View Poll Results: How do you intend to vote in the same sex marriage postal vote?

Voters
158. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    49 31.01%
  • No.

    96 60.76%
  • Will not be voting.

    13 8.23%
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 151

Thread: Same sex Marriage - Will you be voting Yes or No?

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    50

    Default

    I vote no.

    if they will want to have kids in their marriage then kids will always have at least 3 parents and that is stupid.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Splinter17 For This Useful Post:

    loopyloo (18-09-17)



  • #42
    Senior Member
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tassi
    Posts
    4,167
    Thanks
    4,168
    Thanked 3,471 Times in 1,531 Posts
    Rep Power
    1340
    Reputation
    51955

    Default

    I can hear my daughter now when she's ready for school "Dad why does that girl have 2 Dads?" "sorry sweetheart thats not a girl thats a boy, "But Dad why is he wearing a girls uniform?" not questions I want to have to try and answer, I really am undecided on my decision, Personally the money being wasted on this event would have been far better utilized in our health,policing and education! I could never grasp the idea as to why the hell you'd put anything into something that was purely designed as a waste chute

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

    loopyloo (18-09-17)

  • #43
    Senior Member
    Reschs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Outside a few schooners
    Posts
    3,080
    Thanks
    907
    Thanked 2,147 Times in 1,058 Posts
    Rep Power
    933
    Reputation
    33238

    Default

    The Divorce proceedings are going to be entertaining.

    Lesbians with children. Who pays child support ? Who wore the strapon ? Right, you pay child support.
    Males. Who was Top. Right, you pay child support.

    The Lawyers are counting their money already.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Reschs For This Useful Post:

    jonnyath (18-09-17),loopyloo (18-09-17)

  • #44
    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 Neddie View Post
    Papers not arrived here yet, but I'll be voting Yes.
    It's not my cup of tea, but what rights do I have to stand in the way of happiness of others who are inclined that way? Them getting married is not going to impinge on my relationship, If they want this, good luck to them.
    You can of course vote as you wish. If you are inclined to reply, I would be interested in what effects if any you think a yes result will have on Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech and on the education of children, particularly given the UK experience.

  • #45
    Member
    Au_radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    western Australia
    Posts
    381
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 223 Times in 112 Posts
    Rep Power
    212
    Reputation
    4470

    Default

    My guess is a majority will vote No ,
    The yes team are asking a lot of people to change their long held family values , maybe it's not the right time ?
    Ive lived in both sides of this debate , literally.

    But for me it's No .

  • #46
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    277
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 559 Times in 150 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    11190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    I would be interested in what effects if any you think a yes result will have on Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech and on the education of children
    The only effect will be a period of bigotry and hate speech that will die down once there is a degree of acceptance of the situation.

    I had an older friend who was homosexual (he's past away now) and this chap went through hell years ago, undertaking therapy and sessions with psychiatrists in an attempt to become 'normal'. He was a deeply religious man and prayed every day for God to remove these evil thoughts from him.

    It wasn't till he learned that he was the way he was because he was born that way, just like everyone of us is born the way we are. His final acceptance of his situation and his acceptance by an enlightened Anglican church, who knew his details and treated him as a human being and allowed him full participation in their church, did his life finally gain some meaning.

    He was a highly educated man, he became a lecturer in a University and led a rich and fruitful life. He died some 20 or so years ago, from old age.

    I have a nephew who seems to be the same way, he's only young, but I would not want him having to go through the anguish and self doubt that my friend went through. By voting yes I hope that we can have an accepting society eventually, where my nephew can lead a relatively normal life as part of a family and not be stuck as being a seen as a slightly strange bachelor living on his own, as my friend was.

    I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not see others who have a different outlook on life threatening me in any way. I'll live my life, let them live theirs.

    Does that answer your question?
    Last edited by Neddie; 18-09-17 at 04:09 AM.

  • #47
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    perth wa
    Posts
    337
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 135 Times in 97 Posts
    Rep Power
    254
    Reputation
    2739

    Default

    it's their decision to make about their lifestyle it is the marriage part which is obnoxious

  • #48
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neddie View Post
    The only effect will be a period of bigotry and hate speech that will die down once there is a degree of acceptance of the situation.

    I had an older friend who was homosexual (he's past away now) and this chap went through hell years ago, undertaking therapy and sessions with psychiatrists in an attempt to become 'normal'. He was a deeply religious man and prayed every day for God to remove these evil thoughts from him.

    It wasn't till he learned that he was the way he was because he was born that way, just like everyone of us is born the way we are. His final acceptance of his situation and his acceptance by an enlightened Anglican church, who knew his details and treated him as a human being and allowed him full participation in their church, did his life finally gain some meaning.

    He was a highly educated man, he became a lecturer in a University and led a rich and fruitful life. He died some 20 or so years ago, from old age.

    I have a nephew who seems to be the same way, he's only young, but I would not want him having to go through the anguish and self doubt that my friend went through. By voting yes I hope that we can have an accepting society eventually, where my nephew can lead a relatively normal life as part of a family and not be stuck as being a seen as a slightly strange bachelor living on his own, as my friend was.

    I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not see others who have a different outlook on life threatening me in any way. I'll live my life, let them live theirs.

    Does that answer your question?
    Neddie, you should have gone into politics, mate.

    You have given a fullsome and detailed reply which completely avoids answering the question

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thala Dan For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (18-09-17),enf (18-09-17)

  • #49
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    277
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 559 Times in 150 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    11190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    Neddie, you should have gone into politics, mate.

    You have given a fullsome and detailed reply which completely avoids answering the question
    I guess I missed out the opening line which probably would not have satisfied the questioner

    Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    I would be interested in what effects if any you think a yes result will have on Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech and on the education of children
    My missing word was None, then I went on to explain my reasoning.

    I'll add, it's not a lifestyle for me, but then it's not about me, it's about those who were born different. Who am I to deny them some happiness with a partner of there choice, in a union that they desire.

  • #50
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neddie View Post
    I guess I missed out the opening line which probably would not have satisfied the questioner

    My missing word was None, then I went on to explain my reasoning.
    What’s changed in Britain since same-sex marriage?


    In the United Kingdom, it has become abundantly clear that redefinition has affected many people, across many spheres. At first glance, these spheres appeared distinct from marriage redefinition. However, subsequent changes, have proved that they are entirely intertwined.
    Equalities minister Justine Greening, has insisted that churches must be made to: ‘Keep up with modern attitudes’. Likewise, the Speaker of the House of Commons, a position supposedly defined by its political neutrality, had this to say: I feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so, without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right’.
    In a heartbreaking development and in spite of Britain’s ‘foster crisis’, aspiring foster parents who identify as religious, face interrogation. Those who are deemed unlikely to ‘celebrate’ homosexuality, have had their dreams of parenthood scuppered. This month, Britain’s High Court, ruled that a Pentecostal couple were ineligible parents. While the court recognised their successful and loving record of adoption, they decreed that above all else: ‘The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence’. How has Great Britain become so twisted? Practicing Jews, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, who want to stay true to their religious teachings, can no longer adopt children.
    Many hardworking Brits have lost their jobs. Consider Adrian Smith, sacked by a Manchester Housing Trust, for suggesting that the state: ‘shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience’. Or Richard Page, fired for gross misconduct after articulating, that children might enjoy better outcomes, were they to be adopted by heterosexual couples.


    Yeah, right........None, indeed.

  • The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Thala Dan For This Useful Post:

    admin (18-09-17),alpha0ne (18-09-17),DB44 (18-09-17),enf (18-09-17),jonnyath (18-09-17),lsemmens (18-09-17)

  • #51
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,753
    Thanks
    16,819
    Thanked 34,964 Times in 9,060 Posts
    Rep Power
    13678
    Reputation
    644489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dai View Post
    it's their decision to make about their lifestyle it is the marriage part which is obnoxious
    As Thala Dan has so clearly pointed out, it will probably end up becoming their decision about the lifestyles of others. There's no definitive proof of that of course, but the way the politically correct abuse the rights of others in this country now, I suspect the situation will deteriorate to where Britain is heading.

    It will cease to be freedom of choice and instead morphs into another enforced dogma.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #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

    @Neddie. Thank you for replying. I'm not going to seek to persuade you, and will limit myself to answering the question you asked me.

    You did not originally answer the questions I asked and I didn't take "none" as being implied. The reasons you gave for voting yes are emotional ones based on your own experience rather than logical ones, so did ignore the questions I asked you. You later did answer "none", which I think is wrong and hard to argue for logically given what has happened in Britain particularly. I think you are wrong but respect your right to be wrong. Your vote still counts just as much as mine.

  • #53
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    56
    Posts
    31,150
    Thanks
    2,238
    Thanked 13,731 Times in 5,823 Posts
    Rep Power
    4552
    Reputation
    165805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    Your vote still counts just as much as mine.
    Obviously these votes are anyones to pick up from an apartment block in Canberra. What a joke this mail out system is.



    We get promised a plebiscite (in which we all go to vote at like an election) by the Coalition, its promptly blocked by Labor and the Greens (ironically Shorten and even lesbian Wong were against same sex marriage a couple of years ago) so we end up with this rorted basket case system.

    A plebiscite would have returned a no vote in my opinion. This rorted system will return a yes vote. Either way, the yes camp will simply refuse to accept the vote if it doesn't go their way and Labor will simply make it law if they are elected despite the opinion of the population. The only "positive" (loose term) of a yes now is that perhaps the Coalition can at least get everyone the best deal in regards to the endless draconian free speech laws that will come with this.

    If Labor was in, they would simply add gay marriage to our current 18C discrimination laws. Having said that, a Yes Liberal MP has said that his law draft does not include protection for (example) a baker who refuses to bake and decorate a gay wedding cake. There has been a very high profile case in the US in regards to this where the baker (very religious) was taken to court and the court found in the gay couples favour. Since then and his life and that of his family continually threatened.

    But back to us, its becoming very clear that our Federal Elections also need to be used for plebiscite votes. If people want to whinge about the cost of plebiscites (yet don't see anything wrong with Daniel Andrews cancelling a contract the Coalition made and paying a 1.2 Billion fee), then we must have them at election time. There is no way that this farcical joke should be repeated. Having said that, Labor and the Greens wouldn't even give us the chance to have our say because in their opinion if they are voted in then they can do whatever they want because they represent us.

    Seriously, are some of you hard core rusted on Labor voters ready to give up on them and jump ship yet ? Or will you just go with the pig headed never change side routine ? While Hawke/Keating Governments were decent governments with their own ideas, you are now supporting the worse kind of claptrap ever created that simply jump on anything they think will get them in power. God help us all with a Republic under Bill Shorten.

    The Coalition is more Labor than what Labor was. Labor is now a Socialist controlled leftist organisation that panders to anyone with a minority left agenda, while the Greens are at least consistent with their usual illogical nonsense. In reality, I hope Labor win the next federal election because its the only way the people of this country seem to learn their lesson. 10 years ago we were debt free with 60 billion the bank. Oh, we better throw Howard out and give someone else a go. What do we owe now thanks to Rudd and Gillard ? Close to 300 billion ? With no hope of ever being debt free again.

    It will be interesting to see if New Zealand makes the same mistake in the near future.

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

    Skepticist (18-09-17)

  • #54
    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

    Unfortunately I have visions of the Getup type activists roaming the streets stealing voting forms from mailboxes. Of activists in nursing homes filling in forms for their patients. Basically I think that the extremist activists leading the yes campaign will stop at nothing to win. I agree the Yes vote would have been doomed by a plebiscite, and the SSM advocates are terrified even of the postal vote, not for the ridiculous reasons they give but quite simply because they still fear they may lose. I still have hopes that the no vote will still come out ahead, but no real confidence. Rorting may prove to be a problem. Apathy is a much bigger one. A significant number of people don't plan to vote, and I understand why. Unfortunately, many just don't realise the implications and the importance of a no vote. Many yes voters don't understand the implications, taking the simplistic jingoistic "it's all about love" line, and/or believing it's a minor change which will have no effect on them or society. I certainly hope they are right and I am wrong, but that Spectator Article on what has happened in the UK sends shivers down my spine.

    As to the cost of the postal vote or a plebiscite, it is trivial. And, flawed as it is, is far more worthwhile than, for instance, many government grants and subsidies. How much has been spent and continues to be spent on the Safe Schools program? On the ABC? Hypocritical insiders laugh that the cost is even an issue. These spendthrift parties, of whom the Greens are the worst, care nought for taxpayer's dollars, but cry crocodile tears about a relatively minor amount spent in trying to give the voters even a flawed way to express their opinion. Of course, Turnbull is only doing it to save his ass, and is hoping for a yes vote, but I'd rather even this postal plebiscite than an unconstrained vote of politicians who are so far out of touch with their constituents.
    Last edited by DB44; 18-09-17 at 11:41 AM.

  • #55
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    56
    Posts
    31,150
    Thanks
    2,238
    Thanked 13,731 Times in 5,823 Posts
    Rep Power
    4552
    Reputation
    165805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    I still have hopes that the no vote will still come out ahead, but no real confidence.
    My thinking as well. But as you said, no real confidence. There are simply far too many things against the No campaign including the fact that no one famous would dare to speak up because it would be the end of their career. How anyone could call it a fair vote, I dont know. But one things for sure :

    I will never accept any marriage other than that between a man and a woman, they can simply dream on if the yes vote prevails as at least 40% of the population (that's even Yes campaign stats) will never accept it.

    It was only as recent as 5 years ago that they gay community was calling marriage "an outdated institution" that they would never have a part of. Then when they found out they could legally have their own version or rain on someone else's parade, they chose to wreck what belonged to others.

    The minority left groups are like spoilt children who scream and throw tantrums when they dont get what they want. And the governments like poor parents who wont go the hard yards and simply give them what they want to shut them up.

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

    lsemmens (18-09-17)

  • #56
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    56
    Posts
    31,150
    Thanks
    2,238
    Thanked 13,731 Times in 5,823 Posts
    Rep Power
    4552
    Reputation
    165805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    What’s changed in Britain since same-sex marriage?

    In a heartbreaking development and in spite of Britain’s ‘foster crisis’, aspiring foster parents who identify as religious, face interrogation. Those who are deemed unlikely to ‘celebrate’ homosexuality, have had their dreams of parenthood scuppered. This month, Britain’s High Court, ruled that a Pentecostal couple were ineligible parents. While the court recognised their successful and loving record of adoption, they decreed that above all else: ‘The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence’. How has Great Britain become so twisted? Practicing Jews, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, who want to stay true to their religious teachings, can no longer adopt children.
    I missed this earlier, its plain disgusting.

    And as I mentioned, how anyone can vote yes based on the fact we are going to get some new unknown laws amazes me.

    The old Australian "she''ll be right" attitude is now ####ing this country up. I know most people hate politics, hate politicians and hate voting, but there has never been a more important time for people to start paying attention to what is going on in this country.

    We have possibly the worst alternative government in history waiting to take power.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to admin For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (18-09-17),lsemmens (18-09-17)

  • #57
    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

    More from the Spectator article. If you haven't already read it, please go and do so, particularly if you are planning a Yes vote or you are not planning to vote:

    Across the UK, ‘sex education’ has been transformed and disfigured. TV programmes, aimed at children as young as three, promote ‘gender fluidity’, as an enabler of thoughtfulness and individuality.

    At the same time, Ministers have denied worried parents the right to withdraw their children from primary school classes. Meanwhile, ‘outside educators’ teach children about sex positions, ‘satisfying’ pornography consumption and how to masturbate. Concerns regarding STI’s and Promiscuity, are derided as ‘old-fashioned’.

    Independent religious schools are under intense scrutiny. Dame Louise Casey, a senior government advisor, recently insisted that it is now: ‘Not Ok for Catholic schools to be homophobic and anti-gay marriage’.
    Ofsted, the body responsible for school-assessment, has been wildly politicised. In 2013, Prior to the redefinition of marriage, Ofsted visited Vishnitz Jewish Girls School. They passed the school with flying colours. In fact, they went out of their way to highlight the committed and attentive approach to student welfare and development. Four years later, Ofsted returned. This time, they failed the school on one issue alone. While again, noting that students were ‘confident in thinking for themselves‘, their report, pointed to the inadequate promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment. As such, it was failing to ensure: ‘a full understanding of fundamental British values’. It is one of an initial seven faith schools that face closure.
    WTF! Inadequate promotion of homosexuality and gender fluidity! Gender fluidity? A true sex change remains beyond medical science. At such stage as it is becomes possible we will have true gender fluidity. Until then it's nothing more than a game of let's pretend. One person plays and everyone else is expected to go along. Or else. And evidently same sex marriage in the UK resulted in a change in fundamental British values which requires promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment. Who would have thought? Soon all schools will be "safe schools" if this gets up.
    Last edited by DB44; 18-09-17 at 03:57 PM.

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

    lsemmens (18-09-17)

  • #58
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    836
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    And here it is.....welcome to your future, Australia.

    U.K. High Court Upholds Bar on Christian Foster Parents over Homosexual Views

    The landmark ruling, handed down by judges Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson, suggested Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics would not make suitable foster carers.

    The judges stated that if children were placed with parents who have traditional Christian views "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children."

    They noted that there was tension between the equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation, but ruled that in regards to fostering, "the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence."

    The judges argued that there had been no religious discrimination against the Johns because they had been excluded from the fostering application process as a result of their moral views on sexual ethics rather than their Christian beliefs.

    They added that the right to manifest religious belief outlined in the European Human Rights Act was only a "qualified" right, particularly where it concerned potential carers who wish to manifest a belief that is "inimical" to the interests of children.

    The ruling also implicitly upheld a submission from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission stating that children risk being "infected" by Christian moral beliefs.

    There is now little chance that the Johns, who have previously fostered 15 children, will be able to foster children unless Derby City Council reverses its decision to halt their application process.


    Thank goodness there are absolutely no ramifications for children resulting from the recognition of Gay rights, eh Neddie?

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

    lsemmens (18-09-17)

  • #59
    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 admin View Post
    If Labor was in, they would simply add gay marriage to our current 18C discrimination laws. Having said that, a Yes Liberal MP has said that his law draft does not include protection for (example) a baker who refuses to bake and decorate a gay wedding cake.
    A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for someone because of their skin colour, or ethnicity, or sex - why should discrimination be allowed based on someone's sexual preference?

    People have varying views on all the above. Some dislike black people, or Asians, or females - but their personal view doesn't allow them to discriminate based solely on that view. Ones personal views on gay or lesbian people should be no different.

  • #60
    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 peteramjet View Post
    A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for someone because of their skin colour, or ethnicity, or sex - why should discrimination be allowed based on someone's sexual preference?
    You mean like paedophilia, for instance? As was pointed out above, some of the followers of the prophet support this practice and think it should be legalised. And consummated at any age from 9 onwards. But why should discrimination be allowed based on someone's sexual preference?

    Quote Originally Posted by peteramjet View Post
    People have varying views on all the above. Some dislike black people, or Asians, or females - but their personal view doesn't allow them to discriminate based solely on that view. Ones personal views on gay or lesbian people should be no different.
    And they aren't. Denying gay or lesbian people the use of the word marriage is not discriminating against them. It is just refusing to change an institution which doesn't apply to them. And the thin end of the wedge argument certainly seems to have much more merit than I originally thought. There is a difference between tolerance and endorsement and promotion. The Spectator article quoted in this thread discusses various flow-on effects in the UK. Do you accept that these things have happened? Do you think they are desirable? Is it your view that schools should promote homosexuality? How about gender fluidity? How do we avoid those consequences in Australia without voting no?

  • Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 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
    •