Not to be provocative or anything, but . . .

[PapaDisco]

How are all of our Aussie friends doing with the 'Same Sex Marriage' poll/vote/thingy going on down there?  Just askin'    We've got that totally solved in the U.S. of A. . . .   What are the predictions for the outcome?

[El Presidente]

1 hour ago, PapaDisco said:

How are all of our Aussie friends doing with the 'Same Sex Marriage' poll/vote/thingy going on down there?  Just askin'    We've got that totally solved in the U.S. of A. . . .   What are the predictions for the outcome?

Yes vote should romp it in. 

Personally I think Marriage Certificates should come with health warning signs as they put on tobacco products.

• marriage can cause bankruptcy
• marriage can cause poverty
• marriage can cause heart diseases
• 2 in 4 marriages fail. 

If anyone wants to get married, I don't really have a problem with it.  I don't understand why.....but why should I stop them. 

[PapaDisco]

31 minutes ago, toofargone said:

Australia has to have the biggest collection of douche bag politicians of any country in the world.  

I take offense at that!   The U.S. has waaaaaaaaaay more douche bag politicians!

 

[Auspaul]

I think Yes will win I also think the whole campaign is a distraction from other issues such as unemployment and the amount of money spent on war . We used to have distractions such as changing the flag and Australia becoming a republic those issues have gone quite now . We live in a country where you get fined for doing a few kms over the speed limit and you get repeat offenders breaking into homes stealing cars with no punishment .The police get on tv and say when you are in your house hide your keys and when you are robbed in your house don't fight back and just hand your keys over. Way bigger issues that are more important to me  

[Fuzz]

I added a third box to the survey:

"Do your ****ing job like I elected you to do, and stop ****ing asking me to do it for you!"

Personally, I couldn't careless who gets married. What I do take exception to is people bombarding me on how I should vote and feel, regardless of my own personal beliefs.

[cigcars]

   Well speaking for myself - I really don't concern myself with what people are doing with their nether regions behind closed doors.  If you'll notice, the main people making the greatest noise and condemnation of gay people are the gay people who've attained high political or religious office who are pretending not to be gay. I think it's safe to say most of the rest of us don't care. For those in power in our different countries who have authority to make the decision whether to allow same sex marriage - I can speak as one who spent 2 years in San Francisco that those homosexuals were "marrying" each other all the way back in the '70's and probably earlier...they just didn't come out in the open and try to officialize it. Nowadays people just don't want to have to hide anymore - they want legitimization. I don't know a thing about Australia's laws - but I would take a guess that theirs may be a tad close to so-called American style freedoms and recognition of individual "rights" and so on. My 2 cts.

[Fuzz]

26 minutes ago, cigcars said:

   Well speaking for myself - I really don't concern myself with what people are doing with their nether regions behind closed doors.  If you'll notice, the main people making the greatest noise and condemnation of gay people are the gay people who've attained high political or religious office who are pretending not to be gay. I think it's safe to say most of the rest of us don't care. For those in power in our different countries who have authority to make the decision whether to allow same sex marriage - I can speak as one who spent 2 years in San Francisco that those homosexuals were "marrying" each other all the way back in the '70's and probably earlier...they just didn't come out in the open and try to officialize it. Nowadays people just don't want to have to hide anymore - they want legitimization. I don't know a thing about Australia's laws - but I would take a guess that theirs may be a tad close to so-called American style freedoms and recognition of individual "rights" and so on. My 2 cts.

We have no Bill of Rights in Australia, but we do have 5 express rights in our Constitution:

• Freedom of religion
• Right to trial by jury
• Free trade, commerce and intercourse between the States
• The Commomwealth may only acquire property on "just terms"
• Protection from any disability or discrimination by a State in which you do not reside

We do have implied rights, but they are not set in stone like express rights.

[smokum]

1 hour ago, Auspaul said:

I think Yes will win I also think the whole campaign is a distraction from other issues such as unemployment and the amount of money spent on war . We used to have distractions such as changing the flag and Australia becoming a republic those issues have gone quite now . We live in a country where you get fined for doing a few kms over the speed limit and you get repeat offenders breaking into homes stealing cars with no punishment .The police get on tv and say when you are in your house hide your keys and when you are robbed in your house don't fight back and just hand your keys over. Way bigger issues that are more important to me  

Damn, and I thought there was only one Chicago.

