the child - what's that even mean?
You're violating their rights by having them brought up by fags, queers and dykes??
What are you trying to say Indo?
Wait, let me guess - something about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?
ID, whilst I disagree with you views, I respect your choice to have and express them.
However I'm very concerned at your justification:
"However despite the fact i really don't care either way, I'm going to go to the effort to vote NO just because i don't want to reward those who have kept pushing and pushing this issue.
Because their like a bunch of spoilt children that whinge and whine when they don't get things there way when they want and don't stop until they get what they want."
I don't even know when to start.
What about every other minority group that's been persecuted over the years, but have fought over the years for recognition and to right the wrongs of previous generations?
What about those people who have been voicing allegations against the Catholic Church for decades?
How about those people campaigning for a cleaner, more sustainable environment?
Like I said, I respect your view - but to vote no because you're sick of their relentless campaigning is a bit of a cop out.
If Labor also said they weren't going to allow it i could understand the continually campaigning for it, but Labor have said they will bring it in.
So its not like it's not going to happen, it will happen, its all rather pointless really.
'Using the ABS to conduct a same-sex marriage poll is legally shaky and lacks legitimacy'
Shatner - I haven't asked him about it.
He's been with the same fella for a long time now and I'm personally against them getting married....because his partner is still half in the closet and my brother has to accept getting kicked to the kerb when he's not convenient with the hetero image his partner still portrays to his family including his ex wife and their kids.
I haven't asked , but my brother would have the same opinion as myself , only more vociferously expressed - Who the fuck is anyone else to tell you who you can and can't marry ?!
Since when has marriage been only about children? Heaps of non married people have kids.. Heaps of people don't/can't have kids, but still get married.
The zealots are conflating 2 issues..
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.
Blowin... I agree with shatner. His link to your ridiculous thread takes the cake. There are at least 120 000 000 reasons to have this discussion.
Read my second post again Sheepdog, I'm not against same sex marriage.
Sheepy - Dont take it personally that I said you've started the lamest thread ever.
I know how important this issue is to you as a straight , monogamous male with no gay friends or relatives.
Not including that time you got " accidentally seperated " from your wide -eyed Sunshine Coast country mouse mates during a trip to the Sydney big smoke and spent the next 48 hours dominating a podium at DCM nightclub .
You're not against it but just keen to give them a lesson for being so uppity?
I'd say this is the type of response the architects of the plebiscite were hoping for.
"humans haven't evolved to be able to reproduce so its going against nature."
indo, if your talking evolution then I would put a solid bet on it that 1 million years ago blokes roamed around a fucked whatever they saw, then bolted leaving the mother to raise the kid on her own. i mean lets face it, what a fucking glorious life....
so i don't buy you evolution argument. respect you opinion nonetheless.
Actually plenty of evidence for the opposite in hunter-gatherer societies: it was the women who practiced sexual polygyny and mate selection.
cool freeride, but now you've opened the debate up to polygamy too. ;)
Interesting, so one is a 'kook' if one votes a specific way. So much for personal opinion. So its my way or no way. Whether you believe its a YES or NO, there are many religions which many people depend their lifestyle on, their food and importantly how they should behave in the society. Doesn't matter what I think but you would have to say we have a right to say and not some politician who is dictated to by his / her party - how is that freedom of thought.
You can vote whichever way you want and I strongly support your right to free speech but I've got news for you - you're on the wrong side of things in a liberal democracy and you're going to be judged as being on the wrong side of history.
How's George Pell going? You know that guy who heads the religious organisation in Australia who people like to use as there moral compass in this debate.
Make it legal, move on, save the $$$ and focus on what this is designed to distract us way from.
I'm not cheap,
But I'm free.
Interesting I thought more countries and population had jumped on board with same sex marriage, the media always seem to paint us as being the lone black sheep.
21 countries out of about 200 countries world wide that's about 10% of the world countries allow same sex marriage and about 90% without, with about 760 million people in these 21 countries out of a population of 7.5 billion.
Kids aren't really a part of the debate. As already pointed out, you can have kids without getting married and vice versa.
