Labor kills same-sex marriage plebiscite

The Federal Government’s controversial same-sex marriage plebiscite is dead.

Confirming what has been expected for weeks, Labor has announced it would indeed vote against the legislation that would enable a plebiscite on marriage equality. 

MPs and senators gathered for a meeting in Parliament House yesterday morning and unanimously agreed they would vote to block the bill. The Federal Government’s highly-criticised plan to bring the vote to the Australian people (set to take place in February next year and cost $160 million) is now null and void.

Speaking at a press conference after the meeting, Opposition leader Bill Shorten, together with shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus and marriage equality spokeswoman and member for Griffith Terri Butler, stood together to outline the reasons they would block the plebiscite bill on marriage equality.

Mr Shorten, who has spoken to many  LGBTI people said, “Having met these families, having listened to their stories, I could not in good conscience recommend to the Labor Party that we support the plebiscite about marriage equality.

“The Labor Party, therefore, will in Parliament oppose Malcolm Turnbull's expensive, divisive plebiscite,” he said.

A ReachTel poll conducted last Thursday on behalf of Australian Marriage Equality, found that 46.2 per cent of the 3000 people polled think it’s ‘very important’ that the issue is resolved swiftly on the floor of Parliament, while 19.5 per cent believe it is ‘somewhat important’ and 34.3 per cent think it is ‘not at all important’.

Along with Labor, the Greens and several Senate cross-benchers also promised to vote against the bill. Their actions will make it impossible for the legislation to pass Parliament.

Mr Shorten still believes holding a free-vote in Parliament this year is the best way to decide on marriage equality.  

Read more at abc.net.au

Read more at smh.com.au

Opinion: Redundant, costly vote rejected

Ever since Malcolm Turnbull’s government announced the same-sex marriage plebiscite, numerous political figures, advocacy groups and even celebrities have spoken out against it. In September, comedian and author Magda Szubanski incited a rousing furore when she damned the action on Q&A.

Throughout it all, surveys and polls reflected that the majority of public opinion was firmly set against the plebiscite. An opinion poll published in September showed that 62 per cent of respondents supported same-sex marriage but only 39 per cent thought a plebiscite was a good idea.

Labor was openly against the bill from the moment it was announced, but came to a decision after consulting with LBGTI advocacy groups and mental health experts. At one point, Mr Shorten even suggested the possibility that a public vote on same-sex marriage could lead susceptible people to suicide.

He wouldn’t be too far off, either. In Ireland, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2015, a survey that looked into the emotional and psychological effects of the May 2015 referendum found surprising results. The online anonymous survey, conducted by the University of Queensland and University of Victoria, surveyed more than 1600 people involved the referendum and found that only 23 per cent of people who took part in Ireland's ‘Yes’ campaign said they would go through it all again. Nearly three-quarters of people surveyed believed the ‘No’ campaign, driving against allowing marriage equality, had a “highly detrimental impact on young LGBTI people and the children of LGBTI parents”.

When an issue such as same-sex marriage is pushed into the limelight, the politics of it can often overshadow the human aspect that should actually be at its centre. For too long the same-sex marriage issue has been usurped for political gain and by those not directly affected. Labor’s decision to block the plebiscite has stopped a redundant, costly public vote from occurring.

Australians are calling for swift action on this change to legislation and they’re being heard. Marriage equality will happen. This has simply put us one step closer.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    kev888
    12th Oct 2016
    9:42am
    Really who cares . Now spend the 200 million on the aged and homeless that have paid there taxes
    LENYJAC
    12th Oct 2016
    4:14pm
    HERE HERE.
    Sundays
    12th Oct 2016
    6:57pm
    I have been married for 45'years and don't know anyone who is part of the Gay lobby. Therefore, I have no vested interest in this issue. However, I support Gay marriage on the basis of equality for all and it doesn't impact on me in any way. Wasting $200M that could be better spent on services does concern me greatly.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    7:28pm
    HEAR HEAR.....Sundays
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    11:04pm
    May I add my Hear! Hear! too?
    Adrianus
    13th Oct 2016
    10:47am
    Sundays were you concerned with government waste previously?
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:50am
    Sounds like both sides of politics playing tag team to not legislate what most people do not want.
    This issue will not go away because the homosexual community are only going to accept one outcome. The best way forward might be to attach this as a binding referendum/plebiscite onto the NEXT federal election and let the nation decide. Whilst the homosexual community wants to avoid this at all cost it is the right thing to do as lobbying politicians protecting their jobs is not honest and is to be avoided.
    I'd like to see this issue go away as would most Australians methinks. There are far more important issues to occupy the nation.
    Hasbeen
    12th Oct 2016
    10:50am
    "I could not in good conscience recommend" says Shorten.

    Does he really expect us to believe the Labor party has a conscience.

    Watch out for that flying pig.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    11:05am
    Hasbeen, More likely a flock of pink flying pigs. shorten is once again playing politics with people's lives like he did with his BS Mediscare campaign during the election. Why ANYONE would trust him is beyond me, he cannot even admit that he and the labor party LOST the election!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:22am
    The hate is on display there boys.

    The Libs could make same sex marriage legal today by simply allowing its members a free vote.
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    11:43am
    Barak,why if people disagree with changing the marriage act does that automatically imply "hate" as suggested by you? The Libs could make same sex marriage legal, but in case you hadn't noticed, there is a whole heap of people out there who are quite happy with it the way it is and it's got NOTHING to do with "HATE"!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    12:35pm
    Pure politics, nothing more. At the last election the Coalition stood with a promise to have a plebiscite. They were elected and have put forward the legislation as they promised. Labor has blocked it for pure political gain. Shorten won't have it that the Coalition would have gone down in history as the party that legalised same sex marriage.

    There is perhaps another side to Labor's politics. Shorten stated some time ago that voters shouldn't be entrusted with the same sex decision as they might give a wrong answer. Well, Billy Boy, there is no "wrong answer" if there is a plebiscite and voters agree to either accept or reject same sex marriage. That's democracy.
    wally
    12th Oct 2016
    5:41pm
    Once again we see a minority group trying to ram its agenda down the throats of the majority using the now traditional tactic of " Who screams loudest wins!" This time those favouring gay marriage have done their best to shut down debate on the issue by accusing those who question this agenda as being 'homophobic" silencing those not in 100% in agreement with them.

    Do they fear that the average Australian voter is not in sympathy with their views? Is this why they are so shrill in opposing a national plebiscite on the matter? You could be excused for thinking that these people want to put their own selfish views ahead of the democratic principle of allowing the people to have their say on the matter.

    I would not be surprised that all of the uproar that has been stirred up by the proponents has created a sort of self fulfilling prophecy by antagonising undecided people. The constant over use of such bullying tactics by the gay marriage proponents can be seen as tiresome over kill and is off putting to more undecided people as time passes.

    I am not a big fan of Malcolm Turnbull, but I feel he is within his rights to insist that a plebiscite, as part of the LNP electoral platform in the past election, should not be dumped. Penny Wong, Bill Shorten and their ALP/Green axis, in demanding that Parliament decide the matter, makes me wonder what part of democracy don't they understand?
    maxchugg
    12th Oct 2016
    7:24pm
    If they really believed their own propaganda - that the majority of the population is supportive of marriage equality they would be all in favour of a plebiscite because the outcome would be assured.
    But, as we have seen, the doors of the parliamentarians are always open to activists like Rodney Croome while those of an opposite point of view are on their own.
    If the issue could be decided by a parliamentary vote, ongoing pressure would ensure that the activists get what they want. But it is not possible to pressure the majority of the population, so the outcome is much less certain.
    And once a precedent has been set, and the definition of marriage is changed from being a union of a man and a woman to a union of two people, it would then be a relatively simple matter to further change the definition to legalize polygamy.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    7:27pm
    That post simply proves that you haven't been paying attention, or are too stupid to understand.

    The current definition was created only 20 years ago by John Howard. He simply changed the definition. Logically you must agree that he was wrong to do that.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    8:34pm
    It's much worse than that wally. You CANNOT object to homosexual marriage in the media because it will not run your reasoned debate. On the other side of the ledger minorities get to print their hate speeches. That seems to be the level of democracy the mainstream Press is plugging these days. So what has happened to the majority?
    ex PS
    12th Oct 2016
    9:35pm
    GreyViper, little Johnny changed the definition of marriage without consultation, why are this current mob too gutless to do what they were put there to do and make decisions on behalf of the people?
    I don't agree with government sanctioned Concentration Camps, and most of the people I talk to don't either when do I get to vote on that?
    Why is it anyone's business especially the governments what happens behind closed doors? Why does anyone in this country need my permission to do something that only impacts on themselves and their partner?
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    1:45pm
    Barak, when you respond to reasoned argument with the "stupid" label, you have admitted defeat.

    There's an old saying, "Insolence is not logic."
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    1:51pm
    Is it insolence when I am simply pointing out your wilful ignorance?
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    2:44pm
    Yet again, Barak, another hypocritical response from you.

    Where did you point out my willful ignorance because I don't see it? All you have offered has been statements of opinion unsupported by any evidence.

    On the other hand you have totally ignored every statement of fact, supported by evidence that I have presented. So to wrongly accuse me of willful ignorance is insolence in my book
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    2:48pm
    You have presented NO evidence.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    5:34pm
    OK then:
    The doors of the parliamentarians are always open to activists like Rodney Croome while those of an opposite point of view are on their own.
    The media supports the argument for same sex marriage and promotes it vigorously For example, my local newspaper published a letter to the editor which was pro same sex marriage and occupied half a page, arguments for the opposite point of view are never seen.
    Although this group is vocal in their pushing of their agenda and obtaining their rights, they are totally intolerant of the rights and views of those who have different viewpoints. A recent example was demonstrated by their action against the Catholic church for distributing a pamphlet detailing the views of the church in relation to marriage to children in Catholic schools.
    Conscientious objectors may obtain exemptions from combative military service, but church leaders who refuse to perform "gay"weddings on principle will have no protection from the wrath of the Human Rights Commissioner.
    Recently, on TV, the Moderator the Presbyterian Church, of which I am not a member, made it perfectly clear that if "gay marriage" was legalized, ministers of religion who conscientiously objected to perform such marriages would have no option other than to withdraw their credentials as authorized marriage celebrants.
    The outcome would be that in future church people would need two wedding ceremonies, one at a civil ceremony followed by a second in the church of their choosing. Your pathetic response was:
    "The Moderator the Presbyterian Church is not a reliable, independent source of facts in this discussion."
    We already know that in the US and Canada over the past two years punitive action has been taken against cake makers, photographers and even farmers who have withheld their services from same sex marriages, and ministers threatened with jail for non compliance.
    Finally, a few of the many websites that detail what has happened in the US/Canada:

    https://carm.org/homosexual-persecution-of-christians

    http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/

    http://toprightnews.com/gay-group-demands-christian-churches-be-shut-down-for-opposing-same-sex-marriage/

    http://beginningandend.com/air-force-veteran-punished-for-not-supporting-gay-marriage/

    As I am sure you know, there is a large number of sites which all tell the same story - ministers in the US who have refused to perform same sex marriages have been threatened with jail.

    Wouldn't happen here, though you will argue.

    Remember when we used to laugh at the US for being a litigant society? Now we are equally bad.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    5:41pm
    Those sites clearly belong to anti-same sex marriage organisations. Find independent sources please.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    7:31pm
    All of the statements on the sites listed are supported by references to independent sources, particularly newspapers. They are also supported by other checking on the internet, so your objection is not valid.

    I note that you didn't comment on the unequal access to the politicians which the LGBTI community enjoy exclusively.

    Nor did you comment on the bias of the media, as shown by the references I made to my local newspaper, with many others from diverse locations making the same complaint.

    Yet again, you repeatedly demand independent verification of every statement that I make, yet feel free to say what you want, with no supporting evidence.

    I call this arrogant hypocricy, and I am not alone in my views as I have pointed out elsewhere on this site.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    7:37pm
    I haven't made claims like yours. In fact, I have made very few claims. I'm simply challenging yours.

    Where are those newspapers?
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    9:38pm
    maxchugg: 'unequal access to politicians'? I agree - the GLBT community has had one (count them - 1) meeting with Mr Turnbull on marriage equality - ever. Mr Turnbull has had numerous meetings with church and anti-marriage equality leaders - since the federal election.

    So yes, there is unequal access - just not the way you are implying.

    As to your references, every single one is an extreme site (either extreme religious, or extreme right wing. Not one is 'independent', nor any of the articles reference any objective articles or publications. Crikey - most of the right wing ones have articles on the front page still flogging the myth that Obama is muslim and not American.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    9:42pm
    Honestly I'm completely over arguing with a bigot who doesn't want to be confused by facts when his mind is made up.

    As for the newspapers, find them for yourself. It doesn't matter much which one you pick because most are the same, all toeing the pro "marriage equality" line. And if you should happen to find one which is evenly balanced, does not say what you want to hear, you will condemn it as biased.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    9:45pm
    Hey maxchugg - if the mainstream newspapers have "positions" different from yours, does it then become reasonable to describe your position as not mainstream?
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    11:05pm
    maxchugg: I certainly hope you weren't referring to me as a bigot.
    maxchugg
    16th Oct 2016
    12:41pm
    Richied, certainly not. I respect your opinion even if I am not in agreement.
    Emps
    12th Oct 2016
    10:20am
    This is a case of a minority group making demands on the mainstream populace. The opposition leader himself once advocated a plebiscite on same sex marriage, on what grounds made him change his mind? the answer is, pure politics.
    The opposition also will not accept the mandate included in the poll that counts-the election.

    Shorten has now killed off any immediate chance of the homosexual community having what they want.
    Every individual should have a say on the matter, because it affects many individual beliefs, whether political, emotional, religious, cultural,etc;

    There is an argument that a plebiscite will be divisive, alarmist and such. Some would argue that its the subject of homosexuality itself that is the cause of that.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    11:15am
    Cannot agree more Emps, I along with many, many other Australians are sick and tired of being bullied by these insignificant minorities! And shorten should be thrown out for ignoring the wish of the Australian public who said in no uncertain terms during the election campaign that they wanted a plebiscite on this!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:22am
    More hate.

    The Libs could make same sex marriage legal today by simply allowing its members a free vote
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    11:47am
    There you go again Barak. Draging out the H word. It's got nothing to do with hate. It's about a lot of people who happen to like what marriage means now and don't want it changed to suit about 2% of the population!
    KSS
    12th Oct 2016
    1:45pm
    Seems to me the only 'hate' being expressed is by those demanding same sex marriage against anyone who does not fulsomely support their view of the world. A case of who can be the more PC.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    5:08pm
    I just wish they'd put the whole thing to Bed !!
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    8:41pm
    Emps: agree. Only thing is the word 'mandate' has been abused to death by this government. An election win by 1 seat is not mandate and further to that voters unlikely to have given the current government a mandate on this issue.

    Barak: you are using the approach of minority groups who roll out words like hate to shut down any opposition to their self interest cause. Opposition does not equate to hate. Hate is what minority groups do when somebody does not agree with their demands.
    Try saying you do not believe in homosexual marriage on the Guardian website and see what you get back....followed by moderators removing YOUR disagreement and not touching the hate postings.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    8:43pm
    Not hate?

    Is it love then?
    Cautious
    12th Oct 2016
    8:53pm
    It seems Barak is full of hate.
    You should try to be a kinder more loving person Barak
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    8:55pm
    I love ALL people, unlike those opposing same-sex marriage.
    ozirules
    12th Oct 2016
    8:57pm
    I agree MICK, if the government actually had a mandate the plebiscite would have eventuated. All pollies have one vote each so regardless of who managed to form a government when push came to shove more elected representatives were opposed to the plebiscite than for it. If the Liberals had the numbers to hold sway, then they could claim a mandate.
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    10:42pm
    'making demands on the mainstream populace' implies there is a push to change the rights of the majority, or asking the majority to relinquish something.

    The proposal has ZERO impact on anyone but two consenting adults who wish to formalise their relationship.

    The push is for removal of inequality in one right - the right to formalise a relationship (that is already recognised under law and which already has exactly the same rights once the relationship can be proven).

    Mr Shorten previously supported a plebiscite when there was little objective evidence of the views of the general population. In the last 7 or 8 years there have been many exhaustive surveys - some subjective (run by loony left of the bible-bashing right) that 'proved' a position, and many objective (run by survey companies respected by all sides of politics). Even a significant number of MPs have held surveys within their electorates to gauge opinion. So Mr Shorten (and indeed any politician) can be satisfied there is significant evidence now of the views of the general population, and therefore no reason for a (non-binding) plebiscite.

    One has to wonder how anyone who is not intimately involved in a marriage would (or could) be impacted by that marriage. There are many (many) things I don't like about other people's behaviours, beliefs or political views but unless they insist I follow those behaviours, beliefs or views, or adversely affect me, I just move on. This does not affect a person's religious beliefs (the same as a person praying five times a day doesn't affect the beliefs of a person who only goes to church once a week.
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    10:49pm
    Oh, and this government did not seek a mandate on the plebiscite. In Mr Turnbull's words when he announced the election, Liberals were "seeking the mandate of the Australian people to continue and complete that national economic plan". There was nothing in the announcement about marriage equality.

    And to be clear, LNP got around 40% of the primary vote in House of Representatives, and just over 35% of the primary vote in the Senate. In no measure do they have a mandate on any policy and must negotiate every policy and piece of legislation.
    phantom
    12th Oct 2016
    10:24am
    The politicians are only going to be blackmailed into voting YES for Same Sex Marriage. If they vote NO they will be hunted down and called homophobes, etc. I think it will pass in a plebiscite but I also want a vote and not be bullied like they are doing. Does anyone want to know the feelings of all Australians in this or just force the Pollies into a YES vote. Shorten is only playing politics with this, he is going to object to anything the Libs want to proposed.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    11:16am
    Agree with you 150% phantom!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:23am
    If they vote no, they probably ARE homophobes. Or stupid.
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    11:50am
    That seems to be the tactic of those in support of this issue, Barak. Name calling and branding. You have just proved my point!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    12:38pm
    I agree phantom except for your thought that a plebiscite will agree to same sex marriage. When Australians were polled on the Republic issue, 2/3rds said they wanted a Republic but when a vote was called a Republic was rejected. It begs the question of who are being polled.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    12:42pm
    And that is the whole issue Old Man, the gays want to believe in a poll that likely will not have the same result as a plebiscite! And that is why we MUST have a plebiscite, to get the REAL truth of the matter!

