Gay Marriage

[explod]

Why should the 95% who it does not really effect lord it over the 5% who want to marry their loved one.

Can see you're a bit of a standover person noco?

 

[Tink]

Why should 2% dictate how the 98% should live.

It has been done in parliament 18 times.

The answer was no.

 

[qldfrog]

Should we have a plebiscite on euthanasia, offshore processing? Where do you draw the line on what moral issues governments can't represent us on?

yes for the first as it has never been a political issue and should not be,
no for the second as it is a clear political issue with clear positions from all parties
It is so so so wrong to see the very side of politics which in the past could be trusted to fight for democracy and people's power go so far in denial of the very best principle of democracy: a plebicite/referendum with one citizen /one vote just to cajole a lobby;
Honestly, the green and ALP attitude in their refusal of a plebicite is sickening;And they do not even see it
After seeing that, i doubt I will ever vote for either ever again.

 

[noco]

Why should the 95% who it does not really effect lord it over the 5% who want to marry their loved one.

Can see you're a bit of a standover person noco?

Hmmmm...where did I ever mention that for you to brand me a "STAND OVER PERSON"?

There are 150 members of parliament in the lower house and 76 senators and they are supposed to represent their constituents but they, in most cases, follow their party politics......How many of those politicians seek the view of the the voters in their electorate and ask "How do you want me to vote for you".

Now the population of Australia is 24,187,000....divide that by 226 = .00000934386%.

Take away those who are not eligible to vote and we are left with 16,504,326......divide that by 226 = .00136933795%.

Now then, who would be lording it over who if there was a vote in parliament

Have the plebiscite to end all doubt at a cost of $7.02 per head for every man, woman and child.....I would be happy to send my $7.02.... What about you plod?...

 

[overhang]

Why should 2% dictate how the 98% should live.

It has been done in parliament 18 times.

The answer was no.

It is the 98% trying to dictate the 2%, you seem to be confused because no one is forcing you to have a SSM but merely trying to seek the same right as everyone else has to marry their loved one.

yes for the first as it has never been a political issue and should not be,
no for the second as it is a clear political issue with clear positions from all parties
It is so so so wrong to see the very side of politics which in the past could be trusted to fight for democracy and people's power go so far in denial of the very best principle of democracy: a plebicite/referendum with one citizen /one vote just to cajole a lobby;
Honestly, the green and ALP attitude in their refusal of a plebicite is sickening;And they do not even see it
After seeing that, i doubt I will ever vote for either ever again.

We clearly have a different expectation of our politicians and their role as you believe they aren't capable of representing their constitutes. The only time I see it as appropriate to seek a public vote is when we are required to do so via a proposed constitutional change. The politicians are paid huge salaries to represent and this is just a cop out to waste tax payer $ on a public vote that is non-binding. How is it reasonable to have a $160 million vote on something that Turnbull won't even enforce, clear economic mismanagement right there.

I never saw those of you supporting a plebiscite wanting one back when Howard change the definition of marriage, I never saw it when bills were introduced to parliament over the years to allow SSM. But now that it seems clear that if a conscious vote was permitted by the coalition that the bill would pass you all want a plebiscite. It's merely a stalling tactic and a last ditch effort to postpone a change that is going to occur, it's just a matter of when. The younger generations are far more accepting of gays and lesbians, they see no issue with allowing them the same right everyone else has.

 

[noco]

It is the 98% trying to dictate the 2%, you seem to be confused because no one is forcing you to have a SSM but merely trying to seek the same right as everyone else has to marry their loved one.



We clearly have a different expectation of our politicians and their role as you believe they aren't capable of representing their constitutes. The only time I see it as appropriate to seek a public vote is when we are required to do so via a proposed constitutional change. The politicians are paid huge salaries to represent and this is just a cop out to waste tax payer $ on a public vote that is non-binding. How is it reasonable to have a $160 million vote on something that Turnbull won't even enforce, clear economic mismanagement right there.

I never saw those of you supporting a plebiscite wanting one back when Howard change the definition of marriage, I never saw it when bills were introduced to parliament over the years to allow SSM. But now that it seems clear that if a conscious vote was permitted by the coalition that the bill would pass you all want a plebiscite. It's merely a stalling tactic and a last ditch effort to postpone a change that is going to occur, it's just a matter of when. The younger generations are far more accepting of gays and lesbians, they see no issue with allowing them the same right everyone else has.

