Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Plebiscite on gay marriage. Why and why not?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 59, 60, 61  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:26 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I heard they have a good argument was as ridiculous as Bernardi's but they won.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Stui magpie said:
Quote:
IIRC the failure was because of the republicans to put forward a coherent model of what the republic would look like, with massive infighting among republicans about which model would be best.


With due respect you are wrong. They could have had a simple change Queen for Governor General and the result would still be the same. To change the constitution requires majority votes in majority of states. Virtually impossible without bipartisan support. The direct president model was a furphy, just like "Song of Australia", which won the 1977 plebiscite in South Australia. The real killer was "another politician for president". A skilful campaign by a small minority at the constitutional convention, totally ignoring public opinion.

The national song was tacked onto other referendums in 1977 so the electoral pain wasn't as great. Besides, Fraser loved electoral campaigns...

There was no realistic way the conservatives could hang on to God save quoonie, but they did, from 1977 to 1983, by ignoring the question, just as they did with their flag and their head of state.

I'm going on historical precedent. This one will end in a sh%tfight if allowed to go ahead and will solve nothing.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:15 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

With due respect, they could have asked that question but they didn't.

The question that was asked was

Quote:
Electors were asked whether they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.


So while the vast majority supported a republic, the republicans themselves were divided over the model. By asking that question, the vote failed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

If they had simply had a plebiscite with the question "Should Australia become a republic" the answer would have been an overwhelming yes and we could have then worked on the model.

Basically, if you're trying to sell the argument that we shouldn't have a plebiscite because they historically come up with the wrong answer, I don't buy it.

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Morrigu Scorpio

Saving one animal may not change the world, but surely for that one animal the world will change forever!


Joined: 11 Aug 2001
Location: Etosha

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:29 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
As far as point 5 goes, a same sex couple already get all the same rights AFAIK as other couples who aren't married, so it's not so much about lifestyle choices for mine as about the legal institution of marriage. It's an act of parliament.


That's true but is getting married not a lifestyle choice too?

And maybe just maybe they are so keen as it is something denied them?

We only got married cause the motherland would not recognise the other half as a defacto ( even though we had been together for many years) and we wanted to stay for a while - so we got married Razz

And now my funny little Mic land has legal gay marriage and we don't - oh the irony!

_________________
'If you can ride it, hug it or have a selfie with a wild animal, then you can be sure it is cruel. Vote with your feet and don't!!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:52 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Morrigu wrote:
stui magpie wrote:
As far as point 5 goes, a same sex couple already get all the same rights AFAIK as other couples who aren't married, so it's not so much about lifestyle choices for mine as about the legal institution of marriage. It's an act of parliament.


That's true but is getting married not a lifestyle choice too?

And maybe just maybe they are so keen as it is something denied them?

We only got married cause the motherland would not recognise the other half as a defacto ( even though we had been together for many years) and we wanted to stay for a while - so we got married Razz

And now my funny little Mic land has legal gay marriage and we don't - oh the irony!


That's the nub of it isn't it. It's more symbolic than anything else, they want it because it's denied them and to get it proves a point.

That used to shit me, it doesn't anymore and i can see the point behind it.

so if it's really all about legitimising something and we have a polarised opinion, why shouldn't the people have their say and end the argument?

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:08 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Basically, if you're trying to sell the argument that we shouldn't have a plebiscite because they historically come up with the wrong answer, I don't buy it.


We are going into unknown territory here because in 115 years of federation non binding plebiscites are rare indeed. Since 1972 we have had 1. The song quiz. Which the Libs ignored anyway.

We have had contentious legislation before - abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, conscription...none of these needed a plebiscite.

So why in this case do we need a plebiscite? and given our tendency to vote no - 4 successful referendums in 115 years, why would this one succeed?

Remember how this nonsense happened in the first place: Tony tried to be like Howard and invited the Nationals into the party room to stop any chance of a free vote on Gay Marriage, and came up with the plebiscite. Any way this plays out is yet another monument to statesman-like Tony, like Prince Philip...

Like Yeats said
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:21 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

And now we're going into politics and why we shouldn't need one, which is not the argument in question.
_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:34 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

we're not Switzerland...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Morrigu Scorpio

Saving one animal may not change the world, but surely for that one animal the world will change forever!


Joined: 11 Aug 2001
Location: Etosha

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:44 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
so if it's really all about legitimising something and we have a polarised opinion, why shouldn't the people have their say and end the argument?


Cause in reality it won't end the argument - regardless of whether the majority vote yay or nay!

Look at for example Muslim immigration - same sort of thing polarised opinions - gave the people the chance to have their say in the election - One Nation picked up seats - yay say many - boo hiss say many with a different view - the argument continues.

_________________
'If you can ride it, hug it or have a selfie with a wild animal, then you can be sure it is cruel. Vote with your feet and don't!!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:05 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Again

We do not solve problems through plebiscites. nobody asked us if we wanted a republic, except for the constitutional convention where a huge majority voted for pro republic candidates. This "plebiscite" was blown away in the referendum.

What is going to happen in a plebiscite which nobody wants?