    Well said!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:37pm
    The plebiscite was going to be non-binding. Its impact would be exactly the same as any other poll.
    KSS
    12th Oct 2016
    1:46pm
    A plebiscite may technically be non-binding although previously both parties have said they will abide by the decision of the Australian vote. Even Mr Abbott agreed to that.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    8:44pm
    You are on the money phantom. The reason why the homosexual community want a vote in the parliament is because they can force pollies to vote for the issue as opposed to being unable to force this down the public's throat. Expect nonstop emails to pollies leading up to any vote in the parliament leading to pollies doing what they always do: voting for their own (re election) interests.
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    11:00pm
    Mick: That ignores the fact that the plebiscite is simply a non-binding survey of the general population. There will still need to be a bill voted on by politicians (and those politicians will still be subjected to lobbying from both sides). And significant number of pollies (from both sides) have stated they will not change their vote based on the plebiscite.
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    11:59pm
    KSS - no both parties have not agreed to abide by the outcome of the plebiscite. Neither party has mandated their MPs abide by the outcome.

    Indeed significant numbers of MPS on both sides have said the outcome will not change their position (or their vote) when a marriage equality bill is voted on in parliament.
    Batara
    12th Oct 2016
    10:36am
    This plebiscite idea was only ever a stalling tactic dreamt up by the ABC (Abetz, Bernardi, Christensen). Now they have succeeded in delaying until the next election, whenever that might be. Signals the end of Turnbull - he is between a rock (the ABC - see above) and a hard place (public opinion). Tony Abbott really outfoxed him on this issue, but the real winner will be Labor because this dysfunctional Government we don't have is now surely unelectable. Tony Abbott come back? Give me a break
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    11:11am
    So, are you saying it has nothing to do with people's feelings and beliefs. It's all about Shorten and his politics? And he is winning??? I had a feeling that gay marriage was only a political thing for Labor.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:47am
    Frank - the decision was a unanimous one in caucus. Shorten is just the spokesman in this case.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    12:44pm
    No Batara, Abbott may have been PM when the plebiscite was initiated but the Nationals have an agreement with Turnbull that they will continue to support him under certain conditions. A plebiscite on same sex marriage is one of those conditions.

    Barak, there was nobody but Labor in the caucus. The media cannot disprove the assertion that the decision was unanimous. Unlike you, I don't trust what any politican says regardless of which side they are on.
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    1:09pm
    Yes, Barak we all know Labor's version of "unanimous." You just need 40% for a "unanimous" result.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:36pm
    What a stupid argument.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    8:47pm
    Yeah Frank. Just like you need 1 seat for a "mandate"? What a hypocritical statement.
    Seems the normal culprits with their own agendas at work trying to concoct the next 'Bill did it' mud throwing exercise. People are smarter than that guys.
    Brissiegirl
    12th Oct 2016
    10:47am
    When a small section of a community demands new "rights" that go against or displace someone else's long standing beliefs and "rights", that's tantamount to bullying. The heterosexual community has been walked over with hob-nailed boots, and that is why a vote on the issue is entirely fair and just. You just cannot ignore the voices and feelings of the other side. That is not democracy. The manner in which advocates for what they call "marriage equality" have loudly demanded these laws be changed (regardless of an unknown percentage of the wider population) has caused my feelings to slide from non-judgmental indifference to divisive intolerance. There is already legal "equality". It is just a group of discontented people applying disproportionate muscle without any consideration for the feelings of others. We are constantly reminded and under law, to consider homosexual people's feelings because to do otherwise damages their mental health. Heterosexuals have mental health too and changing the definition of marriage does mean something to vast numbers so let's all be fair and give us a say.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:24am
    I'm heterosexual.

    I support same sex marriage.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    11:26am
    Well, I too am heterosexual, and I do NOT support gay "marriage".
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:46am
    Missed my point completely.
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    1:48pm
    Well said Brissiegirl. They want what they want and they don't seem to care who they hurt or how many 'toes' they have to stand on to get what they want. They will never give up until we 'oldies' are all dead and buried. I despair for where this society is headed. It is so much the 'ME' generation with little regard for anybody else and how it impacts others.
    gilstamp
    12th Oct 2016
    4:41pm
    How is going to hurt you?
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    8:49pm
    Great post Brissiegirl. That about covers the current situation. Homosexuals cry 'hate' when anybody disagrees but they are trying to bully the majority and the media is engaging in censorship to aid them.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    8:51pm
    Ridiculous.

    Censorship?
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    11:09pm
    Sorry - the small section of the community is not demanding new rights - it is seeking the same rights that the rest of the community already has.

    Secondly, your statement of de(mocracy indicates a lack of understanding what democracy is: the first tenet is that society votes in representatives to make decisions on their behalf - that is, the people don't vote on each item - the representatives do. The second tenet of democracy is that everyone is treated equal under the law.

    Thirdly, the plebiscite is NOT a vote by the general population - it is a non-binding survey, and there is absolutely no legal requirement for anyone to pay any attention to its result.

    I wonder how allowing two consenting adults the right to formalise their (already legally recognised) relationship and receive a certificate (the only change being proposed) has an adverse effect on anyone else's mental health.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    11:19pm
    If they keep it on the Airwaves much longer I think we will all go Mental :-) :-) :-)
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    10:50am
    My best guess is that Labor don't believe the results of that poll or they are just playing politics to further their aspiration of a divided nation.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:24am
    The Libs could make same sex marriage legal today by simply allowing its members a free vote
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    12:12pm
    Yeah, they could. But they don't want to!
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    12:28pm
    Why would they do that Barak.??? The LNP went to the last election with this promise and all Labor want to do is stop them from keeping a promise. Its very childish of Labor and the unions. That is why Labor have only held office for 38 years since Federation. That is not a good record and proves that people can see past their childish games.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    12:47pm
    Barak, Labor has cancelled their members' rights to a free vote on this issue. Labor members must vote with the party line. This was agreed at the last Labor conference.
    cdbstock
    12th Oct 2016
    12:55pm
    Frank
    I shouldn't have to remind you that pre-election promises are not 'commitments'
    Consider Tony Abbot's/

    Malcolm Turnbull's Lib/NP gov't's promises re: maternity leave pay; ABC funding; NDIS funding; Gonski report; budget 'crisis'; & many other 'broken promises'
    The gov't claims a 'mandate' to hold a plebiscite - a huge swing & loss of seats giving it a 1 seat majority & a Senate against a 'plebiscite'!
    gilstamp
    12th Oct 2016
    4:43pm
    A bare majority is not a mandate for anything. The parliament is all of its members who each have a say on behalf of us all.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    5:14pm
    Yes gilstamp, a parliament is all of its members but a government is the one with the majority of seats and they were voted in by a majority of voters. Johnathon Thurston kicked a field goal to win a grand final by one point. Are you now saying that North Queensland didn't win? One seat is a majority.
    KSS
    12th Oct 2016
    6:23pm
    So it's fine to break an election promise when you agree with the breaking and a cause for complaint when you do not agree? Cdbstock
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    8:55pm
    Frank: you got a spare $200 million? Me neither.
    Compromise: attach this nonsense to the next election. That way it cost much much less, give all of us a say and decide the matter. Of course the nation will have to tell the homosexual community to pi** off because it will not stop unless they win and they are likely to lose.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    8:57pm
    But it WON'T decide the matter. Do you understand what non-binding means?
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    9:11pm
    Like the "Remains" in Briton ! They are still hollering about losing to the BREXIT's :-(
    Cautious
    12th Oct 2016
    10:55am
    The issue is that whether you are homosexual or not and whether you want gay "marriage" or not there are things that will affect everybody.
    If everybody will be affected they need to know how and need to have a say in that.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:24am
    So we should abolish parliament?
    Cautious
    12th Oct 2016
    11:44am
    Typical. We are discussing this single very important topic.
    It needs to be singled out.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:45am
    Is it more important than, say, going to war?
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    12:00pm
    It is at least as important as anything you can imagine. We have future generations to consider. We should protect the institution of marriage and encourage its continuity in its present form. That's how I feel, but if a plebiscite revealed that the majority wanted to dabble in some social engineering, then I would go along with it. I would not like it but I would agree to disagree.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    12:49pm
    Barak, you seem to be missing the whole crux of the argument. The Coalition asked the people if they wanted a plebiscite at the last election. The people said yes. You want Turnbull to go back on his promise to the people. Is it because you can then accuse Turnbull of breaking yet another election promise?
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:34pm
    I wouldn't do that. I have stronger principles, unlike the politicians who wanted to allow a hate campaign against gay people.

    "The people" did not vote for a plebiscite. That is a very shallow view.
    KSS
    12th Oct 2016
    6:30pm
    Barack the only hate campaign is from Labor and the gay rights fraternity against anyone who has either not declared a position or who just don't agree with their posturing
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:00pm
    Actually Cautious I might think the issue is a morals issue and a choice between right and wrong.

    Barak: you are using the same rhetoric as the homosexual community. Very few people hate the homosexual community and indeed the majority is being subjected to the worst kind of hate response imaginable from this community if and when it disagrees. You need to get your facts straight rather than use the rhetoric of the minority groups. People have their ideals and these are in many cases not to be bullied away by minorities.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    9:05pm
    I'm pretty sure the minority is those opposing same sex marriage. Every poll recently conducted has indicated that.
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    11:17pm
    Old Man: I disagree. When Mr Turnbull called the election, he said Liberals were "seeking the mandate of the Australian people to continue and complete that national economic plan". There was absolutely nothing in the announcement about a plebiscite.

    So the population were arguably voting on that request for a mandate. And LNP had a dramatic reduction in primary votes in both House of Representatives (achieving 40%) and senate (only 35%). To be clear, the vast majority of the population did not vote for LNP in either HoR or Senate.

    By no measure did the general population vote for a plebiscite.
    Not a Bludger
    12th Oct 2016
    10:55am
    This proposal would reverse several thousands of years of commonsense social best practice and the laws that developed as a result.

    A change of this magnitude should only be undertaken with the consent of a majority of citizens - uninfluenced by vocal and shrill minority groups.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:25am
    I agree with you last seven words. But they have nothing to do with this topic.
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    12:22pm
    I agree with your last six words Barak.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:03pm
    We are entering an era which the Roman Empire went through before its collapse. Not sure what the next demand will be but when long held good practises are thrown out the window you invite in the unknown. Not sure what that will be but maybe not good.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    9:06pm
    LOL. the collapse of the Roman Empire analogy. I guess someone had to use it.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    9:08pm
    Lets get Biblical !!
    O N J
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    11:41pm
    'Thousands of years of commonsense best practice? Perhaps a history lesson on marriage might be in order.

    Marriage is one of the more fluid structures in society over the years, and like fluid it has ebbed and flowed in the way it is constructed, managed and applied. The structure and rights we see today are different even from when I was a child (I've lived in Australia all my life, so I'm not comparing current Australia with some other culture). Concepts inequality between man and woman in a marriage, 'legal' rape within the marriage, indigenous people having different rights within marriage as white people, no no-fault divorce etc were all in place when I was a child. Marriages were not considered 'complete' under law until consummated. Religions (of most flavours) have always pushed the position that marriage is primarily for procreative purposes; non-religious societies have treated marriages as means of maintained blood lines and keeping control of family assets; the concept of marriage for love is relatively recent in formal circles (but has been the primary driver for marriage in all societies).

    Going back even 100 years and we see even greater differences. Go back 500 years and marriage wasn't even a religious sacrament (it only became a sacrament in 1563). Go back 2000 years and marriage was considered a necessary passage into adulthood - that is, people got married at puberty.

    And of course, who could get married has also changed. 39 popes have been married even though celibacy was a requirement of the church for all priests (how does that align to the need for the marriage to be consummated?). Same sex marriages have been allowed throughout history (Emporer Nero was in a legal same sex marriage) - and countries only started banning same sex relationships from the Middle Ages.

    The above represents a brief history only in European/English society. It gets way more interesting when one looks at Middle Eastern, Asian or Amercias societies - all of which allowed same sex unions throughout history.
    maxchugg
    20th Oct 2016
    10:00am
    While I did not want to have any further involvement in this subject, reference to the history of the Roman Empire and its downfall attributed to destruction of the family unit is and important and relevant comment. The argument is based upon historical fact, not religious dogma.

    I have just received a leaflet from the Marriage Alliance group which contains statements from newspaper reports in relation to the new so-called Safe Schools program. Obviously the organization and all of the comments will be dismissed as biased, right wing, radical, etc by the freedom loving LGBTI and other similar groups who have presented compelling evidence about their respect for the rights of those in our society who do not share their views.

    Cited from “The Australian” of 22 March 2016: ‘When people do complain then school leadership can very calmly and graciously say, ‘You know what? We’re doing it anyway, tough luck’”
    “Parents don’t have the right to shut this down.”

    A comment in the leaflet that there is no entitlement for parents to be consulted or even informed if the safe schools is operating in the school which is attended by their child/children even receives support from a statement from the Human Rights Commission. Commissioner Megan Mitchell commented that "there does need to be careful consideration of the impact of the Government’s proposed parental consent measures on children struggling with sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status."

    Finally it is apparent that this program is nothing better than rank opportunism because the co-founder of this program, Roz Ward, has made it clear that despite the deceptive title, the program is not about stopping bullying but about gender and sexual diversity.

    The final outcome of this evil program is that, under the pretext of protecting children against bullying, the parents are to have their roles as parents usurped and become the recipients of state sponsored bullying.
    4b2
    12th Oct 2016
    10:56am
    At least we wont hear the divisive, uninformed, hateful, and ridiculous comment from the extreme conservatives similar to the former minister under the Howard Government on last nights The Drum. Why is it these people cant argue the position without branching out into other areas such as adoption and raising children.

    My one concern is will this be used as trigger for a house of reps disillusion, or will the Libs reject their right wing conservative position for a free vote as they should.

    The prime minister and his sidekick Side Show Barnaby cant keep on using we have a mandate. They Lost 17 seats, they have a slim majority of 1. Get on and do your job.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    11:21am
    So what you are saying is that a majority does not mean a mandate. So what does comprise a mandate may I ask? A majority of 2, or 5, or 10, or 20 or .... That is how stupid that argument is!

    And if you check out the Facebook posts you will find that the divisive, uninformed, hateful, and ridiculous comments come mainly from the gay lobby who want to bully normal Australians!
    Brissiegirl
    12th Oct 2016
    12:00pm
    Pablo, the convenient accusation that those who disagree are hateful has been done to death so far it is now an ignored tactic. There would be no democracy if every dissenter on every issue were named as uninformed haters. The days are long over when minority groups self-righteously slandered opposite opinion as being hateful, racist, bigoted. No longer are people's opinions shut down by that sort of tyrannical intimidation. What a confused, selfish and divided society we are leaving for our grand-children with a constant flow of minority groups forcing the rest to fit in with them, instead of the other way around. I didn't think Australia was a place where a minority group could possibly shut down open debate.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    12:46pm
    I don't know where you get your information that "The days are long over when minority groups self-righteously slandered opposite opinion as being hateful, racist, bigoted". Go and check out ABC News 24 facebook page and you will see the hate flooding every comment about gay "marriage" from the gay lobby!
    Brissiegirl
    12th Oct 2016
    1:48pm
    Pablo, I should have said the days are long over when minority groups successfully subdued opposite opinions with slanderous accusations of hateful, racist, bigoted. That tactic no longer provides minorities with a free platform to voice their opinions whilst subduing the opposite.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:06pm
    Yeah 4b2. I found some of the rhetoric from the usual posters above amusing as they, like their government, trotted out that chestnut. So easy to spot the cash for comment trolls. Just look at the identical language.
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    11:50pm
    Pablo: One seeks a mandate for a policy. Firstly, a promise of a plebiscite is not a policy. Secondly, In Mr Turnbull's words when he called the election, the Liberal party is "seeking the mandate of the Australian people to continue and complete that national economic plan". There was nothing in the announcement (or indeed in any policy announcements through the election campaign) about marriage equality.

    Oh, and the majority of people did not vote for LNP - they got 40% of the primary vote in House of Representatives, and only 35% of the primary vote in the Senate.

    By no measure do they have a mandate for a plebiscite.

    As to vitriol, I agree there are abusive posts on both sides of the debate. My observation though is abusive posts from people for marriage equality are attacking individuals who are against marriage equality - those abusive posts from people against marriage equality are against ALL same sex people. It's the people who are unable to fight (those who have low self-esteem, who have not found comfort in their sexuality etc) who are damaged by those posts.
    leonardmaycock
    12th Oct 2016
    11:00am
    It beats me how anyone could think that a plebiscite in which every voter can have a say can be wrong. Isn't everyone entitled to have a say. Why should we trust people like Bill Shorten to tell us what to believe?
    ozirules
    12th Oct 2016
    11:11am
    I believe it would be wrong as it is non binding. Make it a binding vote and I would support it.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    11:25am
    And ozirules, do you really think the result of the plebiscite will ever be overturned by any government? Politicians on all sides of the house are too protective of their jobs to do that! It doesn't matter one damn whether the plebiscite is binding or non-binding!
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    12:37pm
    That's how Shorten became leader of his party. Fooled the Labor rusted ons into thinking they actually had a say. They got played. 60 percent of them wanted Albo, but a 40 percent vote for Shorten was an example of Labor's "democratisation". Labor's idea of democracy is not what we want in Australia!!!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    12:53pm
    You are correct ozirules, a plebiscite is non-binding. However, in this case the Government has publicly stated that if Australians want same sex marriage then the legislation will be put forward as soon as possible.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:08pm
    The normal poster posting the normal anti Labor spew. Nobody listening guys.
    For the record why should we trust this government to squander another $200 million of taxpayer money when the plebiscite would not even be binding?????? Blah, blah,blah......
    ex PS
    12th Oct 2016
    9:45pm
    How many Plebiscites are we going to have? Once we start are we going to have one on the operation of Manus Island, Turning Back The Boats, Green Energy, where is it going to stop?
    This would be a good idea if we could get rid of all of the Politicians and just have Plebiscites, if they haven,t got the credentials such as backbones that allow them to make a decision, I feel there is little point in feeding them.
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    11:57pm
    Old Man: A clarification: the LNP has said if the plebiscite returns a positive result (ie. majority surveyed are for marriage equality), they will introduce a bill. That bill will be debated in parliament, voted in both houses and only if a majority vote in favour will it pass into legislation.

    Firstly, significant numbers of MPs (from both sides) have said their views (and therefore their votes) on marriage equality will not change based on the outcome of the plebiscite.

    Secondly, the LNP have not agreed to a conscience or free vote in parliament. So it is feasible that they will dictate that all MPs vote against marriage equality, regardless of the outcome of the plebiscite. The LNP current policy is opposed to marriage equality. Note also that Mr Abbott went to the 2013 election with the position that he would seek a free vote in the party room, so there is precedent in the tactic.
    ozirules
    12th Oct 2016
    11:09am
    Malcolm Turnbull keeps banging on about having a mandate to hold the plebiscite but if that were the case he would have the numbers to proceed. The upper and lower houses were both dissolved and consequently Australians elected more politicians opposed to the plebiscite than for it. The PM has no mandate on this or any other bill which fails to pass in both houses.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:10pm
    He has no mandate. This is just BS for the mentally challenged. People laugh at this lemon of a government when you hear the deceitful imbeciles talking their vile spew. No wonder posters are dropping off.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    11:11am
    EVERYONE should have the right to vote in a plebiscite to have their opinion listened to. But, NO, the gay mob don't want a plebiscite because they think that the Australian public might vote "no". They carry on with all their stupid BS reasons for not having a plebiscite, but it IS just BS! This is a very serious social and moral issue that is already dividing our nation and ALL Australians should have the right to express their views!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:26am
    I am not gay. I don't want a plebiscite.
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    12:15pm
    You are in a small minority on this web site I would suspect. :)
    cdbstock
    12th Oct 2016
    12:35pm
    Grey Viper
    I am not gay & I don't want a plebiscite.
    I suspect most people are in the same position
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    12:39pm
    And I am not gay either, but like the majority of Australians, I want a plebiscite!
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    12:48pm
    cdbstock, if you had another look at the survey results you may think differently.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    1:39pm
    Pablo, even the most ardent government anti SSM members have acknowledged that a a plebiscite would show a very clear majority of Australians would vote in favour of SSM. That is not an issue. A plebiscite WOULd have a majority in favour.

    The anti plebiscite people, including the Labor Party are against one for the harm it will do to innocent Australians. This would outweigh the benefits of a plebiscite, The not inconsiderable cost is also an issue but not the chief one.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    1:39pm
    Pablo, even the most ardent government anti SSM members have acknowledged that a a plebiscite would show a very clear majority of Australians would vote in favour of SSM. That is not an issue. A plebiscite WOULd have a majority in favour.

    The anti plebiscite people, including the Labor Party are against one for the harm it will do to innocent Australians. This would outweigh the benefits of a plebiscite, The not inconsiderable cost is also an issue but not the chief one.
    cdbstock
    12th Oct 2016
    3:49pm
    Tks Pablo - everyone should have the right to express a view - but there is a problem - there are so many issues that we elect representatives (parl't)to decide them on our behalf - we cant have each & every issue decided by plebiscite (issues such as: going to war; pensions; environment etc).
    I agree withRod63 - holding a plebiscite would cause harm to many (including children of LGBTI parents) - not to mention the enormous cost.
    The parl't should have a free vote not a plebiscite
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:15pm
    It's more obvious than that Pablo. Whilst you are correct the homosexual community believes it can badger MPs into submission by a relentless email campaign and by making MPs feel insecure. Their argument about a hate campaign is a deadset lie as they have done the strategies and have worked out how to get the result they want: a parliamentary vote.
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    12:10am
    By all means - express your views. Lobby your MPs. Donate to campaigns that support your views. That's all part of democracy.

    But democracy requires our representatives to make decisions on our behalf, for the good of society. In a democracy, the individuals do not vote on individual policies or ideals. If that did happen, we would have purely populist laws (and by populist, I mean laws that the majority - even if only a majority of one - want).

    Mick: as to badgering MPs, MPs get badgered by constituents and lobby groups all the time, and by relentless email campaigns. To put this into perspective, my local MP received over 100,000 letters/emails for and against marriage equality last time there was a bill before parliament - and almost all were form letters created by lobby groups for and against.

    The implication is that MPs should not have to deal with emails, and those who wish to be heard should be banned from doing so.

    As to hate campaigns, so far mainstream press has only reported of one side that has done letterbox drops with hateful, abusive, lying messages (perhaps mainstream press is now part of the campaign).
    ex PS
    14th Oct 2016
    1:29pm
    Not gay but don't believe I have the right to deny a gay person the joy or misery that marriage can deliver. It is a life choice decision, why should governments or uninvolved individuals have a right to interfere?
    Why did little Johnny feel it was necessary to change the definition of marriage in the first place and why did he not call for a plebiscite when he did it?
    It is a waste of time and money, we pay politicians to make these decisions why don't they just get on with it?
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    11:14am
    "but only 39 per cent thought a plebiscite was a good idea."
    Also, only 48 per cent thought the government should not give the people of Australia a democratic say.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:27am
    We don't get a say on anything else decided in parliament. What is parliament for?
    Brissiegirl
    12th Oct 2016
    12:28pm
    Barak, there are rare federal law matters that go to long-held standards and traditions. When there is an act of parliament so long-standing that changing it will combine differing beliefs and traditions of family life, (something homosexuals have also changed in regard to achieving offspring by whatever means), parliamentarians do not always accurately represent their constituents. For example, a closet homosexual MP could likely vote on his/her own terms irrespective of the majority of his constituents' wishes. A now deceased homosexual male friend once told me that he would never vote for, or contemplate "gay marriage" because he felt that the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman was as clear to the both of them as is the definition of heterosexual and homosexual.

    He said that marriage, the Mr and Mrs, should remain as it is and that heterosexual couples should be allowed to continue identifying along traditional lines. There are some selfish, demanding, publicity seeking people who have an insecure fixation that their minority way of life needs to be further legitimised by re-writing the book in their image.
    cdbstock
    12th Oct 2016
    12:38pm
    Barak
    Agree - 'what is parl't for?
    Tom Tank
    12th Oct 2016
    4:59pm
    I am afraid Brissegirl that it was John Howard who changed the Marriage Act to read "between a Man and a woman" so it ois not longstanding.
    Quite few LNP right wingers categorically stated they would vote against marriage equality irrespective of the result of the plebiscite.
    Big question then is why go to all that expense if MPs were not going to be bound by it?
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    6:56pm
    Just get rid of marriage altogether.

    As far as I am concerned it has little meaning anyway now...so many just live together...kids born without knowing who their fathers are, single mothers with some children having different fathers.

    What is the point of it all in the 21st century....any meaning it once had is long gone!
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:17pm
    You sound like a member of the homosexual community Barak as you are talking their talk. Read my post above if you really have no understanding why homosexuals want a vote in the parliament.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    9:25pm
    Not all of us live by the rule of self-interest before all else.
    Adrianus
    13th Oct 2016
    9:22am
    Barak, did you just declare yourself as a closet altruist?
    MICK
    13th Oct 2016
    12:40pm
    Actually Barak MOST DO these days.
    Dave V
    12th Oct 2016
    11:21am
    The survey by the two universities stated "...Nearly three-quarters of people surveyed believed the ‘No’ campaign, driving against allowing marriage equality, had a “highly detrimental impact on young LGBTI people and the children of LGBTI parents". What kind of subjective drivel is that? An "online, anonymous" survey! That has about zero scientific credibility in my mind. Just an attempt by the social manipulators to push their own agenda. I wouldn't say the results of the survey were surprising at all! Please try to lift your standards.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    1:43pm
    Many experts in this area (including Prof McGorry) also have great concerns about the harm a plebiscite would do.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    7:52pm
    Dave V, I conducted a survey on same sex marriage and the results are quite convincing. Of those surveyed, 80% did not agree with same sex marriage and 20% abstained. There you go, a survey that shows quite clearly why the LGBTI lobby is so frightened of a plebiscite.

    Now, in fairness, I am prepared to disclose full details of the poll. The question was very specific: "Do you support same sex marriage?" and the poll was conducted at my local bowling club where I asked 5 of my aged pensioner mates the question. 4 said no and the 5th said "Who cares!"

    My point is that all of the polls being quoted are similar to the first paragraph. It's the second paragraph that has the information that is critical as to whether the poll can be believed.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:21pm
    Polls need a representative sample group. This is not an easy thing to do so results of limited polls conducted online are not worth the bits
    and bytes they are saved on.
    Any crap about "detrimental impacts" is just total BS. In fact there should NOT be a public discussion of this issue. Just people making a call.
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    12:30am
    Mick: Statistical analysis can be highly accurate even with what people may consider a small sample size. A properly randomised sample of 2000 people will be almost as accurate as surveying everyone in Australia. That is why Newspoll etc (generally) provide forecasts of election outcomes that are usually within 1-2% of the final outcome, even though they only survey 1000-1100 people.

    As to 'there should be no public discussion', alas there is always public discussion on almost every topic (otherwise, sites like this wouldn't exist).
    MICK
    13th Oct 2016
    12:39pm
    Randomised yes....but that is always the problem with a survey with spruikers making all sorts of erroneous claims when they fail to do just that.
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    9:41pm
    Actually, even the two surveys commissioned by the conservatives in the LNP in the last 5 years have returned majorities in favour of marriage equality - and those surveys run the risk of the problem you raise - of not being properly randomised.

    12th Oct 2016
    11:26am
    A plebiscite on this topic is a total waste of time and BIG money and people are going to do, act, and live with whomever they want anyway. As kev888 said above, who cares?!
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    5:12pm
    I Don't !! :-)
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:22pm
    Ditto. The country has many real issues to deal with. Let's get on with it.
    Adrianus
    13th Oct 2016
    9:20am
    I think it's time the majority takes a stand. It's one thing to be pushed around by a majority but quite different to be continually bullied by a minority group which has no limits to their demands.
    Let's stop this nonsense now. Stand your ground people!! :)
    ex PS
    14th Oct 2016
    1:35pm
    Agreed Frank, the majority of people either want same sex marriage or don't really care. So forget the plebiscite and pass the bill.
    The only thing required is for the P.M to show some backbone and tell his controllers to go jump.

    12th Oct 2016
    11:29am
    The insulting part of a lot of posts here is the view that only gay people want same sex marriage. That is so wrong.
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    12:17pm
    It is also wrong to assume that all gays are in support of changing the marriage act. There are plenty who do not support this issue.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:24pm
    The issue is that Australians have been beaten around the ears with non stop advertising and promotion of homosexual marriage. Heterosexual people do not want homosexual marriage by and large but some have thrown their hands up in the air and said 'let them have what they want' to end the agony.
    Your post is misleading Barak.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    9:28pm
    So is your claim.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    11:16pm
    Reputable polls consistently show around 70% of Australians want to see SSM legalised.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    10:37am
    Rod, if you are correct, why oppose the plebiscite? With 73% for and 27% opposed, surely it would be a home run.
    Rod63
    15th Oct 2016
    12:01pm
    Mainly because of the harm it would do maxchugg, especially to young LGBTI people and their families and friends. You can see from reading through this thread of the sort of awful comments with which they would have to deal publicly.

    In addition the result would not be binding on politicians who would still need to change the law.

    But, yes - you are right. A plebiscite would be a very harmful, expensive opinion poll.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    1:13pm
    Rod, I did not comment about the plebiscite being a harmful, expensive poll, so please do not misquote me.

    I fail to see how the plebiscite would be harmful when, with 73% of the population in favour, the outcome would be certain, and what is wanted by the LGBTI community would come into being. Nor would it be harmful as the experience in Ireland has shown.

    The PM has made it perfectly clear that if the plebiscite produces a majority vote for same sex marriage, appropriate legislation would be prepared. It would be a brave, if not stupid PM who ignored the wishes of 73% of the population.

    As for the cost of the plebiscite, there could be little doubt that most people would regard this as money well spent to permanently resolve the matter one way or the other.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    1:16pm
    It might be stupid PM who ignored the wishes of 73% of the population. But what does that make you when you ignore or misread most of what others say to you?
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    1:43pm
    Barak, instead of carping, why not support your arguments with evidence. Let's start by having you providing examples of how I have ignored or misread what others have said to me.

    And what about the argument that the vast majority want legislation for same sex marriage which you have ignored? Surely that alone is proof that a plebiscite will deliver the desired outcome for the LGBTI people. I repeat that the Irish experience contradicts the claims that a plebiscite would be harmful.

    I have argued that the introduction of legislation for same sex marriage will bring with it an erosion of the rights of others, and have provided examples of what has happened overseas and what has happened here even before the legislation has been introduced. Again you have done exactly what you have wrongly accused me of doing, ignoring and misreading my comments .

    At the outset I commented that I would have no concerns about about same sex marriage provided that it was not accompanied by erosion of the rights of others. You have certainly done nothing to dissuade me from this opinion
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    1:50pm
    Obviously not. Nothing will, because your church has lied to you about the impact.

    YOU have provided no evidence to support your argument.

    But just go ahead. Believe the bigoted leaders of your church. I'm sure they're right.
    Rod63
    15th Oct 2016
    2:04pm
    Sorry maxchugg to misquote you. The plebiscite would be a harmful, expensive opinion poll.

    You are wrong about the vote in Ireland - recent reports are that it caused a great deal of harm.

    Read this as an example: http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/4215328/irish-same-sex-marriage-vote-had-highly-detrimental-impact-study/
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    3:32pm
    Rod, the article you cite is impressive at first sight, but the two people mentioned, Doctors Elizabeth Short and Sharon Dane are hardly impartial, both came out strongly against a moratorium back in April of this year.

    Dr Dane is also an advocate for Australian Marriage Equity organization, so certainly not impartial.

    I would add that I have also discounted the views of church leaders because I also see them as biased in the other direction.

    I have spent a very long time searching for articles on the ill effects of the Irish plebiscite and have found nothing other than the article which you cite. However, I did find a number of sites which reported on wild celebrations after the plebiscite yielded the result desired by the LGBTI people.

    I repeat that I do not think there could be any valid opposition to legislation to allow same sex marriages if this was accompanied by legislation protecting the rights of conscientious objectors. Unfortunately I fear that the LGBTI campaign will ultimately succeed but the rights of others will be seriously eroded.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    3:35pm
    I support the idea that no-one should be forced to carry out same-sex marriage against their will.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    5:04pm
    That's wonderful news. Puts all my concerns to rest. If you support the idea that no one will be forced to participate in the arrangements for same sex marriages, then what are so many people worried about?

    But, does the LGBTI group agree with you? I fear not.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    5:12pm
    Why?

    Because your church told you otherwise?

    I've asked for evidence that religious leaders anywhere are being forced to conduct same sex marriage against heir wishes, and all you have given us are very biased, mostly religiously driven websites, sites that simply can't be trusted.

    There is no reliable, independent evidence that there will be a problem.

    But there IS a problem in your negative comments about people from the LGBTI community. That is exactly the kind of talk a plebiscite will encourage more of. And it will hurt people.

    Do you like hurting people?
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    9:54pm
    maxchugg: Perhaps you need to do additional research. Following your comment that you could only find one article saying there were adverse effects of the Irish referendum. Perhaps you need to improve your Google search skills, as with just two searches I found over 30 articles (admittedly, a few of those referenced each other, but articles from SBS, BBC, news.com.au, even sydneycatholic.org all describe the adverse effects the referendum had on vulnerable people in the GLBT community.

    And perhaps you should read EVERY marriage equality bill that has been presented to parliament in the past 9 years - every one of them makes it clear that no one (no religious leader - no celebrant) will be compelled to officiate at a marriage ceremony that is at odds with their beliefs.
    maxchugg
    16th Oct 2016
    1:28pm
    Richied I have again gone through the sites and found that most of them are using quotes from Drs Liz Short and Sharon Dane and Grainne Healey, none of whom could be reasonably regarded as independent, having been on record as being strongly in favour of "marriage equality".

    Additionally there are comments from two footballers, Jason Ball and Jasper Ozols, both of whom also could not be regarded as independent.

    "Beyond Blue" was supportive, but would the LGBTI community be happy with a comment that LGBTI people have significantly poorer mental health and higher rates of suicide?

    The only support that I was able to find which I would regard as unbiased came from Professor Patrick McGorry, but he is commenting upon an assumption that the plebiscite would have the adverse effects which are being claimed.

    I am also taking no position on whether or not marriage equality should come into effect, I am working on another assumption, that legislation will significantly erode the civil rights of all who are not of the LGBTI community, as has happened in the US and Canada, for example.

    On the other side of the ledger is an article from the "Daily Telegraph" by Miranda Devine which is critical of the creative accounting being used to oppose the no plebiscite case.

    Finally an article by Imogen Grant presents a compelling argument IMHO:

    "We know that, if marriage equality won a popular vote in Ireland, it will almost certainly win in Australia. With this in mind, the greater harm will be in not having marriage equality rather than in a plebiscite. It’s rare that the Left have the opportunity to fight for a cause that is morally just and almost certain to win – don’t let it pass us by."
    Anonymous
    16th Oct 2016
    1:58pm
    You are unable to prove your claims of what happened in the USA and Canada. I suspect you are wrong.

    And you must know that Miranda Devine always takes the conservative side on issues. As does the Murdoch press she works for.
    maxchugg
    18th Oct 2016
    9:46am
    Once again, Barak, more of the same from you. You don't like what Miranda Devine has to say, so shoot the messenger. But you choose to ignore the final quote from a student magazine Honi Soit and written by Imogen Grant, obviously because the context of Imogen Grant's comment is that she is supportive of marriage equality.

    You say that I am unable to prove my claims about what is happening in the US and Canada and suspect I am wrong. Yet there are simply dozens of sites now available where details of consequences suffered by people who have refused to participate in gay marriages. I won't bother to list them because every one will be unacceptable to you for one fanciful reason or another, but they are easily found.
    Anonymous
    18th Oct 2016
    10:16am
    No, impartial sites with the stories you claim are very difficult to find.

