Because the marriage act was so unimportant in 2001 that Howard altered the definition without a public vote, that shouldn't be any different now.
That's not an answer to the questions.Well you either accept what the politicians say as you supported before or you keep going untill you get the result "you" want.
If there is so much support for SSM in the community its supporters should not be afraid of a public vote.
Nope that doesn't wash, you're scared to let the people have a say in case it's NO it will be YES of course because all the publicity is for the YES vote including our p*** weak politicians and the ABC naturally.
Of course it doesn't wash because you strongly support no and nothing would convince you otherwise and you know the public can be manipulated into a no vote. Funny how now that the yes camp finally has the numbers in parliament you want a public vote, where was that 10 years ago.
Abbott and co are sure doing a good job of saying no. The public aren't being manipulated into voting yes, they're simply being asked if they believe 2 consenting adults of the same sex should be able to marry.That's hilarious, the public are being manipulated into a YES vote right now, no one in public life is game to say NO because it would seem to be homophobic.
Turnbull and Shorten are both urging the public to vote YES , Abbott hasn't been in the news much at all.Abbott and co are sure doing a good job of saying no. The public aren't being manipulated into voting yes, they're simply being asked if they believe 2 consenting adults of the same sex should be able to marry.
3 of the most hated politicians aren't going to sway the voteTurnbull and Shorten are both urging the public to vote YES , Abbott hasn't been in the news much at all.
Of course they will, it's the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, it's inappropriate that they should take sides anyway.3 of the most hated politicians aren't going to sway the vote
It just highlights the stupidity of having a public vote on the issue when both the opposition leader and the prime minister support the change of policy. Outside of a constitutional change that requires a referendum I can't recall this ever happening before.Of course they will, it's the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, it's inappropriate that they should take sides anyway.
The stupidity is them publicly taking sides, I hope it blows up in their face but I doubt it.It just highlights the stupidity of having a public vote on the issue when both the opposition leader and the prime minister support the change of policy. Outside of a constitutional change that requires a referendum I can't recall this ever happening before.
The plebiscite doesn't have bipartisan support so Bill Shorten can do what ever he wants. As for Turnbull your point would have merit if Abbott didn't come out first and support the no campaign.The stupidity is them publicly taking sides, I hope it blows up in their face but I doubt it.
The plebiscite doesn't have bipartisan support so Bill Shorten can do what ever he wants. As for Turnbull your point would have merit if Abbott didn't come out first and support the no campaign.
What Abbott does should have no influence on the PM, he has no right to organise a postal vote then tell people how to vote.
What exactly is it that you claim isn't an argument?That's not an answer to the questions.
Because it ends up being a marketing exercise, the no camp need to throw around countless red herrings to convince people to vote no. The only way the no camp win is to frame it into an argument it's not and it's straight up dishonest.
What exactly is it that you claim isn't an argument?
Amidst the "countless red herrings", to which you refer, are you certain that valid concerns/arguments are not to be found?
Whilst observing "countless red herrings" issuing from the "no camp", how many red herrings have you noticed issuing from the "yes camp"?
And Animal Farm & 1984. And Aldous Huxley's Brave New WorldREAD Wayne's link
Actually, I've seen some much bigger one's than that issuing from the "yes camp"!Any time children are mentioned is the biggest red herring, it doesn't alter SS couples right to raise children (rightly or wrongly).
Actually, I've seen some much bigger one's than that issuing from the "yes camp"!
In fact the one you are claiming to be the biggest, isn't even a red herring at all, for the simple reason that it does raise one or more valid and relevant concerns!
Namely, the last time I checked, SSM still had some bearing on questions surrounding the matter of rights of SS couples to adopt children etc.
And Animal Farm & 1984. And Aldous Huxley's Brave New World
To my understanding this is only true for some parenting rights in some states - not nationally!Of course it's a red herring, the rights surrounding the adoption of children are regarding a government recognised relationship which a civil union already achieves.
Invalid comparisons to things such as slavery and capital punishment, were amongst some of the more outlandish whoppers catching my eye.What red herring has the yes camp used?
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?