 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | | 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? |
Agreed.
I think it reflects badly. It comes across as though they're scared of an open debate where they can't just silence the opposition.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It is also pretty patronizing to say that Gay people are so inherently weak that they'll kill themselves because of a discussion on gay marriage. The only reason to not want a public vote, be it plebiscite or referendum is because you think your 'side' would lose.
Personally I'd rather just repeal the marriage act and allow it all to come under contract law, but whatever.  |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | It is also pretty patronizing to say that Gay people are so inherently weak that they'll kill themselves because of a discussion on gay marriage. The only reason to not want a public vote, be it plebiscite or referendum is because you think your 'side' would lose. |
I doubt a gay person would kill themselves over a plebiscite alone.
It would suggest that someone who takes their own life has further underlying mental issues and the plebiscite is merely a smokescreen for those issues, and it's a flawed argument as to why a plebiscite should not be held in the first place.
I can understand the arguments about the financial implications of holding a plebiscite with it apparently costing $160m or the fact that it's non-binding and the Commonwealth Parliament doesn't have to abide by the final result of the plebiscite (whether gay marriage is supported or opposed by the majority).
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: Re: Plebiscite on gay marriage. Why and why not? | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | 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. |
No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the libs of their nonsense view that we must have a plebiscite. Did Howard have a plebiscite when he changed the law to make marriage exclusively between a man & a woman? That point has been largely overlooked in the public domain.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough†Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | It is also pretty patronizing to say that Gay people are so inherently weak that they'll kill themselves because of a discussion on gay marriage. The only reason to not want a public vote, be it plebiscite or referendum is because you think your 'side' would lose.
Personally I'd rather just repeal the marriage act and allow it all to come under contract law, but whatever. |
Really? Weak to suicide? Hmmm: A little compassion & empathy wouldn't go astray.
How about an example such as being bullied because one is gay living in the country (not uncommon amongst young gays in the rural areas) now to face the unleashing of an awful polarizing debate that has already started. My work deals with young people who consider or have tried to suicide - some of whom are gay & from the country. While it may be used for political purposes doesn't invalidate the claim.
To say the "only reason to not want a public vote, be it plebiscite or referendum is because you think your 'side' would lose" is simplistic. To say it might be one of the reasons is more on the money.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough†Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Nobody's going to kill themselves over the plebiscite alone, but I guess the concern from some is that the conflict and prejudice surrounding it might tip some vulnerable people over the edge. I'm a little sceptical about that to say the least, and even if it were true, perhaps the same could be said about any public debate? While I think we should avoid placing unnecessary stress on vulnerable people, if we tried to put a stop to everything that might be a contributing factor in suicide cases then we wouldn't have much left.
This all seems a bit like mass hysteria to me. And I'm aware that saying that makes me sound a bit like an insensitive jerk, which pains me greatly as I've never been on the opposite side to the gay rights movement on anything of significance before (I'm sure there are others on the left in the same boat right now). I'm sure the Liberal backbench scumbags would be rubbing their hands with glee at having so effectively sown division.
What troubles me with the way this has been handled is that, once people start talking about young people committing suicide, the conversation's over. It's basically a "won't someone please think of the children" tactic and shares a lot in common with moral panics of that kind. That's not the way a debate like this should be handled.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:32 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
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: | | 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. |
No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the libs of their nonsense view that we must have a plebiscite. Did Howard have a plebiscite when he changed the law to make marriage exclusively between a man & a woman? That point has been largely overlooked in the public domain. |
Actually, no, that point has been done to death. Where have you been the last 6 months? Got it, heard it, we shouldn't need a plebiscite. Fine, you stay in that loop. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ It's fair to reiterate it given that the thread is about why a plebiscite should or shouldn't be held. The fact that the government are refusing to listen to alternatives doesn't mean that we should consider the argument over. WPT's point is one of many reasons why the plebiscite shouldn't be held. If that's been done to death, then it's probably fair to say that there's little that hasn't been in this debate.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Wrong thread me thinks 
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.â€
Last edited by Morrigu on Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ It's fair to reiterate it given that the thread is about why a plebiscite should or shouldn't be held. The fact that the government are refusing to listen to alternatives doesn't mean that we should consider the argument over. WPT's point is one of many reasons why the plebiscite shouldn't be held. If that's been done to death, then it's probably fair to say that there's little that hasn't been in this debate. |
I disagree.
