it is much easier for a small group to nail down the facts and make a decision than it is to try and get the entire population to sit down and make a rational decision.
The distinction between the three things you list above and gay marriage is that of equality of economic and political participation and labelling of a union between two people.That childhood song comes to mind "One of these things is not like the other", lol
replace gay marriage in the list of those three things with, slavery or women's right to vote or or equal pay for women etc and you will see its not the same as the other two you listed.
the majority should not be able to vote to deny equal rights to a minority.
If there are a lot of churchgoers in their electorate, which way do you think they are more likely to vote ? No pressure there right ?
.
The distinction between the three things you list above and gay marriage is that of equality of economic and political participation and labelling of a union between two people.
We're not talking here about where people can or cannot sit on a bus but if we want to take the discrimination argument to an irrational conclusion, it could be argued that providing seating for the disabled near the entries and exits of a bus is a form of discrimination against everybody else that uses the bus.discrimination comes in all types, not just economic and political, think of the blacks that were banned from sitting at the front of the bus, you could argue that they don't suffer an economic or political disadvantage, but the discrimination was real and needed to change.
In QT last week, Bill Shorten questioned the plebiscite on the basis of responses from radical end of the political spectrum (specifically the radical right). Malcolm as part of his response suggested that Bill could have raised the question on the basis of cost.I feel spending ~$150m on an out-of-cycle plebiscite is a waste of taxpayer (my) money.
In the wide-ranging interview, Turnbull:
Said he was assuming the parliament would run full term. “I am certainly assuming the next election will be in September or October 2016.”
No it isn't.
As I've pointed out before (repeatedly), the politicians have the problem of retaining their seat at the next election. If there are a lot of churchgoers in their electorate, which way do you think they are more likely to vote ? No pressure there right ?
The general voter does not have that problem.
There could be concern for them, but if the majority of major parties are in favor, then the voter has no viable alternative, and so the concern is reduced...(pre-selection may be another issue)
After all, who are the conservative "Turnbull haters" in the Liberal Party going to vote for in the next election ?
An open vote allows each candidate to express (their constituents) views?..or NOT get elected
I suspect many Nationals, and Labor if they had a high Muslim vote, might also be nervous.
nevertheless, if polling indicates a substantial majority support, as a pollie, opposing would probably lose more than win.
I suspect that even among "churchgoers" there would be a substantial percentage, that would silently support
So why would we need a plebiscite just to return the marriage act back to its original wording of "between two people"
Why don't they just accept the result of previous votes ?
Because banning same sex marriage is immoral.
That's a matter of opinion.
It should be up to all of society to judge what is immoral, the politicians are no more capable of making that decision than the rest of us.
That's a matter of opinion.
It should be up to all of society to judge what is immoral, the politicians are no more capable of making that decision than the rest of us.
only a non emotional weighing of the facts gets you to the correct answer.
Ah yes, so how do we explain the fact that multiple judges on the High Court often come to different opinions based on the same set of facts ?
And what gives you the right to say that only your power of reasoning will lead to the "most moral" decision ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?