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

[bennymacca]

Have the no side brought any respectful debate to the table? That argument goes both ways.

[HH3]

Have the no side brought any respectful debate to the table? That argument goes both ways.

The No side have to hide their beliefs with the fear of losing their jobs at the moment.

The ones in the public eye anyway.

[stan]

Have the no side brought any respectful debate to the table? That argument goes both ways.

The No side have to hide their beliefs with the fear of losing their jobs at the moment.

The ones in the public eye anyway.

You mean the ones that appear in commercials?

Whilst I am planning on voting yes I dont agree with the treatment of Dr. Lai in terms of her job being attacked.

Corey Bernardi has gone into bat for her hard and on this matter (Dr. Lai) I do actually agree with him. And when I feel like Corey Bernardi is bringing reason to a situation I start to feel worried.

[HH3]

There's also people who work for larger companies that are publicly supporting the YES vote who fear for their jobs if they don't tow the company line at work. Effectively stifling discussion. Just because they're made to feel like they can't share their own views at work, doesn't mean they're not going to vote however they choose.

There's a guy here at work. I'm his boss. He's old school, rough around the edges, and was staunchly in the NO side. I doubt he's going to actually vote. BUT, whenever the subject comes up, we discuss it. He says some outlandish stuff, but not once have I called him names. Not once has he used a slur while talking about gay people. It was a discussion. He's a lot more accepting than he was when he started here two years ago. That's how you change someones mind who has thought that way for 40+ years. Not tell them they're wrong, they're a homophobe, a bigot, etc. They're just gonna go "f**k you" and not even think about changing their mind.

[Jimmy_041]

There's also people who work for larger companies that are publicly supporting the YES vote who fear for their jobs if they don't tow the company line at work. Effectively stifling discussion. Just because they're made to feel like they can't share their own views at work, doesn't mean they're not going to vote however they choose.

There's a guy here at work. I'm his boss. He's old school, rough around the edges, and was staunchly in the NO side. I doubt he's going to actually vote. BUT, whenever the subject comes up, we discuss it. He says some outlandish stuff, but not once have I called him names. Not once has he used a slur while talking about gay people. It was a discussion. He's a lot more accepting than he was when he started here two years ago. That's how you change someones mind who has thought that way for 40+ years. Not tell them they're wrong, they're a homophobe, a bigot, etc. They're just gonna go "f**k you" and not even think about changing their mind.

Obviously, an ignorant, arrogant, bigoted homophobe. Shouldn't be allowed to breed or vote. Get stuck into him

[Q.]

Someone watching this, but not participating, just rang me to say they are now voting No because they're sick of the bully boy attitude of the Yes voters
Like me, he had the "phone call".

There are a couple here in my business who have also had the aggressive & intrusive phone call

To me, it's now turning from the reasons why or why not to an anger response vote

When someone being aggressive at you is more important than equality for an entire section of people. The veil is thin.

[Jimmy_041]

Someone watching this, but not participating, just rang me to say they are now voting No because they're sick of the bully boy attitude of the Yes voters
Like me, he had the "phone call".

There are a couple here in my business who have also had the aggressive & intrusive phone call

To me, it's now turning from the reasons why or why not to an anger response vote

When someone being aggressive at you is more important than equality for an entire section of people. The veil is thin.

& the bull$hit is thick

[tipper]

lol. i know a few people who are staunchly on the no side, and when i have tried to have a discussion with them, all they can come up with is:

every society in history has fallen because of lowering moral standards (apparently the roman empire fell becuase they started to allow homosexuals, nothing to do with the rampaging barbarians.....really? society will fall because of this? hasnt happened anywhere else that it has been brought in.....)

marriage is a contract between a man and a woman and god (yet they go strangely quiet when i point out that you can get married without any mention of god, but cant get married without the permission of the state government)

marriage is about raising children (which is just not true, otherwise infertile people, or those that dont want kids couldnt marry, and people would be prevented from having kids out of wedlock, and then where would centrals get all their supporters?? i kid i kid)

kids should be raised by a man and a woman (see above, ssm will have no impact on the number of ss couples that are raising, or will raise kids. they can now, they will still be able to in future. its irrelevant to marriage and a completely seperate argument, that they have apparently already lost)

but people are worried that males will be able to go into female toilets (what? what does that have to do with marriage? seriously, id like someone to explain that to me?)

but free speech (well, yes, you have a right to say that stuff, but it doesnt make it right, and by that same free speech, i have a right to point that out, and that you are trying to perpetuate discrimination. that isnt me trying to silence you, by claiming i cant speak out against you that is more akin to you trying to silence my free speech.....)

and the good one, its against god. (well why should my life be ruled by your god, that i dont worship, and dont believe in? by all means, you follow the teachings, but dont expect others to. see, i didnt even call god an imaginary friend.....)

every point they raise can be countered by reason, and logic, but they still hold their views. all of their reasons against it, have nothing to do with marriage, and are just excuses. hell, id have a lot more respect for their position if they just came out and admitted that it makes them uncomfortable, and they believe homosexuality is wrong instead of obfuscating with a whole heap of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with marriage. and everything to do with continuing to discriminate against a section of the population.

i wont even get started on the bullshit flyers that have been appearing in letterboxes with even more irrelevant claims to vote against it. the above has just been from conversations with people, face to face. how can you have a reasoned and logical discussion with people that cant even stay on the topic, and just bring in stuff that has nothing to do with marriage at all, but keep insisting that it is?

[bennymacca]

Great post tipper

[tipper]

Great post tipper

im slightly disappointed you didnt bite at my dig at centrals supporters

about time i had a good post.....