Yes the whole thing can be resolved by a simple act of parliament so a plebiscite isn't needed, but should it be? My whole point was about the positives and negatives, not just clinging to a known fact that we don't have to do it.
A large number of progressives are used to being able to control the agenda with social media (for one) by drowning out the voices of those who disagree with them, using vitriol and insult. They don't have a debate, they just silence the opposition, which doesn't change the others opinion, just makes them careful about expressing it.
The arguments used against having a plebiscite, particularly those about people expressing hurtful opinions, strike me very much as genuine fear about having to engage in legitimate debate and put forward a positive case when they don't have the control to simply drown out the dissenting opinion.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | The only reason to not want a public vote, be it plebiscite or referendum is because you think your 'side' would lose.
|
This is what I think, they are very obviously worried that they will lose despite their opinion the majority of Australians are for it.
It will be the republic all over again, so often the minority are the biggest voice but the silent majority rules at the polling booths.
Personally don't care whether its an act of parliament or a plebiscite but Turnbull said before the election that's the way to go so he has no choice now, just like Dan Andrews ripping up the East-West Link contract at great cost to Victorians because it was an election promise... |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Reasons against a plebiscite:
- The insane cost: 175 million dollars!
- The pointlessness: no matter the result, politicians aren't required to abide by it.
- The nastiness it will stir up, ansd the lives that may well be lost as a result.
- The triviality of it. There are far, far more important issues facing us, but for some insane reason, this particular one is the only one to have $175 million wasted doing an opinion poll on it.
- The certainty of result. No-one who knows anything has the slightest doubt that the "yes" vote will win, and win easily. It is insane to waste $175 million dollars "finding out" something that is perfectly well known already. Note that the margin, already massive, will only get bigger as the weeks go by and, one by one, older and more conservative members of the public grow more and more used to the idea of gay relationships, now that the media has started treating them as normal, everyday things and there are open gays in every field, even in the Liberal Party for the love of mike!'
Reasons for a plebiscite:
- None. At least none that I can think of. Not unless we count Turnbull's desperate need to keep paying the blackmail to Abetz, Abbott, Andrews, Christiansen, and their cronies, any policy at all just so long as he can keep the shiny car for a bit longer.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | The only reason to not want a public vote, be it plebiscite or referendum is because you think your 'side' would lose. |
Class A bullshit. Come out from whatever rock you have been hiding under and look at the polls. 60-40 and still going up. The "no" side are going to get creamed and they know it. They only want the poll to delay the inevitable a little longer. The Liberal Party wants the poll so that, when they finally vote YES on the floor of the House and legalise marriage equality, they have an excuse to present to their ultra-conservative backers: "I didn't want to but the poll made me do it".
| Wokko wrote: | | Personally I'd rather just repeal the marriage act and allow it all to come under contract law, but whatever. |
Agree with you there 100%.
If you and I want to get married, Wokko, that is absolutely nobody else's business.
(Not actually a proposal, you understand. It's not that I don't like you, it's just that I'm already in love with Eddiesmith and hanging out for the happy day. Sorry.)
(Um. ^ "Hanging out." That was possibly a poor choice of wording in this context.)
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Yes the whole thing can be resolved by a simple act of parliament so a plebiscite isn't needed, but should it be? |
Well, yes. There's absolutely no precedent or valid reason for putting this issue in the special, rarely-used plebiscite/referendum category. (I also disagree with a conscience vote for the same reason, though we don't hear many people speaking out against that nowadays!) It's just a basic question of civil rights.
My support for the plebiscite here has been based on the premise "well, given the Liberal Party right-wingers have been utter bastards and blackmailed everyone into accepting this or nothing, should everyone else accept the plebiscite as the best option on the table?". My view on that is still yes, but hopefully with amendments to the current proposal. In theory, I don't support the plebiscite at all.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
175 million dollars isn't that much money, but maybe that's because we are used to a government here who spends over a billion dollars to do nothing or who can't decide whether something is going to cost 160 million or 700 million dollars, but what does it matter anyway, its only money?
Now if the 175 million dollars has been costed by Labor, then I'll be concerned it is probably going to cost more than a billion dollars... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
