That gay marriage thing........

[TonyMax]

Pretty much exactly what I think...

I just have a problem with the fact that this issue is bumping other more important issues out of the way. There is so much noise about it, it's drowning other topics.

I wish we'd just fucking get on with it & move on.

My main hobby is dog showing, a social scene packed full of homosexuals of many and varied genders.

Some of the most beautiful people I know are homosexuals and some of the nastiest are not.

As I've said on the BookFace, if they end up doing the fucked up optional postal plebishite thing and you don't care either way or are considering abstaining, just vote in favour of it. Please. For me.

 

[99_FGT]

Don't believe it's a delaying tactic, it's just avoiding making their own call and allowing will of the people.
...
If it weren't for labor and greens making political capital out of it, it would already have been done. This should already have been a moment in history

Problem is, it isn't even binding. Some pollies have already asked their constituents, and agreed to vote with a majority of their constituents even if it is against their own beliefs. If time comes and they have to cross the floor to do it then it is not representative of their constituents views, rather their parties views. If not enough people respond (which I reckon will happen) then TB will have a case to say that they didn't get enough of a view of people to commit to anything.
Again, the football is out because they don't see why we can't have a proper "conscience" vote on it.
Al..

 

[johnny]

Don't believe it's a delaying tactic, it's just avoiding making their own call and allowing will of the people.

Bit of both, depends who we're actually talking about. For Turnbull it's the will of the people, for the conservatives its a delaying tactic.

When the plebiscite first came up, it was in response to pressure for a free vote that tony Abbott knew would get up. Even the hardcore Christians can't deny it if it's the will of the people - hell on Lateline some seriously conservative ministers strong,y implied they would vote with the result even though it's against their own views.

Not sure who you're referring to but if its Abetz, Bernardi and friends it's the opposite, they said they'd vote with their conscience regardless

When the ALP were talking up the plebiscite (when they thought TA would have none of it), there was zero talk of some hate campaign and it seemed to have broad support. As soon as TA went with it, it became the devils idea.

That's not correct, there was actually a lot of talk about hate campaigns and whatnot around a pleb. Maybe not from shorten and others but Plibersek, colleagues and the Greens were most definitely saying these things right from the get-go.

If it weren't for labor and greens making political capital out of it, it would already have been done. This should already have been a moment in history

No, absolutely not. You're assuming that a non-binding pleb would have already resulted in passed legislation and that's a masssssssive assumption as there are people in Labor who are against it as well and would work to sabotage it.

Secondly, since when do we vote on how to apply rights in this country? We're a liberal democracy, we shouldn't be voting on aboriginal rights to vote, women's rights to vote, equal pay, equal access, etc. Since when does restricting rights on the base of identity and beliefs even get open to deliberation? That kind of shit doesn't get put to a vote and never should have in history either. We are not a liberal democracy if we pull that sort of shit in this country.

 

[Shinigami]

Problem is, it isn't even binding. Some pollies have already asked their constituents, and agreed to vote with a majority of their constituents even if it is against their own beliefs. If time comes and they have to cross the floor to do it then it is not representative of their constituents views, rather their parties views. If not enough people respond (which I reckon will happen) then TB will have a case to say that they didn't get enough of a view of people to commit to anything.
Again, the football is out because they don't see why we can't have a proper "conscience" vote on it.
Al..

Our mate zed has stated he's voting against it regardless of the fact that the locals will vote in favour

 

[safreek]

Our mate zed has stated he's voting against it regardless of the fact that the locals will vote in favour

Zeds dead baby, Zed's dead

 

[Dozer]

A legal marriage contract will give gay couples the same rights as everyone else.

I can't help but think this apparent debate boils down to two things: One is a vote grab, the other is old fashioned people getting butthurt (no pun intended) over someone bucking the trend and living their lives differently to the model they've been used to.
An issue I see arising is the concept of marriage. To me, marriage is about committing your existence to that special person and sharing all the good times and all the bad times. It's love, you just love a person and you say that they are the only legend you want to be with. It's pretty fucking simple. I have not got one fuck to give about Religion, I actually hate the shit and wish the world would stop preaching it's need and just get along. Thats a topic for another day though and in no way do I see Religion as a reason for marriage. My point here is if the seemingly Christian controlled world say s"yeah fuck it, let 'em get married" does it take away the special existence of marriage in the religious world? Does it make marriage almost a sin in the eyes of Religious folk?
Is anyone on this site that is gay that wants to share their thoughts on this? It's one way traffic just now.