[jay8354]

To be honest, this vote does not make the politician legally binding to enact into law. 

Which is why there have been so much discussion for some "yes" voters to question is this worth the effort. To which, the answer is NO. The government are spending $120 million dollars for a vote that they are not held accountable to. That money could have been used for schools, hospitals, etc.

This is not including the campaign money for each side. 

Personally, I think that it could have been done at the federal election instead but what do I know. 

[Jeremy Festa]

I just hope the outcome isn't a huge international embarrassment. It's a human rights issue at the core. The outcome is purely based on education. And I truly feel sorry for anyone that votes No. 

[Danimalia]

9 hours ago, PapaDisco said:

How are all of our Aussie friends doing with the 'Same Sex Marriage' poll/vote/thingy going on down there?  Just askin'    We've got that totally solved in the U.S. of A. . . .   What are the predictions for the outcome?

We kind of do, though, right? I mean, all the gnashing of teeth and predictions of doom, and well, it's all been fine. Go figure. It's almost like politicians try to get us focused on things that have no tangible effect on (most of) our lives so that we won't focus too hard on the things that do. And hopefully, it will be a good lesson to people the next time some political force wants us to get wrapped up in our differences and to exploit our prejudices... Oh, wait.

For me, I want to be someone who loves his neighbors, respects their differences, and if I'm going to restrict someone's rights I need a better reason that my own religious beliefs or personal feelings.

[shlomo]

For anybody who is thinking of voting against this....

Want gay people to stop having gay sex? Let them get married!

[mash]

5 hours ago, shlomo said:

For anybody who is thinking of voting against this....

Want gay people to stop having gay sex? Let them get married!

For sure.  Why shouldn't they be miserable too?

[Ken Gargett]

3 hours ago, mash said:

For sure.  Why shouldn't they be miserable too?

i had a mate ring me a few years ago. "time for you to get married", he said.

"why would i want to do that?", i asked.

"why the hell should you be the only one of us happy".

granted not married and not gay, so i am probably the least qualified to comment but, more seriously, it is beyond me why it is a problem (if anyone mentions religion then it will about two minutes before i qualify for the naughty corner again). sadly, i know a heap of people voting no. i have grave doubts yes will get up. a disgrace. i have a couple of gay friends in spain. the joy they got from being able to marry, i remember thinking how appallingly stupid humans are to try and prevent this.

and even more, i suspect that this utter cowardice on the part of turnbull will cost him government. what a spineless, dimwitted performance from a dud who keeps telling us that he is a strong leader (only time i have ever agreed with that grubby shorten was when he said that strong leaders don't have to keep telling us that they are strong leaders). then we have abbott. what a vile piece of crap he is. if we are so genuinely stupid as to ever let him back in the lodge, i'd rather live in new zealand.

don't stop there. we have pauline and scum like malcolm roberts. then the fairies at the bottom of garden, the greens. it is really difficult to, first, imagine that any humans could be as stupid as hanson-young and her cronies, and secondly, that people could be even more stupid and vote them in. then again, there are hardly any viable alternatives. what a bunch of garbage.

 

[Fugu]

This is about rights of a minority. Not at all a good move (funny idea I should say) to have a majority poll on that. You simply can't make a plebiscite of such a question, where near 90% of the populace is not directly affected, and - seriously - shouldn't have a say in it. It is a classic democratic no-no. Think about it what you may, but that question certainly calls for an ethics commission of qualified people of some kind and a subsequent parlamentarian debate and legislation.

[Ken Gargett]

32 minutes ago, Fugu said:

This is about rights of a minority. Not at all a good move (funny idea I should say) to have a majority poll on that. You simply can't make a plebiscite of such a question, where near 90% of the populace is not directly affected, and - seriously - shouldn't have a say in it. It is a classic democratic no-no. Think about it what you may, but that question certainly calls for an ethics commission of qualified people of some kind and a subsequent parlamentarian debate and legislation.

i would argue that we have already had a say on it. we voted in a government to make these decisions. instead, they are so brain-dead they have decided on a postal vote so the population can decide. which apparently will waste around $150 mill of public money. they should be sued for it. if making decisions is too much for them, then resign.

i have no doubt this is because they are so feeble that they were not game to make a decision. they thought that by absolving themselves, they would not be blamed no matter what happened. the opposition, not known for much intelligence either, have at least had the sense to support the yes vote (lord knows what the government actually think about it). so if it gets up, they'll be able to claim a victory. if it doesn't, they can blame the government for doing bugger all. so dumb.