[Dogwatcher]

"I was going to vote 'yes' but now I'm going to vote 'no' because bullying" is a way for people who were going to vote 'no' anyway to justify their decision. Hiding in plain sight. They haven't changed their mind - the political class has now found a way to discuss reasons to vote no that seems publicly justifiable and 'no' voters are happy to run with it.

There is 'bullying' (the most over used phrase I can think of in social discourse right now) on both sides, so how can that make you 'change' your mind?

[HH3]

I don't agree with their point of view. My stance is, if we want to change their minds, shouting them down or labeling them as homophobes straight off the bat is the wrong way to go.

Conversations are the right way to go. And if people think you're gonna change what somebody has thought for their whole life in one or two conversations, you're gonna be disappointed.

Certain people though, I feel, like to feel superior to others, and use issues like this one to talk down to people, insult them, and be absolute c**ts. And they have the "Its ok because I'm fighting the good fight" excuse, which everyone accepts and the person is applauded. I think they're happy that there's so much opposition. They'll always have someone they can lord over.

[MW]

My mum is voting no as a Christian. If they called is something other than 'marriage' she would have voted yes but the bible defines 'marriage' as between a woman and man.
I wonder how many other 'yes' votes they could get from the Christians if they call it something different than marriage but with the same rights as marriage?

[tipper]

My mum is voting no as a Christian. If they called is something other than 'marriage' she would have voted yes but the bible defines 'marriage' as between a woman and man.
I wonder how many other 'yes' votes they could get from the Christians if they call it something different than marriage but with the same rights as marriage?

why should a definition, from a book i dont read, from a religeon i dont follow, determine anything at all that i do?

at least with this i can actually understand their reasoning (even though i strongly disagree), and good on her for sticking to her beliefs. what i cant understand, is why anyone wants to force their beliefs on others. if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, great. dont marry someone of the same sex. why should that stop me marrying a bloke if i choose to do so? it has no affect on her whatsoever, yet she is actively trying to prevent me from doing so, by voting against it.

[MW]

My mum is voting no as a Christian. If they called is something other than 'marriage' she would have voted yes but the bible defines 'marriage' as between a woman and man.
I wonder how many other 'yes' votes they could get from the Christians if they call it something different than marriage but with the same rights as marriage?

why should a definition, from a book i dont read, from a religeon i dont follow, determine anything at all that i do?

at least with this i can actually understand their reasoning (even though i strongly disagree), and good on her for sticking to her beliefs. what i cant understand, is why anyone wants to force their beliefs on others. if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, great. dont marry someone of the same sex. why should that stop me marrying a bloke if i choose to do so? it has no affect on her whatsoever, yet she is actively trying to prevent me from doing so, by voting against it.

It shouldn't if you are not Christian.

If the 'no' vote is based on Christianity, it's due to their beliefs. Why would they vote 'yes' when it's something they don't believe in?

For the record, I am a Christian but will be voting yes.

[Dogwatcher]

I'm an atheist. I don't see any Christians lining up to tell me my marriage isn't authentic.

[HH3]

I'm an atheist. I don't see any Christians lining up to tell me my marriage isn't authentic.

Did you marry a woman?

[tipper]

My mum is voting no as a Christian. If they called is something other than 'marriage' she would have voted yes but the bible defines 'marriage' as between a woman and man.
I wonder how many other 'yes' votes they could get from the Christians if they call it something different than marriage but with the same rights as marriage?

why should a definition, from a book i dont read, from a religeon i dont follow, determine anything at all that i do?

at least with this i can actually understand their reasoning (even though i strongly disagree), and good on her for sticking to her beliefs. what i cant understand, is why anyone wants to force their beliefs on others. if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, great. dont marry someone of the same sex. why should that stop me marrying a bloke if i choose to do so? it has no affect on her whatsoever, yet she is actively trying to prevent me from doing so, by voting against it.

It shouldn't if you are not Christian.

If the 'no' vote is based on Christianity, it's due to their beliefs. Why would they vote 'yes' when it's something they don't believe in?

For the record, I am a Christian but will be voting yes.

then just dont vote, and stop trying to actively force their beliefs onto others. thats my whole point, the "im a christian and will vote no because of that" is all about forcing their beliefs onto me.

and i am aware that not all christians are of that belief, just enough of them to force the liberals hand into this colossal waste of taxpayer money we are now stuck with

[Booney]

My mum is voting no as a Christian. If they called is something other than 'marriage' she would have voted yes but the bible defines 'marriage' as between a woman and man.
I wonder how many other 'yes' votes they could get from the Christians if they call it something different than marriage but with the same rights as marriage?

why should a definition, from a book i dont read, from a religeon i dont follow, determine anything at all that i do?

at least with this i can actually understand their reasoning (even though i strongly disagree), and good on her for sticking to her beliefs. what i cant understand, is why anyone wants to force their beliefs on others. if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, great. dont marry someone of the same sex. why should that stop me marrying a bloke if i choose to do so? it has no affect on her whatsoever, yet she is actively trying to prevent me from doing so, by voting against it.

It shouldn't if you are not Christian.

If the 'no' vote is based on Christianity, it's due to their beliefs. Why would they vote 'yes' when it's something they don't believe in?

For the record, I am a Christian but will be voting yes.

Then it's an old book telling them what to believe, not them deciding for themselves.

[Booney]

I'm an atheist. I don't see any Christians lining up to tell me my marriage isn't authentic.

Did you marry a woman?

He had to, it's illegal to do otherwise.