 

[Calvin27]

Which way do I have to vote to display my distaste in the colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.

$100m builds a lot of mtb parks.

 

[Boom King]

..... since when do we vote on how to apply rights in this country? We're a liberal democracy, we shouldn't be voting on aboriginal rights to vote, women's rights to vote, equal pay, equal access, etc. Since when does restricting rights on the base of identity and beliefs even get open to deliberation? That kind of shit doesn't get put to a vote and never should have in history either. We are not a liberal democracy if we pull that sort of shit in this country.

Damn straight.... So why the hell should we spend millions to get a non binding outcome for something that should be accessible to everyone?

Just change the legislation ffs!

 

[Knuckles]

Meh, it's just another way Rabbot is playing the gutless wonder like a fiddle. It's win win for him. If Turnbull advocated a conscience vote, it would have bolstered Abbott's support in the looney right faction, and in his mind, giving him an instant crack at the leadership, and going the plebiscite route, smacking his support from the great unwashed, even further, with zero risk to Abbott's own stance on the issue, as there is no binding outcome from the plebs either way. Its a zero sum game Turnbull has let himself get roped into. If he'd just had the guts to stick to his own beliefs in the matter and allowed a conscience vote, he could have at least saved a modicum of respect from the public and shown a little bit of leadership to the whiteanters in his party.
As it is he has just shown how weak and ineffectual he is as a party leader, let alone the head of government.
The ship is definitely steering the captain......right into a reef.

 

[Mr Crudley]

Which way do I have to vote to display my distaste in the colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.
$100m builds a lot of mtb parks.

Probably not much other choice. Save's hell of a lot of face if they did it online and it went south the way of the census fiasco.
The losing camp would no doubt blame Russians hackers too :spy:

 

[The Duckmeister]

Is anyone on this site that is gay that wants to share their thoughts on this? It's one way traffic just now.

Yeah me.... I've pretty much stated my opinion previously from a general perspective. I'm not in a position (no pun intended, get your minds out of the gutter!) to be rushing out to get married, and to be honest I don't think I particularly want to, but I'd at least like to be allowed the opportunity if circumstances go that way.

 

[Tubbsy]

David Marr on the issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...er-of-shame-david-marr?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

He's spot on IMO

 

[Knuckles]

Yeah me.... I've pretty much stated my opinion previously from a general perspective. I'm not in a position (no pun intended, get your minds out of the gutter!) to be rushing out to get married, and to be honest I don't think I particularly want to, but I'd at least like to be allowed the opportunity if circumstances go that way.

Not having a go at you, but, "allowed the opportunity*, is a phrase that shows just how fucked the whole fish fry is, "not denied the choice" is a more apt description.

 

[Shinigami]

we didnt need some silly mail out vote when howard changed the marriage act in ~04 (iirc)

and a whole bunch of people get all in a tizy between their religious concept of marriage and the legal secular law that is also called marriage, different fucking things. last time i looked we lived in a secular country

 

[Knuckles]

Pretty much sums up the whole anti gay marriage argument...

 

[pharmaboy]

Bit of both, depends who we're actually talking about. For Turnbull it's the will of the people, for the conservatives its a delaying tactic.



Not sure who you're referring to but if its Abetz, Bernardi and friends it's the opposite, they said they'd vote with their conscience regardless



That's not correct, there was actually a lot of talk about hate campaigns and whatnot around a pleb. Maybe not from shorten and others but Plibersek, colleagues and the Greens were most definitely saying these things right from the get-go.

MAthias Cormann stood put, , even the poodle


No, absolutely not. You're assuming that a non-binding pleb would have already resulted in passed legislation and that's a masssssssive assumption as there are people in Labor who are against it as well and would work to sabotage it.

Secondly, since when do we vote on how to apply rights in this country? We're a liberal democracy, we shouldn't be voting on aboriginal rights to vote, women's rights to vote, equal pay, equal access, etc. Since when does restricting rights on the base of identity and beliefs even get open to deliberation? That kind of shit doesn't get put to a vote and never should have in history either. We are not a liberal democracy if we pull that sort of shit in this country.

It's a seriously big call to vote against the will of the people - one that would certainly result in an election loss.

You seem prett excited about the concept. If it were indeed an application of rights, there would be no need at all for parliament, because the courts would apply rights. It's easy to take almost any subject and loudly proclaim it's a Human right or whatever, but that test is one for the courts

You don't get rights to polygamy in this country do you? What your beliefs are don't confer rights, rights just aren't as absolute as people like to think they are.

