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

[Inferno]

I went though all this crap with people like you the last time WA voted on daylight savings, early polls showed the yes vote way ahead but as you know, sanity prevailed.

Like the three other ones that yielded the exact same result? And which you're comparing to a topic which is totally different to changing clocks?

And still no data or evidence of any sort. Amazing.

 

[medusala]

Well obviously the pressing issue of changing your clock for a few months, is the same as a lifetime commitment, and ending discrimination based on sexuality.

Lifetime commitment?

 

[kwikfix]

Like the three other ones that yielded the exact same result? And which you're comparing to a topic which is totally different to changing clocks?

And still no data or evidence of any sort. Amazing.

If you are so confident, whats the problem?
Dont give me the "cost" MT is throwing $300m into the climate scandal and on one wants to talk about it.

 

[Inferno]

If you are so confident, whats the problem?
Dont give me the "cost" MT is throwing $300m into the climate scandal and on one wants to talk about it.

I can only presume you're trolling at this point.

 

[darrenmorgan]

Followed by a potentially toxic display of democracy?

Human rights is not a popularity contest

 

[kwikfix]

I can only presume you're trolling at this point.

Trolling??? You keep quoting me and I answer, thats trolling?

 

[darrenmorgan]

Do you get all your education from Andrew Bolt?

 

[JackOutback]

I went though all this crap with people like you the last time WA voted on daylight savings, early polls showed the yes vote way ahead but as you know, sanity prevailed.

Let me guess, you were worried about your curtains fading.

 

[Seeds]

Plenty to start with: De facto couples don't have shared custody rights unless they are both the biological parents. Which means if you are a step parent or adopt and your child is injured at school only 1 parent may be able to pick them up. De facto couples aren't recognised by many hospitals which means if your partner is injured and unconscious you may be required to have a blood relative vouch for you before you can see your partner. Additionally if your partner dies you may have to go to have go to court for the right to claim the body and make funeral arrangements, you may not have automatic access to your partners assets after death, further complicating bill payments or selling property which is compounded pricey funerals.

Then of course there's the social element of not having your marriage recognised by the government. Which in many peoples eyes delegitimises the relationship and views it as "lesser" then those that are married.

Ah finally someone with an answer. Those things are pretty minor though albeit they are something. They are not tax breaks and they don't influence inheritance rights. Also not sure step parents rights should be determined by marriage anyway. Granting non biological parent the same rights as a biological parent should be a seperate process from marriage that considers things on a case by case basis. For starters kids should have a say if they are old enough as well as the biological parent not involved in the marriage if they are still around.

The social point is rubbish though. government decree won't change the way anyone views a marriage and if it does then those people are super stupid and who cares what stupid people think. I would rather the government doesn't recognize my marriage as my marriage is between my wife and I and our family members. The government should play no role in it.

 

[Seeds]

Why would it only be the High Court's responsibility? This isn't the US, we don't have a bill of rights legislating that people be treated equally. It's a legislative issue.

The last time we had a public vote on an issue that wasn't constitutional was about the National Anthem in 1977. Before that it was about conscription during World War 1. We didn't have public votes for women's rights, indigenous rights, non-European's rights, religious rights or until this point gay rights, so why pick this particular non-constitutional issue out for a public vote for only the second time in 100 years?



Having a system of separate but equal rights has failed spectacularly repeatedly throughout history, why keep persisting with the idea?

I agree. We should get rid of state sponsored marriage.

 

[JackOutback]

I agree. We should get rid of state sponsored marriage.

But that's not likely to happen.

 

[Inferno]

Trolling??? You keep quoting me and I answer, thats trolling?

A short summary of our convo:

You: "Why would anyone oppose the plebiscite? They must be scared they're going to lose LOL"
Me: "Provide any evidence that a Yes vote would lose"
You: *provides no evidence* "Why else would they oppose it?"
Me: "It's literally been discussed a 100 times, go and read. Provide any evidence that a Yes vote would lose."
You: "Yes vote lost the WA daylight savings vote 7 years ago"
Me: "Riiiiiight"
You: "If you're so confident what's the problem. Why would anyone oppose the plebiscite?"
Me: "You're trolling at this point surely..."
You: "Trolling?!"

And throw in your incorrect claims about Ireland.

 

[kwikfix]

Would you prefer all those with an opposing view to just shut up?

 

[skilts]

Would you prefer all those with an opposing view to just shut up?

The likelihood of that happening is so remote as to be risible.

 

[kwikfix]

I went though all this crap with people like you the last time WA voted on daylight savings, early polls showed the yes vote way ahead but as you know, sanity prevailed.

Let me guess, you were worried about your curtains fading.

The "YES" camp liked to use ridicule like you have just done to close down debate, had the MSM on board and like this debate, The "YES" camp didn't want it to be put to a vote, same tactics.

 

[JackOutback]

Would you prefer all those with an opposing view to just shut up?

No, we would prefer them to come to the table with facts or reasonable arguments, but they have yet to do so.

If they can't do that, then yes, they should shut the * up.

 

[Seeds]

But that's not likely to happen.

True. But either is the liberals allowing a free vote during this electoral cycle given they ran on a plebiscite and the vocal minority in the party don't want gay marriage.

 

[Seeds]

No, we would prefer them to come to the table with facts or reasonable arguments, but they have yet to do so.

If they can't do that, then yes, they should shut the **** up.

Facts about what? This is mostly the argument of a label. Next we will be arguing over whether homosexuals should be able to call themselves straight on the census form.

 

[JackOutback]

Facts about what? This is mostly the argument of a label. Next we will be arguing over whether homosexuals should be able to call themselves straight on the census form.

One side is debating logically about the fact that two quite legal relationships that, gender aside, are exactly the same don't have the same recognition. They are also talking about precedent for making decision on people's rights, the fact that same sex marriage affects no one but same sex couples. The other side is arguing they don't like gay relationships, or a whole host of disproven arguments.

 

[paul180]

I have not heard an argument against marriage equality that couldn’t be made against all marriage.

The idea of voting on marriage equality wasn’t about democracy, it was about taking away an issue the PM believed he was losing on.

We saw this with the republic, and with the republic the guys running things can easily spike it, which takes it off the radar for decades.

This is a non-binding vote. No guaranty a national vote means a parliamentary vote.

 

[Inferno]

Facts about what? This is mostly the argument of a label.

He said the yes side don't want a plebiscite because they'll lose and the only evidence cited was a vote on daylight savings time in WA from 7 years ago. Opposition to a plebiscite is not due to worrying about losing as has been established dozens of times in this thread alone.

He misrepresented Ireland being 'more mature' than us for putting it to a referendum, ignoring the fact that it only went to a referendum (not a plebiscite) because the only way to change the marriage law there was through a public vote (just like anything constitutional here), and that gay marriage hasn't been put to a public vote in any other country besides a few US states last decade (which again were often state constitutional issues, and which were federally unconstitutional anyway and overturned by the courts).

Next we will be arguing over whether homosexuals should be able to call themselves straight on the census form.

What's your point? May as well have said that next we'll be arguing that Asians should be able to call themselves white on the census form. It would've made about as much sense

 

[paul180]

What are you guys going to say to your kids, family or friends when they tell you about their same sex relationship?

 

[Inferno]

Would you prefer all those with an opposing view to just shut up?

You're citing a vote on daylight savings time anecdotally as evidence that same sex marriage would be voted down and choosing to blatantly ignore why so many people are opposed to a plebiscite. If that's the best you can manage then yes I would, because you're not adding anything worthwhile or interesting to discussion.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

You're citing a vote on daylight savings time anecdotally as evidence that same sex marriage would be voted down and choosing to blatantly ignore why so many people are opposed to a plebiscite. If that's the best you can manage then yes I would, because you're not adding anything worthwhile or interesting to discussion.

Going by the west Australian posters on this site I can see why they think it would be a no vote. Wouldn't be surprised if they as a state voted no.

 

[Inferno]

True. But either is the liberals allowing a free vote during this electoral cycle given they ran on a plebiscite and the vocal minority in the party don't want gay marriage.

It's grossly hypocritical of them to be so staunch in pretending that a plebiscite is a sacred promise they took to the election while breaking a whole host of other supposedly not sacred promising taken to the election (and the 2013 election) e.g. super, the deficit, "no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC or SBS" etc.

Core and non core I suppose.