@ said:
Yes but you're posting on a forum… Do what you want but if you don't want discussion don't post.
Same sex marriage debate...
- Thread starter TrueTiger
- Start date
Yes but you're posting on a forum… Do what you want but if you don't want discussion don't post.
@ said:
On this I agree. We didn't need a pleb/survey to change it in the first place, not sure why this was required to discuss the possibility of changing it back.
Can we have a plebiscite on penalty rates? Military involvement in North Korea if it goes down that road? Pollies pay increases? Seems like direct democracy is only good when the Libs are trying to figure out whether they are going to alienate the electorate or not with an issue that is dividing their own party.
@ said:
Absolute waste.
Yes I would like to see a Plebiscite on all those things. Hey we have an election, just tag on another form and you have a good indicator on what the public thinks.
But this silly survey should never be. The Australian Electoral commission should run it or it should not be run.
on SSM:
Since the definition was changed by Parliament it can be changed back by parliament. If you believe that we should now vote on it. OK put forward a right in the Constitution as Religious protection/freedom is a right and we vote on it then. Once the people decide, politicians should not undecide… Particularly with something like this. I personally believe that a Bill of Rights is exactly what Australia needs.
These idiots cannot be trusted with our Privacy or our freedoms. Hence lets get a bill of Rights to minimise the damage.
earl
Well-known member
There shouldn't have been a plebiscite. It's a human right to be married and discrimination against gay people isn't cool.
The government should show some balls and just pass it.
The government should show some balls and just pass it.
GNR4LIFE
Well-known member
It's being reported that 77% of votes have been sent back, with the majority having voted yes.
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
@ said:
to quote Basil Faulty the government would have to stitch them back on first
innsaneink
Well-known member
@ said:
Famous last words…LOL
goldcoast_tiger
New member
@ said:
That way would mean that the Govt. Would have to face their own supporters, and probably be whacked even harder by the extreme right, than it looks like they are going to be anyway.
This way they can hide behind the survey result, and blame everybody else
They don't care about wasting a few millionson on a survey, Turnbulls mob couldn't worry about how much it cost, and if it does worry any of them, Bronnie will probably hire a jet or a helicopter and fly them to some luxurious place to recuperate
We have to look after these precious little luvvies.
A month or two away should be enough. By then the grass will need mowing at the wives houses. ( you know the ones that they rent to their husbands while they're in the grind of working there, )
Still, it's all blue skies for hem. After all they can look forward to saving their $2 per week on their power bills.
Sorry that's right, they have to wait another two years before getting that. ….....isn't that after the next Election and I wonder , if they Win, will that massive sum of S2 be stopped so that their pay can go up a thousand a week or so instead.
Naaaarrrgh.... that wouldn't happen!!
Just getting cynical..
Harvey
Well-known member
I responded to the question explaining that I hardly know the person that sent it, but if they were to send a photo it might help me decide
#voteYes
Can't wait to this matter is resolved as we have bigger things for the Govt to focus on.
I voted "Yes" as IMO it is a question about human rights and I don't believe we have the right to deprive two people of the right to get married.
Most Australians lives will not change with the decision.
The world needs more love anyway and as a proud parent you want your children no matter what sexuality they are to have equal rights.
I voted "Yes" as IMO it is a question about human rights and I don't believe we have the right to deprive two people of the right to get married.
Most Australians lives will not change with the decision.
The world needs more love anyway and as a proud parent you want your children no matter what sexuality they are to have equal rights.
Where has the support been for the transgender AFL player who was declined entry into the female AFL next season? As others have stated, you will open a can of worms if you vote yes on the topic of equality. Is this decision by the AFL descimination or not? Remember the AFL were vocal yes supporters. Go Weststigers!
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
@ said:
Yet there are no worms wriggling around as a decision was made on health and safety grounds. If gay marriage was going to create a health and safety risk, I am pretty sure most yes voters would vote against it as well.
Thing is the didn't need to because they are separate issues, which is something the no campaign try to confuse. I received an example of that in my letterbox on Friday evening showing a list of supposed reasons to vote no that have nothing to do with the question.
GNR4LIFE
Well-known member
@ said:
A lot of arguments from the No side having nothing to do with the question. What children will be taught at school for example.
tiger05premier
Well-known member
Haven't taken much notice of this topic but his my point of view anyway.
I voted yes .
The reason?
I'm not religious.
I'm not racist.
What other people do is none of my business.
If people love each other it's not my right to decide what's available to them as a couple.
It's not going to destroy my life if a gay couple get married.
They are humans .
They were born like that.
They don't choose to be like that.
Is there anything not normal, natural about it?
I don't know, I don't care.
I voted yes .
The reason?
I'm not religious.
I'm not racist.
What other people do is none of my business.
If people love each other it's not my right to decide what's available to them as a couple.
It's not going to destroy my life if a gay couple get married.
They are humans .
They were born like that.
They don't choose to be like that.
Is there anything not normal, natural about it?
I don't know, I don't care.
earl
Well-known member
@ said:
I just don't get it. You'd think that you have to come up with rational arguments when you have an opinion. The arguments in this case are off in bizzaro land yet again. The argument is about same sex marriage not a guy who has had an operation that wants to compete against girls.
Pawsandclaws
New member
@ said:
Clearly there are a number of factors involved in determination of sexual orientation. The example of identical male twins with differing orientations is proof that genetics may play a part but there are other factors involved. This LA Times article is interesting to read
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen … story.html
I started this thread as you all know and there has been some great conversations and debates around this topic,I have now come to the one and only conclusion regarding the yes or no vote and that is,it is purely up to each individual how and why they vote for which ever side…having said that my personal thoughts are that we are only on this earth for a short period of time and we should spend most of that time raising a family,working,helping people in need and doing the right thing by your family and friends as well as respecting other people and their lives as long as they don't interfere with yours..
Being a person raised in a hetro sexual family with strong catholic teachings,I do not disrespect others teachings and lifestyles..we all have to live our lives to the fullest in the best way we can,if two guys want to marry each other or two girls want to do the same,it is not up to me to be critical of their decisions..
which ever way this vote goes I hope it doesn't make any of our lives difficult to the point that we start wishing the worst for people..
Being a person raised in a hetro sexual family with strong catholic teachings,I do not disrespect others teachings and lifestyles..we all have to live our lives to the fullest in the best way we can,if two guys want to marry each other or two girls want to do the same,it is not up to me to be critical of their decisions..
which ever way this vote goes I hope it doesn't make any of our lives difficult to the point that we start wishing the worst for people..
Yes, the decision was based on wh&s grounds. However, if a WAFL club sign an extraordinarily large female, will she be subject to the same rules in that she could hurt others? Should Soloma from the Storm not be allowed to play for wh&s reasons? Or this OK because it is men? Or is this just discrimination when it suits? What about the repercussions for the wellbeing of the transgender? Where does this leave her? The whole basis of the same sex marriage question was based on discrimination. Correct me if I'm wrong! Go Weststigers!