First, Santa's little helpers will spring into overdrive, as they have before on abortion, contraceptives, bolshies, street theatre, moslems, political correctness, guns, climate change and aboriginal rights.

Then Rupert, Miranda and the ghost of Paddy Macguinness will indulge in their favourite sport, personal abuse. Koshie-is-a-good-bloke will make homophobic jokes and laugh nervously. the ABC will insist on po-faced even handedness.

next Ross the skull and his friends will be up on charges.

Hansen will say something stupid and be celebrated on 2GB.

Why after the longest election in living memory should we put ourselves through that?

And after all that why should I say that I am more worthy than my gay brother. The majority of sex is not for procreation. Nor are the majority of marriages. Most marriages are for companionship. In the Philippines we do not have contraception, or abortion, or gay rights, or divorce. we have Jose "Sissy Boy" Sisson and his pomps. in Australia we have Cory and
Tony.


Last edited by regan is true fullback on Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:23 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:39 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Marriage equality plebiscite: I take this barrage of bigotry dressed up as 'debate' personally
Kerryn Phelps guardian 26.8.16


Quote:
I use inverted commas around “debate” because what we are experiencing is not a battle of ideas. There is not one single rational argument against marriage equality. The opponents of equality are trawling beyond the the outer limits of credibility in their increasingly frenetic attempts to paint the simple question of marriage equality for two consenting adults as some kind of rainbow agenda conspiracy theory. Kerryn Phelps guardian 26.8.16
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 9:05 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm. I reckon the most confusing thing here is what is a fricken plebiscite!

Google is your friend! Well my friend!
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/08/plebiscite-or-referendum-whats-the-difference.html

Seriously? We are still arguing about this, this is still a 'thing'? What the hell. How backwater are we? Who fricken cares?

Who marries who I mean! Are we still discussing if homosexuality is a choice? Obviously it's not. Therefore they are 'all Gods people'. Therefore, live and let live, it's simple, and it disgusts me that we don't have one politician with the guts to stand up and say 'this is bullshit, get with the times, I now pronounce you husband and husband, wife and wife, or whatever they want to be called".

Do we have one politician who actually cares about people, this country, or is it all about power? Little things like this should be easy, then maybe they could spend the dollars on the things that could change lives for the better.

When I say little things, I don't mean to denounce it, of course it's a big thing, but it shouldn't be, it should be everyday stuff. Grown adults of sane mind should be able to marry whoever they want. Maybe not your brother. We don't need deliverance.

So I vote no we don't, waste of money, just change the law already.

_________________
You never look good trying to make someone else look bad. Disrespecting & insulting other to prove your point just shows how shaky your own position is.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:48 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:


That's the nub of it isn't it. It's more symbolic than anything else, they want it because it's denied them and to get it proves a point.

That used to shit me, it doesn't anymore and i can see the point behind it.

so if it's really all about legitimising something and we have a polarised opinion, why shouldn't the people have their say and end the argument?


I think that section in bold is pretty cynical and unfair. Yes, for many it's just symbolism (albeit an important piece of symbolism for many reasons). But for many others – same-sex couples in long-term relationships, for instance – this is about much more than that; it's about their desire to make this special contract with their partner and enjoy the wedding day ritual that our society has placed so much importance on. It's about being wife and wife (for example), not just girlfriend and girlfriend. To cast those deeply held human emotions as "just wanting something somebody else has" or "trying to prove a point" shows a serious misunderstanding of why this is such an important issue for many people.

_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Culprit Cancer



Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 11:30 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm all for Gay Marriage and in saying that there are far more important things that should be done first, like fixing the tax system for one. The plebiscite is a joke as they can pass it then not do anything about it. It's a massive waste of money and time and I hope it's voted down by the Senate. It's not the most important thing on most peoples agenda, all we are going to do is give the religious nutters a bigger voice.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2016 1:28 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
stui magpie wrote:


That's the nub of it isn't it. It's more symbolic than anything else, they want it because it's denied them and to get it proves a point.

That used to shit me, it doesn't anymore and i can see the point behind it.

so if it's really all about legitimising something and we have a polarised opinion, why shouldn't the people have their say and end the argument?


I think that section in bold is pretty cynical and unfair. Yes, for many it's just symbolism (albeit an important piece of symbolism for many reasons). But for many others – same-sex couples in long-term relationships, for instance – this is about much more than that; it's about their desire to make this special contract with their partner and enjoy the wedding day ritual that our society has placed so much importance on. It's about being wife and wife (for example), not just girlfriend and girlfriend. To cast those deeply held human emotions as "just wanting something somebody else has" or "trying to prove a point" shows a serious misunderstanding of why this is such an important issue for many people.


It wasn't intended as cynical, just pragmatic. You think it's unfair and I have a serious misunderstanding....fair enough. Your opinion.

In a country where fewer and fewer people are choosing to actually marry and the institution has lost much of it's significance, I view it as all about symbolism.

That's not to undersell the importance of that symbolism as why the current state exists it perpetuates the bias that some people aren't allowed to do things because they aren't hetrosexual which is just discrimination.

If you don't like my view, fair enough, I don't care and I'm not going to argue it with you, that wasn't the reason I started the thread.

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 59, 60, 61  Next
Page 2 of 61   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group