yes for the first as it has never been a political issue and should not be,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?
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?
Why should 2% dictate how the 98% should live.
It has been done in parliament 18 times.
The answer was no.
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.
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?
From what I understand, Turnbull is for SSM...So why would he not accept the outcome?
I definitively do not want a parliament elected on a specific mandate change it to fit a lobby group; they do it often enought;We clearly have a different expectation of our politicians and their role as you believe they aren't capable of representing their constitutes.
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 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 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.
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,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
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.
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.
Can you explain the context of those two bible quotes?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.
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.Can you explain the context of those two bible quotes?
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?