    I am not criticising you for your views. I am simply saying that you MUST recognise that your views are nowhere near the middle in this discussion. (Mine aren't either.) The sites you use are also nowhere near the middle. You MUST recognise this. That's the problem. Using dishonest, right wing sources to justify a right wing view is not rational. It certainly won't change anyone else's mind.

    You can have your opinion, but don't use lies to support it. Make sure your sources are GOOD sources.
    Rod63
    18th Oct 2016
    10:28am
    You would like this maxchugg. Two young Tassie men have started a website which is a directory of businesses etc which provide services connected to weddings and which all welcome business from gay couples. This means , if they choose from these businesses, no-one need feel discriminated against and there will be no embarrassment.

    It is a shame it is necessary of course.

    http://www.mrtheodore.com.au/
    Rod63
    18th Oct 2016
    10:32am
    Here is a newspaper story about them: http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4229896/an-online-space-for-love-support/?cs=95
    maxchugg
    18th Oct 2016
    1:43pm
    Rod63. You are right, I do like that.

    Despite the efforts of one person to twist and distort my comments, I repeat that I am ambivalent about the proposal to legalize same sex marriages provided that this does not impinge on the liberties of others.

    Maybe we will be smarter than the US/Canada where, if you check, there are simply dozens of reports on the internet of ministers, photographers, caterers, etc. facing legal action for refusing to provide facilities for same sex marriages.

    Sadly, there is a saying that when the US sneezes the rest of the world gets pneumonia, so I fear that the US/Canada experience will be repeated here when same sex marriages are legalized.

    I would be very happy to be wrong.
    Anonymous
    18th Oct 2016
    3:10pm
    Your are being stupidly stubborn. The reports of which you speak are untrue.
    maxchugg
    18th Oct 2016
    7:07pm
    Another ad hominem comment from Barak. Using the tried and tested method of substituting offensive personal attacks for logical, reasoned argument. I am surprised that the homophobe card has not yet been played.

    At this point I make the same demand on you that you have made on me so often - provide evidence in support of your claim that the numerous reports which I have cited as being available on the internet are untrue.

    If you manage to present anything I will, of course, adopt your tactics and totally reject your every argument.

    I would expect that by now those who have been following these threads would have reached an informed decision as to who is really being stupid and untruthful.
    Anonymous
    18th Oct 2016
    7:17pm
    Your position is an extreme one. You are claiming truth from obviously very right wing, anti-SSM websites.

    I realise I cannot get you to see that.

    This is one of the things that depresses me about people like you. I know my biases. I recognise which sources can be trusted and which can't, even among those that support my view. (Some are just too rabid and careless with the truth.)

    You need to look in a mirror. Identify your own biases. Recognise which sources are reliable and which are not. Right now, you are not seeing reality. And I worry about people like you.
    maxchugg
    18th Oct 2016
    11:23pm
    But you didn't provide the proof I asked for. Where is the proof, as you would demand from others who make comments you dislike, that I am claiming truth from anti SSM websites? How can you sensibly claim the sites which I have nominated, and which I would venture to suggest you have not even checked out, are anti SSM?

    You obviously believe that you have superior judgment as to which sites are reliable and which are not. So I again raise my original challenge, slightly modified - explain why three out of the dozens of sites that support my views are not reliable evidence of the persecution that has followed people who exercised their democratic rights to be conscientious objectors when demands for their services in the facilitation of a SSM have been made.

    Not knowing me, you have made incorrect guesses concerning my religious background and affiliation, have used seriously offensive language in your comments about me, and continue to totally misrepresent my comments.

    I do not intend to respond to any more of your total bigotry and arrogant, offensive, ill informed comments which, in my view, amount to a form of the hate speech you are so quick to condemn in others. Whether or not I am correct in my views will be revealed after the SSM legislation has been passed, as is inevitable.

    I will leave it to the readers of these threads to form their own opinions as to who is the fool, who needs to maybe take a look in the mirror and identify their own biases.
    Anonymous
    19th Oct 2016
    3:08am
    Simple question - On the spectrum of possible positions on SSM, where is yours?

    I will openly state that mine is right at the "Yes, let's just do it" end. You?
    maxchugg
    19th Oct 2016
    10:27am
    Barak, although I do want to end this pointless discussion, I will answer your question, after commenting that there really is no need for you to state your position on SSM because it is perfectly clear to anyone who has even a basic understanding of the English language.

    In answer to your question about my position on SSM, I would have thought that it also would have been clear to anyone with even a basic understanding of the English language.

    On the 15th I made it clear that my concern was not with the introduction of marriage equality, but with the erosion of the democratic rights of others which overseas experience and the recent action taken in Hobart against the Catholic Church – of which I am not a member – provide validation for this concern.

    On the same day I spelled my attitude out even more clearly: " I do not think there could be any valid opposition to legislation to allow same sex marriages if this was accompanied by legislation protecting the rights of conscientious objectors. Unfortunately I fear that the LGBTI campaign will ultimately succeed but the rights of others will be seriously eroded." On that day, responding to Ritchied I restated my attitude.

    Courtesy prevents me from including in my response to your question with your own words of 15th "That post simply proves that you haven't been paying attention, or are too stupid to understand."
    Eddy
    12th Oct 2016
    11:30am
    Plebiscite sounds a good idea, lets' have one next time the pollies want a pay rise, or want to increase GST or other taxes, or want to foist the next free trade agreement on us, or want to change Medicare, or want to sell public assets to their mates (and then claim they are wonderful economic managers), or contract out Government functions (again to their big business mates), or , I can't go on the list is endless. What are we paying these guys for, to leave the hard decisions to us.
    In all likelihood I would have voted NO at the plebiscite, but then I'm an old fart whose attitudes were formed in the 1950's and 60's, but my grand children will definitely vote YES. What we don't need is a BREXIT type situation here where us oldies will impose a future on the young which they neither want nor need.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:34am
    That's a wise post Eddy.

    No conservative has yet explained why this particular has to be treated differently from every other issue that comes before parliament.

    I'd like a say next time our government wants to send us to war. That will hurt a lot more people than same sex marriage.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:26pm
    Because it is a MORAL issue Barak and because pollies are prostitutes who can be bought and sold.
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    12:23am
    And of course, given plebiscites are meaningless, non-binding surveys, it's pretty silly wasting government money on it.

    Barak: There have been three federal plebiscites previously - one on conscription (defeated), one on Commonwealth Forces overseas (defeated) and one on national anthem (took 7 years before the government made a change). The first two were highly divisive politically, socially and within religious groups. And for that reason, the next time the government wanted to introduce conscription, it chose (wisely) to debate it and vote within parliament - the outcome was conscription (ie. against the views of the nation) but was far less divisive.

    Mick: Our parliaments have almost never taken moral issues to the public (only twice - the first two above). Hundreds of moral bills are presented to parliament every term (including every single bill related to discrimination, equal rights, family law and marriage). This one has an incredibly low impact to society (it could potentially affect 3% of the population) and there are no downstream impacts to the rest of society.
    MICK
    13th Oct 2016
    10:30am
    True Richied but when you destroy moral values you end up in the jungle. Consider what is happening to society generally and the impact on us all. My concern that a supposedly benign issue like homosexual marriage may see a further decline in moral values in the wider population. What next, legalise betiality? I can hear the call of 'human rights' with that one too.
    MICK
    13th Oct 2016
    10:32am
    Barak: you continue to use the BS rhetoric from the homosexual community: "divisive", "hateful" and "hurtful". Clearly you are a part of this community and believe the rest of us are brain dead.
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    10:36am
    MICK - you are proving the point about hate talk by describing homosexual relationships as part of a decline in morality.

    As soon as you say that, you are telling the children of such parents their parents are behaving immorally.

    Please explain how that won't hurt them psychologically.
    Not Senile Yet!
    12th Oct 2016
    11:32am
    MP's in Parliament....once sworn in by the Govenor General....are obliged by their Oath...to Serve the people and their Country.....NOT THEIR PARTY!
    IF the Voters keep giving their Vote to Party Puppets then they allow their Parliamentarians to be OWNED by the Parties!
    Who in turn serve themselves and their ideals....NOT THE PEOPLE OR THE COUNTRY!
    If you want change...first you have to change!
    That means STOP ELECTING PUPPET MP'S....Who can only do what their Party tells them!
    Time to stop Voting for Party Puppets....Vote them All OUT......and reclaim our Parliament!
    Not Senile Yet!
    12th Oct 2016
    11:32am
    MP's in Parliament....once sworn in by the Govenor General....are obliged by their Oath...to Serve the people and their Country.....NOT THEIR PARTY!
    IF the Voters keep giving their Vote to Party Puppets then they allow their Parliamentarians to be OWNED by the Parties!
    Who in turn serve themselves and their ideals....NOT THE PEOPLE OR THE COUNTRY!
    If you want change...first you have to change!
    That means STOP ELECTING PUPPET MP'S....Who can only do what their Party tells them!
    Time to stop Voting for Party Puppets....Vote them All OUT......and reclaim our Parliament!
    MD
    12th Oct 2016
    11:34am
    Ultimately, what it comes down to is simply the bottom line, that said, isn't this entire beat up just another matter of political correctness. You can't please all the people all the time, to which I'd add - the nearer the proximity to the source of a shrill noise, the more unbearable it becomes.
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    11:34am
    Bill Shorten has been an absolute disgrace on this issue! Is there no level that he will not stoop to in order to win a few votes? If the government says they will do something before an election and then don't follow through the opposition will scream "broken promise" but here is the government doing what they said they would do and the opposition doing everything to stop them. WHY? Because he now believes it might win him a few votes.This talk about violence and hate talk is a self fulfilling prophecy and would probably now happen because Bill and the Labor party have stirred up such emotion on this issue which would not have occurred if they had just done the right thing and said that the government had won the election and this was an election promise so we will vote for it. It could have gone ahead, we all could have had our say, the public opinion on this would be there for all to see and we could put this behind us. Now it will be dragged out every couple of months and Bill will bang his drum about 'marriage equality' and 'human rights' all because he thinks it might win him some votes. The language on this has been disgraceful. I am against changing the marriage act to include who knows what sort of relationships into the future but I am extremely annoyed at being branded 'hateful' or 'homophobic' because I don't happen to share the view of the LGBTIQ community. Can we no longer discuss an issue without all of this name calling and branding of people who happen to disagree with your point of view? I don't understand why the 'gay' community can't simply come up with their own word, give them all of the same legal rights and we can move on. I am sure that the number of people who are against this in the hetrosexual community and will be impacted if the meaning of marriage is changed far exceed the number of people who will benefit by this change but somehow in our modern society the majority doesn't seem to matter anymore. This issue and the way the Labor party has dealt with it has caused a lot of frustration and anger on both sides of the argument and it was so unnecessary if the plebiscite was just allowed to proceed as planned. This has WASTED so much time and effort in our parliament when there are so many FAR MORE IMPORT issues that need to be resolved.
    "Nero fiddled while Rome burns".
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:41am
    Wow. A politician who does something the public wants so he will win votes.

    Isn't that democracy?

    The Libs could make same sex marriage legal today by simply allowing its members a free vote
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    12:10pm
    Yeah, they could. But they don't want to!
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:27pm
    Political advertisement Viper? BS of course. Both sides are playing games and neither side really wants this but has been dragged kicking and screaming and are playing pretends.
    Nan Norma
    12th Oct 2016
    11:37am
    Well here are my thoughts on gay marriage: A PAIR of shoes consists of a right shoes and a left shoes. Two left shoes, or two right shoes do not, no matter what you say or do, will not make a PAIR of shoes. Homosexuals that decide to make a life together, the same as many heterosexuals do, should given equal opportunities, and I think they mostly do anyway. I think most people just don't want the word 'marriage' used.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:42am
    I don't think about shoes when I have sex.
    bullfright
    12th Oct 2016
    1:35pm
    I don't think about marriage when I have sex.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:29pm
    Spot on Norma. They do have equal rights and that is not the issue. My thoughts are what next if they get this one????
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    9:32pm
    What do you think will be next?
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    12:38am
    Actually, I agree.

    To take the sting out of the argument's tail, repeal the Marriage Act (it provides almost nothing except the mechanism of obtaining a marriage certificate and the mechanism for making the certificate null and void). All rights are actually driven by the Family Law Act which does not differentiate between married and de facto, or between same sex couples of opposite sex couples - all you need is to prove your relationship.

    Religions can then totally reclaim marriage as a non-civil (ie. not legal) ceremony, and it separates church and state around relationships.

    Having said that, previous pushes to have Marriage Act repealed (and not driven by the gay community - driven by secularists who demand separation of church and state) have been violently opposed by churches who see them losing their influence over governments and the general population.
    MICK
    13th Oct 2016
    10:20am
    Oppression of the majority Barak.
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    10:30am
    Yeah. Right.
    wheels
    12th Oct 2016
    11:38am
    I agree with the 90%+ comments that it isn't wanted. It's a worry when mainstream Australia are made to feel the wrong ones out. Of course that's the strategy. So if it were to go ahead.....married can mean either sex, full rights, children then assimilated that way and these poor kids, who didn't have a say,may pay the price in time. Somebody wanted to change the sex they were born under and we have teenager children wanting to change their sex! This is getting to be a very sick society. Lets put a stop to this nonsense and tell the media to stop making out it's wanted. Lets have the plebiscite at the next election and then it will be settled. I want a say in this major issue that is yet another example of divisive issues being promoted and as usual Labor pushing it with their tactics.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:44am
    Do you want to be shocked?

    There are already same sex couples out there who have kids!

    This isn't about the children.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:31pm
    No Barak. This is about nonsense. Marriage was NEVER coined to include same sez partners. This is a perversion conjured up and sold as 'human rights'...which it also is not.
    Live together by all means. The word 'gay' has already been stolen but marriage is not available.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    9:43pm
    So has the Rainbow :-( :-(
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    12:51am
    I'm afraid that appears to be a very uninformed post.

    Marriage does not equate to the right to have children.

    This is not about a person changing the sex they had when they were born.

    We live in a free society so it is inappropriate for anyone to tell anyone (least the media) to stop reporting one side or the other.

    A plebiscite won't settle it - a plebiscite is non-binding, and the next step is a bill needs to be put to parliament debated and voted on, so through that process there will continue to be public debate.

    It's silly also to say this is Labor pushing it with their politics - both sides have played this political football for all it's worth.
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    11:42am
    Barak,why if people disagree with changing the marriage act does that automatically imply "hate" as suggested by you? The Libs could make same sex marriage legal, but in case you hadn't noticed, there is a whole heap of people out there who are quite happy with it the way it is and it's got NOTHING to do with "HATE"!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    11:44am
    It usually does.
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    12:08pm
    And what do you base that on?
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:09pm
    Well it certainly isn't love
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    1:33pm
    Wrong! I LOVE marriage the way it is!
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:33pm
    Great post. I just don't understand what goes around the brains of the homosexual community other than wailing and self pity played out as claims of 'hate', which is not true.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    9:40pm
    How can one be so stupid as to think only homosexuals want this change?
    MICK
    13th Oct 2016
    10:18am
    Only those of us who have a 'if it feels good do it' mentality are subscribing to the attack on the morals of the nation. You need to read what happened to the Roman Empire. Same deal.
    Sadly Barak you are so so genY in your position and clearly not Christian. By all means have your ideology. You are welcome to it.
    Peter47
    12th Oct 2016
    11:54am
    It appears that those against the plebiscite are playing politics and are afraid of a possible no result. Any negative result is considered most likely to result from redefining marriage from 'a legal union of a man and a woman'. I believe most Aussies consider human rights should be equal regardless of gender, race, religion or culture as long as the legislated right doesn't adversely affect their life. I understand the gay community at present has most if not all legal rights associated with a civil union. I personally have no object to this union being given a legal name other than "marriage". The statements about the LGBTI community being suicidal or mentally harmed by debate on this issue seems to be politically-driven nonsense aimed at suppressing discussion. Grow up people! The libs were given a mandate at the last election for a plebiscite. If cost is the main issue, it could be put off & run in conjunction with the next federal election. What's next? A minority group campaigning for polygamy? Child marriage?
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    12:07pm
    I think that is what people are concerned about Peter47, it's not that long ago that homosexuals were committing a criminal offence, and just a few years down the track we are now being told that we have to support gay "marriage" or we are bigots!! A lot of the gay mob call this the "slippery slope argument", and it may actually be a valid name for it, because I can see that another minority group (like the muslims) will start pushing for the legalism of polygamy and the right to marry a 9 year old, and another minority group like the paedophiles will want the age of consent lowered! Where does it stop? I believe it should be stopped right now by rejecting the gay "marriage" proposals and that can only be done by having a plebiscite that rejects gay "marriage".
    MD
    12th Oct 2016
    12:13pm
    Yes indeed Peter47, I believe (your 2 questions) to be currently alive and prospering and known to us as the followers of Muslim ideology.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    1:54pm
    " The statements about the LGBTI community being suicidal or mentally harmed by debate on this issue seems to be politically-driven nonsense aimed at suppressing discussion. "

    This shows a lot of ignorance about what is already happening to LGBTI people, especially young people.

    Even anti SSM people acknowledge that a plebiscite would amost definitely favour SSM.

    People against a plebiscite, generally do not hold that position because they are afraid of it having a negative result. I am one of those (BTW - heterosexual, happily married).
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:35pm
    Actually Peter my issue is the theft of the word 'marriage' and the $200 million to run the thing. Stump up the dough and then let's have it out.
    I thought so.
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    12:58am
    To use Mr Turnbull's words when calling the election, the Liberals were "seeking the mandate of the Australian people to continue and complete that national economic plan". Nothing in the announcement or any policy announcement through the campaign was about marriage equality. So they were not seeking a mandate on marriage equality.

    Secondly, LNP combined only got 40% of the primary vote in House of Reps, and only 35% of primary vote in the Senate - both figures down substantially from previous election. Hardly a mandate.

    Thirdly, many more politicians who had come out in favour of marriage equality before the election were voted in than previously. That implies (if using the mandate argument) that the population voted in people who were for marriage equality and therefore there is a mandate FOR putting it into legislation.

    The word marriage was stolen by the church in 1563 with the Council of Trent - previously marriage was purely civil. Indeed only after the church took control did they then start influencing governments to formalise civil marriage requiring religious representatives to officiate.
    Tom Tank
    12th Oct 2016
    12:09pm
    One has to ask why don't so many people want to open up marriage to everyone.
    Obviously it makes them feel uncomfortable but it is not going to be made compulsory

    There were already examples circulating of the blatantly untrue advertising that would have been unleashed by the religously righteous.
    If the proposal for the plebiscite had NOT included taxpayer funded campaigns and those campaigns been NOT classed as "political" then the cost would have been "only" $160 million.
    The aspect of being classed as "political" meant that advertising did NOT have to be proved to be true. This left the door wide open to some of the outrageous statements that have already been made. Doesn't say much for our politicians and their advertising does it?
    Marriage has been around long before Christianity and has never been a static concept so why not just grow up and accept it. If you don't like then don't marry a gay person.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:37pm
    Everything aside I DO NOT AGREE. Package it any way you like. Other Australians feel the same way too. No hate involved!!!
    World Prophet
    12th Oct 2016
    12:11pm
    Like most Australians, I have been watching this issue for some time, with all its twists and turns. I have watched the gay delight at the outcome of the Irish referendum, with all of the comments about how it unified the country in achieving an enlightened outcome, etc., etc. Now I'm amused by the current view that to hold any form of referendum or plebiscite in Australia would be harmful and divisive, etc., etc. What I conclude from that is the Irish man in the street must obviously be smarter and can be trusted with such a weighty matter as deciding if marriage should be redefined, whereas the Australians would cause massive damage to the gay community if asked to consider the same, and this should simply not be allowed to happen. Personally I'm really not interested in this issue, as I think there are more pressing problems facing the nation, but I object to being told time and time again that - if I should be against 'marriage equality' I am homophobic or be guilty of possessing any number of other equally deplorable characteristics. This, of course, is different to 'opinion equality', where in the past it was accepted by one and all that everybody was entitled to their own opinion and if this were to differ from someone else's, this was respected even if not subscribed to. What has me concerned than anything else is that those with differing views are vehemently denigrated, publicly ridiculed as 'unenlightened' and often targeted in concerted campaigns of intimidation or threats. The result, in many cases, has been to silence those who might otherwise speak out. Only the view that doesn't challenge is seems to be allowed to be aired without fear of retribution. One would expect this stifling of free speech to be perpetrated by the holders of the conservative view, those who feel threatened by the new order. But it never ceases to amaze me that it are the minorities who think that to diminish the view of others somehow adds to the legitimacy of their cause. A bit like the mediocre appearing to grow in stature simply by pushing everyone else down. This phenomenon more than anything else has brought my opinion down on the 'no' side. And I share the view of an earlier poster who suggested that a referendum should be attached to the next election, so that the cost is very much minimised.
    MD
    12th Oct 2016
    12:19pm
    A shame a "prophet is rarely recognised in his own home". Well said.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    12:50pm
    Well said World Prophet! The minority gay carryon says it all about the gay lobby. They are just bullies, and a tiny majority trying to force their views on normal Australians!
    GreyViper
    12th Oct 2016
    1:21pm
    Well said and very wise. This seems to be the modern attitude to people who have a different opinion to 'you'. Name them, brand them and then their opinion can be disregarded as uninformed and ignorant and 'we' can then feel superior. EVERYBODY's opinion is of equal value. Nobody's opinion is more valid than anybody else's, especially not politicians.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:23pm
    Prophet, MD and Pablo, there are major legal differences between Ireland and Australia. In Ireland the referendum actually caused the change in the law. It was automatic. That's how Ireland's constitution works.

    Here it's not the case. There's nothing about marriage in our constitution except for saying the government CAN make laws about it. So we couldn't change marriage law with a referendum.

    Nor would the plebiscite have changed the law. It wasn't even going to be binding on the members of the party proposing it.

    Now the three of you know the legal differences, will you change your views?
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    1:57pm
    Reports have recently come out showing the damage the Irish referendum did to young LGBTI people in that country.

    Look at this: http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/4215328/irish-same-sex-marriage-vote-had-highly-detrimental-impact-study/
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    4:47pm
    Barak, thanks very much for your condescending comment, but I can assure you that I already knew the difference between a plebiscite and a referendum in Australia, and I'm sure others did too!

    My view takes all of that into account, so I won't change my view because you needed to point that out.

    Given that there are different processes in place in Australia and Ireland, the Irish referendum and an Australian plebiscite are not really different in outcome!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    7:10pm
    What a silly comment. The Irish referendum and a non-binding Australian plebiscite are completely different in outcome.

    When people who disagree with me say such stupid things, it simply strengthens my views.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:39pm
    Prophet: the homosexual community has simple done the sums. They can badger and influence MPs who want to be re-elected. They can't do this to the public. Guess why they prefer a parliamentary vote?
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    12:45am
    Slight difference - in Ireland it was a referendum (a vote which if successful would automatically change their constitution). In Australia it is a plebiscite (a survey of which the outcome has no legal standing - that is, there is no obligation for anyone to abide by, or even take interest in, the outcome).

    Mick: Per my previous comments - all MPs get badgered by all lobby groups on all topics. This is but one. And both sides of the argument have set up regular email campaigns using sites like change.org. It's incorrect to imply it's just the homosexual community who is actively badgering MPs. And a plebiscite will provide not only the public funding so both sides can badger the public, but there is nothing stopping churches spending (non-taxed) money on their campaign and badgering the public.
    Charlie
    12th Oct 2016
    12:18pm
    We don't recognize marriage equality in Australia. Here, the notion is called same-sex marriage.

    It is fair and democratic to have a national vote if we want to change the meaning of the word marriage, so it applies to same sex couples.

    At one time during my lifetime the notion of same sex marriage would have been perceived as a joke or as far as you can get, from a marriage. The word marriage has a special meaning to Australians ,whether it be emotional, scientific, family oriented.

    Of course it requires a plebiscite. If they didn't want to deceive themselves by calling it a marriage, then they could do as they please and call it what they like.

    They don't want the plebscite because they have realized that most Australians don't agree with the concept of trying to say that same sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage.

    Just because the United States uses that vague word marriage equality, it doesn't mean that all things will suddenly become the same and equal. They will remain the same as they were before.
    MD
    12th Oct 2016
    12:24pm
    All about Memetics Charlie, a relatively new 'science',whereby an idea or style is spread, largely as a result of (Darwinian) evolution.
    Pablo
    12th Oct 2016
    12:35pm
    Well spoken Charlie! Agree 150%
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:23pm
    Charlie, why have a plebiscite on this issue, and nothing else, such as going to war?
    Charlie
    12th Oct 2016
    6:52pm
    Barak we have been to war before more than once. We have never had same sex marriage before.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    7:08pm
    Which bothers you the most?
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    7:18pm
    :-) And if this had happened 200,000 years ago Darwin wouldn't have had a Evolution to write about :-) Come to think of it there wouldn't have been a Darwin to write about it :-( :-( :-(
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    7:21pm
    What an idiotic comment.

    Stupid posts like that just further convince me I'm right.
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    10:20pm
    Charlie: Firstly, it is about marriage equality - the right for any two consenting adults to be able to formalise their relationship under federal law. Secondly globally (not just the US) the discussion is about equality.
    ex PS
    17th Oct 2016
    9:38am
    Charlie, I must have missed it, when did Little Johnnie have a vote when he changed the definition of marriage last time?
    Queensland Diva
    12th Oct 2016
    12:21pm
    Well done Labor - let's spend the money on something that can HELP, not divide the community. Bloody politicians simply need to do their job to get ALL people the right to marry. It's not rocket science, it's just humanity.
    Incognito
    12th Oct 2016
    2:22pm
    Exactly, politicians have more important things to do than waste time and money on something we do not need to discuss as for most of us it does not effect. Why are people so worked up about this? Who cares who someone else marries, I don't, and it won't effect my personal life. Put the money where it is truly needed, health. Without health care it is hard to do anything else.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:40pm
    Except "marriage' was never coined to include homosexuals. How about we say 'live together' and get a marriage Celebrant to have a ceremony? Deal done.
    Puglet
    12th Oct 2016
    12:27pm
    For me, marriage is an outmoded, consumer driven and often desperately unhappy experience (50% end in divorce). However, irrespective of gender if people want to marry I don't think it is any of my business. Heterosexual marriages won't change if LGBTI people marry - half will still end in divorce! Survey after survey show that over 75% of Australians want SSM. A plebiscite isn't going to change these numbers even though the far right wing hope it will so we may as well accept it. By the way LGBTI are sometimes the carers in nursing homes and they will be washing and feeding us. They may be the people who wipe our bottoms when we become incontinent. The least Australians can do is to give everyone the same rights.
    Adrianus
    12th Oct 2016
    12:39pm
    Puglet, have you thought about children?
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:24pm
    What does this have to do with children?
    Peter47
    12th Oct 2016
    2:15pm
    When these 'stats' of who is fore and against an issue are stated we are not informed how the question was framed and who was asked. I believe you can push the answer you desire in any polling via your choice of words in the question, the number of people who participate and the demography of those questioned. Only a plebiscite will determine the majority Australian view (or at least that prevailing at the time of the poll). I have not lobbied my local politician to present a view on SSM in parliament and did not vote for parliament to decide this question. I assume that Irish stats now show a drop in self harm ??? (my tongue is firmly in my cheek here)
    Circum
    12th Oct 2016
    9:22pm
    Puglet,Australians all have the same rights when it comes to marriage.Any man or woman can marry a consenting opposite sex partner.That is fact.People who talk about marriage equality use that language to give the impression that they have not been fairly treated.Emotional blackmail to leverage sympathy.
    Lobbyists of SSM want the nature of marriage to expand beyond its historical meaning.That is a massive change which I would not want politicians to make lightly.
    Yes the gays currently have equal rights but choose not to marry as they want more.
    Personally I don't care what gays do behind closed doors,but I do object to them lowering community values by hijacking our definitions of marriage.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    9:27pm
    You should be pleased they want the same conventions as you.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:42pm
    I'd like the right to disagree Puglet. Not sure I have that any more and same for the majority.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    9:45pm
    Majority?

    LOL
    Crazy Horse
    12th Oct 2016
    12:51pm
    Great. Now the politicians can do their jobs and deal with this matter in the Parliament as they still would have had to do if this nonsensical non-binding plebiscite had proceeded.

    Time to earn you exorbitant salaries politicians!
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    7:33pm
    RIGHT !!

    12th Oct 2016
    1:20pm
    It has been said that whoever raises Hitler in an argument has lost the argument. Might I respectfully suggest that raising Q&A in an argument against the conservative side of politics should give the same result. Please, Q&A has a panel where conservatives are outnumbered, the audience is almost totally of the left and the compere continually interrupts conservatives while they are responding.

    Like politicians, I pay little attention to polls because we don't know how the questions are framed nor to whom the questions are put. "Do you agree with same sex marriage?" is one way of asking and so is "Do you think all Australians should be treated the same, including same sex marriage?"

    Labor has not been against a plebiscite from the start. Shorten stated three years ago that he would rather voters have a say on the issue than leave it to 150 people. Shorten should be censured for suggesting that gay people will commit suicide if there was a public vote. He has no proof to back any such assertion.

    The penultimate paragraph of the opinion is contradictory. It states that for too long same sex marriage has been usurped for political gain yet when Shorten blocks the plebiscite for political gain, his decision is applauded.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:26pm
    Stop blaming Shorten alone. It was a unanimous decision by Caucus.

    I suspect you hate all things Labor, so will see that as just the same thing, but do get the details right.
    Puglet
    12th Oct 2016
    2:35pm
    Shorten changed his mind on SSM mostly because he realised the damage that the debates leading up to referendums or plebiscites cause. Secondly numerous opinion polls show the vast majority of Australians didn't want a non-binding plebiscite. There is good evidence that in countries including Ireland homophobic debates did lead to depression and suicidal ideation especially among the children of gay families. Suicides among young gay men is much higher than the average. Google the reasearch - it is all there. By the way EVERY Q&A publishes the proportion of Coalition, Labour and Green supporters. Interestingly the same number of Lefts complain about Right bias in Q&A as the Rights do about the Left. The program tries (not always successfully) to have a panel which reflects our diversity.
    Puglet
    12th Oct 2016
    2:50pm
    The plebiscite was to be non-binding. The politicians will still vote according to their religion or party values so it is a total waste of 2 million dollars. We didn't have a plebiscite about whether we'd join the Vietnam War or have 'marble' conscription or go to Iraq etc so why do we need one to decide on SSM? The latter won't lead to the deaths of young people or PTSD. In Australia it seems that LGBTI soldiers can die for their country but they can't marry their chosen partner.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    3:54pm
    Puglet, an opinion poll is not an indication of what all voters want, it is merely an answer to a question put to a very small number of people. An election, however, is an opinion poll asking the same question of all voters and the answer at the last election was that the Coalition policy of having a plebiscite on same sex marriage was what the majority agreed to.

    There is no "good evidence" homophobic debates in Ireland lead to depression and suicide although some polls have suggested that. Again, polls are unreliable because we don't know the content of the question or to whom the question was put. I'm disappointed that you have tried to link suicide among young gay men as a part of this discussion to cloud the issue. Yes, you are correct in that statement but it is a separate issue in that nobody has ever linked, or even suggested, that young gay men have committed suicide because of a homophobic debate. I note your second post contradicts the first. You say in the first that SSM will cause suicides yet in the second you say that SSM won't lead to the deaths of young people.

    All plebiscites are non-binding but in this case, the Government has declared that they will accept the will of the people and if the majority want same sex marriage then the legislation will be introduced as soon as practicable. Labor has declared a unity ticket on same sex marriage and so will vote in favour of same sex legislation, the Greens will vote in favour of same sex legislation and the Coalition has previously stated that they will not allow a conscience vote but will vote the way that voters choose on this issue.

    I get a very strong impression that LGBTI supporters are getting worried that a plebiscite will not give them the result that the polls are showing. If there is any anger directed at people can I suggest that most of it is coming from the LGBTI group who call people who don't support same sex marriage homophobic. I don't know of any people who are vilifying gay people who support same sex marriage.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    4:14pm
    Old Man - have a look at this article. It outlines some of the damage the Irish referendum did to LGBTI people. We need to avoid this.

    http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/4215328/irish-same-sex-marriage-vote-had-highly-detrimental-impact-study/

    On your first point, reputable opinion poll companies know how to conduct polls so they have a small margin for error and give accurate results. There have been many showing clear support for SSM. The plebiscite would just be a very expensive opinion poll.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    4:32pm
    Thanks Rod63, reading your link makes me think that whoever wrote the article here on Your Life Choices has just copied and pasted. Again, I can't see any real proof to support the allegations. I can't see how trawling through Facebook and an anonymous survey is how to conduct an investigation. I'm yet to be convinced.

    I agree that reputable opinion polls get close to the mark but how do we know that the polls mentioned in this article are those reputable pollsters. As you no doubt know, there are other pollsters who are not as ethical as the main ones.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    4:59pm
    The only Polls I believe are from the Moredough Press !! Good Honest Journalism :-) :-)
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    9:47pm
    The typical coalition driven response from you Old Man. What a rusted on Liberal you are.
    Having failed to control or sell off the only major broadcaster who presents a balanced discussion (the ABC) you now have the hide to attempt to marginalise the discussions which occur even though your side gets a fair go. Your issue is that any anti coalition rhetoric needs to be moderated out. Your form of democracy.
    Maybe you should go to stations who have people like Ray Hadley and ANdrew Bolt, to name a few, running political discussions.
    Your issue is that you and your government want 100% right wing controlled comment. Stoolie!
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    10:34pm
    Thank you Mick, Your points are noted although you may not be surprised that I disagree with your statements. My issue with our ABC is not that anti coalition rhetoric needs to be moderated out, far from it. I only ask that our ABC gives an even handed approach which I believe they do not.

    I note your comments about what I should do with my listening habits and suggest that your arrogance in telling other people how to live is breathtaking. I live well outside the listening areas for 2GB and associated stations so I cannot comply with your directions.

    I might point out that if you are living in Australia, your government is the same as mine, it's the one voted in by the voters of Australia. Or maybe you are too much like your hero Shorten and can't accept the decision of the people.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    1:24pm
    The right decision made for the right reasons. The plebiscute woudl have done more harm than good.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    10:05pm
    Actually it would have delivered what people want. Can't have that now. And who wants the $200 million cost anyway?
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    11:22pm
    Yes - it would have delivered what people want, but at what human cost? (to say nothing of thedollar cost!)
    particolor
    13th Oct 2016
    6:26pm
    I've wasted some Money in my life by Accident !! But those Incompetent Fools are Experts at it on PURPOSE !! :-(
    floss
    12th Oct 2016
    1:25pm
    We pay our pollies a huge amount of money to make decisions, do your job and make one.The big losers in this will be the children of this so called union . These people must realise they can't have it both ways .Sorry about that one.Have I missed the point I thought the Libs were in power.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:32pm
    Prepare for a shock.

    Many CURRENT same sex liaisons already involve children.

    If the Libs are in power, why can't they make a decision on this issue, just as they do for everything else that hits parliament?
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    10:09pm
    Great role models for the children. Mum and mum or dad and dad dressed up for the Gay Mardi Gras, other homosexuals invited over and carrying on something woeful (witnessed that one before) and growing up without the role models of male and female.
    Homosexuals should not be raising children. Yeah...roll out the hate.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    10:17pm
    " Can I have a Lolly Dad ? " Go and ask your Father !! :-) :-)
    There MICK :-)
    Adrianus
    13th Oct 2016
    10:56am
    Yes good point parti!
    Many children brought up in a same sex parent household are seeking out their paternal parents. They will have many questions.
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    11:17am
    And there go the hate talkers again. Telling kids of gay parents their parents are bad parents.
    Adrianus
    13th Oct 2016
    3:42pm
    Barak, your responses epitomize the divisive and bullying tactics used by lefties to get their way. I have noticed that society has just about had a gut full of it. The only "hate talker" posting appears to be you. You have a "my way or the highway" attitude and resort to name calling when facts are produced to counter your often stupid remarks. :)
    dougie
    12th Oct 2016
    1:26pm
    Bill Shorten should recall that when we had a vote on the republic issue Paul Keating stated that he would be the one to appoint whatever official held the position of Head of State as we mere mortals were not capable of making a choice. Hence his hope for a Republic failed. This I think was for this reason and this reason only. As citizens we wanted the right to have a say in the appointment.
    Today I feel that the same applies that voters want to have a say in this very delicate issue and not to be told as I was by my local labor member that "she would vote as directed by the party and that this ruling was cast in stone." Sorry but this does not suit me I feel that I am entitled to vote on this issue even though at this point I am unsure of how I will vote. The matter is delicate enough to listen to the people and to just not say I will vote as my party says I must. The same applies to both major parties and we the voters should be listened to andour views heeded.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:29pm
    I know it's heading slightly off-topic, but do you really want a popular vote for a President here, like the current one in the US?

