- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,125
- Reactions
- 12,754
He obviously didn't say before the election that he would not support a plebiscite, otherwise he wouldn't be announcing it now.
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's announcing it for the benefit of all the people who can't read between the lines.He obviously didn't say before the election that he would not support a plebiscite, otherwise he wouldn't be announcing it now.
Taking partners of the same sex, contrary to 95% of the population.
The result will be wait till next election and another rending of flesh by the likes of Value Collector .
so why have the vote in the first place?
with arguments like that...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?
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.
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 how perverse your argument is, and you do not even see itSee 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.....
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,
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.
equality before the law? In term of sexual preferences, pedophile do not have it or exhibitionists, even with willing partners..
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.
Actually they do. Heterosexual paedophiles and heterosexual exhibitionists have the same laws as homosexual ones. See how that works?
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?