But if you want to drag them into it, which kid's better off; the one with loving caring same sex parents or my neighbours 5 year old who after skinning his knee falling off his bike got told to 'shut the fuck up and stop whinging like a sooky little [email protected]#*' (that's verbatim) by his father with a stubbie in one hand and a durrie in the other, at 10 in the morning?
Yeah, there's ya human evolution right there.
Nailed it braudulio.
I say go for it. If it makes those people that this actually directly effects, happy, to at least have the choice, where's the harm in that...
Edit: Just to clarify, yes to same sex marriage & shame on the government for not showing leadership on this matter. Put it to bed & move on....
yeah you nailed it braudulio. we overhear similar things from across the fence, the mother must have real mental health issues because she mostly screams and swears at her three young kids.
So the fiscally conservatives are wanting to spend $122 million on solving their internal political problems, going to make next years budget interesting when they cut deeper into some welfare or community program.
I will reluctantly vote yes but I'm hoping the High Court blocks it, its a waste of money and its likely to get very divisive.
"I will reluctantly vote yes but I'm hoping the High Court blocks it, its a waste of money and its likely to get very divisive."
That's about it GS.
Beyond the extraordinary waste of money, it's the fact that Australia's political leaders are so gutless and cruel that they will let us vote on the value of a person's love, let the debate play out for months, to culminate in a front page story declaring loudly to all SS couples exactly how many people Australia do not think they are worthy of equality... that's what really makes me angry. A friend of mine post-Brexit says it's a scary thing to wake up one morning and know that statistically 1 out of every 2 people you meet probably don't want you in the country. That's the kind of cruel personal assault the Coalition is set to unleash
Forgive the long post below, but a mate of mine wrote this which I think is well worth sharing.
"This photo is of my beautiful daughters on Kaity's wedding day. They are my life. They were born in the same city, in the same hospital delivered by the same doctor. They lived through their parent's divorce when they were very little girls and still believe in marriage and the commitment of relationships. They grew up in the same house in the same street. I read them the same stories and we cried over the same movies. They went to the same child care and same primary and high schools. They had the same teachers. They played with the same toys, fought, loved each other and hated each other as only sisters can. Most nights when they were little they fell asleep in each others beds and often ended up in mine. They were as close to being twins as twins themselves. As they became teenagers they had the same friendship groups in our small northern community. Now they are adults and they are still more the same than they are different. They work, pay taxes and contribute to their communities. The same values, the same hopes, the same kindness and aspirations. Except one of them gets different rights to the other. One gets to marry the person she loves. One gets to live day to day without any prejudice about who her partner is and one doesn't. One has to wait and see what a postal vote - I'm sorry i have to say that again - a freakin postal vote - a non binding, non compulsory weak "out" by our government will decide about whether she will be seen as equal. Basically a survey! It will mean she and many others will have to endure the incredible cruelness and divisiveness that will now be unleashed on her during this process but without an outcome. While we watch the rest of the world just get on with it, one of my daughters has to wait and hope she will be given the same rights under the law as her sister. While the rest of the world has leadership brave enough for a Parliament to just make the decision, our leader won't. Is there anyone other than the far right of the Liberal Party who think what is about to happen ok? The ludicrous nature of what is about to happen will only hurt. Despite the long post - I have no words to express how angry, sad and helpless this makes me feel, as a mother and on behalf of my daughters."
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.
Dandandan - . "A friend of mine post-Brexit says it's a scary thing to wake up one morning and know that statistically 1 out of every 2 people you meet probably don't want you in the country. "
If what you say is correct , then are the feelings of the 1 in 2 people that voted for Brexit not relevant ?
Or is one person's discomfort more deeply felt than the next ?
If I crashed your party who's feelings would be more important ? Yours because it's your house and you don't want me there and feel violated with my intrusion or mine because I'll feel unwanted when you try to kick me out ?