    You say "The matter is delicate enough to listen to the people", but the plebiscite would have been non-binding. What would be the point of that?

    Listening, then ignoring, would not be good, would it?
    dougie
    12th Oct 2016
    1:38pm
    Barak,

    I agree with you re the American Vote - but would you want Bill Shorten or Malcolm Turnbull or any other pollie telling you who will be head of state ?

    The Plebiscite may be non binding but what pollie is game enough to ignore a vote which shows the will of the people ?

    Mr Baird found this out when he introduced his dishlikker policy and quickly had to withdraw.

    Let the public speak on matters that are delicate issues.
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    10:10pm
    Dougie: got a spare $200? I haven't. The country hasn't? You ? Otherwise the plebiscite would be the right thing to do.
    dougie
    13th Oct 2016
    8:20am
    Mick,
    Money for lots of other useless projects and schemes as well as wastage in many of the processes of government. ie. Tertiary education and training levies - billions paid out and none returned in annual fees. Government has done well to cut these out but more should be investigated including job placement agencies. Some are excellent others there to milk the cow.
    The money saved would be well spent on this plebiscite as it will show the real will of the people and no political party can then say "we did this or we did not do this". It would be a decision of the people by the people and we as voters would be responsible for whatever democratic decision and action was taken.

    NB. I have no political affiliations or definitive leanings - just democracy at work.
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    8:50am
    So should we abandon parliament altogether, and just have plebiscites on everything from now on?

    Yours is a silly argument. Why does anyone want this issue treated differently from everything else parliament does?
    dougie
    13th Oct 2016
    2:59pm
    Barak,

    How wonderful that you feel the right to call an argument silly, just because it is different to your thoughts.

    If my argument is silly why are so many in the community wishing to have their say in this matter and these are not just the squealing minority groups but people who wish to have their position (whatever it may be) heard.

    Nobody has suggested to abandon parliament altogether and to say that is not only sill but downright stupid. However I respect your right to say this even if it is stupid.
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    3:12pm
    "...why are so many in the community wishing to have their say in this matter"?

    Because it was their beloved Liberal Party who proposed the plebiscite, and those posters are unable to see fault with anything their party says, and unwilling to actually care about young people who are different from them. They don't care who they hurt along the way, so long as they can air their irrational prejudices.
    PIXAPD
    12th Oct 2016
    1:29pm
    Labor blocked the plebiscite? good, for it has now been set back by many years, the so called same sex marriage.

    The Public wanted a plebiscite but because their mandate has been blocked by Labor, perhaps they will lose the next Federal election also; because of their arrogance towards the people, and the whole reprobate notion will then be shelved for even longer.

    Looks like Labor were afraid a plebiscite would have been a resounding NO, but whatever the outcome might have been Australians from both sides wanted a say in such a monumental issue, that has now been denied to the people.

    There already is equality anyway, for any man may marry any woman and any woman may marry any man, you can't get more equal than that.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    1:30pm
    Why do you ignore all the reasons that were actually given for Labor opposing the plebiscite?
    PIXAPD
    12th Oct 2016
    2:25pm
    There is NO reason to ignore the will of the people, who want a say in such a monumental matter
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    10:13pm
    This government does not have a mandate. Never did. It won by 1 seat.
    Poor Barak and the homosexual community just cannot accept that the word 'marriage' does not apply to their community. A bit like calling a man a woman.
    If me must be dragged through this then attach the question on the bottom of the next federal election voting paper and let's put it to bed (oops).
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    1:06am
    Mr Turnbull made it clear that the Liberals were "seeking the mandate of the Australian people to continue and complete that national economic plan". Nothing about marriage equality in the election announcement or indeed in any policy announcement during the election campaign.

    They have NO mandate for a plebiscite, and they have not committed to vote the way the population votes (either has Labor), nor has LNP committed to a free vote on any marriage equality bill. All they have committed to is putting in a bill (not legislation).

    Mick: Call it 'eggsnuggle' instead of marriage. Change the Marriage Act to EggSnuggle Act. Even if that was done there will be people who will argue against it. And regardless how 'we the people' vote or are surveyed, that has absolutely no legal standing - the MPs should (MUST?) do their job, like they have on 99.999% of every decision that this country has ever made.
    Old Geezer
    12th Oct 2016
    1:57pm
    Good let's move on to the important things that effect the majority of people instead.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    6:03pm
    Yes Lets !!
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    1:11am
    Good. I vote that we ignore the rights of disabled people, colour blind people, left handed people, Buddhists, etc.

    Oh, and while we're at it, ignore things that affect Anglicans (they're definitely a minority now)
    particolor
    13th Oct 2016
    8:04pm
    I don't think that was Implied Richied !!
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    1:48pm
    I inferred from Old Geezer's post that we shouldn't waste time on things that do not affect the majority. Hence my reply.
    taylah
    12th Oct 2016
    2:08pm
    So BS doesnt think we plebs who are in his opinion rabble cant be trusted to have an opinion on such an important subject, important to both sides of the argument. Once again the majority of voters are being bullied by the minority of voters. Like the baby sitting in its high chair screaming joke, "he who screams loudest gets the attention.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    2:14pm
    No, that's not it at all.
    PIXAPD
    12th Oct 2016
    2:28pm
    Labor had always condoned wickedness and always will, they want the vote of the reprobates, and many themselves are reprobates; sodomites and lesbians. SEE, I have an opinion....
    MICK
    12th Oct 2016
    10:16pm
    Actually the majority of citizens are being bullied by the homosexual community demanding what it has not right to demand.
    Pretty sick post there PIXAPD. Not sure that is right in any way and not sure you would not find the same in the ranks of the coalition too.
    ozirules
    12th Oct 2016
    2:34pm
    wow what a hot topic, pity we cant get our pollies excited enough to have a plebiscite/referendum on euthanasia or capital punishment. That would have a much wider impact on the average Australian and surely, either must rate as important a question to 'let the people decide' as allowing already cohabiting couples to call themselves married.
    PIXAPD
    12th Oct 2016
    3:12pm
    A plebiscite on hanging murderers and paedophiles will most likely be YES, that's why Australians will NOT be asked on that issue.
    Maur
    12th Oct 2016
    2:42pm
    Take the word marriage out
    Make a new law , it can be done and make a whole new name for commitment. The couples can have the same legal rights as married couples. What is so hard about that.
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    1:17am
    Or easier, just repeal the Marriage Act. The only other legislation that refers to it is the Family Law Act, and once you've proven a de facto relationship (opposite sex or same sex) all rights are the same as those who have a marriage certificate. That also takes a step closer to separation of church and state and the churches can reclaim the term marriage (that they took over hundreds of years ago anyway).
    Young
    12th Oct 2016
    2:50pm
    I voted liberal for a plebesite.I don't need politicians to vote for me.As long as unions among the gay people are not called marriages I have no worries.I don't want my marriage to my wife to lose its significance.
    Puglet
    12th Oct 2016
    3:12pm
    According to the ABC a married man confessed to his wife that he had had sex with dogs, chickens and children and of course his wife. And then we have the alpha male Trump who has married three times and thinks it is OK to grab women's genitalia without their consent. I reckon these blokes have demeaned the significance of marriage far more than the LGBTI people who want to marry.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    7:26pm
    And what did that Trump Hate Speech have to do with the price of Ostrich Eggs Puglet ?? :-)
    Richied
    13th Oct 2016
    1:18am
    How can anyone else's marriage reduce the significance of yours?
    Rae
    12th Oct 2016
    3:13pm
    Just change Howard's stupid word changing back and allow churches and celebrants an out clause and then get on with something important like helping the sick or homeless etc.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    3:18pm
    Exactly.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    5:03pm
    DOUBLE EXACTLY !!.
    bebby
    12th Oct 2016
    6:29pm
    TRIPLE EXACTLY !!!
    Sundays
    12th Oct 2016
    7:02pm
    Yes, I agree
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    7:06pm
    Yup
    Adrianus
    13th Oct 2016
    10:58am
    But Rae, equality is more important these days than the sick and destitute.
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    11:18am
    Frank - I think you have misread Rae's post.
    ex PS
    14th Oct 2016
    1:53pm
    Agree Rae, why is there so much opposition to something that will have no effect on most people?
    Frank, equality effects all of those people that you mentioned.
    McGroger
    12th Oct 2016
    3:20pm
    There was a fellow in my classes at school who seemed just a little “different” to the other blokes. He was good at lessons, a good sportsman, and popular. But he was a little lighter on his feet and in his mannerisms. He married. But it didn’t last. I saw him about 15 years ago at a school reunion - with his male partner. Rarely seen a happier bloke.

    People, gay people can’t help being born to be gay, no more than people can help being born to be tall, short, white or black. Small percentages of all animals are homosexual. (Over 500 species have been observed to date, according to Wikipedia.) Animals don’t choose to be gay. Last time I looked, people were part of the animal kingdom.

    I’m a product of my upbringing: I’m uncomfortable seeing men kiss each other in public. I’m uncomfortable with a gay union being called a “marriage”. But I’ll get used to it, as I’ve adapted to all the other changes I’ve experienced in my life.

    There’s nothing wrong or unnatural about it. Shake off some of your conditioning and try to see it for the benign thing it is.
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    1:56pm
    Thanks for a considered post McGroger.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    3:44pm
    Now that all The Village People have had their say, I'm off to the Y M C A :-) :-)
    Not Senile Yet!
    12th Oct 2016
    3:56pm
    No Need for expensive plebiside!
    Labor or any Party can use it as an Election Promise and The Voters will decide overwhelmingly one way or the other....bring it on.....or are they too Scared??
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    2:00pm
    A large number of candidates publicly supported marriage equality during the last election campaign. And a large number of candidates publicly opposed marriage equality.

    The majority of winning candidates come from the first group.
    jjjadams
    12th Oct 2016
    4:19pm
    Looks like we're gonna be stuck with this part of the Faustian bargain to which Turnbull agreed in order to oust Abbott. The latter manipulated the original predicament we face.
    PIXAPD
    12th Oct 2016
    5:39pm
    THE HOLY BIBLE; GOD DECLARES HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION www.richard-2782.net/abom.htm
    Circum
    12th Oct 2016
    9:36pm
    A religious person might ask who made the homosexuals?And the usual answer is God.Poor workmanship you reckon?
    PIXAPD
    13th Oct 2016
    4:15pm
    God never made any sodomites, catamites or lesbians, he made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, Eve for Adam not Eve for madam.
    Rod63
    13th Oct 2016
    5:28pm
    And then they incestuously bred with their children to produce all mankind!! Riiiiiihht!!
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    6:22pm
    Ha ha. I like it.
    ex PS
    14th Oct 2016
    2:04pm
    GOD he/she, declared no such thing, the bible is a novel written and interpreted by men and women in order to extract wealth from people in order to build the wealth and power of the church.
    If the church is so concerned with the welfare of the common man/woman, why was it possible for wealthy folk to purchase dispensation from the church to commit rape, murder, incest and virtually any other crime that can be thought of?
    If we had all descended from just two people humanity would have died out within one or two generations because we would have been totally inbred.
    Is there anything in your bible about incest?
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    1:52pm
    PixAPD - do you really believe that a god made two human beings and everyone is descended from them?

    You do appreciate the logic problem with that (they they supposedly had two male children - where did the next generation come from, unless there was some pretty serious inbreeding going on there).
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    1:52pm
    PixAPD - do you really believe that a god made two human beings and everyone is descended from them?

    You do appreciate the logic problem with that (they they supposedly had two male children - where did the next generation come from, unless there was some pretty serious inbreeding going on there).
    Foxy
    12th Oct 2016
    5:43pm
    Well well - what a freakin' joke the "majority" of posters are on this particular "Topic"?

    There are some truly wonderful comments on here WONDERFUL - but - unfortunately most are nothing less than disgusting! (Just my opinion of course!)

    I have one question - one question: "What right does anyone ANYONE have to even think they have a "say" in another persons life??" (strangers/family/anyone?)

    Life is very short - very - and there is a old saying "Live and let Live"! O.K.? How about all the "nasties" on here adhere to that and mind your own business as to how other people live their lives? Gay marriage is not going to affect anyone in any way or form - is it???? IS IT???

    BTW - Marriage has an approx. 50% Divorce rate in most countries? So much for Marriage huh??? lol lol - So come on guys - who really cares how strangers live their lives???? Really? I don't! It does not affect me in any way or form!

    We are all EQUAL in this world- EQUAL!! NONE of us have the right in any way to determine how "others" live their lives! PLEASE please mind your own business and get on with your own life! Enjoy and cheers ....... :-)
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    5:58pm
    Well I guess that the End of the Plebiscite and Referendum then ?? Good !! :-) Now I can get on with my life and never hear about it again In every Bloody thing I read and watch on Telly and Papers !!
    I'M FREE !! :-) :-)
    And Couldn't care less !! :-) :-)
    Foxy
    12th Oct 2016
    6:10pm
    LOL - always the cool and funky "Particolor"! Yo always make me :-)
    bebby
    12th Oct 2016
    6:33pm
    Foxy, totally agree with your post.
    Circum
    12th Oct 2016
    9:45pm
    A very selfish portrayal of yourself Foxy.We all live or at least are supposed to live within the laws and rules of the land.And we are all equal except you want to be more equal than the rest of us.Please stop trying to change community values to suit yourself at the detriment to others.
    ex PS
    15th Oct 2016
    2:18pm
    Circum, if we believe the majority of posts and opinion from other sources, community values are on the side of not discriminating against same sex partners.
    So who fits your own description of a selfish portrayal of themselves here?
    If you are inferring that Little Johnie's change to the description of marriage makes it unlawful to engage in same sex marriage, do we not have to consider that he changed a law without consultation in order to suit his own values?
    Centuries ago in ancient Rome it was within the law and rules to persecute Christians unto death, community values were reflected in these actions, did this make it right?
    CindyLou
    12th Oct 2016
    6:00pm
    I really dont care either way re same sex marriage, it's only a piece of paper.

    However, I think if the powers to be really want to know what Aussies want, put this question to voters at the next federal election. This would have to cost less as the electorate (us) have to vote anyhow. Kill two birds ...
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    6:12pm
    I don't care either :-)
    I wonder if when they get Married (or whatever they call it) they will get the Married Pension ! Not 2 Single Pensions :-) There !! That should put a Damper on it !! :-) :-)
    And Yes !! I still don't care less !! :-) :-)
    Foxy
    12th Oct 2016
    6:31pm
    .... so - if you "don't care"? Why make such a "mean" type of comment Parti???? Just sayin' ?? ....... most gays have amazing jobs and great income's - my best friends are gay! Also - they adopted 3 children (siblings) from a druggie and violent "hetrosexual" home!!!! - kids were in Dept. of .... (whatever they call it?) Not sure??

    These three delightful children (now teenagers) love their Dads so very much and are so proud of them and live in a lifestyle that only some of us would dream about! Gorgeous luxury home - ponies - private schooling etc. etc. so ......... I rest my case! People need to stop being so damned judgemental !!!!
    Brissiegirl
    12th Oct 2016
    6:54pm
    Dear Foxy, I guess 90+% of mothers are good people. No luxury home, no ponies, no private schooling, no alternative parenting combination replaces a mother.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    6:56pm
    I don't if they are Kings and Queens !! Just sayin :-)
    I don't care what they do and have done !
    Me and Most of my friends are just Sick to Hell of hearing about it DAY In And DAY Out !! OOOW !! :-( Its nothing but a Political Football now !! And driving MOST PEOPLE INSANE !! :-( :-( There's IMPORTANT things to fix in this Country Not SMOKE SCREENS to cover them up !! :-( :-(
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    2:08pm
    particolor: All couples are treated identically under the law with respect benefits/pensions etc, regardless if they are of opposite sex or same sex. This has been the case federally since 2009.

    CindyLou: The powers that be have commissioned many (many) surveys including the majority of MPs actively seeking feedback from their constituents on this topic over the last 5 years. There is very little value in a plebiscite that cannot be gleened from those other surveys.
    Graeme
    12th Oct 2016
    6:25pm
    Issues by their very nature tend to divide people. Significant numbers want the marriage act to remain as it is while others want the marriage act to be changed so that people of the same gender can legally marry each other. Whatever one thinks of a plebiscite on the issue it does at least allow for a national debate on the issue where people from both sides can exercise Grier democratic right to free speech on the issue.
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    1:54pm
    I contend we can have (and indeed have had) a national debate without spending $160m.

    The plebsicite is not a debating structure: it's simply a non-binding survey.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    2:37pm
    The plebiscite would also have provided taxpayer funds to both sides to prepare cases to present to the masses.

    I cannot imagine how the anti-same sex marriage advocates could present a case without saying something negative about such liaisons, and thereby hurting the kids in same sex relationships, and people still sorting out their sexual status.

    And they want taxpayer funds to do this!
    Rod63
    15th Oct 2016
    2:38pm
    Exactly right, Barak!!
    Pamiea
    12th Oct 2016
    6:50pm
    Dear Hasbeen and Pablo
    of course the Labor party has a conscience and obviously u two don't have a brain. Why spend $160million on a plebiscite. And Mr Shorten knew that Mr Turnbull spent $5million trying to work out a way to get rid of Medicare. Read up or shut up. If Mr Turnbull can send people to war and some get killed surely he and his useless cronies can make a decision on gay marriage. Gets some balls Mr Turnbull if you think you are that good.
    Pamiea
    12th Oct 2016
    6:55pm
    Perhaps my gay husband wouldn't have married me to hide in the closet if it were acceptable to be gay. Truly f---ed up my life!
    Sophie
    12th Oct 2016
    8:32pm
    Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement.. discovery.. disease.. war.. religious doctrine.. nor was it a deliberate move to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose to meet a vital need… a way of ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship…that’s what people have been brought up with. You can’t just change something like that without consulting the populous..it's bound to bring some discontent. Centuries ago Cicero wrote “The first bond of society is marriage..next children and then the family.”

