The Forum > General Discussion > What A Circus!
What A Circus!
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Page 14
- 15
- 16
-
- All
Posted by Paul1405, Tuesday, 8 August 2017 9:00:47 PM
| |
Oh Foxy, that is the tamest answer you have ever given and you never
explained why the opposition is opposed to the plebiscite. It is as plain as your nose that Bill Shortlan is scared of the plebiscite. Anyway the polls show the majority, 65% last I saw, wants the plebiscite. I think the postal vote is silly, it will distort the result because it is not compulsory and the postman delivering it will be followed around lifting them from letter boxes. It is open to so much rorting that the result will never be accepted. Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 8 August 2017 11:26:00 PM
| |
Dear Bazz,
It's late and I don't have the time or the inclination to delve into this subject any further. The web is full of various opinions on this subject that you can Google for yourself - the explanations as to why the Coalition wants the plebiscite. Over 70 per cent of Australians want same-sex marriage. And delaying tactics are simply not going to work any more. If the Coalition proceeds with the plebiscite - they will be out of office at the next election. You may think I'm lame in what I'm saying - but I am accurate. Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 8 August 2017 11:40:02 PM
| |
Dear Foxy,
«Over 70 per cent of Australians want same-sex marriage.» Including myself: Do I want same-sex marriage? - Yes. Do I want the state/government to conduct them? - No. I don't want the state/government to conduct ANY marriages. I will vote accordingly. --- Dear Paul, $122,000,000 is indeed a lot, too much. But for nearly the same price, the ballot paper could include not just one question, but a dozen, perhaps even 40 different questions about many areas of life - that would make it worthwhile. One such question could be whether we want the government to conduct marriages at all: marriage-equality can be achieved in other ways too! Another question could be regarding euthanasia. --- If same-sex marriage is going to be recognised by the state (not "legalised" since it is legal already), then it is only fair that those already married according to the previous definition of "marriage" are to be allowed to become "un-married", since the marriage to which they agreed was not according to the new definition. They should not be forced to live apart for a year just for that. Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 9 August 2017 1:03:22 AM
| |
The conservatives under Howard had no problem with conscience, or seen no need for a plebiscite asking the people in 2004 when they rushed through legislation banning the possibility of gay marriage, by altering the Marriage Act. Times have changed.
Poor old Turnball's, is on record as unloading big time on the ridiculousness of a voluntary plebiscite. He now finds himself having to placate the governments right wing crazy fundos, and argue what a good idea it is. A bit like when you were a kid and were made to kiss your Aunt Mary, and smile at the same time, even though you hated her guts. Yuyutsu, why stop at 40, we could make it 500, BTW question number 486 what is you favorite color of shoe laces. Malcolm's used to be black, but Barnyard and Phony Tony have told him its now pink. Lucy is busy threading pink shoe laces into all of Malcolm's shoes. A reporter asked him yesterday. "What's the go with the shoes PM?" Malcolm answered "I look great in black shoes with pink shoe laces!"..."It shows leadership!", Barnyard and Phony Tony were seen nodding in agreement in the background. Posted by Paul1405, Wednesday, 9 August 2017 6:37:58 AM
| |
Bazz,
No, the opposition is not scared of a plebiscite. All polling since 2004 has shown that the majority support same-sex marriage. A recent study, involving the same 17,000 subjects since 2005, has also revealed a profound shift in public opinion: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-02/hilda-survey-marriage-equality-same-sex/8763124 So any claims, that all the polling is somehow being fudged, can now be dismissed as completely nuts. The actual reasons for rejecting a plebiscite have been noted so many times now that I have no need to repeat them here, and appeals to democratic ideals are disingenuous given that we trust our politicians to vote on every other issue for us (that doesn’t require a referendum); some with far greater repercussions than allowing same-sex couples to marry, too. The call for a plebiscite is nothing more than a desperate, last-ditch delay tactic. Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 9 August 2017 8:26:01 AM
|
p/s A NO vote would see the whole issue swept under the carpet, a YES vote would see the claim that, well it isn't binding anyway argument trotted out. This is simply an expensive exercise in trying to counter the wishes of 70% of Australians. Nothing to do with democracy, any everything to do with appeasement of the obstructionists in society, like the Catholic Church.