the postal vote/survey/plebisite

[Marty_d]

As I see it, it's purely and simply a matter of fairness. There's a group of people who don't have the same rights as their fellow Australians. If you're an Australian who believes in a fair go, then vote "Yes".

 

 

[facthunter]

I take my hat off to a couple of Liberals who have come straight out and said they'd campaign for a yes vote as well as the original group, to a lesser extent. No ones forcing the church people who find it contradicts their views and are strongly against but if caterers taxis and pub owners etc did it willy nilly they should be censured for discriminating. I'm sure the Gosford Anglican Church is voting YES, bless their cotton socks. I'm happy for same sex ( and all in between) people to do their thing as long as it's not compulsory like some want heterosexuality to be. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

But discrimination will be at the fore-front, when people involved, (who are against for any reason),

 

end up in court for refusing to do their bit.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

There'll be exemptions on religious grounds, they're not going to force churches and ministers to perform marriages for gay couples.

 

As for anyone else - we don't get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, or if we do, we accept the possible consequences. I really can't see what someone's marital status has anything to with anyone else, unless of course they're interested in the person themselves...

 

 

[Yenn]

My reason for a no vote is that marriage has always in the past involved a man and a woman. I don't care in the least if two men or two women live together, but I do object to the meaning of words that have been in our vocabulary for as long as most people can remember being changed to suit political correctness.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Marty_D

 

What about Pubs, Hotels and caterers,also wedding suit hire company's, limo's and a lot of other PEOPLE, ( here's the rub) who at the moment can say "I choose who to serve".

 

If they refuse to bow to you know who, it will be Off to court with you.

 

We will LOOSE our right to choose who we associate with!.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

Marty_DWhat about Pubs, Hotels and caterers,also wedding suit hire company's, limo's and a lot of other PEOPLE, ( here's the rub) who at the moment can say "I choose who to serve".

 

If they refuse to bow to you know who, it will be Off to court with you.

 

We will LOOSE our right to choose who we associate with!.

 

spacesailor

So... who do they currently refuse to serve?

 

They can refuse to serve anyone if they have a good reason. If they don't have a reason (apart from "I don't like poofs") then why the hell should they refuse service?

 

Do you think that a limo driver that said to a hetero couple "I refuse to drive you because you're black / Aboriginal / Asian" would get away with it?

 

Besides, I think the whole "gays will take everyone to court if they refuse service" is an absolute furphy. When people are planning their wedding they talk to venue owners, caterers, hire companies, and especially the celebrant. If you get a bad feeling from any of those then you don't use them. We talked to three celebrants before we found one we liked, we had a connection with, who suited us. If a gay or lesbian couple are shopping around and get a negative vibe from a service provider, they're just going to take their business elsewhere.

 

 

[spacesailor]

A bit like we have the "MardiGras" but don't let the Christian church in.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

Do some christians want to have a float at Mardi Gras? I'm sure they'd be welcome.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Wasn't it FRED (Niles) who got the boot,

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

The parlimentry system in 2001 decided without a full vote to send our troops into danger in Afghanistan. A decision that has never been an issue at any of the elections since. Yet that same system cannot decide to decide what action to take re same sex marriage. They need to throw it back on the people and in the process is opening us up to the potential of a very savage and divisive anti-yes anti-no campaign. What an abrogation of responsibility! The whole point in a democracy is to elect people to make decisions!

Imagine if you wanted your lounge room painted, so you contacted a few painters for quotes and engaged a painter on the basis of the quote. The painter goes to work, and at the end of the job you inspect the room and find there is no new paint around the woodwork or window frames.

 

You ask the painter why this is so, and get the response, "Oh, I don't do cutting-in. There's the paint and brushes you bought. You can do it." Surely you'd throw the painter out and refuse to pay for the job.

 

It's the same with those we have elected to govern. It's their job to make the laws. As hihosland said, it's an abrogation of the job they were selected to do. We should refuse to employ them by giving our votes to someone else next time they come begging for a seat on the gravy train.

 

I'm not aiming this only at the current governing party. It applies to all who want to stand for election, Malcolm, Bill, Pauline or Nick.

 

OME

 

 

[spacesailor]

I would like to at least think it's democratic to vote on anything important to my way of life. & I don't like the pollies that I personally did NOT vote for making laws I don't agree with.

 

A government with only a small majority does Not speak for the Majority of voters in the overall schema of things.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

I would like to at least think it's democratic to vote on anything important to my way of life.

Out of all the things that are important to your way of life, NOT letting two people who love each other marry is high on the list?

 

We don't get a vote on how much tax we pay.

 

We don't get a vote on going to war.

 

We don't get a vote on how our kids are educated.

 

We don't get a vote on what medicines go on the PBS.

 

We don't get a vote on how much the age pension is increased.

 

We don't get a vote on how refugees are treated.

 

We don't get a vote on how the country transitions to low emissions.

 

In fact, we didn't get a vote when John Howard changed the Marriage Act last time to specifically exclude same sex marriage.

