Yep. And if it doesn't get past the first time you try again until it does.
Gee, can you imagine if some of the major human rights movements in history gave up because there were a few "No" votes.
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Sean K
- Start date
Gee, can you imagine if some of the major human rights movements in history gave up because there were a few "No" votes.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
Some people think it will cause harm, rightly or wrongly, that's why there should be a public debate rather than being decided by lobbyists.
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,424
- Reactions
- 18,087
so you tell me with a yes on plebiscite, a majority of MP would refuse to pass the bill, get real, and stop spirits or more, unless the green and labour MPs vote against: why not
.hang over maybe?
Once you have a bit of fresh air and IF (big if) you are bright and honest enough, you know your position is wrong, you can pretend as Bill S. does for political gain; no lie is too big;
but adopting the high stand with that reasoning, go to N Korea you will be in good company.
After all we could also do without election to save paper and trees.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,290
Again though, why is this different to any other topic?
Then they need to present their evidence.
so you tell me with a yes on plebiscite, a majority of MP would refuse to pass the bill, get real, and stop spirits or more, unless the green and labour MPs vote against: why not
hang over maybe?
Once you have a bit of fresh air and IF (big if) you are bright and honest enough, you know your position is wrong, you can pretend as Bill S. does for political gain; no lie is too big;
but adopting the high stand with that reasoning, go to N Korea you will be in good company.
After all we could also do without election to save paper and trees.
Coherency isn't your strong point. You rave on about how important democracy is and yet you seem to have no issue with the fact that Liberal MPs have stated that they will ignore the democratic vote if it was a yes and vote on their conscious, their is your totalitarianism for you. It will still pass but it defeats the whole purpose of the plebiscite if Turnbull just allows a conscious vote on the issue anyway which is exactly what the SSM community has been asking for. Perhaps you should go to Iran and be in good company, they execute gays and atheists and won't tolerate those that speak out against the government.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,290
Yep. And if it doesn't get past the first time you try again until it does.
Gee, can you imagine if some of the major human rights movements in history gave up because there were a few "No" votes.
yep, but that kind of makes the voting redundant.
As I have said many times, if we had a vote to abolish or keep slavery, and the popular vote was to "keep slavery", would it make it moral to keep it? no.
Would a government be justified in allowing it to continue? no.
So the publics opinion is irrelevant and the vote is redundant.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
Because with every other topic people accept the vote of the Parliament until the next election. The gay lobby keep snipping and sniping and distracting OUR elected representatives onto an issues that matters to about 5% of the population instead of letting them get on with their real work which is looking after ALL of us.
They will, before the plebiscite.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,952
- Reactions
- 1,141
It resulted in Whitlam getting a "mandate" to continue John Gorton's resolve. The US followed us out of Vietnam, then followed Whitlam into China.
Homosexuality was universally heard but not seen across politics.
1.The proposal to recognize SSM.
2. The origin....?????
3. The solution
a) let the people decide (LNP)
b) let the politicians decide (Green/Labor)
4.The end result......Both parties cannot agree......No plebiscite.....$160,000,000 saved.
5. The winners...... Every body is happy on both sides of politics.
6. The losers .......the gays and lesbians resulting in more suicides according to Bill Shorten.
7. Next chance .....maybe in 3 years if Labor win the next election.
But a funny thing I read in the Australian today where this crap has been going on for 55 years even back as far as Bob Menzies days.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/a5ed98d47b63ee947024f18186639356
After yesterday’s debate on the proposed plebiscite on marriage equality, it’s worth remembering a similar debate that played out 55 years ago when an amendment to the Marriage Act was first considered by parliament. Then, it was a Country Party senator who wanted to change the act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The amendment was voted down 40 to eight by the Senate.
Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies’ government introduced the Marriage Act 1961 to bring marriage under the jurisdiction of the commonwealth. At the time, parliament’s guidance on marriage did not go beyond stipulating participants be of legal age and of sound mind.
Most were content with this state of affairs. As Liberal senator John Gorton (before becoming prime minister) remarked: “In our view it is best to leave to the common law the definition or the evolution of the meaning of marriage.”
That 1961 vote on the amendment certainly was not about supporting marriage equality (it would be many years before any lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights materialised). Rather, it was about the parliament not overplaying its hand about a Marriage Act that was a framework, which society was free to shape as and when required. It reflected a conservative approach to government by a conservative government, and it held firm for more than 40 years before falling victim to the politics of the day.
On August 4, 2004, John Howard was addressing a meeting of the National Marriage Coalition (which included the Australian Christian Lobby) when he announced the Marriage Act would be amended to include a definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. The 1000 attendees lapped it up and gave Howard not one but three standing ovations.
2. The origin....?????
3. The solution
a) let the people decide (LNP)
b) let the politicians decide (Green/Labor)
4.The end result......Both parties cannot agree......No plebiscite.....$160,000,000 saved.
5. The winners...... Every body is happy on both sides of politics.
6. The losers .......the gays and lesbians resulting in more suicides according to Bill Shorten.
7. Next chance .....maybe in 3 years if Labor win the next election.
But a funny thing I read in the Australian today where this crap has been going on for 55 years even back as far as Bob Menzies days.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/a5ed98d47b63ee947024f18186639356
After yesterday’s debate on the proposed plebiscite on marriage equality, it’s worth remembering a similar debate that played out 55 years ago when an amendment to the Marriage Act was first considered by parliament. Then, it was a Country Party senator who wanted to change the act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The amendment was voted down 40 to eight by the Senate.
Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies’ government introduced the Marriage Act 1961 to bring marriage under the jurisdiction of the commonwealth. At the time, parliament’s guidance on marriage did not go beyond stipulating participants be of legal age and of sound mind.
Most were content with this state of affairs. As Liberal senator John Gorton (before becoming prime minister) remarked: “In our view it is best to leave to the common law the definition or the evolution of the meaning of marriage.”
That 1961 vote on the amendment certainly was not about supporting marriage equality (it would be many years before any lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights materialised). Rather, it was about the parliament not overplaying its hand about a Marriage Act that was a framework, which society was free to shape as and when required. It reflected a conservative approach to government by a conservative government, and it held firm for more than 40 years before falling victim to the politics of the day.
On August 4, 2004, John Howard was addressing a meeting of the National Marriage Coalition (which included the Australian Christian Lobby) when he announced the Marriage Act would be amended to include a definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. The 1000 attendees lapped it up and gave Howard not one but three standing ovations.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
What arrogance !
Let's just do away with elections altogether and let the morally pure run the country.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,290
What arrogance !
Let's just do away with elections altogether and let the morally pure run the country.
Arrogance??? I think it's more arrogant to think your own opinions matter when it comes to other people's human rights.
How is admiting that public opinion doesn't change whether something is right or wrong arrogant?
Do you honestly think a vote to keep slavery makes slavery right? Please answer this question.
And if you can admit that it wouldn't make slavery right, what's the point of having the vote in the first place? Isn't the vote irrelevant?
We already accept that when it came Lee to human rights issues the opinion of the majority is irrelevant, that's why we call them inalienable human rights, because not even the government can legally take them away, even a majority vote can't
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
Not being able to marry someone is not slavery, it's the opposite !
The basic human right is freedom of association which is not being infringed. Marriage is an association recognised by the State, which therefore has the choice not to recognise it, which it has so far chosen to do.
Defacto relationships have the same rights as marriages, as do civil unions. If society chooses to reserve marriage as between a man and a woman, ie 95% of relationships, no one's rights are being infringed despite your perceived morality otherwise.
Craton
Mostly passive, contrarian.
- Joined
- 6 February 2013
- Posts
- 1,709
- Reactions
- 2,383
By the very fact that we are not all heterosexual and those that are not, don't have equal rights.