    Marriage is a pre-political institution…and by that I mean it is a freely chosen action that individuals have settled on…not something they have handed over to the government by social contract. Marriage as history shows existed before the state and... the state has no more power to redefine it than it does to redefine other customs that existed for centuries..without the input of its citizens.

    I have no problems with SSM..I don’t really care one way or the other..but millions do…I say.. give people a chance to voice their opinions and to make a decision in a democratic way..after all..we are a democratic nation aren’t we?? Therefore I am really sorry about Bill Shorten's decision.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    8:38pm
    Thea - why should this decision be treated differently from other important decisions made in parliament, such as going to war?

    What do you think of unmarried couples with children. What if they are gay?

    What about single mothers?
    motaleon
    12th Oct 2016
    8:22pm
    Yes, Mick. I totally agree. Shorten wants the parliamentary vote because he knows that this nation is besotted with political correctness and MPs would overwhelmingly vote in favour. A binding plebiscite/referendum would settle matters with nobody trying to be politically correct. I am sick of political correctness which usually means that the majority gives way to the minority - and that id not democracy at work.
    Anonymous
    12th Oct 2016
    8:24pm
    Ignorance on display, again by someone who wants a plebiscite.

    A referendum cannot be used. The proposed plebiscite was non binding.

    Next?
    ozirules
    12th Oct 2016
    9:07pm
    Barak, I had a great response prepared in my mind and call it old age if you must but poof, it's gone, I cant remember it.
    particolor
    12th Oct 2016
    10:24pm
    Its sad when people let loose with Gay Abandon !! :-(
    Richied
    12th Oct 2016
    10:21pm
    I'll preface my comment by stating I am very successful in my chosen career having held executive roles in multinational IT companies and federal government departments for the past 15 years, I have been openly gay socially since my teen years and openly gay in my worklife for over 20 years. People generally assume I am straight until I mention my (male) partner. I am not an activist. And I believe in equality of opportunity, benefits and rights for everyone. I do not like affirmative action in any form (so no quotas, no special treatment for any minority group). I also believe in separation of church (regardless of religion) and state. I am fairly centrist with my politics, but in some areas I drift towards libertarianism (do what you like as long as it doesn't adversely impact others).

    I appreciate others have quite disparate views, and I applaud that diversity. I am quite happy to discuss, even debate, opposing views, with the aim of one enlightening the other with different perspectives. And if that enlightenment sometimes comes changes in attitude or position (both mine and others).

    Now, some points on why I believe the plebiscite was not appropriate.
    1. Contrary to some arguments, the Liberal Party did not have a mandate to hold a plebiscite 'because they took it to the last election'. One seeks a mandate for a policy - indeed Mr Turnbull was very clear when he called the election as to what mandate he was seeking: "seeking the mandate of the Australian people to continue and complete that national economic plan".

    2. A plebiscite is a non-binding public opinion survey. There have been only three plebiscites federally, all of which affected all Australians (conscription, reinforcement of Imperial forces overseas, and choice of national anthem). The first two were defeated, and the third produced an outcome that took 7 years to implement. We live in a representative democracy so there is no obligation for MPs to listen to the people on any matter - in fact, significant numbers of MPs have said they will ignore the outcome of a plebiscite (before or against) and vote with their personal views. So effectively, a plebiscite is all Australians giving their (non-binding) opinion on whether a very small percentage of people can be married under the law, and MPs are free to vote how they like.

    3. A plebiscite would be extremely damaging to those (unlike me) who are not comfortable with their sexuality, who have low self-esteem, or who don't display stereotypically as male or female. We have witnessed atrocious behaviour by those passionately against marriage equality - from suggesting that gay married people will result in greater pedophilia (I can't see the logic in that - these are adults who love adults getting married), to the slippery slope argument (that the next step is polygamy - which would require structural changes to all aspects of relationships within Australia, not just a change to provision of a certificate), to the breakdown of the sanctity of marriage (marriage as a sacrament is a religious not civil position, half of all marriages currently result in divorce, and 1/4 of marriages are affected by infidelity - the sanctity is already stretched). In every jurisdiction that has had public debate on marriage equality, suicides have significantly increased during the campaigns, calls to help lines have increased, the number of hate crimes has increased dramatically during the campaign. Although I have been happily partnered for nearly 15 years, and would appreciate the recognition a federal marriage certificate would provide, I am more than happy to hold off on having that 'right' if the alternative was that others would suffer the vitriol that comes from those passionately against marriage equality.

    4. The cost of a non-binding plebiscite is obscene, when one considers what better things that money could be spent on. This expenditure may or may not change circumstances (in a one-off right of obtaining a marriage certificate) for a very small minority of people. It's like spending $160million to ask people's opinion on halal food, or whether people should be allowed to get a nose ring.

    5. We live in a democracy - the first tenet of a democracy is the citizens vote in representatives to make decisions on behalf of society. If society doesn't like those decisions, the citizens have the power to vote out those representatives and vote in different ones who (hopefully) will make decisions more aligned to society's wishes. Our elected politicians should make the decision on behalf of the citizens. The second tenet of democracy is equality for all under the law. Obtaining a marriage certificate is one right that differentiates between different group of consenting adults. There are arguments that people like things the way they are, so why are we wasting our time on this. That's simple - the way things are demonstrates a breach of the second tenet of democracy - two consenting adults of the same sex do not have the same right to get a marriage certificate as two consenting adults of different sex.

    6. (and the big one) Changes to the Marriage Act (what the plebiscite is about) provides only ONE right to same sex couples - the right to formalise their relationship under federal law and receive a government-provided piece of paper that documents that formalisation. NO OTHER RIGHTS are conferred. The reason for this is that the Marriage Act does not provide any other rights. Federal law does not differentiate between marriages and de facto relationships - straight or same sex, once the relationship is proven. The Family Law Act describes the steps people in a de facto relationship need to go through to prove their relationship (those steps aren't onerous - provide evidence of the relationship which could include co-dependence, shared bank accounts etc). Married people simply need to present their marriage certificate. Once a couple have demonstrated the relationship, ALL rights are conferred upon them. This has been the case since 2009. A lot of the arguments against marriage equality incorrectly assume giving people the right to a marriage certificate automatically gives them other rights.

    Oh, and to be clear, our relationship is fully recognised under law as it is registered under NSW law (and we have a legal relationship certificate). And this is not about a small minority forcing their agenda onto others - that implies marriage equality will adversely affect people who are not in same sex relationships (there is ZERO impact to anyone but the two people who will have the right to the marriage certificate).
    McGroger
    12th Oct 2016
    10:52pm
    Beautifully put, Richied.
    Rod63
    12th Oct 2016
    11:40pm
    Wonderfully written Richied. I hope all posters here read that.
    Circum
    13th Oct 2016
    12:18am
    Not very convincing Richied.I hope you have better luck in your career roles.
    ozirules
    13th Oct 2016
    12:38am
    Well said Richied, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments but could not have put it so eloquently. Cheap shot, Circum, try debating each of Richied points with a counter argument rather than a weak retort.
    Foxy
    13th Oct 2016
    9:36am
    ....... Fantastic "post" Richied and the very best of wishes to you (from me!) :-)

    As for Circum. - You have just confirmed my opinion that people should "mind their own business" regarding other people's personal lives!

    Oh and would suggest that Richied's "career roles'" would far surpass anything you have perhaps ever achieved in life? lol lol lol ...
    Eddy
    14th Oct 2016
    1:35am
    Good argument but one point eludes me. If a same sex married couple decided to terminate the union would they have to go through a divorce process? How would property division be decided? What about inheritance where one partner has children. Would the children be excluded from inheriting their parents estate in favour of the surviving partner (I have seen this happen in heterosexual de facto relationships where the deceased partner died intestate).
    To be honest I fail to see why a formal marriage is such a big issue for people in same sex relationships, why can't they just do what they want to do and save all the red tape.
    I am still inclined to vote NO. I don't really care what other partnership arrangements consenting adults agree too as long as they don't want to make it compulsory.
    Anonymous
    14th Oct 2016
    4:26am
    Eddy - all those questions have been answered publicly many times. There is nothing tricky or surprising about the answers. Just think about it. Most of the answers will be easier than in the case of second heterosexual marriages and blended families. Do you object to them too?

    And I have no idea what you mean by "make it compulsory". Do you think you're going to be forced to marry a bloke? LOL

    When I see responses like yours, I think, yes, the simple answer is there at the beginning of your final paragraph. It won't matter what answers you get to your questions Those words won't change. Just stop pretending you have an open mind on this issue.
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    2:49pm
    Thanks Eddy.

    In answer to your question, yes same sex couples who have registered their relationship (in NSW for example) need to go through a formal process of dissolving that relationship. Note that the state relationship registers do not differentiate between same sex or opposite couples - they are registers of two consenting adults who wish to formalise a relationship, primarily so to make it easier to obtain services or to 'prove' the relationship. For example, my (straight) brother has used the NSW relationship register to formalise his de facto relationship so they can get joint travel insurance.

    If they (or my partner and I) break up, we need to formally dissolve the relationship - including confirming that an agreement has been reached on the splitting up of assets.

    If an agreement can't be reached easily, then the Family Law Act comes into play to describe the process of reaching an agreement. And that applies for either straight or gay couples.

    The only piece of federal legislation that differentiates between straight couples or gay couples is the Marriage Act. So things like inheritances, asset splits etc are treated the same for me and my partner as for my brother and his partner (my niece jokes with me that since my relationship, she won't automatically get my assets, because now they could go to my partner's niece :-) ).

    As to why it is a big deal, it really gets down to what are considered equal rights. The right to formalise our relationship under federal law as other couples can, when we are treated as a couple under every other law (including having to pay taxes as a couple and be treated as a couple for things like Centrelink and assets tests for health cards etc), is really all that is being asked.

    One can ask why is it a big deal for straight couples to have the ability to formalise their relationship under law (as opposed to formalising as a religious ceremony), given the marriage certificate bestows absolutely no other rights on that straight couple.

    I fully appreciate the view that 'marriage' is seen as a religious sacrament (even though for the greater part of christian history it wasn't, and only the last 450 years requiring marriages to be witnessed by a priest), and that giving the right to marry to gay people is an attack on that sacrament. To that, I'm very happy to say 'let's repeal the Marriage Act' - it serves absolutely no purpose other than to provide proof of a relationship thus making it easier for couples to move through the Family Law Act. If the Marriage Act is repealed, it removes 'marriage' from Australian law and it can 'revert' to be purely a religious ceremony, This helps separation of church and state.

    I laughed a little at your last sentence. I hope there aren't people fervently opposed to marriage equality because they believe they're going to be forced to have a gay marriage :-)

    Oh, and maritare - the latin word that marriage/marry etc derives from - does not mean the joining of a man and woman: it means to provide with a husband or with a wife. The Latin word maritari means to be coupled, or to have a mate. It wasn't till the 13th century that the definition evolved into joining of a man and a woman.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    2:55pm
    ...and it wasn't until 20 years ago that John Howard, WITHOUT guidance from a plebiscite, made Australia's Marriage Act say that marriage had to be between a man and a woman.

    Johnnie WAS a naughty boy, wasn't he?
    JiiPeeTee
    12th Oct 2016
    10:37pm
    "The reverence and fear of God are basic to all wisdom.
    Knowing God results in every other kind of understanding." (Proverbs 9:10, TLB)

    "They say that what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right; that black is white and white is black; bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter." (Isaiah 5:20, TLB)
    "...they have thrown away the laws of God and despised the Word of the Holy One." (Isaiah 5:24,TLB)
    Kopernicus
    13th Oct 2016
    5:05am
    I thank your God that all religious religious people don't think like you. In fact many of them do so, regardless of their church dogma. Look at the Irish referendum.

    Your view, to which you have a right of course, is an interpretation of what was written (by mere men) very long ago. This interpretation has evolved continuously over time as our ethical and moral views have changed and there are many Bible statements no longer taken literally. For example, we no longer follow the Biblical notions of patriarchy and clearly and increasingly, many religious people do not regard homosexuality as some horrid and sinful deviance any longer. And of course this is the view of the clear majority of our total population.

    It's about human rights and equity. Live and let live is all you gotta do as clearly explained by Richied.
    Colours
    14th Oct 2016
    9:51am
    According to the Bible, we should be polygamous like Abraham, Jacob and of course Solomon. THAT is traditional marriage. The one man, one woman thing is just the great Profit Howard speaking through his rear end.
    Kopernicus
    13th Oct 2016
    5:56am
    Lets cut the crap about this being a tiny minority issue. Each gay person has parents, most likely siblings, an extended family, friendships, colleagues - this is a substantive group of people who care and are affected by what occurs to someone they love, care for, know, like, respect.

    This is a group who have been vilely, cruelly and relentlessly persecuted for time immemorial. No wonder they lived in closets, life outside was too dangerous. When my my son came out, my first thought was, 'oh shit, you are at high risk of being beaten up, bullied, abused' for all your life. As a parent you were scared what may happen to your child - for no reason other than vile, widespread hatred and prejudice.

    Thankfully, the change attitude in the last 20 years was a phenomenal snowball like effect - the better and safer it got, the more left the closet, the more people got to know gays and changed their attitudes. And now the majority see them as human beings first, more than worthy of equal rights.

    Not that it's all over - the recent revelation about the homophobic hatred and serious and illegal persecution by senior staff of 3 gay policemen within Newtown police station is one of many residual examples that need to be expunged.

    As to the concerns about unleashing hatred via the plebiscite, it was real and it happened in Ireland. How can gay marriage be linked to paedophillia? This brings me to confront those that moan about their loss of the right to free speech. Hey, if you dish it out - why be surprised when you get called out. If you display clearly false and prejudicial and hateful sentiments about gays - this hurts them and all those others that care, like me. Expect to get a confronting response, you will deserve it. The history of persecution needs to end now.
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    8:45am
    Several here have already made a fuss about how children are meant to be brought up by a mother and a father. I wonder if they ever think about the impact of such statements on existing children of same sex couples? Or, for that matter, kids with single parents, for whatever reason.

    This is unthinking hate talk. No thought of its impact on the more vulnerable.
    Rae
    13th Oct 2016
    9:21am
    Well said.

    If people actually thought about their beliefs,thoughts, words and deeds the world would be a far far better place.
    Foxy
    13th Oct 2016
    9:56am
    .... great 3 posts (above) ... especially the opening line "each gay person has parents"!!

    So to all those "banging on" about how great and wonderful the sanctity of "marriage" is etc. etc. .... remember this ........

    It is HETROSEXUAL marriages/parterships/unions - that are soley responsible for populating the entire world with the fantastic LGBTI people - the people whose only simple request in their life - is -
    E Q U A L I T Y !!!!
    Rod63
    13th Oct 2016
    10:03am
    I've just read through (again) this whole thread. Your post Kopernicus means I can finish on a high note. Thank you for such a considered, sensible post.

    Best wishes to you and your family.

    And Rae, hear! hear!
    Adrianus
    13th Oct 2016
    10:25am
    "This is unthinking hate talk. No thought of its impact on the more vulnerable." - Barak.

    I see Barak, heterosexual couples in wedlock are not vulnerable?
    Anonymous
    13th Oct 2016
    10:31am
    Well, same sex marriage won't hurt them.
    Adrianus
    14th Oct 2016
    10:13am
    I don't doubt that you may be aware of their feelings Barak, but why not ask them? Just in case, on the off chance, that your guess is off a little?
    Anonymous
    14th Oct 2016
    10:36am
    Please spell it out Frank. How will same sex marriage hurt anybody?
    particolor
    14th Oct 2016
    8:09pm
    Well that depends on who gets the House , The Car and the Fun Toys when they get Divorced :-) :-)
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    3:00pm
    A great post Kopernicus.

    Most people don't give a single thought to gay people or gay rights, until they meet someone who is gay (or they have a gay child). Quite often this means they need to do some navel gazing to test their ideologies.

    Alas, some peple don't do that navel gazing but stay focused on their deep-seated views, borne out of a millenia of theological teachings, and therefore remain staunchly opposed to allowing gay people any rights, let alone a relatively benign one that is formalising their relationship.
    PIXAPD
    13th Oct 2016
    9:45am
    I am THE GREAT OFFENDER www.richard-2782.net/thegreatoffender.htm
    Kopernicus
    13th Oct 2016
    11:57pm
    Don't give yourself too much credit, you're a pretty ordinary offensive persona, there's a heap of them.
    Kali-G
    14th Oct 2016
    8:05am
    SIMPLE: LABOR RUINS EVERYTHING...PROMOTES SODOMY!
    WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK WHAT MAN DO TO ANOTHER MAN...??????
    IT SHOULD BE ADAM & EVE
    NOT ADAM &STEVE
    Anonymous
    14th Oct 2016
    8:33am
    A study of human anatomy will tell you that sodomy is also possible between a man and a woman.
    ex PS
    14th Oct 2016
    2:10pm
    If you believe in Adam and Eve you may as well believe in The Big Bad Wolf and the Three Little Pigs, they are all a work of fiction.
    No way the population of the world could have been established by just two people, unless there was major incest being carried out.
    Or maybe it was just another miracle.
    Rod63
    14th Oct 2016
    6:07pm
    Labor doesn't promote sodomy - that's rubbish.

    Anyway, the SSM issue is NOT about sex.
    particolor
    14th Oct 2016
    8:22pm
    No ! Its about Love & Marriage going together like a Horse & Carriage :-) :-)
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    10:24pm
    So Kali-G, who created the third generation of humans?

    If god created Adam and Eve, and they begot Cain and Able, who were the parents of the next generation?

    And marriage is not about sex - it's about love (don't believe me? I suggest you read through Mr Fred Nile's tweets leading up to and following his second marriage).
    Johnno
    14th Oct 2016
    8:58am
    I have been happily married for 45 years and believe in the sanctity of marriage, to call a union between two same sex persons marriage is, I believe an abomination.
    Anonymous
    14th Oct 2016
    9:08am
    I have been happily married for 44 years and think it's wonderful that gay people want to participate in the same institutions I have been able to enjoy.