From what I understand, Turnbull is for SSM...So why would he not accept the outcome?

 

[SirRumpole]

From what I understand, Turnbull is for SSM...So why would he not accept the outcome?

A number of Coalition MP's and Senators have said that they would not accept a YES vote.

 

[overhang]

From what I understand, Turnbull is for SSM...So why would he not accept the outcome?

Turnbull will accept it but won't enforce it on his party. We are spending $160 million to only have a conscious vote on the issue anyway. So what is the point? According to figures if a conscious vote was held right now it's probable that SSM would pass. So what is the point in holding a plebiscite if Turnbull will still allow Bernardi, Abbott etc to vote against what the public decide (if they vote yes)? As a fiscal conservative doesn't this seem like such a waste of tax payer dollars?

 

[qldfrog]

We clearly have a different expectation of our politicians and their role as you believe they aren't capable of representing their constitutes.

I definitively do not want a parliament elected on a specific mandate change it to fit a lobby group; they do it often enought;
what would be your feeling if the green decide to vote tomorrow for a great nuclear power station program?
After all you trusted them and add in the LNP, they could surely find a way to get a majority there;
as for a vote of conscience: my conscience is not the conscience of the clown elected at the parliament;
Deny it as much as you want, butthe facts are clear: you do not want democracy just in case it could not agree with youi; a nice definition of dictatorship/fascism;
Fascism is not restricted to far right but it hurts doesn't it, to know it deep inside and still try to find way for justification/self denial even taklking about money saving.how ironic ....
I leave you with your nice certitude, in the meantime, this game has resulted in no plebicite, and no chance to have legal marriage for same sex couples.Well done

 

[noco]

Turnbull will accept it but won't enforce it on his party. We are spending $160 million to only have a conscious vote on the issue anyway. So what is the point? According to figures if a conscious vote was held right now it's probable that SSM would pass. So what is the point in holding a plebiscite if Turnbull will still allow Bernardi, Abbott etc to vote against what the public decide (if they vote yes)? As a fiscal conservative doesn't this seem like such a waste of tax payer dollars?

I just don't understand why all this discussion is taking place....You are all raving on about something that is not going to happen,

There ain't gonna be a plebiscite because it will be defeated in the senate....$160,000,000 saved but Shorten may have many suicides on his hands over the next 3 years or won't he be too concerned if that happens?...He was this week.

Personally I do not give a rat's ar$e whether they do or not....The World will still go on even with all the turmoil that is happening around the World......The gays will go on living in the same old way as they have done for centuries.......Just that they will have to wait another 3 years in the hope of a change of government.

 

[overhang]

I definitively do not want a parliament elected on a specific mandate change it to fit a lobby group; they do it often enought;
what would be your feeling if the green decide to vote tomorrow for a great nuclear power station program?
After all you trusted them and add in the LNP, they could surely find a way to get a majority there;
as for a vote of conscience: my conscience is not the conscience of the clown elected at the parliament;
Deny it as much as you want, butthe facts are clear: you do not want democracy just in case it could not agree with youi; a nice definition of dictatorship/fascism;
Fascism is not restricted to far right but it hurts doesn't it, to know it deep inside and still try to find way for justification/self denial even taklking about money saving.how ironic ....
I leave you with your nice certitude, in the meantime, this game has resulted in no plebicite, and no chance to have legal marriage for same sex couples.Well done

I sure as hell don't want a nuclear power put to a public vote, the issue is far too complex for the average layman to understand. We have non-partisan government departments to provide expert advice to our elected representatives to make that decision. I want democracy to function how it is supposed to function and that is that our democratically elected representatives vote on these issues, what good are they if they can't.

