Thread: when does the ssm vote thing close

Missed a point...

The amount of money used for this vote could have done a lot for housing the homeless families in this country, and help feed the rest... Waste is more important with our pollies than looking after country, which could have been done using a couple of sittings in parliament...

Sad sad day when a vote about a subject that did not really need discussing, just changing, takes precedence, when so many Australians are suffering from something that could have received help so easily...

We already know what a majority of people want - the polls are consistently 60-70 percent for Yes.
Marriage is a civil not a religious contract.
Religious people are given an exemption from having to marry same sex couples if they oppose it.
Businesses can't discriminate under discrimination laws.
It was only in the recent past that the marriage law was even changed to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Before then it didn't specify gender.
I have my personal point of view, but we shouldn't try to impose it on others, I think.

Originally Posted by Eevo

thats assuming most people want the law changed.
this is to determine how many there are

But that's not how it works - or should work. Pollies are elected to make decisions on behalf of the population - a lot of those would not have a majority of public support but they do it based on a whole host of scenarios.

But in this case, I personally believe the majority do want this - every poll done - by both sides - shows majority support for it - from the low 50%'s for polls done by the 'no' side to high 70%'s for polls done by the 'yes' side. I think the truth is somewhere between those.

My own opinion is of course yes to this, but I think the bigger issue in all of this debate is mostly being missed - it's less about the marriage part, and more about equal rights. At the moment, a same sex couple have zero rights when it comes to advising on serious medical procedures or wishes of their partner when ill, zero rights to their partners property if they die, zero rights to their partners belongings in general in the same situation. I don't see why someone's sexual preference should preclude them from being treated like everyone else within their relationships - either married or defacto. That's the real issue IMO.

I think the question should have been 'Do you agree all consenting couples should have the same legal rights within their relationships?' Marriage is just one part of this.

Originally Posted by grey_ghost

I think that it's sad that each side (yes and no) are showing such anger, contempt and lack of respect for the other side. It's sad that people can't have differing opinions without getting angry at each other.. Oh well - ducks for cover.

Agree 100%. While I am strongly on the 'yes' side, I have no issues with anyone on the 'no' side. I don't think of them as being homophobic or wrong - just that they hold a different opinion - be it through their religious beliefs, upbringing or anything else. I'm sure that all of my friends here don't all hold the same political views or religious views that I do, but they are still my friends - I don't see this any differently to be honest.

Originally Posted by Homestar

But that's not how it works - or should work. Pollies are elected to make decisions on behalf of the population - a lot of those would not have a majority of public support but they do it based on a whole host of scenarios.

i dont agree. there should be feedback. we dont elect people to do what they want. we elect them to do what we want.
we should be doing more of these surveys.
we always conplain the politicians are out of touch.

Originally Posted by grey_ghost

I think that it's sad that each side (yes and no) are showing such anger, contempt and lack of respect for the other side. It's sad that people can't have differing opinions without getting angry at each other.. Oh well - ducks for cover.

Read an interesting commentary the other day that indicated each side is sabotaging their own arguments more than the opposite side is. Eg If the survey cames back with majority as Yes, the Yes side will expect the politicians to vote Yes, even though the Yes side took it to the Australian High Court to get the postal survey stopped as it was illegal.

I can still remember not that many decades ago Homosexuality was illegal, people got beaten up and locked up in Gaol (Jail) for being Homosexual, I think Tassie was the last State to end the jailing.
No one had a poll then to ask it we should review and change the law, so why do it now?

Originally Posted by bsperka

Read an interesting commentary the other day that indicated each side is sabotaging their own arguments more than the opposite side is. Eg If the survey cames back with majority as Yes, the Yes side will expect the politicians to vote Yes, even though the Yes side took it to the Australian High Court to get the postal survey stopped as it was illegal.

Yep its called covering all bases, having an each way bet.