    I find that a much more positive approach to life than looking for abominations.
    particolor
    14th Oct 2016
    7:54pm
    I want to see what happens when a Dispute Erupts in a Gay Mansion !! HISS ! SCRATCH !! SPIT !!! or BIFF THUMP BLAM !! :-) :-) :-)
    Then I'll make up my mind which way to vote :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    14th Oct 2016
    7:57pm
    I know that's meant to be a humorous post, but same-sex couples have existed for a very long time.

    Such conflicts will have already played out many times, just as in hetero partnerships.
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    3:08pm
    I'm sorry that you are offended by the existence of gay people.

    Actually, I'm offended that you believe our right to formalise our relationship is an abomination.

    And you do understand that marriage originally meant to be coupled - the view that the coupling was between only a man and a woman didn't come in until the 13th century, and was pushed by the church, not by society. The 'sanctity' of marriage only came into force in the 12th century.

    So for millenia, the ideals you've put forward were foreign.

    14th Oct 2016
    9:52am
    the reason they rejected the plebiscite is because they know that it would have been defeated because most Australians don't believe this is right despite what the the poles say when conducted by the gay people.
    I have nothing against same sex couples but please don't call it marriage perhaps we could call it united or joined in happiness. The government should be doing more important things instead of giving in to the minority
    Anonymous
    14th Oct 2016
    10:11am
    You are wrong. Simple as that.

    The reason for opposing the plebiscite was stated very clearly.

    A large proportion of heterosexual people support same sex marriage.
    Adrianus
    14th Oct 2016
    10:29am
    ???
    ex PS
    14th Oct 2016
    2:15pm
    Fair Dinkum, I partly agree, but in order to give a gay union the same rights as a marriage many other laws would have to be changed.
    It is easier to just call it marriage, It's only a word.
    If little Johnny had not taken it upon himself to change the definition of marriage, without a plebiscite, we would not have this problem.
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    3:15pm
    No Fair Dinkum. It's got nothing to do with whether it would be 'defeated' or not.

    Every objective survey in recent times (including two commissioned by the Liberal Party) have shown the majority of Australians are in favour of marriage equality.

    All but two electorates, when most MPs sought feedback from their constituents over the last few years, returned a possible view that marriage equality should proceed.

    The primary reasons why 'they' rejected a plebiscite is because a) the result has absolutely no legal standing, b) MPs (from both sides of the argument) have said they will continue to vote on legislation the way they want, regardless of the outcome of the plebiscite, c) a publicly funded public debate provides the means for the extreme positions (for and against) to push their extreme vitriolic views, primarily to the detriment of those most vulnerable and d) it is an enormous waste of many that will provide no tangible outcome.
    Adrianus
    14th Oct 2016
    10:07am
    If it is going to hurt to talk about it then why do it?
    Anonymous
    14th Oct 2016
    10:15am
    Some of us can talk about it without denigrating gay people and their children.
    particolor
    14th Oct 2016
    7:25pm
    For something of Little Interest and Concern to some People, they Soytinly are have 5 Bobs worth here :-)
    Poysinaly I say, go ahead and Waste a Quarter of a Billion Bucks on something with a Foregone conclusion !! :-)
    Ny19
    14th Oct 2016
    2:16pm
    Good on Labor! Shorten and the caucus made the right decision.

    Hate speech is evident here with some making it an "Us and Them" issue inferring the gay community should be feared because it somehow threatens "the majority". This sort of prejudicial, illogical thinking stirs negative sentiment towards LGBTI and is precisely why a plebiscite would be detrimental to the well-being of gays and lesbians and their families.

    In my world "the majority" support marriage equality and did not want the plebiscite to go ahead. I am speaking about myself, my husband and all of my heterosexual senior friends, our children and their partners, our friends children and partners all now in their 30s and 40s. Understandable I guess since we do gravitate towards people with similar values but I am making the point to question the logic of those who bandy the term "majority" in a way that attacks a minority group. The gay community is not out to hurt anyone, they simply want an equal right to marry the person they love if they so choose. They should have that right and hopefully our politicians will give it to them via an open vote in parliament in the near future if Turnbull grows a backbone.
    Rod63
    14th Oct 2016
    6:09pm
    That is far too sensible for the anti SSM people, Robi.
    maxchugg
    14th Oct 2016
    6:39pm
    In the words of Macbeth, "we have scotched the snake, not killed it."
    If the introduction of "marriage equality" would not bring with it a massive erosion of the rights of those not of the LGBTI community there would be no reason to oppose them with their objectives, but this is not the case.
    Although this group is vocal in their pushing of their agenda and obtaining their rights, they are totally intolerant of the rights and views of those who have different viewpoints. A recent example was demonstrated by their action against the Catholic church for distributing a pamphlet detailing the views of the church in relation to marriage to children in Catholic schools.
    Conscientious objectors may obtain exemptions from combative military service, but church leaders who refuse to perform "gay"weddings on principle will have no protection from the wrath of the Human Rights Commissioner.
    It will also make no difference if people demanding the use of church infrastructure have not only made absolutely no contribution to the provision and maintenance of those resources, but have been openly hostile to religion in any form. As will be the case with their employees, the churches will refuse the use of their infrastructure at their peril.
    Anonymous
    14th Oct 2016
    6:44pm
    You have been brainwashed by your church. (Probably since birth.) It has lied to you.

    Details such as the obligation of churches and ministers to go against their own wishes individually once legislation is passed is in no way finalised.

    In fact, every sensible discussion I have seen proposes that there be no compulsion.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    9:33am
    Barak, for uninformed comment you take the prize1

    You don't know me and have no idea how I have formed my opinions on this subject, so please refrain from jumping to invalid and totally incorrect conclusions.

    In fact my views have been formed by following media reports, such as the example I gave and others in relation to people being prosecuted for refusing to perform functions in relation to same sex marriages.

    Recently, on TV, the Moderator the Presbyterian Church, of which I am not a member, made it perfectly clear that if "gay marriage" was legalized, ministers of religion who conscientiously objected to perform such marriages would have no option other than to withdraw their credentials as authorized marriage celebrants.
    The outcome would be that in future church people would need two wedding ceremonies, one at a civil ceremony followed by a second in the church of their choosing.

    As for your final paragraph, I repeat what I previously wrote, that if the introduction of "marriage equality" did not bring with it a massive erosion of the rights of those not of the LGBTI community, there would be no reason to oppose "marriage equality." The problem is the word "if".
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    9:37am
    The Moderator the Presbyterian Church is not a reliable, independent source of facts in this discussion.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    10:20am
    Oh, sorry, Barak. I forgot that you are the sole adjudicator upon whom is a reliable source of facts and who is not in relation to this matter.

    Perhaps you might care to explain how you have reached your decision on this matter, bearing in mind that there is a mass of evidence that there are major concerns about the erosion of the civil liberties of many people after the legalization of same sex marriage.

    These concerns are not restricted to the church hierarchy.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    10:45am
    No. The right wing conservatives in parliament believe it too. Along with people like you who have been brainwashed by the church and shock jocks. They all want to hurt people who are different. And their children.

    I want evidence from you that church leaders will be forced to perform same sex marriages. A statement from an obviously biased church leader is not evidence.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    11:34am
    And, Barak, I want evidence from you that church leaders will not be forced to perform same sex marriages. In particular I want you to explain how, once same sex marriage is approved, that anyone refusing to participate in these ceremonies will not be subject to prosecution under HREO legislation.

    We already know that in the US and Canada over the past two years punitive action has been taken against cake makers, photographers and even farmers who have withheld their services from same sex marriages, and ministers threatened with jail for non compliance.

    Even before the legislation has been introduced, we have already seen the Catholic Church under threat for promoting the views of the church in relation to marriage by circulating a booklet to children in Catholic schools.

    To date no political party or group has given any assurance that the rights of churches and other conscientious objectors will not be protected if the law is changed. What more proof do you need?
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    11:37am
    A bit of concrete evidence of your claims please.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    12:57pm
    Barak, it really does sound as if it is you who had been brainwashed.

    In the US and Canada dozens of cake makers, florists and even farmers have been penalized for refusing to be involved in same sex marriages and ministers threatened with jail.

    Perhaps you might to provide a reasonable, logical explanation of why the same results will not accompany the introduction of legislation for same sex marriage in this country.

    In particular, could you please explain how conscientious objectors will be protected from action from the HREOC?
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    12:59pm
    "In the US and Canada dozens of cake makers, florists and even farmers have been penalized for refusing to be involved in same sex marriages and ministers threatened with jail."

    A bit of concrete evidence of your claims please.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    2:54pm
    Here is a small selection, much, much more is available:

    https://carm.org/homosexual-persecution-of-christians

    http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/

    http://toprightnews.com/gay-group-demands-christian-churches-be-shut-down-for-opposing-same-sex-marriage/

    http://beginningandend.com/air-force-veteran-punished-for-not-supporting-gay-marriage/

    Now, how about a little concrete evidence in support of your claims because you have presented none so far.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    3:04pm
    Those are the most biased sources I have seen in a long time.

    Try for some mainstream news sources, and not Murdoch.
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    3:17pm
    Your arguments are not based on facts
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    3:28pm
    Richied - I hope that was directed at maxchugg, and not me.

    :-)
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    3:37pm
    maxchugg: Not a single reference you have given is relevant to Australia, and all come from extreme groups rather than objective news sources.

    Additionally, you talk of gay people seeking rights but then saying the church is constrained on asserting its rights in putting out pamphlets. The pamphlets in question were discriminatory and statements in them were not based on facts. It is for these reasons (not because people opposed the church's views) that they were attacked.

    I suggest you read EVERY single marriage equality bill that has been presented to parliament in the past ten years - you will see that all make clear that churches will continue to be exempt from doing things that are at odds with their theology. To be clear, NO PRIEST will be forced to officiate over a gay marriage (in the same way as a Catholic priest can now refuse to marry a divorcee), and NO CHURCH will be forced to allow a gay marriage in their church. The idea that priests/ministers will be forced to stop offering their services is just stupid sensationalism not based on any fact.

    An easy way for a company who is a 'conscientious objector' not to be concerned about being fined is for them not to offer services to gay people in the first place. If you make an offer and someone takes up that offer, if you then refuse service based on ANY discriminatory reason, you'll be held to account (that's the law now - that won't change with gay people being allowed to marry).
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    5:17pm
    Richied, I am aware that I am citing what has happened overseas in the USA/Canada.

    If you are correct, that legislation will be enshrined to protect conscientious objectors from being compelled to participate in same sex marriages there will be no problem.

    But what happens in the USA usually follows here, and I find it extremely difficult to believe that the LGBTI people will not exert further massive pressure on the government to ensure that they have the same "rights" here that exist in the USA.

    I would like to believe that I'm wrong and that my concerns are invalid, but past experience tells me otherwise.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    5:40pm
    So you don't trust LGBTI people.

    It's exactly people like you we don't want given a platform to spruik hate talk via a plebiscite.
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    6:49pm
    Typically, disagreement with you is invariably dismissed as hate speech because you are incapable of providing any effective, logical rebuttal. You,of course pose as someone who is full of the milk of human kindness and would never indulge in hate talk. The trouble is that the facts tell a different story

    You have repeatedly jumped to a conclusion, totally incorrect, as I have explained, yet the arguments persisted. Others are regularly accused of not understanding your posts for no good reason, yet you persist with a bogus argument:

    "You have been brainwashed by your church. (Probably since birth.) It has lied to you" 14th Oct 2016

    Along with people like you who have been brainwashed by the "church and shock jocks. They all want to hurt people who are different. And their children" 15th Oct 2016

    Obviously not. Nothing will, because your church has lied to you about the impact 15th Oct 2016

    Because your church told you otherwise? 15th Oct 2016

    You accuse others of hate speech whenever an argument is raised which you cannot defeat with logic These arguments, verging on paranoia, often contain offensive comments directed against the person you don't like and shows you to be full of hate for those who dare to differ:

    "The hate is on display there boys." 12th Oct 2016

    "That post simply proves that you haven't been paying attention, or are too stupid to understand." 12th Oct 2016

    "More hate" 12th Oct 2016

    "Not hate?" 12th Oct 2016

    "I love ALL people, unlike those opposing same-sex marriage" 12th Oct 2016

    "If they (politicians) vote no, they probably ARE homophobes. Or stupid"

    "What a stupid argument." 12th Oct 2016

    " I have stronger principles, unlike the politicians who wanted to allow a hate campaign against gay people." 12th Oct 2016

    "What a silly comment. The Irish referendum and a non-binding Australian plebiscite are completely different in outcome."

    "When people who disagree with me say such stupid things, it simply strengthens my views." 12th Oct 2016.

    "What an idiotic comment."

    "Stupid posts like that just further convince me I'm right" 12th Oct 2016

    "Yours is a silly argument " 13th Oct 2016
    "Ignorance on display, again by someone who wants a plebiscite."

    And I am not alone in my attitude to your posts, Others have made similar observations:

    Barak, your responses epitomize the divisive and bullying tactics used by lefties to get their way. I have noticed that society has just about had a gut full of it. The only "hate talker" posting appears to be you. You have a "my way or the highway" attitude and resort to name calling when facts are produced to counter your often stupid remarks. :Frank 13th Oct 2016

    It seems Barak is full of hate.You should try to be a kinder more loving person Barak Cautious 12th Oct 2016

    That seems to be the tactic of those in support of this issue, Barak. Name calling and branding. You have just proved my point! Grey Viper 12th Oct 2016

    I conclude by asking you the same question you, posing as a pillar of righteousness, have put to others - "Do you enjoy hurting people?"
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    7:27pm
    Ah, you've caught me out. Yes, I will hurt people - those who don't give a stuff about anyone who doesn't fit into ultra-conservative, wilfully ignorant, right wing society.

    Discuss the issues. Use balanced sources
    maxchugg
    15th Oct 2016
    9:33pm
    No, you hate anyone who disagrees with you which is obvious by the above comments you have made.

    Yet again you want to condemn my views when my concerns have been made perfectly clear. I have taken no position on whether or not same sex marriage should be legalized or not. What I have done has, with very valid reasons, expressed my concerns about the threats to the civil rights to those not of the LGBTI community, and I am far from being alone with these concerns.

    Your arrogance is astonishing. Every statement which I have put forwarded has been ridiculed because it comes from a source which you find unacceptable.

    As for using balanced sources, clearly the only sources which you would accept as balanced are those which come from those of your persuasion who want same sex marriage.
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    9:39pm
    Not at all.

    For those alleged events in the US, I would accept mainstream American newspapers (apart from Murdoch whose bias is well known).

    You say you have taken no position on this issue, yet the only sources you have given us are from organisations with strong "anti" positions.

    It would be quite a surprise if someone using such sources came out as pro-same sex marriage. But I'm ready to be surprised.
    Richied
    15th Oct 2016
    10:04pm
    maxchugg. Actually no, what happens in the US does not usually follow here. Our legal and political structures are different.

    Evidence how a leader here can say 'no more guns' and it happens. Even the leader of the free world can't get that through their structures.

    I'm surprised you think a number of the quoted comments are hate speech. Perhaps you've never been abused in the street simply for walking down the street - THAT'S hate speech, not being called out on a silly comment.
    maxchugg
    16th Oct 2016
    1:39pm
    Richied, we wait and see.

    An omen of what will be coming in the wake of marriage equality legislation has just been seen in Hobart. Even before the legislation has come into effect, legal action has been taken against the Catholic Church over the distribution to children in a Catholic school of literature delineating the church's position on marriage.

    As for hate speech, it is probably different things to different people. I think that belittling anyone for any reason is hate speech.
    PIXAPD
    15th Oct 2016
    8:26am
    SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS REPROBATE www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcs68B15yqo
    Anonymous
    15th Oct 2016
    8:36am
    I thought - here I am sitting idly on a Saturday morning. Got a bit of spare time. Maybe I'll have a look, just for fun.

    Well, what a waste of time. Gave up about 2 minutes in. Boring as batshit.

    I have the impression Jesus must have been a very inspiring speaker. This bloke? He could put hyperactive 7 year olds to sleep!

    Sorry PIX. He's not going to convert me.
    Adrianus
    17th Oct 2016
    10:02am
    Barak, you sit idly every morning. Fact is it's the unions who want this same sex marriage. They make up the majority of the mardi gra. Meanwhile if you're an asexual or a heterosexual you don't get a look in, you're shoved up the back like an undesirable.
    Anonymous
    17th Oct 2016
    10:11am
    But I'm a heterosexual.

    So ?
    Rod63
    17th Oct 2016
    10:55am
    " it's the unions who want this same sex marriage."

    You surely can't be serous, Frank? Why on earth would that be so?
    Adrianus
    17th Oct 2016
    11:12am
    I heard something in the news about gay unions a while ago.
    Rod63
    17th Oct 2016
    11:51am
    A gay union is a union between two gay people. It has nothing to do with industrial unions.
    Kopernicus
    18th Oct 2016
    7:24pm
    Lo and behold, saw a doco on SBS about pooftah bashings and murders on SBS, Sunday methinks. After deleting criminality in '84, the police and many hateful others got stuck into it. The compliance from the top cops was universal. It's estimated that 88 cold cases of murder (often conveniently found as suicide at inquests) may be the outcome, as well as countless injuries. The police covered up and are still doing so, the recent Newtown cop shop episode is a piece of evidence of this.

    Do any of the anti gay marriage debate give a shit about all these heinous perpetrated acts and the harm that was done to innocent people and the complicit role played by the police?

    8th Nov 2016
    8:44am
    It's really dead now.....

    "The Federal Government's bid to hold a plebiscite on whether to legalise same-sex marriage has been defeated in the Senate."

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-07/same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-bill-blocked-by-senate/8003430
    Rod63
    8th Nov 2016
    2:49pm
    It's great news isn't it? Now for a vote in parliament.
    Anonymous
    8th Nov 2016
    3:31pm
    Does Malcolm have the guts?

    12th Nov 2016
    9:17pm
    "Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull might not be invited back to the Sydney Mardi Gras next year, after a motion was passed at the parade's annual general meeting....

    Social activist Cat Rose said members of the LBGT community were outraged about his support for the same-sex marriage plebiscite."

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-12/malcolm-turnbull-declared-not-welcome-at-next-year's-mardi-gras/8020562

    I guess you can't please all of the the people all of the time.
    Rod63
    13th Nov 2016
    11:00am
    :-)


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles