Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[coivtny]

A secret ballot because that's the only chance of politicians voting to represent the views of their constituents as opposed to the views imposed on them by their party. For example, I can't imagine Pauline Hanson allowing One Nation members to support gay marriage in an open ballot. Equally, I can't imagine Labor members being allowed to vote their consciences if they oppose it. Personally, I favour a plebiscite because I regard this as one of the biggest, if not the biggest, social issues in 50 years. I think the cost is justified given the importance of the issue.

But how is it the biggest social issue in 50 years? How does this effect you at all? If lesbians got married to tomorrow how would anything change for you? I just don't understand why anyone cares enough to oppose it apart from just not liking gay people.

In my opinion it **is** the biggest social issue in 50 years. You may have a different view and are entitled to that view. But, with respect, please don't characterise me as "just not liking gay people". You don't know me. I have gay friends, male and female, who know my views and don't have a problem with them. Some of them are for gay marriage and others don't care one way or the other. I have a view that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Others have different views. That's what makes the world go around.

I was making a general observation, I didn't characterise you as anything.
Why do you care though? How does it affect you? I again ask you, if gay people got married tomorrow how does it undermine the concept of marriage. Why should it only be between a man and a woman?
You can think what you want but why should you get to tell other people they can't get married?

I really don't think this is going anywhere useful for you and it certainly isn't for me.

 

[Nelson]

But how is it the biggest social issue in 50 years? How does this effect you at all? If lesbians got married to tomorrow how would anything change for you? I just don't understand why anyone cares enough to oppose it apart from just not liking gay people.

In my opinion it **is** the biggest social issue in 50 years. You may have a different view and are entitled to that view. But, with respect, please don't characterise me as "just not liking gay people". You don't know me. I have gay friends, male and female, who know my views and don't have a problem with them. Some of them are for gay marriage and others don't care one way or the other. I have a view that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Others have different views. That's what makes the world go around.

I was making a general observation, I didn't characterise you as anything.
Why do you care though? How does it affect you? I again ask you, if gay people got married tomorrow how does it undermine the concept of marriage. Why should it only be between a man and a woman?
You can think what you want but why should you get to tell other people they can't get married?

I really don't think this is going anywhere useful for you and it certainly isn't for me.

Alas, we won't be seeing a civil union between you two…

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Probably a highly unpopular view but I'm not in favour. However, I think the majority of Australians should decide via a plebiscite. **If the polls are correct and around 70% of Australians are in favour** then the plebiscite will be carried and I'll support it on the basis that it's the will of the majority.

The reason the LGBT lobby is pushing so hard is because they don't believe these figures - that's why they don't want a plebiscite.
Just like Brexit and Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon people won't openly come out with opinion in public that constantly gets shouted down and ridiculed.
Different matter in the privacy of an election booth.

One stated reason the LGBT lobby is against the plebiscite is because the anti-gay faction are requesting that elements of the anti-discrimination act be relaxed for the debate so that they can put the boot into the gays - to tell them what they really think about them, like quoting the Bible for example how Margaret Court likes to do, only add the more juicer parts like not letting them live and being an abomination. Religions already don't have to follow the anti-discrimination act on whom they employ (or used to be).

 

[Mccarry]

I think its great that gay people want to commit to each other. Good on them.

Do I think a marriage is between a man and a women, to the exclusion of all others, to death do us part… yes I do.

Do I think marriage should be like a trophy to put on the wall to make same sex or hetro relationships feel validated. No.

Marriage is a social institution that should define and create the ideal environment for children. Once again, the starting point for children should be mum and dad, no other man or women coming in and going, and committed for life. That is what is best for the child. Yes many parents fail this standard, but they start from this point. Lets not reduce the standard even if that means some people (<1%) will have their feelings hurt.

Civil union yes. Marriage it is not.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

It would not be healthy for a man-hating lesbian couple to pick on a young son because he has dangly bits between his legs.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I think its great that gay people want to commit to each other. Good on them.

Do I think a marriage is between a man and a women, to the exclusion of all others, to death do us part… yes I do.

Do I think marriage should be like a trophy to put on the wall to make same sex or hetro relationships feel validated. No.

Marriage is a social institution that should define and create the ideal environment for children. Once again, the starting point for children should be mum and dad, no other man or women coming in and going, and committed for life. That is what is best for the child. Yes many parents fail this standard, but they start from this point. Lets not reduce the standard even if that means some people (<1%) will have their feelings hurt.

Civil union yes. Marriage it is not.

Agree with the penultimate paragraph. Many parents are far from perfect, including myself, but the starting point is the key. The thread issue is a modern society providing equal rights to those that nature/evolution has not got quite perfect, the child issue is simply nature at work.

 

[Abraham]

I do find it amazing that some who think of themselves as libertarian and against government intervention are happy for the government to restrict access to marriage by legislation.

I don't think its an issue the Government has any business in. They shouldn't be involved in marriage, full stop.

As i said in the other thread, people who want to marry according to cultural and religious customs can do so, and everyone else can formalise a civil union. No discrimination, and everyone is treated equally under law. And most importantly, the Government has no involvement.

My issue with the Government potentially legalising same sex marriage is what comes next. Jailing bakers and florists like they are doing in the USA, who have a moral objection to participating in these ceremonies, is a basic violation of personal freedoms.

 

[PD77]

In my opinion it **is** the biggest social issue in 50 years. You may have a different view and are entitled to that view. But, with respect, please don't characterise me as "just not liking gay people". You don't know me. I have gay friends, male and female, who know my views and don't have a problem with them. Some of them are for gay marriage and others don't care one way or the other. I have a view that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Others have different views. That's what makes the world go around.