[Fugu]

11 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

would argue that we have already had a say on it

True - in the expectation your representatives would handle it responsibly. Which they don't apparently. Decent democratic constitutions should have set effective firewalls in place for the protection of minority rights.

(Edit - mainly thinking of smokers of course... )

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, Fugu said:

True - in the expectation your representatives would handle it responsibly. Which they don't apparently. Decent denmocratic constitutions should have set effective firewalls in place for the protection of minority rights.

yes, fair point. although had any of us thought for a second, the idea of our representatives handling it, or pretty much anything, responsibly would have sent up the biggest red flag.

if these dills had just had a quick vote in parliament a couple of years ago, the world would not have collapsed and we would have saved a lot of money and there would have been no fuss.

[Auspaul]

I don't believe we have voted in a party for a long time seems the elections are a vote against what ever party was in not a vote for another party. Every election it seems  the 2 major parties lose more of their votes one day we may see a decent alternative but I am not holding my breath 

[shlomo]

 

The simple solution would be to stop being stupid selfish assholes. ..but that also goes against the majority.

[Islandboy]

10 minutes ago, shlomo said:

 

The simple solution would be to stop being stupid selfish assholes.

This requires empathy, and empathy requires independent thought, which IMO is sadly on the decline.

[PigFish]

I think the questions you should all be asking is why is marriage a concern of government in the first place? In the states, this started as a racist practice of licensing those whom wish to marry interracially. Why should there be any difference in the eyes of government if you are single, married, straight or gay? Licensing implies, at least in my perspective, that marriage must be sanctioned by the State.

Marriage then, without state involvement becomes a tradition, or a civil covenant, or whatever you want it to be. It is none of their business really. Nor is it the business of your neighbor. This then becomes a debate over the definition of terms, again largely not a state issue.

Get government out of the affairs of individuals and these issues solve themselves. Take bias out of the tax code and the law, eliminates survivor taxation and there is nothing left to fight about.

Forcing those who believe that this is morally wrong to perform services on the behalf of others is every bit as wrong as unequal taxation and standing as individuals. Neither should be tolerated.

As usual, this is a case for less government and more freedom. This is a case for less law, not more law.

-Piggy

[Ken Gargett]

46 minutes ago, PigFish said:

I think the questions you should all be asking is why is marriage a concern of government in the first place? In the states, this started as a racist practice of licensing those whom wish to marry interracially. Why should there be any difference in the eyes of government if you are single, married, straight or gay? Licensing implies, at least in my perspective, that marriage must be sanctioned by the State.

Marriage then, without state involvement becomes a tradition, or a civil covenant, or whatever you want it to be. It is none of their business really. Nor is it the business of your neighbor. This then becomes a debate over the definition of terms, again largely not a state issue.

Get government out of the affairs of individuals and these issues solve themselves. Take bias out of the tax code and the law, eliminates survivor taxation and there is nothing left to fight about.

Forcing those who believe that this is morally wrong to perform services on the behalf of others is every bit as wrong as unequal taxation and standing as individuals. Neither should be tolerated.

As usual, this is a case for less government and more freedom. This is a case for less law, not more law.

-Piggy

and as ever, i am in almost complete agreement with ray.

[LordAnubis]

My thoughts. It is not my business who can and can not marry. Pretty much as long as two of age, consenting human beings wish to be married it is their right.

The plebiscite is a waste of time and money. I fear it is more of a 120 million dollar check to see if there’s a significant number of the population who care about a particular point of view. Turnbull won by a foreskin in the last election. He wouldn’t have if they didn’t make a coalition or whatever. If he sees numbers voting for or against and those votes he can win in the next election then siding with one side of voters would be advantageous.

But what I don’t understand at all is the crap about changing the law. A PM made the change by himself. The fact our current PM refuses to make another change is cowardice.

I hope the queen makes a decree that all commonwealths must allow marriage equality. That would be awesome


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wilzc]

Glad to know almost 100% of the forum members here are free thinking human beings with loads of basic common sense.

So where do all the morons hang out at?

Wait they won't even bother with forums


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk