Marriage Equality

[Rosy]

well said. depression and suicide rates are much higher in the gay and lesbian community. she would not give 2 sh!ts about that.

Pretty ordinary comment from somone who's up in arms about what someone else said.

 

[taztiger4]

I see some players are threatening to boycott playing on the Margaret Court Areana. Perhaps they should also boycott playing in countries where homosexuality is illegal.

yep

 

[MB78]

I see some players are threatening to boycott playing on the Margaret Court Areana. Perhaps they should also boycott playing in countries where homosexuality is illegal.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[MB78]

I have no problem is she or anyone else voices their opinions - we all have a right to - as long as it is done with respect.

Afraid Court showed absolutely no respect in what she said or how she said it - it was aggressive, provocative and hurtful to many people - she has completely lost my respect as a famous Australian sports person.

I agree with most of this post.

But based on the first sentence many who have condemned her on social media have also failed this test.

I will respect Margaret for being our greatest female tennis player. That shouldn't change.

 

[glantone]

...geez there are some understanding people in this world.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/cate-mcgregor-delivers-moving-response-to-margaret-courts-comments-on-lesbians-and-transgender-children/news-story/6c24e944bde9d4ce1cacc5385a214348

 

[Ian4]

so get this...

I am moving houses in around 5-6 weeks.

the electoral roll for the plebiscite closes on August 24.

The vote is in November.

I called the AEC and they confirmed my suspicions, that is illegal to change your electoral roll address before I move and they told me to get my mail redirected if I wanna vote. So basically I need to go out of my way at my own expense to make sure I get my opportunity to vote yes. This is just another way the government is trying to rig the vote.

 

[tigertim]

[youtube=560,315][/youtube]

so get this...

I am moving houses in around 5-6 weeks.

the electoral roll for the plebiscite closes on August 24.

The vote is in November.

I called the AEC and they confirmed my suspicions, that is illegal to change your electoral roll address before I move and they told me to get my mail redirected if I wanna vote. So basically I need to go out of my way at my own expense to make sure I get my opportunity to vote yes. This is just another way the government is trying to rig the vote.

I think you might be a little paranoid if you think the government is trying to rig the vote for people who are moving house. if you think the government wants to rig for the vote for people who are moving house during this period so they can't vote "yes" what makes you think all people who are moving house during this period won't also be voting "no"?

And doesn't this rule you refer to also apply in ALL elections? If so what vote is the government trying to stop in those cases?

 

[Ian4]

[youtube=560,315][/youtube]I think you might be a little paranoid if you think the government is trying to rig the vote for people who are moving house. if you think the government wants to rig for the vote for people who are moving house during this period so they can't vote "yes" what makes you think all people who are moving house during this period won't also be voting "no"?

And doesn't this rule you refer to also apply in ALL elections? If so what vote is the government trying to stop in those cases?

its generally accepted that the yes vote runs at around 2/3 in support of marriage equality. it is also generally accepted that younger people are more likely to vote yes, but are either not on the electoral roll or don't use snail mail. it is also generally accepted that older people are more likely to vote no, more likely to be on the electoral roll and are more likely to use snail mail.

it is also a fact the that plebiscite (and now the postal plebiscite) was pushed by the conservative branch of the LNP who are against marriage equality. This is clearly because they believe doing it this way is more likely to see a closer vote. A closer vote will give them the opportunity to vote it down in parliament.

so to answer your question, yes I am of the opinion that this is a clear plan by the government to manipulate the vote to give them their preferred outcome. I'm sure the question on the ballot will be carefully worded to suit their agenda as well.

 

[Harry]

We better make sure russia doesn't hack this vote. Putin is homophobic.

 

[Giardiasis]

I think you give the government too much credit Ian.

