Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.

His policy platform was based on supporting marriage equality, but his underlying principle is to achieve this (and other legislative decisions) by doing it in the most straight forward, cost effective manner.

I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal (or a surprise) that he has decided not to compromise his principles.

He obviously didn't say before the election that he would not support a plebiscite, otherwise he wouldn't be announcing it now.

 

[Ves]

He obviously didn't say before the election that he would not support a plebiscite, otherwise he wouldn't be announcing it now.

He's announcing it for the benefit of all the people who can't read between the lines.

 

[Value Collector]

Taking partners of the same sex, contrary to 95% of the population.

How is that an "important area"?

when you said, "In my view this is a case of lgbtis wanting to prove they are the same as everyone else, when in fact they are not in one important area"

What is your point? I am not getting what you are trying to say there.

If your point is just that they want to marry the same sex, well duh!!!

 

[Value Collector]

The result will be wait till next election and another rending of flesh by the likes of Value Collector .

I am not against having the plebiscite, if its the only way we can get it done, I just wish the government had some balls.

I am just pointing out its meaningless, and a no vote doesn't change anything when it comes to human rights.

as I keep saying, would a No vote to allowing women the right to vote make denying women the right to vote moral? offcourse not, so why have the vote in the first place?

 

[SirRumpole]

so why have the vote in the first place?

Why have the vote in Parliament either ?

 

[qldfrog]

I am not against having the plebiscite, if its the only way we can get it done, I just wish the government had some balls.

I am just pointing out its meaningless, and a no vote doesn't change anything when it comes to human rights.

as I keep saying, would a No vote to allowing women the right to vote make denying women the right to vote moral? offcourse not, so why have the vote in the first place?

with arguments like that...

if a vote including women able to vote on that matter , was made and decided that women should not be allowed to vote anymore, this may not be moral but democracy would need to acknowledge and made it a law

how inconvenient is democracy to some people and interest groups....
Fed up of being force fed how to think.....

 

[wayneL]

Marriages are universally recognised, eg a marriage in france is recognised here, a civil union is recognised in that state or country, it doesn't automatically get recognised else where.



That's another problem isn't it, when dealing with something involving the rights of minorities, it's no skin off the nose of 98% of the population. Hence that's why the majority can not vote to deny human rights to minorities.

I mean as a White, English speaking, straight male, there are lots of things I can say "no skin off my nose too" but that doesn't mean I have the right deny rights I have from other groups.

You misunderstand. "No skin off my nose" means if gays are granted I the bright to marry, it doesn't effect me.

If the nomenclature is so important to them, and it doesn't affect others, then Godspeed.

But, my only caveat is the precise definition of marriage. I'll leave that one for others to argue.

 

[Tisme]

Won't need either sex soon:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...parent-babies-could-be-a-reality-by-2017.html

 

[Value Collector]

with arguments like that...

if a vote including women able to vote on that matter , was made and decided that women should not be allowed to vote anymore, this may not be moral but democracy would need to acknowledge and made it a law

how inconvenient is democracy to some people and interest groups....
Fed up of being force fed how to think.....

See that's where you are wrong, even if all men (50% of pop) and 50% of women (25% of pop) voted to deny women the vote, the fact that 75% of the pop wanted to restrict women's voting rights is irrelevant because the 75% can not vote to descriminate against the others based on sex.

You can't just say, oh well some women voted in favor of the discrimination so it's ok to discriminate.

Just like you can't say, "well, we included the 10% of the poplation that are blacks in the vote, and the majority vote was In favor to keep slavery" slavery always breaches human rights regardless of votes.

 

[qldfrog]

See that's where you are wrong, even if all men (50% of pop) and 50% of women (25% of pop) voted to deny women the vote, the fact that 75% of the pop wanted to restrict women's voting rights is irrelevant because the 75% can not vote to descriminate against the others based on sex.

You can't just say, oh well some women voted in favor of the discrimination so it's ok to discriminate.

Just like you can't say, "well, we included the 10% of the poplation that are blacks in the vote, and the majority vote was In favor to keep slavery" slavery always breaches human rights regardless of votes.

See how perverse your argument is, and you do not even see it
you do not recognise democracy and assume that your self righteous ideas(whatever they may be, whether I share them or not) are right;
300 y ago, people like you were arguing blacks were animals and not human and so that slavery was a victory for human condition;
More recently, your argument is used on abortion:it is murder and evil, and whatever a vote might say, it remains abhorent and the murderers must be punished/executed;
You put yourself in the same bandwagon as the lunatic christians or muslim fundamentalists.
May I find this ironic?
Either you respect democracy or you do not; if you do not, that is your choice but do not take the high ground stance, you are no better than a Hitler, Pinochet,Poutine or Staline.....

