nutbean

Aren't most issues minority issues ? Surely by your reckoning the refugee issue falls into exactly the same category ? Indigenous Australians make up 3% of the population (abs 2011) - minority issue ? As I said - it is not the number of people within these "groups" - it is the way, we as a country, deal with these "groups". But hey...that's just my opinion.

Disagree - A norm is measured by its acceptance - not by the number within its group. It was unacceptable many years ago for a child to be born out of wedlock. It is now accepted as a social norm although the number of children born out of wedlock would be below 50%. Prefer the definition below - interestingly - norms may change or be modified over time. Social norms or mores are the rules of behavior that are considered acceptable in a group or society. People who do not follow these norms may be shunned or suffer some kind of consequence. Norms change according to the environment or situation and may change or be modified over time Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/social-norm-examples.html#m9jZUDGYrLE47DEY.99

Apparently not so simple that you have chosen to ignore that "norms" evolve over time. You are confusing norm with majority. To suggest that homosexuality is abnormal because they deviate from the norm completely ignores that homosexuality has been "normalised" in most westernised countries including Australia, with most countries legislating the right to marry someone of the same sex (Australia excluded).

Again, I don't have a problem with the decision in isolation - I have a problem with the decision when compared to so many that have gone before it.

Two of the biggest [censored] jockeys that the good lord ( if i was a believer) put breath into - however they made some great music.

The tooth fairy supports same sex marriage as long as the couple have teeth.

I'm pretty much done here. It is what it is and one can only hope that the scare mongering that is currently happening won't sway the vote.

Let me rephrase - Liberal voters elected a senator who was bound to vote along party lines ( yes - we know that pollies do cross the floor) but ended up with a senator who walked away from that constraint and can vote exactly as he sees fit.

Sorry about the shouting - should have reduced the quote ! I don't have a problem with a pollie lobbying hard as possible for the best senate ticket position. I don't even have a problem when it was being widely circulated prior to the last election that Bernardi was going to up and form his own party. He well may have been elected in his own right as a Australian Conservative but he got elected by liberal voters and defected soon after. Again - good on him - he played the game of doing anything to get elected. But then to suggest to not vote for something because you don't know what your voting for can easily translates to don't vote for Bernardi as you dont know what you are going to get. People voted for a liberal and quickly got a conservative.

As they say in the classics - "one man's Vickery is another man's David Hale" (hasn't worked out that way, Hawks)

Would have been surprised if he was offered more than one year. (arguing semantics - its not really the best for AVB but I think it is the best he could have hoped for)

Ummmm...you are not being shown the consequences of voting for a party and their plethora of issues either - the party is elected on issues and policy and we "trust" on how they will legislate. You are unaware of the consequences. The only difference between this postal plebescite and a general election is the number of issues you are voting on. And there is only one consequence to this vote - everything else speculation and conjecture.

My problem with Bernardi is and let me quote Scott Morrison in Feb of this year. Treasurer Scott Morrison reminded Bernardi - "At the last election he was elected as a Liberal senator by Liberal voters to support the Liberal Party in this Parliament and be part of our team," Morrison told reporters on Monday morning. So no sooner does he get elected as liberal, he jumps ship as a conservative. That's all well and good but then he has the temerity to say "The same-sex marriage advocates are asking the Australian people to write them the equivalent of a blank cheque," Isn't that a bit rich coming from the bloke who happily got elected on the liberal party "blank cheque" and then filled in the cheque details signing it "Australian Conservative Party". Not sure that Bernardi knows the meaning of the word hyprocricy.

