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

[Goldenblue]

This is truly disgusting. Sickening


"I WAS raped by a family friend when I was very young. No one wants to talk about male rape. My family was extremely religious — they certainly didn’t want to talk about it."

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...l/news-story/ea72a5bf0bbc8c8234c64ef019b50810

 

[Forward Press]

Any thinking on the wording on the plebishite?

Here's what I'm thinking,

Do you not not negatively believe that marriage should not be a disambiguation between man and woman in the opposite of affirmation as opposed to the diametrically held viewpoint?

Reminded me of this:

 

[_007_]

Does SSM mean that churches don't have a choice, they must marry everyone? I always thought it was civil unions or whatever with the same legal rights. Cheers.

 

[BustedWing]

Does SSM mean that churches don't have a choice, they must marry everyone? I always thought it was civil unions or whatever with the same legal rights. Cheers.

Interesting question, and one that may well need clarifying.

Would the church discriminating/refusing service based on sexuality be in contravention of any anti discriminatory laws?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Does SSM mean that churches don't have a choice, they must marry everyone? I always thought it was civil unions or whatever with the same legal rights. Cheers.

Interesting question, and one that may well need clarifying.

Would the church discriminating/refusing service based on sexuality be in contravention of any anti discriminatory laws?

The proposal approved by the Liberals says that, if the plebiscite votes Yes, the Bill legalising SSM will expressly protect ministers of religion and civil celebrants against being forced to conduct same sex marriages.

Those MPs intending to campaign against SSM, and to vote against it regardless of the plebiscite result, together with organised opponents such as the ACL, have made it clear (eg the Day 1 statements by Abbott and Shelton) that they intend to muddy the waters by insisting that it will, even with the above safeguards, infringe upon their freedom of conscience and religion.

As their fallback position (and spurious excuse for opposing the plebiscite and the Bill), they intend to tie them to demands for laws entitling people and entities, on the grounds of religious or conscientious belief about ssm, to refuse to accept it (ie to discriminate against same sex couples) in relation to employment, contracting, academic, trade or professional qualification, accommodation, education, and administration of government laws and programs. In other words, they wish to have the right to discriminate against same sex couples in virtually every area of life.

 

[Frank Bunn]

As their fallback position (and spurious excuse for opposing the plebiscite and the Bill), they intend to tie them to demands for laws entitling people and entities, on the grounds of religious or conscientious belief about ssm, to refuse to accept it (ie to discriminate against same sex couples) in relation to employment, contracting, academic, trade or professional qualification, accommodation, education, and administration of government laws and programs. In other words, they wish to have the right to discriminate against same sex couples in virtually every area of life.

Have you got a link for this?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Have you got a link for this?

Not on the web, it was contained in the Saturday Libs newsletter, aka The Weekend Australian, in a typically tedious and interminable article by their spokesman, Paul Kelly.

"Steal this rag", as Abbie Hoffman might have said. Or not.

 

[Sainteric]

The proposal approved by the Liberals says that, if the plebiscite votes Yes, the Bill legalising SSM will expressly protect ministers of religion and civil celebrants against being forced to conduct same sex marriages.

Those MPs intending to campaign against SSM, and to vote against it regardless of the plebiscite result, together with organised opponents such as the ACL, have made it clear (eg the Day 1 statements by Abbott and Shelton) that they intend to muddy the waters by insisting that it will, even with the above safeguards, infringe upon their freedom of conscience and religion.

As their fallback position (and spurious excuse for opposing the plebiscite and the Bill), they intend to tie them to demands for laws entitling people and entities, on the grounds of religious or conscientious belief about ssm, to refuse to accept it (ie to discriminate against same sex couples) in relation to employment, contracting, academic, trade or professional qualification, accommodation, education, and administration of government laws and programs. In other words, they wish to have the right to discriminate against same sex couples in virtually every area of life.

1st point i believe will be specifically addresses in the question. 2nd point is already true in relation to religious entities,IE a catholic/islamic school can descriminate against employing, parents or accepting a student who is a non believer or gay.

Why is it spurious to oppose ssm? It is a point of view held by many. The absolutism of abc lefties hey.

 

[FredLeDeux]

1st point i believe will be specifically addresses in the question.

That's what I said.

2nd point is already true in relation to religious entities,IE a catholic/islamic school can descriminate against employing, parents or accepting a student who is a non believer or gay.

.

In some states, that's true, to some extent.
They are proposing, however, to go much, much further, as I have plainly shown, even (for example) to the extraordinary extent of allowing gov't employees to refuse to license, perform or register same sex marriages, etc.

Why is it spurious to oppose ssm? It is a point of view held by many. .

I never said that it's spurious to oppose ssm.
I said their proposed excuses for doing so are spurious; they are just floating the excuse of "freedom of religion" to disguise the fact that they are opposed to ssm in all cases and circumstances, and will do anything to stop it, ie to impose their religious beliefs on others.

The absolutism of abc lefties hey.

Yet another classic example of the now-routine right wing tactic of inverting the truth.
The absolutists here are not the ones wanting to give same sex couples the same rights as anyone else; the absolutists are the ones wanting to continue to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.

I note that the myth of the ABC continues to fester, despite the fact that all available evidence contradicts that myth. It says something about a poster's abilities to process facts, and about their reasoning processes, if he/she thinks it necessary to resort to such simple-minded rubbish in order to bolster their case.

 

[Gough]

Not on the web, it was contained in the Saturday Libs newsletter, aka The Weekend Australian, in a typically tedious and interminable article by their spokesman, Paul Kelly.

"Steal this rag", as Abbie Hoffman might have said. Or not.

I've a signed copy of that book which I paid for through the nose for. I've also a copy of Bobby Seale's book which is part written in jive talk.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I've a signed copy of that book which I paid for through the nose for. I've also a copy of Bobby Seale's book which is part written in jive talk.

I should have hung on to my copies, back in the day.

I do have the ebook of Hoffman, but it's not really the same, nostalgia-wise.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Geez, I agree with Amanda Vanstone. Wonders will never cease.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/for-the-record-ill-be-voting-yes-20170811-gxugvu.html

She's been writing good quality, progressive articles for a few years now. She's actually quite good to read.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Without reading all 270+ pages but have any of those on the NO same sex marriage side said they will actually vote for it if the plebiscite gets up? Or are they all voting no regardless? If so, why the duck are we humouring them with a plebiscite?

 

[GreyCrow]

Without reading all 270+ pages but have any of those on the NO same sex marriage side said they will actually vote for it if the plebiscite gets up? Or are they all voting no regardless? If so, why the duck are we humouring them with a plebiscite?

No regardless. Why? Because its a timing thing.

Malcolm can appease the Conservatives, he can stall the base and can wedge Labor. Then take it to an election he wont care or knows he cant win.

 

[Belnakor]

Many of my friends are Christian and, as far as I know, all are pro-SSM.

Don't make the mistake of conflating nutjobs and evangelicals with the majority of Christians who practice love thy neighbour.

so basically in your view of the world the only people who vote no are conflating nutjobs and evangelicals

 

[Frank Bunn]

Not on the web, it was contained in the Saturday Libs newsletter, aka The Weekend Australian, in a typically tedious and interminable article by their spokesman, Paul Kelly.

This is why I ask for links. This was your paraphrasing of an opinion piece by someone who is not a spokesman for the campaign against SSM.

Rather than seeking to impose their religious beliefs on others, the concern is that people who have religious or conscientious reasons for opposing SSM will be discriminated against.

University of Sydney law professor Patrick Parkinson welcomes the protections for ministers of religion and for marriage celebrants but says this is far from sufficient. “In certain sections of the community, there is now deep hatred expressed for people of faith,” he says.

“Provisions are required to protect people from discrimination on account of whatever views they may hold about marriage, whether they are opposed to same-sex marriage or in favour of it.”

He says it must be made lawful for any person or entity to express an opinion that accords with a religious or conscientious belief about marriage. He advocates laws to protect people or entities in relation to employment, contracting, academic, trade or professional qualification, accommodation, education and administration of commonwealth laws and programs.

Institute for Civil Society executive director Mark Sneddon summarises his views based on his submission to the Senate committee: “I am extremely concerned about the lack of legal protection across this country in terms of freedom of conscience, belief and religion for people who support traditional marriage.​

If a Catholic or Muslim believes SSM to be wrong it should not bar them from an employment position, graduating from university, or public office.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e/news-story/e3ab746122ca9f5d8fa5788b6f765c52

 

[Lebbo73]

Why isn't this campaigner on Sky News atm the Labor leader? I could at least handle him taxing the * out of everyone that isn't poor. At least he believes what he preaches. Shorten doesn't. He just made a good case for SSM.

 

[Forward Press]

so basically in your view of the world the only people who vote no are conflating nutjobs and evangelicals

The Christians voting no will be nutjobs and evangelicals.

