Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 336

Thread: Why I am Voting NO

  1. #41
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allover View Post
    I think every one has come to the conclusion that it will be inevitable if not now but in the future
    A point that was made to me on Friday night is, as present, a long partner ship of a couple is not legally established by time, should one partner die, the other has no common law rights as say a husband and wife has in organizing their ex partner's legal affairs, etc . It is this flaw that the vote is trying to rectify
    You have certainly been misinformed. This is not the flaw the vote is trying to rectify. In most if not all Australian jurisdictions same sex relationships are categorised as de facto relationships and carry the same rights and obligations as relationships between heterosexual couples. If same sex couples want rights to organise the others affairs in a very recent relationship they can easily achieve this without "marrying".

    Personally I think the push for same sex marriage is all about the use of the word "marriage". When the same word is used for such a union between heterosexual couples and same sex couples the message is that both are equally desirable from the point of view of society. It could well be that a new generation raised in such an environment will come to regard same sex and heterosexual marriages and relationships in general as equally desirable. If you believe this, you should of course vote yes. But please don't pretend there will be no social effect whatsoever. Perhaps it is just my upbringing, but I do believe that relationships between a man and a woman should stay society's norm.

    I believe that there is great confusion generally between tolerating and promoting/endorsing. So far as same sex relationships are concerned I think that they should be tolerated but not endorsed or promoted. Same sex relationships should be free of stigma and those who engage in them free from discrimination. If two people of the same sex want to enter into a relationship with binding force they should be able to legally do so. If there are still Australian jurisdictions where they currently cannot then this should of course change. Respect and tolerance, yes. Promotion and endorsement, no. Think about why "marriage" under another name is not acceptable to at least some of these people?

    I will be voting no. Even had I planned to vote yes I would now be voting no because of the disgraceful attempt to silence debate by those on the left who have adopted this as one of their pet causes.
    Last edited by DB44; 30-08-17 at 07:03 PM.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    alpha0ne (31-08-17),ammlione (20-09-17),jonnyath (18-09-17),loopyloo (17-09-17),lsemmens (31-08-17),OSIRUS (30-08-17),tristen (31-08-17)



  • #42
    Premium Member
    ol' boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,662
    Thanks
    8,131
    Thanked 10,460 Times in 5,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    4471
    Reputation
    184272

    Default

    So, if a same sex couple live together for a certain amount of time, are they considered a Defaco Couple?
    As is done with a hetrosexual couple.

    Then again, with gender confused people, what the hell is a hetrosexual couple anymore?
    Last edited by ol' boy; 30-08-17 at 07:22 PM.
    If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!

  • The Following User Says Thank You to ol' boy For This Useful Post:

    eaglem (31-08-17)

  • #43
    Senior Member
    bob_m_54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,093
    Thanks
    1,053
    Thanked 1,151 Times in 689 Posts
    Rep Power
    634
    Reputation
    20178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    So we should give everyone who won't give up after one defeat their way just so it won't come up again and again?
    That's not what I said. I said "I don't see any gain voting no, just because you're sick and tired of the issue, or think it's a waste of time and money"

    in other words, voting No out of spite, not because you disagree with same sex marriage, but because you're sick and tired of the issue.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to bob_m_54 For This Useful Post:

    Rick (31-08-17)

  • #44
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    44
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    203
    Reputation
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VroomVroom View Post
    likewise. This whole agenda will start with same sex marriage , then the lefties will demand more changes ( aka inclusion ) so you can marry your cat / dog / muslim goat ( therefore have legal sex with them ) . Then the lefties will want to include pedophiles marrying children !!
    What's with all the slippery slope fallacies? Other countries have recognised same sex marriage for years and it hasn't led to any of those insane things.

    No matter how this all works out, the left and right will continue lobbing for what they want to lobby for. Ticking yes or no isn't going to silence anyone about other issues, so I don't know why anyone would base their decision on that.
    Last edited by Sektor; 30-08-17 at 09:54 PM.

  • #45
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    @bob_m_54. Sorry if I misinterpretated the point you are making. In post 11 you did indeed use the above words. However, you went on to say:

    If the vote turns out to be a majority negative, then it will just come up again and again anyway. Better off if the law is passed, the situation is resolved and let them get on with it.
    I took this as making a correct point, that being that a negative vote is not likely to be the end of the issue, and then advocating that people who were sick of the issue should vote yes just so it would go away. The question mark is just that. It invites you to clarify your position. Are you simply making an observation that a no vote will likely not be the end of the issue, where a yes vote will? Or are you advocating a Yes vote by people simply to make the issue go away?

