Even as the dust of Labor's rejection of a plebicite is still in the air, the chatterati are demanding that Turnbull stop the dragging out (caused by Labor) of the question, and have a parliamentary vote.

These people suffer from democracy deficit disorder. Labor went to the election with the idea of an undemocratic (in my view) way of going doing things; they lost the election. The Coalition promised a democratic plebicite to decide the matter; they won the election. Surely this means something!

But no, Labor and some Australians, believe that government has to dance to the opposition tune. How daft! How totalitarian! These types believe that mere, unreliable for many reasons, opinion polls support their case, but the same people are terrified of a democratic plebicite.

The time for opinions on the rights and wrongs off SSM has gone. It's a real bore, full of ridiculous claims and counter claims. A democratic vote on any change to the very important and respected Marriage Act is the only way to go. Too important for a couple of hundred would-be dictators in Canberra to decide. The Coalition must stick by its election promise, not bend to a hostile election-loosing arrogant rabble. If they don't, the chances of a Coalition win in the foreseeable future are zero, even with a decent PM instead of the current one. Plebicite or nothing should be the slogan of a man fond of slogans. If people want a government to break a promise, then they can put Labor back 3 years hence.

HAHAHAHA
After all the promises the liars party have broken in the past 3 years you have got a lot of gall to come here and spout about them keeping promises.
Pot-kettle mean anything to you mate?

No, ttbn, the plebiscite was an attempt to drag the issue out and possibly prevent same-sex marriage ever becoming a reality.

<<… the chatterati are demanding that Turnbull stop the dragging out (caused by Labor) …>>

A parliamentary vote could still be quicker. This argument doesn’t work.

<<These people suffer from democracy deficit disorder.>>

Anyone still going on about democracy has either been cryogenically frozen for the last year or so, or they’re deliberately ignoring the arguments against a plebiscite. I don’t even have to repeat them here.

<<Labor went to the election with the idea of an undemocratic (in my view) way of going doing things …>>

I don’t see you complaining about all the other things they decide for us.

<<The Coalition promised a democratic plebicite to decide the matter; they won the election. Surely this means something!>>

Yes, it means that the coalition needed to delay the issue and wipe their hands clean of the result if the ‘Yes’ vote succeeded. Or are you actually suggesting that the number-one issue on most people’s minds at the ballot box was whether or not they could vote on this issue?

<<These types believe that mere, unreliable for many reasons, opinion polls support their case, but the same people are terrified of a democratic plebicite.>>

Do they? You learn something new every day.

If the consistent opinion polls are so unreliable and easy to fudge, then why don’t the ‘No’ camp just fudge their own polls?

<<A democratic vote on any change to the very important and respected Marriage Act is the only way to go.>>

For what reasons? And how do they negate the arguments against a plebiscite? You need to expand on this.

<<If people want a government to break a promise, then they can put Labor back 3 years hence.>>

This is a bit rich. Last count I saw had the Coalition at 86 broken promises just before Abbott was dropped as leader. Yet the Coalition faithful still thought that quoting, “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”, was a nifty comeback.

We hve just lost Ford, nd some who have lost their jobs have been there for 50+ years and this is all that seems to consume the time of our politicians.

To all the queers out there, find a word, move on, and stop wasting our time and money.

Rechtub,

Yes. It's hard to take the jokers in Canberra seriously. They are 'too busy' to deal with freedom of speech (18C). They are doing nothing about the debt. Thay are not doing very much at all, except to pander to, and fuss about, an extremely small minority of people with faulty wiring - people who don't believe in democracy; people who don't think that 98% of the population should have say as to whether or not the Marriage Act is changed. They and their useful idiots believe that is OK for the tail to wag the dog. SSM by political tyranny was one of the many reasons that the ALP vote was the lowest ever. Modern day Labor is not comfortable with democracy.

That's the way, ttbn. When you have no answers, just dig your heels in and repeat the same assertions.

Mikk,

The liar's party incl Back stabber bill supported a plebiscite in 2013, but now have changed their mind.

They certainly don't give a crap about gay marriage.

AJ Philips,

Since when was I obliged to answer you? You will always disagree with anything I say and that's OK but, as I have already told you, I am not going to play your silly games. There is no point. Give your contrary opinions to anything I post by all means, but do not expect me to respond to you. There is simply and clearly no point in doing so. You are never going to change what I think any more than I could change your viewpoint - which I have know intention of trying to do.

One final thing. You are purely and simply a troll, and I will not even glance at your posts in future.

ttbn,

At no point have I suggested that you are.

<<Since when was I obliged to answer you?>>

I merely highlighted the fact that you repeated discredited claims straight after they had been discredited. Had you instead made different claims, then I would have addressed those instead. My response was in no way motivated by a need for acknowledgement from you.

<<You will always disagree with anything I say and that's OK…>>

Not necessarily. I disagree with what you say because what you say is always wrong. That’s the trouble with being old and having outdated ideas that have since been shown to be wrong and no longer work, I guess. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are the one saying it.

<<… but, as I have already told you, I am not going to play your silly games.>>

I am not playing games here. I am very serious.

<<Give your contrary opinions to anything I post by all means, but do not expect me to respond to you.>>

I will, and I won’t. Thank you. Besides, I thought we had already agreed that you wouldn’t respond to me:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18469#328255

<<You are never going to change what I think any more than I could change your viewpoint - which I have know intention of trying to do.>>

If you ever happen to be right about something at some point in the future, then you can change my point of view with evidence and reasoned argument. I guess that’s the difference between you and I.

<<You are purely and simply a troll …>>

Clearly you don’t know what a troll is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

<<… and I will not even glance at your posts in future.>>

Good, this’ll make my job a lot easier. Of course, not being a troll, my goal isn’t to provoke a response from you, so ignoring me won’t stop me discrediting your nonsense.

wasn't to long back that Penny Wong supported 'traditional' marriage. Same goes for many of Labour. The only people with any integrity in this is those who have consistently opposed the destruction marriage. Seems like now the 70% in favour of 'gay ' marriage was always one of those distorted numbers that the regressives believed if repeated long and often enough people would believe.

If they really believed that 70% of Australians supported SSM as they have been shouting at us until now, they would have welcomed a plebicite with open arms and cries of joy. But they don't seem to believe their own propaganda any more.

They might be queer ttbn, but they aren't all stupid.

They know, just as well as we do, that their propaganda is a pile of bulldust, & there is no chance of them winning when it comes to a vote.

I wonder if people like Shorten will ever realise, that they lose so many mainstream voters, every time they buy a few fringe dweller votes, it is becoming counterproductive.

I know quite a few who were all set to vote for them at the last election, but Shortens stupidity on border protection forced them back to Turnbull. This is another issue that is costing them much more than it gains.

Do you think Turnbull might be paying Shorten to hobble his lot with this rubbish?

ttbn,

The, "If they really believed they had majority support ... ", argument is just as naive and ignorant as the complaints about supposed anti-democratic motives, and what I said earlier equally applies: anyone still going on about [rigged polls] has either been cryogenically frozen for the last year or so, or they’re deliberately ignoring the arguments against a plebiscite.

Not to mention a conspiracy nut with no evidence whatsoever for their assertions.

--

Hasbeen,

Speaking of which, it must be comforting to be able to write anything that contradicts your beliefs off as a conspiracy based on fudged data. With a methodology like that, you'll guarantee that anytime you're actually right about something, it's by pure fluke.

This is all very simple really.
We were to have a plebiscite, if yes it would be in effect in a
two or three months. So what is the problem ?
Could it possibly be that those wanting it think that the answer might be NO ?

They seem to want to wait till the next election in the hope that labour will win.
However there is no guarantee that labour will win the next election.
So my question is seeing they are so keen, why are they prepared to
risk waiting 3 or 6 or 9 years ?