The only basis for opposing SSM according to Christian religious beliefs is via Leviticus and if you're relying on that book for moral guidance today then sorry, but I have no respect for you.

 

[Showbags]

Peter Van Onselen makes a good point on SKY. Have the government helped to dig their own political graves at the next election by putting this postal plebiscite up?

There has been a large surge in young people enrolling. The Greens and Labor are pushing people to enroll as much as possible (the Coalition are generally keeping schtum on enrolment as they know that the greater the "turnout" the greater the chance of a Yes result). Obviously this issue has been an important enough issue to get young people active and enrolled.

This may have negative ramifications for the Coalition come the next election as young people disproportionately support the Greens and Labor. All I can say is, you reap what you sow.

 

[QuietB]

Peter Van Onselen makes a good point on SKY. Have the government helped to dig their own political graves at the next election by putting this postal plebiscite up?

There has been a large surge in young people enrolling. The Greens and Labor are pushing people to enroll as much as possible (the Coalition are generally keeping schtum on enrolment as they know that the greater the "turnout" the greater the chance of a Yes result). Obviously this issue has been an important enough issue to get young people active and enrolled.

This may have negative ramifications for the Coalition come the next election as young people disproportionately support the Greens and Labor. All I can say is, you reap what you sow.

Abbott and Co have picked the worst possible issue to dig their heels in over. It is ridiculously stupid. By the end of this they will have mobilised a whole generation who previously would have been happy to either vote with their parents or not vote at all. Now they will be openly campaigning for their parents to change their views, and maybe their vote.

 

[Sainteric]

Abbott and Co have picked the worst possible issue to dig their heels in over. It is ridiculously stupid. By the end of this they will have mobilised a whole generation who previously would have been happy to either vote with their parents or not vote at all. Now they will be openly campaigning for their parents to change their views, and maybe their vote.

Think of this the same way as trump. No one said they were voting for him but they did anyway, ie there probably alot of people who said they support ssm that wont vote that way.

If no gets up Mals finished by his own party if yes gets up abott and co are finished. Its really the internal war. If Mal/Yes survives shorten is a pretty week leader maybe he has a chance. Mal will lead the legislative push if yes gets up.

 

[Sainteric]

In some states, that's true, to some extent.
They are proposing, however, to go much, much further, as I have plainly shown, even (for example) to the extraordinary extent of allowing gov't employees to refuse to license, perform or register same sex marriage

True in all states because federal discrimination act trumps state law. They would never get the numbers to allow the later

 

[NSWCROW]

This entire thing was a landmine planted by EVERYONE KNOWS WHO , and Bill pushed Malcolm on top of it.


And the biggest disgrace about this is the human emotion of love has effectively held to ransom by 1 bitter petulant man who feeds on Hate


I , for one am SORRY this has happened.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Peter Van Onselen makes a good point on SKY. Have the government helped to dig their own political graves at the next election by putting this postal plebiscite up?

There has been a large surge in young people enrolling. The Greens and Labor are pushing people to enroll as much as possible (the Coalition are generally keeping schtum on enrolment as they know that the greater the "turnout" the greater the chance of a Yes result). Obviously this issue has been an important enough issue to get young people active and enrolled.

This may have negative ramifications for the Coalition come the next election as young people disproportionately support the Greens and Labor. All I can say is, you reap what you sow.

The worst thing the Coalition could have done is do nothing until the next election and have them go to the polls with a confused position on the issue while Labor have a solid policy to legislate SSM (the next term of parliament all ALP members are compelled to support the issue). At least this way for the Libs it will have some sort of survey that will say something one way or the other. Either it is a yes and they have a conscience vote, or its a no and they will have something (however tenuous it is) to try and wack Labor over the head with by saying the Australian people don't want this and shouldn't be forcing it upon them. A no vote despite all the claims of the survey's illegitimacy will still hurt the cause.

 

[Showbags]

Think of this the same way as trump. No one said they were voting for him but they did anyway, ie there probably alot of people who said they support ssm that wont vote that way.

If no gets up Mals finished by his own party if yes gets up abott and co are finished. Its really the internal war. If Mal/Yes survives shorten is a pretty week leader maybe he has a chance. Mal will lead the legislative push if yes gets up.

Most of the polls got the result right in the US. It just didn't get the swing state votes right (Trump snuck over the line in a couple of swing states).

This idea that there was some great silent majority that voted for him at the election which wasn't reflected in polling is not really true.