Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[Father Jack]

What are people trying to achieve by boycotting the postal vote? It appears to be the pro SSM side that is suggesting it, which seems very 'cutting off the nose to spite the face' to me.

Am I missing something?

I'm dead against wasting money on it and think it is completely unnecessary and merely a cynical attempt to delay the inevitable by a few hidebound bigots in the LNP, so why the * would i participate?

 

[Deliverance]

This is why I love Australia. Trump's ready to start a nuclear war. A world War ain't that far fetched in the current political climate. The world is being destroyed environmentally. Etc, etc
And our biggest issue is who can marry who.
Lol

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I'm dead against wasting money on it and think it is completely unnecessary and merely a cynical attempt to delay the inevitable by a few hidebound bigots in the LNP, so why the **** would i participate?

Yeah as I mentioned above, I agree 100%. But that explains why you don't want a plebiscite/postal vote, not what you are hoping to achieve by boycotting a vote if it goes ahead anyway.

 

[Mofra]

This is why I love Australia. Trump's ready to start a nuclear war. A world War ain't that far fetched in the current political climate. The world is being destroyed environmentally. Etc, etc
And our biggest issue is who can marry who.
Lol

Well, the "budget emergency" has been solved apparently...

 

[Father Jack]

Yeah as I mentioned above, I agree 100%. But that explains why you don't want a plebiscite/postal vote, not what you are hoping to achieve by boycotting a vote if it goes ahead anyway.

I'm not hoping to achieve anything, I just don't want anything to do with it.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I'm dead against wasting money on it and think it is completely unnecessary and merely a cynical attempt to delay the inevitable by a few hidebound bigots in the LNP, so why the **** would i participate?

Bill Shorten told religious leaders and Christian voters in the final days of the 2013 election campaign that he was “completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite” on same-sex marriage …

Mr Shorten told the Australian Christian Lobby forum in his electorate that he preferred “the Australian people make their view known” to the 150 MPs in federal parliament. “Personally speaking, I’m completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite,’’ he said. “I’d be wary of trying to use a referendum and a constitutional mechanism to start tampering with the Marriage Act.

“But in terms of a plebiscite — I would rather the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving this issue to 150 people.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...e/news-story/fd7f72809333817973db6448f554e371

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Yeah as I mentioned above, I agree 100%. But that explains why you don't want a plebiscite/postal vote, not what you are hoping to achieve by boycotting a vote if it goes ahead anyway.

For me, it's about ending the idea of future postal plebiscites. This particular vote is clearly designed (postal, non-compulsory) to encourage a particular outcome and claim that as the legitimate view of the public. I'm very unsettled at this tactic being used for other contentious issues in future. If a boycott were to sink turnout below 50%, it would be a firm rejection of the process.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It's non-binding, isn't it? So what's to stop a recalcitrant (in this case) Liberal Party from simply ignoring the results? Have they actually guaranteed they'll abide by the results and alter the Marriage Act if the YES vote gets up?

 

[Mofra]

Bill Shorten told religious leaders and Christian voters in the final days of the 2013 election campaign that he was “completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite” on same-sex marriage …

Mr Shorten told the Australian Christian Lobby forum in his electorate that he preferred “the Australian people make their view known” to the 150 MPs in federal parliament. “Personally speaking, I’m completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite,’’ he said. “I’d be wary of trying to use a referendum and a constitutional mechanism to start tampering with the Marriage Act.

“But in terms of a plebiscite — I would rather the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving this issue to 150 people.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...e/news-story/fd7f72809333817973db6448f554e371

I'm against Bill Shorten's position then.

We elect the government to govern. If they lack the intestinal fortitude to actually vote on the basis of representation of their constituents, perhaps the idea of doing away with the senate (Senator On-Line party) is not as crazy as it first appears.

 

[Mofra]

It's non-binding, isn't it? So what's to stop a recalcitrant (in this case) Liberal Party from simply ignoring the results? Have they actually guaranteed they'll abide by the results and alter the Marriage Act if the YES vote gets up?

There's been some level of allusion to it but being non-binding it wouldn't be hard for the spin doctors to claim participation rates or something else to delegitimize a result if it doesn't got heir way.

 

[Bennett.]

The only person ascribing a moral value to somebody's opinion is you mate. Virtue signalling exists only in your own mind.

yeah, nah

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

There's been some level of allusion to it but being non-binding it wouldn't be hard for the spin doctors to claim participation rates or something else to delegitimize a result if it doesn't got heir way.

Yeah, that's what I thought. We'll have to see what happens I guess.

 

[Showbags]

It's non-binding, isn't it? So what's to stop a recalcitrant (in this case) Liberal Party from simply ignoring the results? Have they actually guaranteed they'll abide by the results and alter the Marriage Act if the YES vote gets up?

All we've been given is a wink and a nudge by Abbott and his ilk saying "trust us".

Isn't that good enough for you?

 

[JackOutback]

Yeah I get all that. I'm of the opinion that a plebiscite/postal vote is a complete waste of time and money for all the reasons you've listed. But imo they are reasons to not have the vote in the first place; if the vote is going to happen regardless I just can't see how boycotting it will do anything but help the anti SSM brigade.

Because it's insulting and demeaning that every Tom, Dick and Harry gets to pass judgement on their relationship. They don't get to vote on ours.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

For me, it's about ending the idea of future postal plebiscites. This particular vote is clearly designed (postal, non-compulsory) to encourage a particular outcome and claim that as the legitimate view of the public. I'm very unsettled at this tactic being used for other contentious issues in future. If a boycott were to sink turnout below 50%, it would be a firm rejection of the process.

Great post. I'll still vote, but can certainly see your logic there.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

All we've been given is a wink and a nudge by Abbott and his ilk saying "trust us".

Isn't that good enough for you?

Oh my, yes it is! Now let's all go down to the soda fountain and enjoy this coming Spring of 1954 as a community free of social deviates!

 

[Fryman]

For me, it's about ending the idea of future postal plebiscites. This particular vote is clearly designed (postal, non-compulsory) to encourage a particular outcome and claim that as the legitimate view of the public. I'm very unsettled at this tactic being used for other contentious issues in future. If a boycott were to sink turnout below 50%, it would be a firm rejection of the process.

Are you worried that maybe there is a silent majority who are too scared to express their real opinion in today's left wing climate.

 

[Mofra]

For me, it's about ending the idea of future postal plebiscites. This particular vote is clearly designed (postal, non-compulsory) to encourage a particular outcome and claim that as the legitimate view of the public. I'm very unsettled at this tactic being used for other contentious issues in future. If a boycott were to sink turnout below 50%, it would be a firm rejection of the process.

I can see your point of view and I disagree with the plebiscite but I won't boycott it. I look forward to seeing how conservative spin results showing Australians are largely in favour of marriage equality (as the vast majority of polling suggests).

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Because it's insulting and demeaning that every Tom, Dick and Harry gets to pass judgement on their relationship. They don't get to vote on ours.

Plus it's non-binding so the result may not even matter anyway.

 

[JackOutback]

Are you worried that maybe there is a silent majority who are too scared to express their real opinion in today's left wing climate.

What left wing climate? We have had a conservative government for 14 of the past 20 years, the US and UK have conservative governments. Stop jumping at shadows.

 

[Showbags]

Are you worried that maybe there is a silent majority who are too scared to express their real opinion in today's left wing climate.

No. Thats is simply a fairytale right wingers tell themselves because they cant countenance the fact that their views are no longer considered the majority view.

 

[RupieDupie]

Are you worried that maybe there is a silent majority who are too scared to express their real opinion in today's left wing climate.

Unfortunately they do not express their real opinion, they talk about shagging trees, marrying children, historical traditions, voting against political correctness etc. I would actually find it refreshing if they gave their real opinion which will be either i) The Bible says so or ii) it's yucky.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I can see your point of view and I disagree with the plebiscite but I won't boycott it. I look forward to seeing how conservative spin results showing Australians are largely in favour of marriage equality (as the vast majority of polling suggests).

Yeah this is exactly what I'm thinking. I just hope the results do show that, but pro SSM people boycotting isn't going to help.

 

[Lebbo73]

They will cry regardless of the result. They will come up with any excuse to call a yes vote illegitimate.

I dont think boycotting will achieve anything other than make it more likely for a no vote.

They will but the No side will know that they lost and the Yes side will know that as well.

 

[tony dragun]

What do we want!

SSM

When do we want!

NOW!!

(unless of course we don't get it how we want to get it)