SSM postal vote

[Wrecker45 3,378]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

Sorry but again logic is escaping you - Your argument has zero bearing on same sex marriage argument. We are not voting on whether same sex couples can have children. Same sex couples can have children by surrogacy, or adoption or in the case two women by natural means. I believe that debate has already been decided. And just to dilute the argument even more - we are approaching 40% of children in Australia being born to unmarried parents. To dilute it even further ( figures from 2011 ABS) - 33,700 same sex couples in Australia - with 6300 children in these families. How about this little stat "Children in same-sex couple families make up only one in a thousand of all children in couple families (0.1%). And just so you are clear - children born to married couples has been rapidly decreasing. "But to repeat  - this vote is not about children having a mother and father because as you can see - the ability for same sex couples to raise children is already legal and happening. 

Every argument offered up by the no campaign has been peripheral nonsense.

Lets make it simple.

Tell me exactly how you believe SSM will affect you.

 

(edit - it is not peripheral nonsense - as some of the issues are important and are worthy of debate and discussion - however the arguments are peripheral and irrelevant to the SSM debate)

To answer your question I'll probably get invited to more weddings.

from a selfish view point this is good. I love a good wedding. 

I don't think it is the best outcome for children being bought up with ss couples. Nor do I think IVF or adoption is the best outcome with a single mum.

i like the idea of children having a mother and a father. Understand you think this is peripheral. I think it is fundamental and a driver of families going forward.

[dieter 3,325]

40 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Would you prefer we just stuck with the status quo? That is what the previous Rudd / Gillard / Rudd Government did. Penny Wong even endorsed that stance.

There is so much hate in the left side of politics they cannot stand that the Liberals have bought about the mechanism to change marriage to accept homosexuals and marriage equality.

Do you begrudge the spending of tax payer money for equality?

Now you're really getting convoluted. 

Apart from that, it is a total waste of money: the members of parliament should have decided this. This is their bloody job, for crying out loud.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

1 hour ago, dieter said:

Now you're really getting convoluted. 

Apart from that, it is a total waste of money: the members of parliament should have decided this. This is their bloody job, for crying out loud.

I find it difficult to deal with the stupidity of this argument. 

There are lots of political parties that have held election platforms that include ssm. They just haven't been elected. The people vote against it time and time again.

The Labor party were dead against ssm in their last elected term including Penny Wong who is openly gay.

Letting the people decide is a great win for democracy and will end up a joyous moment for the gay community.

 

[dieter 3,325]

4 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I find it difficult to deal with the stupidity of this argument. 

There are lots of political parties that have held election platforms that include ssm. They just haven't been elected. The people vote against it time and time again.

The Labor party were dead against ssm in their last elected term including Penny Wong who is openly gay.

Letting the people decide is a great win for democracy and will end up a joyous moment for the gay community.

 

 

The problem with your point of view is that THE PEOPLE MIGHT SAY YES, THE RIGHT WING CHRISTO/FASCISTS CAN STILL BRING IT DOWN IN PARLIAMENT. In other words, they will still vote according to the voices in their heads.

END RESULT: JUST ANOTHER 122 MILLION BUCKS DOWN THE GURGLER.

Enjoy the weddings, Wreck, IF AND WHEN THEY HAPPEN. Remember to not let it be known that you believed every boy and girl needed a mother and a father while you enjoy the matrimonial baked meats and the free plonk which will most likely be better than the VB and cask wine you'll be served at most weddings.

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by dieter

[daisycutter 29,891]

7 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

There is so much hate in the left side of politics they cannot stand that the Liberals have bought about the mechanism to change

this is a good point you bring up and it is at the crux of the issue.

the answer is pure jealousy and political bastardry. they cannot stand the probability that their arch enemy will bring about this momentous social change. a change they had hoped to use as a spearhead in the next election campaign.

this is why shorten and labor jumped ship on a plebescite to thwart(delay) this change at this time.

all the arguments about it being non-binding, a waste of money and a bitter hurtful campaign are all just red herrings magnified with propaganda by people afraid their opposition will go down in history with the credit

complaints about wasting $120m. LMAO. I could sit here and write of countless Billions wasted by labor (and no doubt similarly by the libs)

Fact is I will be voting yes, the majority of the country will vote yes, it will go to parliament and be voted into law, all before the current parliamentary term ends. Labor can eat their shorts. They had their chance before and badly baulked it. fact.

Edited October 5, 2017 by daisycutter

[Jara 1,153]

Great that you're voting yes, Daisy. Hope you're right about the majority voting the same way. I'm not totally convinced they will - been a lot of red herrings and misdirection. 

[nutbean 8,838]

10 hours ago, daisycutter said:

this is a good point you bring up and it is at the crux of the issue.The answer is pure jealousy and political bastardry. they cannot stand the probability that their arch enemy will bring about this momentous social change. a change they had hoped to use as a spearhead in the next election campaign.

Fact is I will be voting yes, the majority of the country will vote yes, it will go to parliament and be voted into law, all before the current parliamentary term ends. Labor can eat their shorts. They had their chance before and badly baulked it. fact.

Could not disagree more with your thought of what is the "Crux of the issue". Whilst there is merit in the points made do you believe this really is the  "crux of the issue" ? You used the term red herring and all i am seeing is  another red herring .

The crux of the issue is not that Labor had their chance before and badly baulked ( which is damning of the Labor party in my eyes). The crux of the issue is not the hate by Labor that the Libs have brought about a mechanism for social change ( and Labor are playing politics on this issue as hard as the libs and they both should be damned)  - I don't give a rats what has gone on previously or which party brings about the change. I don't care much for a simple issue that should have been decided like every other issue - a vote in parliament but again, this is not the crux of the issue. The crux of issue is not freedom of speech, freedom of religion practice or safe schools program. The crux of the issue is not that legislation has not been provided for public scrutiny as we elect politicians on policy with no insight  as to what legislation they will enact looks like. The crux of the issue  is whether same sex marriage should be legalised. Everything else - as you put it - is a red herring.

[Jara 1,153]

Excellent post, Nut. Been more red herrings than a Scottish fishery.

 

Re Labor's earlier lack of support, disappointing, sure, but yet another example of how weird out political system can be.  Conservatives are sometimes better placed to bring in changes because the ones who dislike them for it dislike the other side even more (the opposite is also true - see Howard and gun laws). I presume Wong, Gillard etc supported marriage equality - they were just afraid of electoral wipeout if they introduced it.  

[daisycutter 29,891]

20 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Could not disagree more with your thought of what is the "Crux of the issue". Whilst there is merit in the points made do you believe this really is the  "crux of the issue" ? You used the term red herring and all i am seeing is  another red herring .

The crux of the issue is not that Labor had their chance before and badly baulked ( which is damning of the Labor party in my eyes). The crux of the issue is not the hate by Labor that the Libs have brought about a mechanism for social change ( and Labor are playing politics on this issue as hard as the libs and they both should be damned)  - I don't give a rats what has gone on previously or which party brings about the change. I don't care much for a simple issue that should have been decided like every other issue - a vote in parliament but again, this is not the crux of the issue. The crux of issue is not freedom of speech, freedom of religion practice or safe schools program. The crux of the issue is not that legislation has not been provided for public scrutiny as we elect politicians on policy with no insight  as to what legislation they will enact looks like. The crux of the issue  is whether same sex marriage should be legalised. Everything else - as you put it - is a red herring.

read my post, nut

the crux of the hate issue as raised in the post i replied to

of course the crux of the total issue is whether ssm should be legalised - duh

and.....we would have ssm legal now if the plebiscite was held

Edited October 5, 2017 by daisycutter

[Wrecker45 3,378]

25 minutes ago, Jara said:

 

 

Re Labor's earlier lack of support, disappointing, sure, but yet another example of how weird out political system can be.  Conservatives are sometimes better placed to bring in changes because the ones who dislike them for it dislike the other side even more (the opposite is also true - see Howard and gun laws). I presume Wong, Gillard etc supported marriage equality - they were just afraid of electoral wipeout if they introduced it.  

Gillard faced electoral wipeout because she didn't stick to her principals. 

Conservatives are better placed to bring in change because their reasoning is logical. Progressives want change for change's sake.

[dieter 3,325]

19 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Gillard faced electoral wipeout because she didn't stick to her principals. 

Conservatives are better placed to bring in change because their reasoning is logical. Progressives want change for change's sake.

Yes, conservatives are much better placed to bring in change because their reasoning is logical. Witness Joe Hockey tilting at windmills, the Abbottoir's rantings about the evil cascading consequences if a woman can marry his sister, or to the absolute fabulist nonsense Turnbulldust told us about the tenth rate NBN rollout, not to mention their perfect understanding of the great benefit of coal and total denial that the weather ain't what it used to be....