I was making a general observation, I didn't characterise you as anything.
Why do you care though? How does it affect you? I again ask you, if gay people got married tomorrow how does it undermine the concept of marriage. Why should it only be between a man and a woman?
You can think what you want but why should you get to tell other people they can't get married?

I really don't think this is going anywhere useful for you and it certainly isn't for me.

Alas, we won't be seeing a civil union between you two…

:roll

Best comment so far in this thread.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

100% in support of it being legislated. Religious organisations should have no obligation to partake though.

Try this argument :slight_smile:

One of the cornerstones of our society is that all are equal before the law.

Gay people who live in the same situations as a hetro couple to attain common law or de-facto marriage do not get the same status in law as the hetro couple.

Once you remove the religious elements of the marriage rites, you are left with a civil contract. And it is that element of the civil contract that creates the in-equality before the law.

So for me at least that is the single major reason I support gay marriage. Having said that I wont entertain any requirement of any faith to marry such couples within the rites of their church

I wasn't married in a church, my wife and I still consider ourselves married despite the deliberate lack of religious rites in our ceremony.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I hate political discussions and I don't want to get involved. I also question why we're having political discussions on the WTF.

Umm then don't..

It is in the General Discussion sub forum where topics of a general nature are discussed by those who choose to do so….

Should we remove the whole General Discussion Sub Forum altogether...?

There are a lot of knowledgeable members who personally I enjoy reading their opinions on different subjects apart from football that may be different from my own..learning never ends...there are also loons and you get a good laugh...win/win..

For the sake of accuracy you should change the subtitle from "General social discussion" to "Generally antisocial discussion"…

Or "Crap Tacky don't like"

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I think its great that gay people want to commit to each other. Good on them.

Do I think a marriage is between a man and a women, to the exclusion of all others, to death do us part… yes I do.

Do I think marriage should be like a trophy to put on the wall to make same sex or hetro relationships feel validated. No.

**Marriage is a social institution that should define and create the ideal environment for children**. Once again, the starting point for children should be mum and dad, no other man or women coming in and going, and committed for life. That is what is best for the child. Yes many parents fail this standard, but they start from this point. Lets not reduce the standard even if that means some people (<1%) will have their feelings hurt.

Civil union yes. Marriage it is not.

That's your definition.

Once again, how do you define de facto, divorced family and single parent situations in regard to ideal environments for children? What's the divorce rate up to in this country? I'd say close to half of, if not more, parents fail your standard.

Marriage and ideal environments for the raising of children are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Abraham]

One of the cornerstones of our society is that all are equal before the law.

Does this mean that men should be allowed to use the female toilets, and cry discrimination if they can't?

Why should a female be able to use the girls loo, but a man cannot. Aren't they equal before the law, after all?

Restricting sex-sensitive entities to the sexes they were designed for is not discrimination. Particularly when gay couples already enjoy the same rights and benefits as straight couples under existing laws.

 

[TCL]

Let them get married. As mentioned before it's a civil union. Makes no difference to me and my life. If Ms Nesbit wants to marry her cat then let her do that as well.

Our government should collect the fee and move on.

Society is ever changing, travel to various communities and see how people live, gay people getting married is the least of our social problems.

 

[Yossarian]

But how is it the biggest social issue in 50 years? How does this effect you at all? If lesbians got married to tomorrow how would anything change for you? I just don't understand why anyone cares enough to oppose it apart from just not liking gay people.

In my opinion it **is** the biggest social issue in 50 years. You may have a different view and are entitled to that view. But, with respect, please don't characterise me as "just not liking gay people". You don't know me. I have gay friends, male and female, who know my views and don't have a problem with them. Some of them are for gay marriage and others don't care one way or the other. I have a view that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Others have different views. That's what makes the world go around.

I was making a general observation, I didn't characterise you as anything.
Why do you care though? How does it affect you? I again ask you, if gay people got married tomorrow how does it undermine the concept of marriage. Why should it only be between a man and a woman?
You can think what you want but why should you get to tell other people they can't get married?

I really don't think this is going anywhere useful for you and it certainly isn't for me.

Right so you're not able to explain how it affects you or why you feel you should be able to tell others what to do?

 

[Yossarian]

One of the cornerstones of our society is that all are equal before the law.

Does this mean that men should be allowed to use the female toilets, and cry discrimination if they can't?

Why should a female be able to use the girls loo, but a man cannot. Aren't they equal before the law, after all?

Restricting sex-sensitive entities to the sexes they were designed for is not discrimination. Particularly when gay couples already enjoy the same rights and benefits as straight couples under existing laws.

Here come dem straw men!

 

[Abraham]

Here come dem straw men!

No, here come dem analogies !

Sorry in advance if you don't realise the difference.

 

[Yossarian]

Here come dem straw men!

No, here come dem analogies !

Sorry in advance if you don't realise the difference.

Oh don't be patronising - you're not sharp enough to pull it off.

 

[Abraham]

Oh don't be patronising - you're not sharp enough to pull it off.

Yet I've had your measure each and every time.

 

[Yossarian]

Oh don't be patronising - you're not sharp enough to pull it off.

Yet I've had your measure each and every time.

Yes I'm sure you actually believe that. Delusions are a great source of comfort for you I'm sure.

 

[Abraham]

Yes I'm sure you actually believe that. Delusions are a great source of comfort for you I'm sure.

Dont be cute, we both know it.