To keep her feelings in context, that person was British and had been born there. Her parents were Pakistani and she was outwardly Pakistani in dress/culture some of the time. Clearly not all people voting for Brexit were racist and there were lots of rational reasons for it, but the process the government put in place gave rise to plenty of overt racism directed at people like her who have every right to be there. How's she to tell if the country is half full of economic rationalists who don't like Belgium or British nationalists who don't like brown people? Both were pretty vocal in the process. Brexit is a very different kettle of fish, but it's the process that concerns me.
In most cases I don't think any one person's discomfort is more keenly felt. But some discomforts are misplaced or carry less weight (scratching for the right words...). The discomfort Eric Abetz feels about Jill and Jane getting married is probably deeply felt. Jill and Jane's discomfort about the fact that people are already calling their kids the 'stolen generation', that they will be sent to burn for eternity in Hell by the all-forgiving lord, and that there is an open season on discussing the value or their relationship is arguably more important.
Ultimately I'd like the people who are elected and paid to lead the country to show actual leadership and do it (or not do it), without the wasteful and cruel process.
I agree with blowin and indod
Sick of hearing about it.
Personally I don't feel strongly either way, and as a result, will not vote either way. Unless the advocates piss me off more....joking. ..I wouldn't do that.
But I totally understand those that would. For a campaign that's so concerned about hate they sure can spew it. A bit like Clinton's 'love trump hates' campaign. Agree with me or you're a cunt...that's not love snowflakes.
A 70 year old Catholic grandmother is allowed to vote 'no' If that's what she believes. Thats democracy in action. Just as a 70 year old dalai lama is allowed to vote 'no' If that's what he believes....but no one wants to talk about the second example as it doesn't fit with our selective mindfulness philosophy that's oh so fashionable.
I know I'll be voting yes just because I don't care enough about what people I don't even know are doing with their lives to deny them something we all take for granted.
On that note, what happens if it comes back no? Do all the lobby groups shut up or does everything implode?
Lot of people doubting it's gonna get over the line. With the justifications laid out I tend to agree.
@Sypo yeh I'm with you on that one. The "Vote Yes or you're a racist bigoted fuckwit" approach isn't always well received by the general public for some unknown reason.
I'm yet to hear anything even approaching that, although I have heard Bronwyn Bishop and Cory Bernardi offer the slippery slope to bestiality line.
Anyway, aren't we supposed to be in a 'post-offence world'? Offence can only be taken not given etc etc. so why would it matter what anyone says?
Meanwhile, in another universe thanks to a 70yo treaty, Turdbull commits us to nuclear war if a certain nuclear superpower get attacked.
No plebiscite needed on that one... And "me too" Billy will back it. So much for "keeping Australians safe" - Here we are Korea!! Down here!!! We can be a target too!!!
Fortunes wiped from the Australian stock market this morning after Turdbulls words...
Blowin... Humour needs a vital component... It needs to be funny.
Non-compulsory; non-binding; postal vote. First put forward officially by Dutton.
Set up to fail or win?
Who's doing the 'setting up' again?
Never underestimate the power of spite, Stu-bags. Misplaced, irrational, no matter.
Snap! I got the power!
How's that old chestnut go? Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Whatever. It ain't my face.
Or is it?
SD, check Corbyn and the Trident 'debate'. Sheesh! Can Labor here learn something and navigate?
LNP "all the way with Donald J" is a given. Twas always thus.
From the dept of health;
"Australians of diverse sexual orientation, sex or gender identity may account for up to 11 per cent of the Australian population."
From the 2016 election;
One nation senate vote (Blowins choice of party) - 4.3%http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/results/senate/
Countless posts and chitter chatter here about Pauline from blowin.... yet lgtbq people outnumber blowins mob by nearly TRIPLE...... "lamest thread ever" bahahahahahaha
Btw blowin, It's insulting what you wrote. And I mean it.
"I know how important this issue is to you as a straight , monogamous male with no gay friends or relatives."
I have 2 gay relatives, one of which has gone through the ringer.
So take your bullshit assumption back, man.
It's a bit of a shame that they are wasting all this money on a vote for such a pointless issue, how hard would it be actually get some value for all that money spent and ask us a few more questions,
Like lets us see where we are at for a republic again.
Or is there any support to bring back capital punishment.
Or should we sign a treaty for indigenous Australians.