I think you are picking and choosing where you want this applied, at least the SSM community has been consistent an have never wanted a plebiscite. It's not about fearing the result it's about wasting tax payer dollars on an outcome that can be achieved in parliament without putting minority groups through derogatory comments from people with attitudes dating back to the 1800s. Why is it only now you want a plebiscite and not earlier? Can you explain to me why you think it's reasonable to waste that money on a non-binding vote, there are ministers who have already announced they won't alter their vote regardless of the result, there is your democracy for you

 

[Tisme]

Labor and Greens are afraid of the truth they already know..... a vast majority are not onboard with this issue and have been uncomfortable with the whole history of enforced acceptance of the vulgarism and distortion of reproductive quality.

There is no doubt that human evolution has maintained the biological drive to reproduce, but seduction has also been cultured into it. The courtship process, the titillation ,etc has taken precedence over the estrus cycle and I think it's those of the same gender who deliberately couple, knowing reproduction is impossible, are demonstrating an impudence and discomfort to the human code and sensibilities.

I call bulls4i7 on those who say the population is comfortable voting in favour of SSM. If it does get up it will the same "Catholic Guilt" symptoms that fed the Irish hysteria of denial on the same issue, but certainly not because the majority see it as a legitimate marriage, more a tragic comedy along Shakespearean lines.

 

[overhang]

I just don't understand why all this discussion is taking place....You are all raving on about something that is not going to happen,

There ain't gonna be a plebiscite because it will be defeated in the senate....$160,000,000 saved but Shorten may have many suicides on his hands over the next 3 years or won't he be too concerned if that happens?...He was this week.

Personally I do not give a rat's ar$e whether they do or not....The World will still go on even with all the turmoil that is happening around the World......The gays will go on living in the same old way as they have done for centuries.......Just that they will have to wait another 3 years in the hope of a change of government.

How many suicides will occur when ACL run their adverts opposing and we see the ugly sides of our some in the community view the gay and lesbians? I don't think young gay and lesbians coming to terms with their sexuality where they would be executed in some countries because of something they have no control over should be put through the commentary that will occur if this issue is debated via public vote.

 

[Tink]

Well they could always try the Middle East or China, if they think they are treated badly in the West, which is a Christian country.

 

[qldfrog]

Why is it only now you want a plebiscite and not earlier? Can you explain to me why you think it's reasonable to waste that money on a non-binding vote, there are ministers who have already announced they won't alter their vote regardless of the result, there is your democracy for you

I diud not want a plebicite, but it was the program presented at the last election, and was voted in, and i believe this is the best way to let people choose: at last democracy : have a look at the definition, may be a refresher,
The parliament has already had plenty of opportunities to choose, inc when labour was in power but they did not wanted to vote or we would not be talking now, and I respect that;
In summary, just a matter of sore loosers afraid of letting people have their say;
I doubt a yes at the plebicit would not have been implemented within a year, more lame excuse?
you see they, the common people, the dirty crass may not know enough what is good for them whereas we , the enlighted, the truth owners and the proponent of the SSM obviously do,
A two class citizens, but only based on your opinion, God forbid not on colour, race or sex orientation, that would not be right!!!Stalinism at its best
This makes me sick to think that is the enlighted side of society.

 

[Value Collector]

Well they could always try the Middle East or China, if they think they are treated badly in the West, which is a Christian country.

Why don't you move there, you seem to think you have no freedom of speech and that Australia is going down the tube, why haven't you boarded a plane yet?

I really don't know why you are even fighting for your freedom of speach, I thought you liked the bible.

Timothy 2:12 - I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.
(eg, you have no biblical right to speak out, or excise authority over a man whether he is straight or gay)

Gods word translation - Corinthians 14-34 the women must keep silent. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.


It is secular Austalian law that gives you the right to free speech, not your Christian/biblical laws, if you want to make this a Christian country, becareful what you wish for.

 

[overhang]

I diud not want a plebicite, but it was the program presented at the last election, and was voted in, and i believe this is the best way to let people choose: at last democracy : have a look at the definition, may be a refresher,
The parliament has already had plenty of opportunities to choose, inc when labour was in power but they did not wanted to vote or we would not be talking now, and I respect that;
In summary, just a matter of sore loosers afraid of letting people have their say;
I doubt a yes at the plebicit would not have been implemented within a year, more lame excuse?
you see they, the common people, the dirty crass may not know enough what is good for them whereas we , the enlighted, the truth owners and the proponent of the SSM obviously do,
A two class citizens, but only based on your opinion, God forbid not on colour, race or sex orientation, that would not be right!!!Stalinism at its best
This makes me sick to think that is the enlighted side of society.

Might want to stay off the plonk old mate, very difficult to decipher most of this. You talk about democracy and yet what is the point when several Liberal MPs have announced they won't vote in line with the democratic vote if it's a yes. So again what is the point when the vote is non-binding? And do you think that is very democratic?

 

[Ves]

Why don't you move there, you seem to think you have no freedom of speech and that Australia is going down the tube, why haven't you boarded a plane yet?

I really don't know why you are even fighting for your freedom of speach, I thought you liked the bible.

Timothy 2:12 - I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.
(eg, you have no biblical right to speak out, or excise authority over a man whether he is straight or gay)

Gods word translation - Corinthians 14-34 the women must keep silent. They don't have the right to speak. They must take their place as Moses' Teachings say.


It is secular Austalian law that gives you the right to free speech, not your Christian/biblical laws, if you want to make this a Christian country, becareful what you wish for.

Can you explain the context of those two bible quotes?

 

[explod]

Can you explain the context of those two bible quotes?

Pretty clear to me. Women are the servants/slaves of man. Remember as a child women had to wear a hat in church, men hung thier's on a hook in the porch.

And the muslim veil the same symbol.

And the big one the priests would chant from the pulpit, "suffer the little children and bring them unto me" Pedophile writers of the bible anyone.

Gay people who want to marry each other are saints compared to those behind the institutions who's role it is to dupe the people and keep them under control. ie., the witch doctor working for the chief.

 

[Tisme]

Being a highly skilled Marketing major and the owner of the keys to all wisdom, I think more people should read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" so they can recognise when they are being ,manipulated.

Basically it covers:

1.The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say, "You’re wrong."
3.If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4.Begin in a friendly way.
5.Get the other person saying "yes, yes" immediately.
6.Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7.Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
8.Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person’s ideas and desires.
10.Appeal to the nobler motives.
11.Dramatize your ideas.
12.Throw down a challenge.

and then there are the 10 basic theories of conversion and persuasion:



1. Yale Attitude Change Approach

Demographic targetting, pleasant on the eye speaker, credible speaker, persuasive speaker, when to go first or last.


2. Conversion Theory

The confident, persistent minority influence the susceptible in the majority by narrowing the options and creating an apparent easy path to a populist outcome that doesn't have many or any alternative choices that aren't open to shaming by the minority and converts.

3. Sleeper Effect

Low credibility messengers plant the seed, which increases inner persuasion over time as the victim disassociates the messenger for the now plausible message.


4. Information Manipulation Theory

Deliberate breaking of the any one of the four conversational maxims:

Quantity: Full disclosure of data and information
Quality: Truthful and accurate data and information.
Relation: Relevence of data and information to the conversation.
Manner: Concise, understandable delivery of data and information


5. Priming

Manipulating perceptions by selecting stimuli that roots into the short term memory. Like speaker using a word, say "Black" in one sentence and "Goat" in another and invariably having someone answer black goat when asking the audience to name an animal.


6. Amplification Hypothesis

This is where the gay movement and it's converts do really well. They make demands with such certainty that the susceptible have their attitudes cemented as solid persuasion. Those speakers who aren't so convincing, with an alternative view, only ingrain the determination to the contrary.

7. Scarcity Principle

Better be quick before it goes. Such a small thing it's a non event. Even if the proposal is a non sequitur it doesn't matter in the scheme of things. Don't miss out getting on the band wagon. etc

8. Social Influence

Peer group belonging, brand identification, tribal droning.


9. Ultimate Terms

Using bogey words to constrain the alternatives: a) GOD says "xyz"; b)utopean ideal expressions like freedom, equality, modern, 21st Century, etc.; Evil and cruel expressionism like Satan, Devil, Nazi, Facist, Fabian, bigot, etc.


10. Reciprocity Norm

Obligation to return favors done by others. In this instance e.g. we know a Gay person who overtly behaves wonderfully, just like normal people even!! and therefore we should reciprocate by rewarding same person by modifying a cultural norm to suit...