 

Why do they need us to vote on this, when they don't need us for all the other stuff?

 

 

[hihosland]

Exactly Marty_d

 

The old marriage act that referenced "two people" was changed in Howard's time by the parliament to "man and woman" so why can it not be changed back?

 

After all the marriage act's prime purpose is all about property, inheritance, pensions etc and has more in common with corporations law than it has with ethics, morality, gender or religion

 

 

[Marty_d]

Exactly Marty_dThe old marriage act that referenced "two people" was changed in Howard's time by the parliament to "man and woman" so why can it not be changed back?

It can. And that's what they should have done, only Abbott and his conservative mates didn't want same sex marriage, so they put up the election "promise" of a plebiscite to kick the can down the road a bit. Now they're still saying they want to fulfill that election promise (why that one only, when they break so many others??) - even though they tried to get the plebiscite legislation passed and the Senate said "no", not once but twice.

 

The only thing holding them back is the reactionary right wing nutjobs in the LNP who simply don't want SSM at any cost, and even if the result of their $122M survey shows that the majority of Australians support it, will still vote against it.

 

As has happened so many times, Turnbull had a chance to show some leadership and stand up to the conservatives, and he fluffed it yet again.

 

 

[old man emu]

If you listen carefully to the ad on TV that reminds people that to receive paperwork to express their view on SSM , it distinctly says that we are participating in a "survey". It is not a "vote" as one would have in a referendum.

 

Also the "survey" is being run by the Department of Statistics, not the Electoral Commission.

 

Why is the ABS going to be in charge of the same-sex marriage postal vote?

 

As the Greek groom-to-be said to his fiance: BOHICA.

 

OME

 

B = Bend

 

O = Over

 

H = Here

 

I = It

 

C = Comes

 

A = Again

 

 

[hihosland]

One could argue that since the constitution prohibits the parliament from enacting any act concerning religion, and that the SSM debate is more religious than anything else then the whole debate is as constitutional as Barnaby's seat.

 

 

[Marty_d]

One could argue that since the constitution prohibits the parliament from enacting any act concerning religion, and that the SSM debate is more religious than anything else then the whole debate is as constitutional as Barnaby's seat.

Marriage has nothing to do with religion.

 

 

[octave]

[hihosland]

Marty did say

 

"Marriage has nothing to do with religion."

 

and I agree

 

but

 

the debate about same sex component there of does certainly have much to do with religion

 

 

[old man emu]

Let's get it clear what the "religious" aspects of marriage are.

 

1. To fulfill a direction to "go forth and multiply"

 

2. To remain together to nurture any issue of the marriage.

 

3. To instill in any issue of the marriage to tenets of the particular brand of religion.

 

The only thing that an SSM cannot do is fulfill No.1 (through both partners). We all know that there are lots and lots of OSMs that for both biological and preferential reasons don't fulfill that one either. Are such marriages irreligious?

 

All the huff and puff about the expression of sexuality in a marriage is just a smoke screen to obscure the real object of the secular marriage law - establishment of rights of inheritance. The only words of Christ recorded in the Gospels relating to inheritance are, in the King James Version of the Bibles, "Blessed are the meek,for they shall inherit the earth." (Mark 5.5)

 

I wonder why it is OK to have one law state ""marriage " means the union of [a man and a woman] to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life, yet another law states ""divorce " means the termination of a marriage otherwise than by the death of a party to the marriage." Surely those two allowable things are mutually exclusive?

 

OME

 

 

[spacesailor]

If the majority of Aussie's are in-favour of SSM, why worry about us Voting, why do you have to have gay/lesbian names, Hetro's don't call themselves "strait's".

 

only the other' s do.

 

And it Does matter!, if our society don't "fulfill a direction, to go forth and multiply",we will disappear off the face of this planet.

 

I have no animosity to individuals sexual persuasion. But never could find another name for "brother", who wasn't.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

And it Does matter!, if our society don't "fulfill a direction, to go forth and multiply",we will disappear off the face of this planet.

I don't understand your logic. The reproduction rate is not going to change when ssm is passed. Straight people are not going to become gay just because same sex marriage is legalized. The people who exercise this right are not people who would otherwise have a hetero marriage Can you explain what exactly you mean?

 

 

[Marty_d]

I heard recently that population trends in general are going down (think it was Tim Flannery - don't tell Storchy Neil!! )

 

This is a good thing in any event. World population at 1800 was around 1 billion. So for most of human history, what - a couple hundred thousand years of modern homo sapiens - it's been far less than 1 billion. In the next 211 years from 1800 to 2011 it went from 1 billion to 7 billion. In the last 6 years it's risen another half a billion.

 

I don't think you need to worry about same sex marriage making us disappear from the face of the planet.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Unless it's the "snowball" effect, since the sixties the homosexual percentage has risen dramatically, now to gain their own bit of legislation.

 

Will lots of closet doors suddenly open after it's passed.

 

I was told I'm indifferent & don't talk to them, but do they initiate a normal conversation with hetro's/

 

spacesailor