 

[tigertim]

its generally accepted that the yes vote runs at around 2/3 in support of marriage equality. it is also generally accepted that younger people are more likely to vote yes, but are either not on the electoral roll or don't use snail mail. it is also generally accepted that older people are more likely to vote no, more likely to be on the electoral roll and are more likely to use snail mail.

it is also a fact the that plebiscite (and now the postal plebiscite) was pushed by the conservative branch of the LNP who are against marriage equality. This is clearly because they believe doing it this way is more likely to see a closer vote. A closer vote will give them the opportunity to vote it down in parliament.

so to answer your question, yes I am of the opinion that this is a clear plan by the government to manipulate the vote to give them their preferred outcome. I'm sure the question on the ballot will be carefully worded to suit their agenda as well.

I think the wording of the question will be formed by ABS boffins and the ABS are impartial.

But how do you think the question would be worded to suit the LNP agenda?

 

[Ian4]

OK, so lets go back to republic referendum in 1999. This is the question that was placed on the ballot:
"Do you approve of an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament?"

This question is misleading because a no vote doesn't mean people were against Australia becoming a republic. It simply means they disagreed with the proposed model.

The question should have been:
"Are you in favour of Australia becoming a republic."

If the yes vote won (which it probably would have), then there should have been further discussion to decide the model.

if this postal plebiscite is anything different to "Are you in favour of Marriage Equality in Australia?" Then it has been manipulated to suit a certain agenda.

As for the wording being created by the ABS, are you sure of this? As it is a non-binding vote that has by-passed parliament, I would have thought the government can word it in any way they want.

 

[YinnarTiger]

But how do you think the question would be worded to suit the LNP agenda?

I'll have a go:

Do you approve of an act to allow the commonwealth to legislate out of existence our traditional concepts of marriage and replace them with a more politically correct definition of marriage as the union of two people regardless of their sex?

Yes/No. Cross out one.

 

[gutfull]

Traditonal concepts with regards to marriage should remain ....imop

 

[tigertim]

I'll have a go:

Do you approve of an act to allow the commonwealth to legislate out of existence our traditional concepts of marriage and replace them with a more politically correct definition of marriage as the union of two people regardless of their sex?

Yes/No. Cross out one.

Yep, that'd do it.

 

[Ian4]

I would have suggested something along the lines of "Do you approve of an act to allow the commonwealth to legislate so that two men or two women can marry?"

because:
1. they would do everything to avoid including the word "marriage equality." and:
2. "two men or two women" getting married will play on people's prejudices.

I'll have a go:

Do you approve of an act to allow the commonwealth to legislate out of existence our traditional concepts of marriage and replace them with a more politically correct definition of marriage as the union of two people regardless of their sex?

Yes/No. Cross out one.

very good. much better than mine. :hihi

on a side note, Tony Abbott's attempt at linking marriage equality with political correctness in the media the other day was disgusting.

 

[1eyedtiger]

I want to know if we can vote to force gay people to sit at the back of the bus. :angel:

 

[Harry]

Why should people vote? Shouldn't the lawmakers do what they're there for?

 

[MB78]

I have changed my stance on this over the years. I'm now in favour of marriage equality.

One question I have is how will the Muslim community react to this when it goes through?

Looking at Indonesia our closet neighbor, recent developments of public floggings and boycotts of marriage equality supporters to the reverse of what happened here to Coopers Beer don't look to promising.

I'm clear that many Christians won't accept this. Although I don't agree their stance is transparent.

 

[1eyedtiger]

I have changed my stance on this over the years. I'm now in favour of marriage equality.

One question I have is how will the Muslim community react to this when it goes through?

Looking at Indonesia our closet neighbor, recent developments of public floggings and boycotts of marriage equality supporters to the reverse of what happened here to Coopers Beer don't look to promising.

I'm clear that many Christians won't accept this. Although I don't agree their stance is transparent.

Who cares how the Muslims react to this. If they don't like it, they can go eat the Halal certified Vegemite that has been forced upon everyone who eats Vegemite. Muslims go about saying and doing whatever they please without caring what anyone else thinks or who they offend so I couldn't give a rats what they think.

Same goes with all other religions.

:ner