Sure I'll reply. I will ask you the same questions that I asked King dingaling. 1) do you vote in elections 2/ If so, how are you able to do this when you all you are receiving is general policy information from politicians and have no idea how their legislation will look ? (or if they keep their promises on general policy and legislate at all, or if they will legislate on issues that were never brought up during the election campaign)

and strong in the contest - hard to tackle

Reading is a skill that seems to escape you. I have no desire to discuss the relevant merits of the safe school program which is my choice. But just so you can read it a third time - I have read the plebescite form from cover to cover and i just can't see where it says anything about safe schools in it and how it is linking to this vote. For the record this lefty isn't the only person who doesn't think it is linked. The education minister ( who I presume is a righty) and oversee the safe school program doesnt think it is linked either. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-30/education-minister-simon-birmingham-denies-same-sex-marriage-wo/8855692 So instead of me telling you it is not linked I will let Simon Birmingham tell you "" "It is patently ridiculous to suggest that allowing same-sex couples to marry is somehow going to see some new wave of teaching reform sweep across the country," Senator Birmingham said. "That's just not going to happen. This is a simple issue, and it should not be conflated with other issues." Hey Wrecker - I think Simon Birmingham just called you patently ridiculous. I'm done here.

Start a new thread... The safe schools program has zero to do with SSM. In case you have missed it, we don't have SSM in this country and yet the safe schools program is being debated in parliament as to what should and shouldn't be acceptably taught in our schools and has been debated in different circles since its inception. And the nonsensical nature of continually throwing these red herrings into the debate is that it doesn't follow the just because SSM law is passed that it necessarily impacts the safe school program. (Look up Simon Birmingham's response)

Gee....I dived straight into the biology books and funnily enough i didn't find anything about marriage in it. Go figure....

Wow... do you not read a newspaper ? Abbott had major opposition within his own party to the plebiscite that he so gleefully promoted and since you are so adept at throwing around epitaphs - only a rusted only righty would see this plebiscite as anything but a crude attempt to confuse and delay. What on earth does Wong's and Gillard's change of view have to do with this argument. I have not been railing against the right to have a yes or no view or to change it. I have been angered by ridiculous side issues being brought into the debate (like this one) and more importantly the mechanism - ie the plebiscite. Ill ask you a simple question. Do you not see the total futility of holding a plebiscite that is non binding and for the law to be changed parliamentarians have to vote on legislation anyway. Some of these parliamentarians even before the result of the plebiscite is known have already said that they will vote they way they want to vote irrespective of the result ? The people may have a say but it counts for nothing as this is non binding. It is not a say - it is nothing more than an opinion that parliamentarians can and will ignore, It should be a free vote in parliament - end of story.

Is that the same Corey Bernardi who campaigned and got elected as a liberal senator and then after the election decided he really didn't want to be a liberal so is now sitting in parliament that he got elected to on promises to voters that he believes longer has to keep ? I would think that makes Mr Bernardi well qualified to comment on blank cheques. Is that the same Cory Bernardi that is on record as saying months before it was known how the plebecite would look that whatever result the plebiscite returns he will vote no irrespective ?

I think the choice of Heppel and Brown, with their hairstyles, is to test the limits of Australia's hate speech laws.

I will suggest that once you even begin to look and post on demonland we are all wasting our time. I'll just rephrase a question again. How do you feel about voting in any general election where politicians make general policy promises without us having any idea on how they will legislate (and in many cases break these promises so there is no legislation at all). Do you vote for anyone or do you abstain as you don't like voting for "blank cheques" ?

Another revelation in the "interview", was Abbott's claim that had he survived as prime minister, he would he have asked the same-sex marriage lobby to draft its preferred reform bill, and then would have simply put that bill to the people. Not a yes/no binary as in the current survey, but a nationwide plebiscite on the legislation itself, with all its complexities. Former Liberal leader and proud constitutional monarchist, Brendan Nelson, who intends to vote "yes" by the way, knows exactly what that was designed to achieve. As he told the National Press Club on Tuesday, if you want to stop a change happening, make the argument about the process.

You could go one step further and say that the Person B not have the right to do X even though it has no impact on me whatsoever. I will repeat this to anyone who will listen - if one truly has a strong objection to same sex marriage then i encourage them to protest in the strongest way possible by not getting married to someone of the same sex - job done.

You point was that you didn't think that Howard was a good political operator. I don't disagree with anything you have said above but irrespective of his vision, his views, his motivations he managed to sell this vision to Australian public for a long period of time and get his legislation passed. I both vehemently disagreed with most of what Howard stood for and recognise his political skill for being able to sell his agenda and get it passed.