 

[Value Collector]

See how perverse your argument is, and you do not even see it
you do not recognise democracy and assume that your self righteous ideas(whatever they may be, whether I share them or not) are right;
300 y ago, people like you were arguing blacks were animals and not human and so that slavery was a victory for human condition;
More recently, your argument is used on abortion:it is murder and evil, and whatever a vote might say, it remains abhorent and the murderers must be punished/executed;
You put yourself in the same bandwagon as the lunatic christians or muslim fundamentalists.
May I find this ironic?
Either you respect democracy or you do not; if you do not, that is your choice but do not take the high ground stance, you are no better than a Hitler, Pinochet,Poutine or Staline.....

No, you seem to think democracy is about majority rules, when it's not, you forget that what we have is a "constitutional democracy" not a simple majority rules mob.

You seem to think that the facts don't matter, eg slavery is right as long as it's what the majority wants,

I am saying basic human rights exist, and it's the job of the government to enforce them even in the face of a majority that wants to take the rights of a group away.

The government (even a democratically elected one) has no legal right to deny human rights, not even through a plebiscite.

I really don't get why you struggle to see that, do you really think we could bring back slavery through a plebiscite?

You accuse me of band wagon thinking, hahaha

 

[pixel]

A plebiscite is an utter waste of time and money. Think about how many teachers and nurses could be employed with $160M.
As to the legislation: Every parliamentarian and his dog knows what the population wants. As they're supposed to be representing the Australian people, let's tell them "Get on with doing your job. Put the changes through the mill and make Marriage gender-neutral. End of story!"

Put forward as a private members bill, it could all be finished by the end of the week, and you can concentrate on more pressing tasks. Like giving our school leavers an opportunity to get a worthwhile apprenticeship; tap into the knowledge that's available in the older generation, many of whom feel too young to be turfed out into early retirement; stop looking at the next election and make plans for the long-term sustainability of Australian Life.

 

[SirRumpole]

No, you seem to think democracy is about majority rules, when it's not, you forget that what we have is a "constitutional democracy" not a simple majority rules mob.

You seem to think that the facts don't matter, eg slavery is right as long as it's what the majority wants,

You keep going on about this, but if you say there is majority public support for SSM then a plebiscite would succeed , correct ?

So , the question still stands, what are you afraid of ?

 

[McLovin]

Xenophon's preference has always been a parliamentary vote.

His policy platform was based on supporting marriage equality, but his underlying principle is to achieve this (and other legislative decisions) by doing it in the most straight forward, cost effective manner.

I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal (or a surprise) that he has decided not to compromise his principles.

Neither do I. And if equality before the law is not a fundamental part of democracy then we may as well pack up the kit and head home. It's part of what saves us from the tyranny of the majority. Of course, if you're in the majority then such concepts may seem glib.

 

[qldfrog]

equality before the law? In term of sexual preferences, pedophile do not have it or exhibitionists, even with willing partners..
So please it is not a matter of equal before the law, it is a matter of vocal lobby power confronting a majority which may not follow its wishes.
I am so scared of what will come next? (and does not have to be LGxxxxxxx (have I added enough x) related

 

[McLovin]

equality before the law? In term of sexual preferences, pedophile do not have it or exhibitionists, even with willing partners..

Actually they do. Heterosexual paedophiles and heterosexual exhibitionists have the same laws as homosexual ones. See how that works?

 

[Tink]

Oh, that will be next, qldfrog.

They have already started with the shows on the ABC that we have to understand them, they are misunderstood.

These progressives think they are moving forward, but we are going backwards to the days with no laws.

Gender neutral, age neutral, we are all social constructs, back to the animal farm.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree, Rumpole, what are they scared of?

 

[Junior]

Oh, that will be next, qldfrog.

They have already started with the shows on the ABC that we have to understand them, they are misunderstood.

Are you hinting that paedophiles will be next? That is sick.

This is why we a plebiscite is a bad idea, the scare-campaign from the far right and church groups will ruin any chance of an actual debate on the topic.

 

[SirRumpole]

Are you hinting that paedophiles will be next? That is sick.

This is why we a plebiscite is a bad idea, the scare-campaign from the far right and church groups will ruin any chance of an actual debate on the topic.

Every political and social debate these days has a scare campaign. Most people are capable of seeing through them.

If the scarers are forced to go public instead of muttering in the background, then their arguments are exposed to public scrutiny and the 'reasonable person' test kicks in.

If we don't trust ourselves then we might as well do away with jury trials, because obviously we can't trust our peers.

 

[Tisme]

Actually they do. Heterosexual paedophiles and heterosexual exhibitionists have the same laws as homosexual ones. See how that works?

But those laws are biased to the well being of hetrosexual ideals and comfort levels? In some cultures sacrosanct western values are deemed inappropriate e.g. freedom of association, having to wait until late teens before marrying, etc