  • #46
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sektor View Post
    What's with all the slippery slope fallacies? Other countries have recognised same sex marriage for decades and it hasn't led to any of those insane things.
    Examples please?

  • #47
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    44
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    203
    Reputation
    190

    Default

    I should have said over a decade, it's not quite decades yet.

    There's more than 20 countries that allow same sex marriage and I shouldn't have to say this but you know they haven't all started demanding that we be able to marry animals.



    If same sex couples want to marry each other, let them get married, it doesn't hurt you. If you don't want gay marriage, don't get gay married, simple.
    Last edited by Sektor; 30-08-17 at 10:20 PM.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Sektor For This Useful Post:

    Uncle Fester (30-08-17)

  • #48
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    Thanks for the Wikipedia link. The problem with this type of thin end of the wedge argument is of course that it is not readily apparent who is now lobbying for what in each of these countries and what further steps have been taken. And, of course, the time frame is simply too short to draw meaningful conclusions. Animals is a more extreme result. More likely the next steps will be polygamous marriages and marriages between adults and minors. There are groups in Australia and other western nations which support both, and there have been recent examples in the news.

    And of course the thin end of the wedge argument applies to this type of situation as well:



    Granted, the thin end of the wedge argument may not be the strongest, but nor should it be lightly dismissed.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    VroomVroom (31-08-17)

  • #49
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,405
    Thanks
    2,289
    Thanked 4,414 Times in 2,517 Posts
    Rep Power
    2046
    Reputation
    81778

    Default

    @Sektor, you just broke a taboo here and mentioned other countries
    That wiki list includes every civilised 'western' country I am aware of, even the USA, although I am certain Trump is grinding his teeth figuring out how he can reverse the ruling.
    Australians are probably the most conservative lot in the world and totally frightened of any 'changes' and I would be very surprised to see a 'yes' as the result of this opinion poll.
    The only instance where I saw Australia ahead of the world was the adaptation of Digital Pay TV (formerly via satellite) hence the creation of this forum
    Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
    Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
    Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...

  • #50
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,752
    Thanks
    16,817
    Thanked 34,961 Times in 9,058 Posts
    Rep Power
    13677
    Reputation
    644429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteramjet View Post
    Seriously? It was just over 12 months ago and was one of the 'hot' topics. The ALP endorsed it and advised they would introduce a bill within the first 100 days to make SSM law, the LNP wanted the Plebiscite before allowing a conscious vote.
    A link to this ALP commitment? I didn't see it in their platform at the time, but I will confess I'm not about to scan the thing again, for either party.....I couldn't stay awake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tactile View Post
    Yes - No brainer.
    i hope the 'no brainer' is mine (wouldn't be the first time)...otherwise we know where it resides.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #51
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,703
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 1,112 Times in 571 Posts
    Rep Power
    637
    Reputation
    20724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    A link to this ALP commitment? I didn't see it in their platform at the time, but I will confess I'm not about to scan the thing again, for either party.....I couldn't stay awake.
    A 2 second Google for 'ALP 2016 election same-sex marriage' brings up all the info. See the link below for one example.


  • #52
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nomeat View Post
    @Sektor, you just broke a taboo here and mentioned other countries
    That wiki list includes every civilised 'western' country I am aware of, even the USA, although I am certain Trump is grinding his teeth figuring out how he can reverse the ruling.
    Australians are probably the most conservative lot in the world and totally frightened of any 'changes' and I would be very surprised to see a 'yes' as the result of this opinion poll.
    The only instance where I saw Australia ahead of the world was the adaptation of Digital Pay TV (formerly via satellite) hence the creation of this forum
    Civilised Western Countries, as you call them, have proven themselves extremely susceptible to this type of politically correct bullying, often to their own very real disadvantage. I don't think there is much doubt what the result would have been in the United States had the matter been decided by its people rather than a judicially activist Supreme Court. Off the top of my head the only public vote on the matter I am aware of was in Ireland, where a large number of people didn't bother voting. Australians have much in common with the Irish and similar apathy may well prevail here. Overall 60.52% of the 62.07% voter turnout were in favour, or 37.56% of the eligible voting population. A similar result in Australia in a referendum would see the measure fail. A plebiscite turnout of only 62% will make any result less than convincing or even useful, though the SSM supporters will likely achieve a Parliamentary vote if they do come out ahead. If not, of course, they will lobby for a Parliamentary vote anyway. A referendum on inserting a definition of marriage into the Constitution would in my view be the best way to go. It would also mean the measure would fail unless it truly did have the extraordinarily high level of support that the SSM lobby claims it does.
    Last edited by DB44; 31-08-17 at 09:56 AM.

