Now it's going to be a postal vote that won't count.

[Trader]

For the people who oppose It, i am still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason how two gay people marrying affects them?

Agreed, and equally I haven't seen a good reason why it should be changed to allow them to get married.

For mine, there is the 10% that really wants it ('the gay community'), the 10% who don't want it ('the church'), and then an 80% sitting in the middle who ultimately don't really care.

That 80% then fall into either:
a yes vote - under the premise of: it doesn't hurt me, so why not, or
a no vote - under the premise of: why fix what isn't broken.

Its a really emotive topic, but unfortunately it seems its hard to have a genuine discussion on the matter without being labeled as either a fag or a bigot.

If 'the gay community' came out with a clear an concise set of tangible benefits of allowing SSM, I recon they'd go a fair way to getting the yes vote over the line.

[tipper]

For the people who oppose It, i am still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason how two gay people marrying affects them?

Agreed, and equally I haven't seen a good reason why it should be changed to allow them to get married.

For mine, there is the 10% that really wants it ('the gay community'), the 10% who don't want it ('the church'), and then an 80% sitting in the middle who ultimately don't really care.

That 80% then fall into either:
a yes vote - under the premise of: it doesn't hurt me, so why not, or
a no vote - under the premise of: why fix what isn't broken.

Its a really emotive topic, but unfortunately it seems its hard to have a genuine discussion on the matter without being labeled as either a fag or a bigot.

If 'the gay community' came out with a clear an concise set of tangible benefits of allowing SSM, I recon they'd go a fair way to getting the yes vote over the line.

ill give you a good reason. it is discriminatory not to. simple.

[Ronnie]

For the people who oppose It, i am still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason how two gay people marrying affects them?

Agreed, and equally I haven't seen a good reason why it should be changed to allow them to get married.

For mine, there is the 10% that really wants it ('the gay community'), the 10% who don't want it ('the church'), and then an 80% sitting in the middle who ultimately don't really care.

That 80% then fall into either:
a yes vote - under the premise of: it doesn't hurt me, so why not, or
a no vote - under the premise of: why fix what isn't broken.

Its a really emotive topic, but unfortunately it seems its hard to have a genuine discussion on the matter without being labeled as either a fag or a bigot.

If 'the gay community' came out with a clear an concise set of tangible benefits of allowing SSM, I recon they'd go a fair way to getting the yes vote over the line.

ill give you a good reason. it is discriminatory not to. simple.

Depends whether the discrimination is justified or not. We discriminate against polygamists too, child brides etc etc. Has to be a fairly exclusive club.
Having said that it will get passed and life will go on.

[Jimmy_041]

Jimmy's right, the plebiscite was liberal policy at the last election, so fair enough that as the party in power they sought to implement it. The reason its not going ahead is the senate, and the reason that's a cluster **** is Turnbull made a miscalculation and called the election at the wrong time. With a majority in both houses, and bada-bing, you get your plebiscite (for better or worse).

The good thing is Bovver Boy Bill will have to deal with the same problem when he gets into power
Watch him moan and scream when he doesn't get his way after he's done everything he can to **** the country to achieve personal glory

[tipper]

Jimmy's right, the plebiscite was liberal policy at the last election, so fair enough that as the party in power they sought to implement it. The reason its not going ahead is the senate, and the reason that's a cluster **** is Turnbull made a miscalculation and called the election at the wrong time. With a majority in both houses, and bada-bing, you get your plebiscite (for better or worse).

The good thing is Bovver Boy Bill will have to deal with the same problem when he gets into power
Watch him moan and scream when he doesn't get his way after he's done everything he can to **** the country to achieve personal glory

wait, are you describing Bill or Tony??

[Jimmy_041]

Jimmy's right, the plebiscite was liberal policy at the last election, so fair enough that as the party in power they sought to implement it. The reason its not going ahead is the senate, and the reason that's a cluster **** is Turnbull made a miscalculation and called the election at the wrong time. With a majority in both houses, and bada-bing, you get your plebiscite (for better or worse).

The good thing is Bovver Boy Bill will have to deal with the same problem when he gets into power
Watch him moan and scream when he doesn't get his way after he's done everything he can to **** the country to achieve personal glory

wait, are you describing Bill or Tony??

Scroll back a few years and I said the same thing about Abbott

Daenerys Targaryen gets it No use ruling over ashes

[bennymacca]

While I'm for gay marriage, I'm not opposed to having a referendum on the issue. I am opposed to it being a stand alone one though. Just have it when we have the next election, could even have a couple of other topics like voluntary euthanasia.
While this is an important issue for some people, I think there are other issues that need to be dealt with first like power prices, petrol prices etc

the libs wouldnt want it to be an election issue as they know they are on the losing side of the debate. They want it to be a non-binding postal vote as they think less younger people will vote for it

Depends whether the discrimination is justified or not. We discriminate against polygamists too, child brides etc etc. Has to be a fairly exclusive club.
Having said that it will get passed and life will go on.

did you just equate homosexuality to paedophilia?

[Trader]

did you just equate homosexuality to paedophilia?

When it comes to the church they are often the same incident.

[MW]

did you just equate homosexuality to paedophilia?

When it comes to the church they are often the same incident.

GTFO

[cracka]

did you just equate homosexuality to paedophilia?

When it comes to the church they are often the same incident.

GTFO

Apparently there are some pedos claiming it shouldn't be illegal because like homosexuals they are born that way.

[MW]

did you just equate homosexuality to paedophilia?

When it comes to the church they are often the same incident.

GTFO

Apparently there are some pedos claiming it shouldn't be illegal because like homosexuals they are born that way.

GTFO!

[woodublieve12]

For the people who oppose It, i am still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason how two gay people marrying affects them?

Agreed, and equally I haven't seen a good reason why it should be changed to allow them to get married.

For mine, there is the 10% that really wants it ('the gay community'), the 10% who don't want it ('the church'), and then an 80% sitting in the middle who ultimately don't really care.

That 80% then fall into either:
a yes vote - under the premise of: it doesn't hurt me, so why not, or
a no vote - under the premise of: why fix what isn't broken.

Its a really emotive topic, but unfortunately it seems its hard to have a genuine discussion on the matter without being labeled as either a fag or a bigot.

If 'the gay community' came out with a clear an concise set of tangible benefits of allowing SSM, I recon they'd go a fair way to getting the yes vote over the line.

So the gay community are relying on 90% of the population to make a decision on who they can marry, which I will say again doesn't effect 90% of the population...

Makes zero sense that this is a debate. It's a human right. And if in same way two males or females getting married offends you HTFU

[woodublieve12]

.

[Ronnie]

While I'm for gay marriage, I'm not opposed to having a referendum on the issue. I am opposed to it being a stand alone one though. Just have it when we have the next election, could even have a couple of other topics like voluntary euthanasia.
While this is an important issue for some people, I think there are other issues that need to be dealt with first like power prices, petrol prices etc

the libs wouldnt want it to be an election issue as they know they are on the losing side of the debate. They want it to be a non-binding postal vote as they think less younger people will vote for it

Depends whether the discrimination is justified or not. We discriminate against polygamists too, child brides etc etc. Has to be a fairly exclusive club.
Having said that it will get passed and life will go on.

did you just equate homosexuality to paedophilia?

Yes, to the extent both currently fall outside the realms of common law marriage.

[bennymacca]

While I'm for gay marriage, I'm not opposed to having a referendum on the issue. I am opposed to it being a stand alone one though. Just have it when we have the next election, could even have a couple of other topics like voluntary euthanasia.
While this is an important issue for some people, I think there are other issues that need to be dealt with first like power prices, petrol prices etc

the libs wouldnt want it to be an election issue as they know they are on the losing side of the debate. They want it to be a non-binding postal vote as they think less younger people will vote for it

Depends whether the discrimination is justified or not. We discriminate against polygamists too, child brides etc etc. Has to be a fairly exclusive club.
Having said that it will get passed and life will go on.

did you just equate homosexuality to paedophilia?

Yes, to the extent both currently fall outside the realms of common law marriage.

yes but homosexuality isnt illegal. so its a ridiculous comparison to make

[Ronnie]

While I'm for gay marriage, I'm not opposed to having a referendum on the issue. I am opposed to it being a stand alone one though. Just have it when we have the next election, could even have a couple of other topics like voluntary euthanasia.
While this is an important issue for some people, I think there are other issues that need to be dealt with first like power prices, petrol prices etc

the libs wouldnt want it to be an election issue as they know they are on the losing side of the debate. They want it to be a non-binding postal vote as they think less younger people will vote for it

Depends whether the discrimination is justified or not. We discriminate against polygamists too, child brides etc etc. Has to be a fairly exclusive club.
Having said that it will get passed and life will go on.

did you just equate homosexuality to paedophilia?

Yes, to the extent both currently fall outside the realms of common law marriage.

yes but homosexuality isnt illegal. so its a ridiculous comparison to make

I wasn't referring to their legality or otherwise. The marriage act was not automatically changed when homosexual acts were legalized in the various jurisdictions some years ago.

[tipper]

I wasn't referring to their legality or otherwise. The marriage act was not automatically changed when homosexual acts were legalized in the various jurisdictions some years ago.

no, it was changed when a homophobic johnny howard realised that the wording didnt actually exclude gay marriage back when he was in power.

and that didnt require a plebiscite......

[Jimmy_041]

.

See! That just shows you how you can manipulate a survey
Just ask the right questions
Here is the real situation
SSM became legal on 19th August 2013 and BANG
http://www.news.com.au/new-zealand-migration-to-australia-soars-40-per-cent/news-story/4d1521c33c37899d443f1aae483b4b41

[tipper]

.

See! That just shows you how you can manipulate a survey
Just ask the right questions
Here is the real situation
SSM became legal on 19th August 2013 and BANG
http://www.news.com.au/new-zealand-migration-to-australia-soars-40-per-cent/news-story/4d1521c33c37899d443f1aae483b4b41

so you are trying to suggest that ssm in new zealand was the cause of the global financial crisis?

well that settles it then, we obviously cant vote to allow it

[bulldogproud]

Conservative left?

Genuinely unsure who you are referring to

Those who identify as Labor because of the traditional industrial/workplace meaning of the word and the associated notions of equity and fairness for workers, but who also have religious convictions and thus are socially conservative on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. For example, there's a strong tradition of support for the Labor party among Catholics, who were working class back before and at the time of federation.

Spot on

Soldiers of Jesus immediately come to mind

Most of us Catholics are actually in favour of same-sex marriage, to be honest. Marriage was a term in use well before the Church created the 'SACRAMENT of marriage'. All that needs to happen is for the Church to be allowed to not have to perform same-sex weddings as SACRAMENTS. Then there really is no problem from the Church's point of view. For those who wish to be married through the sacrament of marriage, have the Church perform the wedding. For those who don't want it as a sacrament, have a civil wedding. Although I am a strong ALP voter, I would certainly support Smith's LNP Bill which provided these safeguards for religious communities.
Cheers