Oh hell yeah, no plebiscite but a referendum on euthanasia please.
See above about rights. For me, having a say makes sense in this supposed democratic society. Call it a conscious vote if you like and at least the pollies get to see the will of the people.
Rammed down my throat like having my retirement age increased without me having a say. I don't like it!
Again see above and it's immoral that non-heterosexuals are treated as less than. It's important because I believe there will be an overwhelming support for the affirmative as "gays", in my eyes, have been ostracised for far too long. So yes, I may be old school in so much that marriage for me is between a man and a woman, but I acknowledge it is about time that we officially recognise that these relationships exist and enact laws that do just that.
Having a chance to say so is extremely important, simples.
BTW, I've got nothing against SSM, we all should have the right to marry and be miserable...
Daniel Andrews, the Victorian state Premier, has just found the solution for the SSM problem.
He will introduce a bill in Victoria where you will be able go to the Births, Deaths and Marriage bureau and change your agenda on your birth certificate...So if you are a gay man, just change it to female, marry your gay partner and every one is happy....The marriage will be registered as a man and a woman.
Guess there is more ways than one to skin a cat.
He will introduce a bill in Victoria where you will be able go to the Births, Deaths and Marriage bureau and change your agenda on your birth certificate...So if you are a gay man, just change it to female, marry your gay partner and every one is happy....The marriage will be registered as a man and a woman.
Guess there is more ways than one to skin a cat.
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
Yes, noco, they can be whatever they want to be.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29219&page=11&p=906193&viewfull=1#post906193
LGBTI (just keep adding on more letters)
I think they are up to 45 different ones.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29219&page=11&p=906193&viewfull=1#post906193
LGBTI (just keep adding on more letters)
I think they are up to 45 different ones.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
I didn't know "inalienable" meant that. I never thought much about it, just see it as those filler words, but yea, good to know.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
I think the initials just show how wide and varied god's creatures are. We're not all Male or Female; male must love female and female must put up with male.
- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
By the very fact that we are not all heterosexual and those that are not, don't have equal rights.
Oh hell yeah, no plebiscite but a referendum on euthanasia please.
See above about rights. For me, having a say makes sense in this supposed democratic society. Call it a conscious vote if you like and at least the pollies get to see the will of the people.
Rammed down my throat like having my retirement age increased without me having a say. I don't like it!
Again see above and it's immoral that non-heterosexuals are treated as less than. It's important because I believe there will be an overwhelming support for the affirmative as "gays", in my eyes, have been ostracised for far too long. So yes, I may be old school in so much that marriage for me is between a man and a woman, but I acknowledge it is about time that we officially recognise that these relationships exist and enact laws that do just that.
Having a chance to say so is extremely important, simples.
BTW, I've got nothing against SSM, we all should have the right to marry and be miserable...
Maybe some straights don't like the gays showing them how marriage is done - always gay and happy?
I always admire the kind of "leadership" that throw the rights of the minority to the will and prejudices [or not] of the majority.
They don't teach you that stuff at leadership school. Maybe the school yards.
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,014
- Reactions
- 8,290
As explained earlier, marriage is a basic human right, also not being descriminated based on sexuality or gender is a basic human right. If you don't understand that, I am not going to waste any more time explaining it.
In regards to the last paragraph, the back of the bus goes to the same destination as the front, is it moral to force blacks to sit at the rear? Again if you can't understand the concept, I am not going to waste time explaining.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
Marriage is NOT a "basic human right".
If you can't understand that marriage is an invention of society to recognise associations that it wants to recognise, then I'm wasting my time trying to explain, I think I've stated it clearly enough.
Freedom of Association is the basic human right, and that is not being infringed. People can live in polygamous relationships if they choose, but society chooses not to recognise them. Same with SSM if that is society's wish.
Your opposition to a plebiscite is irrational. Society is quite capable of determining the issue itself.