  • #53
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,752
    Thanks
    16,817
    Thanked 34,961 Times in 9,058 Posts
    Rep Power
    13677
    Reputation
    644429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteramjet View Post
    A 2 second Google for 'ALP 2016 election same-sex marriage' brings up all the info. See the link below for one example.

    It clarifies nothing. It clearly states that...

    If Mr Shorten is elected, it is ALP policy to introduce a bill to parliament to legalise same-sex marriage within 100 days of taking office.
    I wasn't aware that he was elected.....or, if you like, he stated what he will do but failed to get elected......on that issue and others.

    Again...it isn't in the ALP platform either that I could see.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #54
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Thanks
    1,061
    Thanked 904 Times in 511 Posts
    Rep Power
    502
    Reputation
    12237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post

    Again...it isn't in the ALP platform either that I could see.
    Yes it is. It was changed under the Gillard Govt after a conscience vote.

  • #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    292
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 111 Times in 67 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    506

    Default

    ALP policy is to have a Parliamentary vote with ALP members voting according to their conscience - if a result has not been achieved by 2019 the policy changes to having a Parliamentary Vote but all ALP members must vote YES to same sex marriage legislation with no conscience vote - so conscience vote until 2019 then they must vote Yes.

  • #56
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,752
    Thanks
    16,817
    Thanked 34,961 Times in 9,058 Posts
    Rep Power
    13677
    Reputation
    644429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PZ. View Post
    Yes it is. It was changed under the Gillard Govt after a conscience vote.
    Where?
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #57
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,703
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 1,112 Times in 571 Posts
    Rep Power
    637
    Reputation
    20724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    It clarifies nothing. It clearly states that...
    It clarifies the ALP position at the last Federal election, the election in which you said SSM was not discussed and goes against your claim that we haven't had an opportunity to vote on.

    You had said...

    Quote Originally Posted by enf
    So what was said about same sex marriage last election? Nothing. So no, we didn't vote on that issue....
    The link clarifies that is not correct. It was discussed and each party did have views on the issue that you and I ended up voting for.

  • #58
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,752
    Thanks
    16,817
    Thanked 34,961 Times in 9,058 Posts
    Rep Power
    13677
    Reputation
    644429

    Default

    There's nothing about legislation in that link you provided. So, yes we had a vote and the ALP lost....

    You said they said legislation would be introduced....

    Quote Originally Posted by peteramjet View Post
    Seriously? It was just over 12 months ago and was one of the 'hot' topics. The ALP endorsed it and advised they would introduce a bill within the first 100 days to make SSM law, the LNP wanted the Plebiscite before allowing a conscious vote.
    What I am saying is legislation to be introduced after winning, which they didn't do....although they will next election I'm sure....

    I will be voting 'yes' by the way, although I fully expect a host of unintended ramifications to follow down the track that will be related to this.....occupying the nation with similar sideshows as it keeps going down the financial and employment toilette.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #59
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,856
    Thanks
    1,061
    Thanked 904 Times in 511 Posts
    Rep Power
    502
    Reputation
    12237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    Where?

  • #60
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,703
    Thanks
    227
    Thanked 1,112 Times in 571 Posts
    Rep Power
    637
    Reputation
    20724

    Default Why I am Voting NO

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    There's nothing about legislation in that link you provided.
    It's right there:

    "If Mr Shorten is elected, it is ALP policy to introduce a bill to parliament to legalise same-sex marriage within 100 days of taking office."

    As i posted, they intended to "introduce a bill within the first 100 days to make SSM law".

    Quote Originally Posted by enf
    What I am saying is legislation to be introduced after winning, which they didn't do....although they will next election I'm sure....
    Obviously it wasn't introduced, the ALP didn't take office.

    But that's not what you said originally - you claimed that SSM wasn't an issue being discussed at the last election, which it clearly was. Further, each party had a view on how to move forward with SSM, and those views formed part of the platform that they went to the election with - that we all voted on.

    So yes it was discussed, and yes it formed part of they way we voted at the last election.
    Last edited by peteramjet; 31-08-17 at 04:12 PM.

  • Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •