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

[Jimmy_041]

Beginning to see why Trump got elected and BREXIT got up?

Agreed Jimmy, those people push their agenda to the simple minded and they drink it in...

Ah yeah; the simple minded "Deplorables"

Supercilious twat

[gossipgirl]

My upbringing says no.

I understand the problem here.

Call it what you want but not marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

For love and birth of children.

I like my many peers will vote no.

This is not about equality.

Equality cannot happen having children with the same sex.

It is impossible.

is your name Tony Abbott or perhaps you are from North Korea ????

[bennymacca]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khLEbeV400M

[woodublieve12]

Beginning to see why Trump got elected and BREXIT got up?

Agreed Jimmy, those people push their agenda to the simple minded and they drink it in...

Ah yeah; the simple minded "Deplorables"

Supercilious twat

[woodublieve12]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khLEbeV400M

That's awesome

[Booney]

Beginning to see why Trump got elected and BREXIT got up?

No? Same reason for the popularity of Trudeau, Macron or Corbyn? Do tell.

Correct, you obviously can't.
This is not right v left
They are in that group as well (although Corbyn didn't win)
People are sick of the oligarchy
Career politicians who get rich whilst screwing the people they are meant to serve

Wonder if those people might soon realize the saying "better the devil you know" might have some merit.

[Magellan]

Former liberal minister Amanda Vanstone has a pretty decent crack at Tony Abbott in this opinion piece from The Age:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/for-the-record-ill-be-voting-yes-20170811-gxugvu.html

In one very real sense the upcoming vote to allow, or not, same sex marriage isn't about that at all.

It's about whether we believe that we have the right to dictate how others live their lives.

It's about whether we believe that we have the right to dictate how others live their lives.

What exactly would change for same-sex couples if they could marry?

It's about whether we will let those gay people who choose to, have their relationship formally recognised. Those relationships are there. They won't come or go with the advent of this vote. There won't be more homosexuality nor less, whatever the outcome of the ballot.

Tony Abbott says if you don't like same sex marriage just vote no. I can't think of a better way to belittle the generous, egalitarian, live and let live attitude of most Australians.

We are not a nation of narcissists seeking to have the world reflect our own image. This is meant to be the nation that gives everyone a fair go. Just to be clear, I'll be voting yes.

Heterosexuals have been rushing out of marriage for decades. If gay people want to rush in I'm delighted. Let's not listen any more to that rubbish about marriage being between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life.

Our own laws support the "for life" rule going down the gurgler. Now it just means until such time as you think you might be happier in another marriage. "To the exclusion of all others" is less and less a likely outcome. The only one left is "between a man and a woman".

Two of the key descriptors of marriage as it was have gone. The world has changed. I think people who are ideologically, religiously or in some other way opposed to gayness should vote yes as well.

It's not about what you want for yourself. It's about letting other people have proper recognition of their relationships.

Tony Abbott's been wrapping his tongue around the word honour quite a bit lately. It's embarrassing. He seems to think it's a word that if used enough will bestow the quality of honour on the user. It doesn't work that way.

If, after you lost the confidence of your colleagues and they chose a new leader, you promised not to snipe and undermine, that might be an indication of an intent to behave as an honourable person. It only becomes a reality if you live up to that promise.

Abbott has trashed that commitment. There's no honour in that. When as leader you ride roughshod over cabinet with captain's picks, when you indulge yourself by making announcements that leave your party with the choice of all-out war with you or letting you get away with it (again), there's no honour in that either. Putting yourself ahead of the team is not honourable.

It's just an opinion but it is my view that Abbott has done more than any other politician to trash the standing of politics and politicians. He's had a really good education and been given every opportunity by his party. We expected more. We got less.

Remember, this is the guy who, as a politician, ran the argument "Don't trust the politicians" in the republic referendum debate. People on all sides were amazed at such a blatant undermining of the institution of parliament. When you undermine parliament, you undermine democracy. What kind of mind enters parliament and then trashes it for the sake of one debate?

It's almost unbelievable to hear him speak as though he has some insight into why people are turned off politics at the moment. If he did have that insight, he wouldn't behave the way he does. If he had a quick look in the mirror he'd see what it is that aggravates people about politics today. He'd see someone who is behaving as though what's important is his importance.

The people don't get a look-in. His first priority is to advance his own position, to make life hard for Malcolm Turnbull. In Abbott's eyes, Turnbull took his job. The truth is the party room took his job because he wasn't doing it well.

He'd see someone who is great on the bif-bif and short on sensible policy. He'd see someone who has real trouble finding common ground with others. He wants the whole ground to himself. Worse, he'd see someone who thinks he's better than all his colleagues. I've met some fairly self-centred people in my life but he truly takes the cake.

Take as an example the story of him having apparently fathered a child in his younger days. This story was common knowledge amongst parliamentarians. In a perfectly honourable fashion, nobody raised it. Why should they? Your private life is your private life. That whole saga played out into the public domain because Abbott liked it there.

I don't know if it was a calculated exercise to clear a skeleton out of the closet in preparation for future leadership tilts, or a genuine case of remorse for not having played a role in the life of a child he thought he'd fathered. What is relevant to me is that it was all so public. Bad luck for the mother and the thought-to-be son, they were dragged into the Abbott media vortex. For what? Well, it's always been about Tony.

But back to gay marriage. I don't know what he fears. If you're comfortable in your own sexuality, you should be comfortable with others in theirs. As Tony's sister says … if you believe in mutual respect, vote yes. If you believe in equality, vote yes and if you believe in free speech, vote yes. He could learn a lot from her. About being true to yourself. About being for the greater good not your own good. And yes, about behaving honourably.

[bennymacca]

very good article. makes a lot of sense.

[stan]

very good article. makes a lot of sense.

Doesnt matter, Abbott is still a no vote.

[Booney]

very good article. makes a lot of sense.

Very good PAFC board member.

[Magellan]

very good article. makes a lot of sense.

You get the feeling that if Abbott never had the privilege of a private school and university education, instead of being the professional headkicker in federal politics that he is today, he would've spent his time as a dickhead sitting in a pub picking fights, telling everyone about his failed boxing career, and that he 'could've been a contender.'

[bennymacca]

very good article. makes a lot of sense.

You get the feeling that if Abbott never had the privilege of a private school and university education, instead of being the professional headkicker in federal politics that he is today, he would've spent his time as a dickhead sitting in a pub picking fights, telling everyone about his failed boxing career, and that he 'could've been a contender.'

I think it makes it all the more insidious that he is clearly a smart man. Means he is actually being calculated rather than just stupid

[MW]

His opinion is solely based on his religious views.

[cracka]

His sister is a lesbian too

[Q.]

His opinion is solely based on his religious views.

I reckon he's full on closet gay and totally in denial

[bennymacca]

His sister is a lesbian too

family christmases would be interesting you would think.

"dear lord. please bless this family and the food we are about to eat. except my sister. she is a carpet muncher who will burn in eternal hellfire"

[MW]

His opinion is solely based on his religious views.

I reckon he's full on closet gay and totally in denial

wouldn't that mean he would vote yes? he has the perfect 'out' when his sister is gay

[RB]

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

Civil right, not a human right.

[Booney]

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

Civil right, not a human right.

How so?

[bennymacca]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do