The Forum > Article Comments > Thoughts on the plebiscite > Comments
Thoughts on the plebiscite : Comments
By Michael Thompson, published 24/8/2016Opposition to a plebiscite basically assumes that the public will vote against gay marriage, so a plebiscite shouldn't be held because the public have no rights in this matter.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- ...
- 18
- 19
- 20
-
- All
<<Either they retreat from their calls for same-sex marriage or they stop telling us that they are concerned.>>
There are three main fallacies committed by those against same-sex marriage: the Appeal to Nature, the Argumentum ad antiquitatem, and the Slippery Slope, the last of which JBowyer was quick to get in there. But I don’t think I’ve seen the false dichotomy committed in this debate before.
The main argument against a plebiscite (which you have failed to present accurately), is that the inevitable public debate in the lead up to the plebiscite will result in increased mental health problems for gay people (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682466), as has been the case in other countries that put the vote to the people, because it will give bigots and hate preachers a podium.
But no, conservatives will continue to assert that those for marriage equality are scared of a result that polling since 2004 consistently suggests will not eventuate.
<<If it is a concern then such concern can be easily placated by not pursuing the question of same-sex marriage.>>
Or they could just vote on it in parliament and avoid or greatly reduce the damage.
Suggesting that gay people just drop the issue as an option ignores the deleterious effects of inequality and is about as dumb as it gets.
--
ttbn,
How is same-sex marriage a “blow to civilised society”? You’ve never justified your claims along these lines before.
<<Those opposing a plebicite are not democratic in the slightest, and they are not really sure of their position.>>
Clearly you haven’t heard the arguments against a plebiscite then. That doesn’t surprise me. Michael Thompson’s article certainly wasn't going to be of much assistance in that regard. Moreover, I’m sure you don’t complain about all the other issues that parliament decides on without asking us to vote on it. What’s so different in this case?
What is undemocratic, however, is having the public vote on an issue, only for the government to be told that they can ignore it (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-24/election-2016-coalition-mps-can-vote-against-gay-marriage/7540988). I don’t recall you complaining much about that.