You continue to both baffle and amuse me, man.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

43 minutes ago, dieter said:

Yes, conservatives are much better placed to bring in change because their reasoning is logical. Witness Joe Hockey tilting at windmills, the Abbottoir's rantings about the evil cascading consequences if a woman can marry his sister, or to the absolute fabulist nonsense Turnbulldust told us about the tenth rate NBN rollout, not to mention their perfect understanding of the great benefit of coal and total denial that the weather ain't what it used to be....

You continue to both baffle and amuse me, man.

Of all the stupid things you have written on this board the above is probably your best.

Enlighten me, when do you think the weather was at its best?

[dieter 3,325]

3 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Of all the stupid things you have written on this board the above is probably your best.

Enlighten me, when do you think the weather was at its best?

1st April, 1961.

[nutbean 8,838]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

read my post, nut

the crux of the hate issue as raised in the post i replied to

of course the crux of the total issue is whether ssm should be legalised - duh

and.....we would have ssm legal now if the plebiscite was held

my bad...

xx

[nutbean 8,838]

1 minute ago, dieter said:

1st April, 1961.

I call bulldust.

It was nice in the morning but it clouded over and rained in the afternoon.

[dieter 3,325]

1 minute ago, nutbean said:

I call bulldust.

It was nice in the morning but it clouded over and rained in the afternoon.

So, what's unusual? Melbourne weather, okay?

[Wrecker45 3,378]

4 minutes ago, dieter said:

1st April, 1961.

Before midday I hope.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

14 hours ago, dieter said:

 

The problem with your point of view is that THE PEOPLE MIGHT SAY YES, THE RIGHT WING CHRISTO/FASCISTS CAN STILL BRING IT DOWN IN PARLIAMENT. In other words, they will still vote according to the voices in their heads.

END RESULT: JUST ANOTHER 122 MILLION BUCKS DOWN THE GURGLER.

Enjoy the weddings, Wreck, IF AND WHEN THEY HAPPEN. Remember to not let it be known that you believed every boy and girl needed a mother and a father while you enjoy the matrimonial baked meats and the free plonk which will most likely be better than the VB and cask wine you'll be served at most weddings.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Wrecker45

[Nasher 33,617]

3 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Gillard faced electoral wipeout because she didn't stick to her principals. 

Conservatives are better placed to bring in change because their reasoning is logical. Progressives want change for change's sake.

Just popped my head in to this thread for the first time and saw this post.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

27 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Just popped my head in to this thread for the first time and saw this post.

If you can't contribute, don't.

[Nasher 33,617]

8 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

If you can't contribute, don't.

I wouldn't call your post contributing either.  If the starting point of this conversation is "all progressives have cooties" then it's not a discussion worth entering.

[mauriesy 7,410]

6 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Gillard faced electoral wipeout because she didn't stick to her principals.

Plus I don't know what school teachers have got to do with it

[daisycutter 29,891]

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

I wouldn't call your post contributing either.  If the starting point of this conversation is "all progressives have cooties" then it's not a discussion worth entering.

lol - had to look up 'cooties'. need to get out more

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

On 15/09/2017 at 10:12 PM, Wrecker45 said:

To dodge around saying what is wrong with the ad is disingenuous. 

The current Government were elected with a promise of a plebiscite as part of their election platform. Democracy isn't your thing?

 

Ahh that old red herring.  Governments aren't voted in.  Tired ones are voted out.  Trying to claim a mandate from an electorate that is tired of mainstream politicians is moot.  We elect our so-called representatives to get the job done.  Nowadays, pollies only react to the 24 hour news cycle and 5 second sound bytes.  Most people couldn't tell you which of the so-called election promises they remember.  Notwithstanding the fact that election promises are consistently broken as a matter of course.

The Marriage Act is a man made piece of legislation, it is not not derived from a particular piece of religious text.  Religious institutions will still conduct themselves in the manner they see fit and in this country we still have freedom of religion, in terms of choice.  I was brought up a Catholic, but although I was legally divorced, the Catholic church will not allow me to re-marry in one of their Churches, as a divorcee.  

And what of the level of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships?  Have you seen the stats?  Oh, but it is OK for a child to witness his abusive father beat the child's mother, but let us not subject a child to a loving relationship of a same sex couple.

Of course, the Churches of various colours, which seek the moral high ground, are damned by their own abusive histories.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by iv'a worn smith

[Wrecker45 3,378]

3 hours ago, Nasher said:

I wouldn't call your post contributing either.  If the starting point of this conversation is "all progressives have cooties" then it's not a discussion worth entering.

Wow. You use quotation marks to quote me saying something I didn't say.