trinube

My original statement stands. The government should decide and get it over with. The waste of money over this issue is ridiculous. As per IronJimbo's earlier post the only negative comments I've heard so far are from the yes side. A non-compulsory, non-binding survey is a farce. Why even bother? Half the country won't vote and the 'survey' will have zero legitimacy. What a frikken joke. I'm out.

Once again we'll have to agree to disagree - on both points..

She doesn't have to justify her position, this is a free country where she's allowed to have any opinion she desires without the risk of being labeled. If you believe your position is so right and you insist on shouting it from the rooftops then perhaps you should stroll down the main street of Lakemba with a sign saying 'Mohammed is a bigot and a homophobe". Make sure you let us know how it goes...

Let's call a spade a spade, you're wrong. She has no hate and no prejudice against gay people. She's not compelled to vote Yes because you want to call her names - she's not even compelled to vote. As an athiest I despise religion but I respect her right to follow the tenets of whichever God she chooses. Maybe you need to be calling God and the Bible bigoted and homophobic.

How about those Tigers?!!

Nope, you're dead wrong. She has no fear of gay people nor exhibits ANY homophobic behaviour. In fact I'm sure many of the people she has helped over the years are gay. Her religion tells her they shouldn't be married. Simple as that. Stop tossing around bulls!t labels that don't help the discussion.

My first post was that the government should decide - this whole thing is a farce and will cost millions of dollars for a non-binding, non-compulsory vote. It's a joke. Your pizza analogy is frivolous, I doubt many people have a life-long, deep seated belief, thrust upon them by God, that Pizza shouldn't have pineapple. You disagree with her opinion but not only do you state she's wrong, you're saying if she doesn't vote your way she's a bigot. Talk about intolerant...

It has nothing to do with what I believe. This is a democracy and like it or not, the government determines what is fair and just and right. Your assumption is wrong. Being a bigot has nothing to do with her voting, it has everything to do with her opinion. You are being completely intolerant of her opinion so you're the only one displaying bigoted intolerance. She has absolute respect for the opinion of the yes voters, but that doesn't compel her to vote that way - ergo NOT a bigot. Simple.

I'm not sure who made you the sole determinant of what is right and fair and just but we'll have to agree to disagree. She isn't intolerant and I take umbrage at her being called bigoted. When discussion turns to name calling you can be sure the substance of the argument is flawed. There are many reasons to vote yes in this campaign but I can assure you it's not going to be helped by labelling genuinely caring people as bigots.

bigot |ˈbɪɡət| noun a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions She's not intolerant at all and would certainly be more than understanding of people having a different opinion. There's no way she's a bigot based on this definition. She just happens to have a different opinion and would vote accordingly. By your way of thinking, a yes voter would be a bigot because they can't tolerate the thinking of a no voter.

I would have really teed off if you were a Manly supporter...

Roxii, we've been friends long enough for me to know you'd mean no harm by what you said. It does however highlight the fact the 'attack' method (for want of a better word) is often the route taken rather than the civil path. Shorten really pissed me off the other day when he essentially said if you voted 'No' you were an idiot. I know lots of people I suspect will vote no - none of whom I think are idiots. If she was alive I suspect my mum would have voted no. Frankly I view a lot of this stuff - religion, marriage, diet etc like following a football team. Go ahead and support your team all you like but don't spend the rest of your life trying to demean or convert those who support a different team. BTW, how those Bulldogs going?

And this is why generalisations are bad - everyone gets labelled a homophobe or a loony. Use of these terms, 'racist' is probably the best example, is clearly aimed at attacking the person in the hope of making them change their opinion. One of my staff is a lovely woman, around 60, never married and very religious. Her sister is a Nun and they do lots of work helping victims of domestic violence, kids on the street, elderly people. You would not meet a more compassionate or genuinely caring person. She'd be a No voter along the lines of her faith, but in no way is she a homophobe, a bigot, an idiot or a loony and it's unfair to generalise her as someone who is. It is in insult Monkie, and a totally undeserved one. Many times on here I've expressed my views on marriage being an unecessary, antiquated institution and I'd have happily lived with my wife without being married. This opinion seems to be perfectly acceptable but if I said the same thing about gay marriage I'd suddenly be 'generalised' as a homophobe. Let me put it another way. I'm an atheist. If I say I don't like Christianity or Judaism that's perfectly OK but if I say I don't like Islam I'm a racist. People are too quick to label people in a negative way to try and shame them into changing their views. I don't care whether you think I'm a racist - I don't like Islam and for the record don't like Judaism or Catholicism either. Back on topic, I might not agree with what OldDave says, but just because he holds a different opinion doesn't mean I call him an idiot (Shorten's term) or anything else demeaning or insulting. We live in a free speech democracy and one of the consequences of this is having to accept that some people's opinions will differ to our own. Not happy with that? There's a lovely little place called North Korea where you can go and everyone will share the same view...

If it's not an issue of religion, who exactly determined that being gay isn't the norm? Isn't it somewhere in the Bible (and other religious texts) where it says 'man shall not lay down with another man' and that's the reason people believe homosexuality is 'wrong'. Seriously, if there was no religion there'd be no issue. And Roxii, I'm a bit disappointed mate - calling people bigots and homophobes and loonies because they might have a different opinion isn't cool. That's exactly what Shorten's been doing and it does a great dis-service to the people making clear, sensible arguments for a yes vote.

I'd love to see their definition of 'edit'. That would be so abused as to be laughable.