Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

overhang · 15 November 2017

cynic said:
Incorrect!

My rationale is that truthfulness and freedom of expression are of paramount importance.

Any legislation that either encroaches on this important liberty, or fosters an environment where deceitfulness is seen as a necessary and/or acceptable alternative to truthful expression, runs counter to my understanding of what is required for the continued evolution and progress of human society.

Then you would have no issue with refusing business on the grounds of someones faith.

SirRumpole · 15 November 2017

overhang said:
Then you would have no issue with refusing business on the grounds of someones faith.

People are free not to be customers of businesses that they don't like, why shouldn't the reverse apply ?

cynic · 15 November 2017

Tisme said:
Partial truth, but we really know why most people vote the way they do: all to do with sheep.

I think there may have been a cattle dog or two in the mix this time around. For those seeking power, one always has to make sure the sheeples run in the right direction!
Otherwise how will they ever succeed in pulling the wool over the eyes of the flock, before fleecing them and dumping down the chute when finally done with them!

Might be time to get the Flock outta here!

Click go the shears!

cynic · 15 November 2017

overhang said:
Then you would have no issue with refusing business on the grounds of someones faith.

Correct! This is the first time in this thread you have posted something that I wholeheartedly agree with!

overhang · 15 November 2017

SirRumpole said:
People are free not to be customers of businesses that they don't like, why shouldn't the reverse apply ?

I don't think society has a whole benefits when particularly minorities can be targeted to the point they can't receive service due to factors outside of their control eg race. It would be fair to say that in this day and age the backlash on the business would probably prevent this from happening but then what's to say sentiment like we saw in WWII won't occur again. I think the laws are best left in place.

Value Collector · 15 November 2017

SirRumpole said:
60/40 is not a convincing victory. Will be interesting to see how it plays out in Parliament.

For every 100 people that said No, 160 said Yes. thats pretty convincing to me.

Also, if you minus out the people that actually agreed with gay marriage, but voted no because they wanted to protest PC, or some other red herring like a lot of people here the results would have been even stronger.

overhang · 15 November 2017

cynic said:
Correct! This is the first time in this thread you have posted something that I wholeheartedly agree with!

Fair enough, unfortunately I can't recipitate. We will just have to agree to disagree.

SirRumpole · 15 November 2017

Value Collector said:
For every 100 people that said No, 160 said Yes. thats pretty convincing to me.

Also, if you minus out the people that actually agreed with gay marriage, but voted no because they wanted to protest PC, or some other red herring like a lot of people here the results would have been even stronger.

You don't know why people voted no.

Anyway at least it's over.

Value Collector · 15 November 2017

SirRumpole said:
People are free not to be customers of businesses that they don't like, why shouldn't the reverse apply ?

For practicality, if we are going to function as a society we should be able to walk into any business and buy products without being discriminated against because of who we are.

If I need to buy petrel, I want to stop at any petrel station and be served, it doesn't make sense for it to be ok to be refused service at businesses that are open to the public.

SirRumpole · 15 November 2017

Value Collector said:
For practicality, if we are going to function as a society we should be able to walk into any business and buy products without being discriminated against because of who we are.

If I need to buy petrel, I want to stop at any petrel station and be served, it doesn't make sense for it to be ok to be refused service at businesses that are open to the public.

I think that the number of businesses that would actually discriminate would be very small, and would probably suffer from bad publicity, but forcing people by law to serve people that they don't want to is the same imo as forcing people to go to a particular bank.

Value Collector · 15 November 2017

SirRumpole said:
You don't know why people voted no.

Anyway at least it's over.

People here have admited it, people have openly said that their vote was a protest against PC.

Also, the whole focus of the no campaign was on red herrings such as school programs etc, which were not what the survey was about.

Value Collector · 15 November 2017

SirRumpole said:
but forcing people by law to serve people that they don't want to is the same imo as forcing people to go to a particular bank.

No one is forcing anyone to be in business, if you don't want to serve the public you don't have to, you can form a special little private club if you want to exclude the public.

But you can't say you are open to the public if you are planning to discriminate.

cynic · 15 November 2017

cynic said:
Correct! This is the first time in this thread you have posted something that I wholeheartedly agree with!

overhang said:
Fair enough, unfortunately I can't recipitate. We will just have to agree to disagree.

We can do that if you wish.

My point is not to argue for the virtue (or lack thereof) of bigotry, it is simply to say that once humanity starts finding (or creating) justification for acts of deception, the integrity of our society, and its ability to communicate with integrity, rapidly deteriorates.

SirRumpole · 15 November 2017

Value Collector said:
No one is forcing anyone to be in business, if you don't want to serve the public you don't have to, you can form a special little private club if you want to exclude the public.

But you can't say you are open to the public if you are planning to discriminate.

Ok so you have a point there. So you would have no objection to companies advertising that they don't serve XYZ ?

Value Collector · 15 November 2017

SirRumpole said:
Ok so you have a point there. So you would have no objection to companies advertising that they don't serve XYZ ?

I would prefer if they operated as a private club that laid out the membership rules in a club constitution, But yes if they are going to discriminate then as a minimum it should be clearly sign posted on the front of their shop or website.

Logique · 15 November 2017

Tisme said:
Wait until the reality bites and see who bleats the most.

Exactly. The 'Yes' case was the most dishonest I've ever seen.

Australia, be careful what you wish for. It happened in other countries and it will happen here.

drsmith · 15 November 2017

Some interesting results from individual electorates from commentary on the ABC's live page,

Interesting electorate statistics, Tony Abbott's Warringah voted 75% "Yes" - but top 9 "No" voting electorates are all Labor held: Blaxland, Watson, McMahon, Werriwa, Fowler, Parramatta, Chifley, Calwell and Barton.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/live-blog-same-sex-marriage-survey-results-ssm/9134066

PZ99 · 15 November 2017

drsmith said:
Some interesting results from individual electorates from commentary on the ABC's live page,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/live-blog-same-sex-marriage-survey-results-ssm/9134066

Labor will be happy with that.

As of today they are no longer campaigning for SSM at the next election

grah33 · 15 November 2017

The commies like to control religion. After suppressing both religion and the freedom of moral conscience it usually doesn't stop there.
In a short while (once new laws come out) we'll no longer be free...

tech/a · 15 November 2017

Value Collector said:
For every 100 people that said No, 160 said Yes. thats pretty convincing to me.

Also, if you minus out the people that actually agreed with gay marriage, but voted no because they wanted to protest PC, or some other red herring like a lot of people here the results would have been even stronger.

7.2 million Yes
4.8 million No.
Hardly a minority vote.

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?