All of the polls tell me, it would pass with flying colours. There is huge advantage to that - the people who think it's a bad idea, have to accept that the world they live in disagrees with them, they cannot deny it. Rest assured when parliament makes unilateral decisions, there are people who are left out and won't accept the outcome especially if it's along party lines.

Inclusion is about getting as many people enrolled as you can, not carrying it by 51 to 49

I've watched in the last 3 years an opportunity to involve the conservatives on gay marriage be completely wasted such that tony Abbott got his chance to be his divisive self in the last couple of days.

There is no hate in the middle of Australian society for gay marriage, it's bullshit invented by wedge politics.

Maybe I am too optimistic, I saw it as a win when TA was forced to bring in a policy of involving the public. All this fighting - reminds me of the republic debate

 

[moorey]

Fucked if I know why any straight person thinks we would or should have a say. Marriage pre-dates religion...unless you're a young earth creationist or biblical literalist. Religion just claimed it, like it does with almost everything, then tries to control it.
Stupid woman I work with was spouting off today, ranting that her church will be FORCED to marry 'the gays'. I think she's secretly 'Merican.
I personally don't want to validate this postal vote with a reply...because it's none of my business....it's nobody's business. Trouble is, I know the Christian lobbyists will get their base out on the voluntary vote, and sway the results to not reflect how the average, lazy, complacent Aussie feels.

And good on you Duck. Thanks for putting your hand up. I still love you, even if you're going to burn in hell. :hug:

 

[moorey]

But, there are still a lot of churches that do a huge amount of charitable work based on volunteer hours.

And equally as many non religious organizations doing it....and not funneling money off to the Vatican or syphoning it of as 'administrative' costs (up to 90%) like some were caught doing.

 

[johnny]

It's a seriously big call to vote against the will of the people - one that would certainly result in an election loss.

You seem prett excited about the concept. If it were indeed an application of rights, there would be no need at all for parliament, because the courts would apply rights. It's easy to take almost any subject and loudly proclaim it's a Human right or whatever, but that test is one for the courts

You don't get rights to polygamy in this country do you? What your beliefs are don't confer rights, rights just aren't as absolute as people like to think they are.

I am excited as religious fundamentalism is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me and when it impacts my life or the lives of those I care about, I can't hold myself down.

The reason why it doesn't get settled in the courts straight out (although it was there after the ACT allowed same sex marriage) is because it involves the constitution (getting into an area that I'm not well versed in at all) and that gets to the level of legislation. Agree on the polygammy thing but the difference here is that no one gets the right to polygamy where as a section of population is allowed to marry and one another section doesn't, it's not equal application of the law. I actually don't have a problem against polygamy either, for the record. I don't know anything about the risks but if a bunch of consenting adults all want to be married to each other, so fucking what?

I also understand that rights aren't absolute or even a natural occurrence given to all at birth. Hence, I'm not a fundamentalist libertarian. But I am a liberal.

All of the polls tell me, it would pass with flying colours. There is huge advantage to that - the people who think it's a bad idea, have to accept that the world they live in disagrees with them, they cannot deny it. Rest assured when parliament makes unilateral decisions, there are people who are left out and won't accept the outcome especially if it's along party lines.

Inclusion is about getting as many people enrolled as you can, not carrying it by 51 to 49

Sure but there are some issues that are foundational to a liberal democracy, equal opportunity and equality in the eyes of the law are two of them. That makes voting on equal rights is the antithesis of liberalism. That is what really toasts my buns here; I'm pro-same sex marriage simply because it doesn't harm anyone and increases quality of life for many people. I'm against not allowing same-sex marriage because it denies equality to a sector of society for no good reason within a secular society. Having a public discussion and a ballot on whether we can find it within ourselves to let some folk have the same opportunities as us, well, I have no words.

Maybe I am too optimistic, I saw it as a win when TA was forced to bring in a policy of involving the public. All this fighting - reminds me of the republic debate

Again, having a public discussion and a ballot on whether we can find it within ourselves to let some folk have the same opportunities as us, well, I have no words. It's just like saying we can have a vote as to whether people with a lisp are allowed to be radio announcers or fat people can go to the beach or people who ride Giants are allowed on trails. Equal opportunities are supposed to be a universal right in a liberal democracy, not something you negotiate and play rock-scissors-paper for.

 

[The Duckmeister]

And good on you Duck. Thanks for putting your hand up. I still love you, even if you're going to burn in hell. :hug:

Great, I'll see you there! :hug: