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, 4 ... 59, 60, 61  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:21 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Sydney Morning Herald says Shorten’s 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
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Skids Cancer



Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 ... aka Assassin member #175

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:28 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

_________________
What's the difference between light & hard?
You can sleep with a light on Smile
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
What'sinaname 



Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: In the cloud

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:17 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Stuff gay marriage, I want a plebiscite on AFL umpiring favouring Hawthorn.
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: Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:41 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

_________________
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  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


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

PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:05 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^

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.

_________________
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  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


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

PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:56 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

_________________
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 Sep 23, 2016 7:23 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
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: Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:29 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

It's almost as if the Liberal far right want the plebiscite to be sabotaged. I couldn't possibly imagine why...
_________________
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  
Jezza Taurus



Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:21 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I suspect issues will arise from both sides. Last week being another case in point.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/national/2016/09/17/christian--no--campaign-event-forced-to-fold.html

_________________
2010 = PREMIERS Very Happy
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:13 am
Post subject: Re: Plebiscite on gay marriage. Why and why not?Reply with quote

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.

_________________
"It's good to have an open mind but not so open your brains fall out" Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel to the looney climate change denialist Malcolm Roberts.
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 Sep 24, 2016 12:24 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

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

_________________
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  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:25 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Jezza wrote:
I suspect issues will arise from both sides. Last week being another case in point.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/national/2016/09/17/christian--no--campaign-event-forced-to-fold.html


It's exactly why a plebiscite should not be held:

Your mates? Wink

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-party-members-behind-samesex-marriage-misinformation-campaign-20160923-grmvd6.html

_________________
"It's good to have an open mind but not so open your brains fall out" Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel to the looney climate change denialist Malcolm Roberts.
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 Sep 24, 2016 12:27 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
_________________
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  
Jezza Taurus



Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:08 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

watt price tully wrote:
Jezza wrote:
I suspect issues will arise from both sides. Last week being another case in point.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/national/2016/09/17/christian--no--campaign-event-forced-to-fold.html


It's exactly why a plebiscite should not be held:

Your mates? Wink

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-party-members-behind-samesex-marriage-misinformation-campaign-20160923-grmvd6.html

Who are my mates? Wink

_________________
2010 = PREMIERS Very Happy
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: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:37 am
Post subject: Re: Plebiscite on gay marriage. Why and why not?Reply with quote

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.

_________________
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, 4 ... 59, 60, 61  Next
Page 3 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