Jump to content
Peter

Same Sex Marriage Vote. How would you vote?

Same Sex marriage (If you got a vote)  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. How would you vote if you had one (Same Sex Marriage)

    • I'd vote yes.
      31
    • I'd vote no.
      6
    • I wouldn't bother even voting.
      5
    • I can't vote. Not on the voting roll.
      1


Recommended Posts

Oompa Loompa    650

Id vote yes. 

Bit sick of the catholic church and mad monk, bernardi trotting out their dogma of hate. 

I personally think the issue doesnt matter but I'm not personally affected, but a lot of people are, so Id vote yes to support them and help towards ending hate in the world.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cottoneyes    746

Have to admit, big part of my voting yes will be to send a strong message to Abbot, Bernardi et al.  Really hoping somewhere around the 80% yes vote carries.  2% of the population or something is muslim, so broad assumption is they will vote no, crusted on catholics will be up to 8% and then aged cronies with no gay grandkiddies will cover the rest of the 10% of the no vote

Shame we couldn't get value for money and put other questions in the plebiscite:

Do you support the removal of state governments to go to 2 tiers of politics?

Do you support nuclear power as a future power source?

Is Twiggies' idea of a cashless social security payment card a good idea?

Should casual Friday dress code become the norm for the full working week?

Should there be a royal enquiry into the banks?

Should Sarah Hanson-Young be banned from all media (including social)?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XCOM!    143

Perhaps another?

Should any organisation shown to be involved in paedophilia and/or protecting paedophiles within its ranks, be banned from attempting to influence public policy with moral-ethical arguments.

Edited by XCOM!
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roxii    3,996
15 minutes ago, XCOM! said:

Perhaps another?

Should any organisation shown to be involved in paedophilia and/or protecting paedophiles within its ranks, be banned from attempting to influence public policy with moral-ethical arguments.

..and claim tax free status 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter    1,561

Muslims won't vote. They never (generally) vote at any election. 

I live in a Muslim area with 2 mosques within my suburb. 

I shop at their businesses. They are great people and very generous to the community. 

Anyway talking to a few of them over the years most of them aren't even registered to vote and they have no plans to register. 

Edited by Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XCOM!    143

Somewhat surprisingly, I’m not a constitutional lawyer... but although I know we don’t have a bill of rights, I’m waiting for someone to mount the argument that worked in the USA - a vote on allowing same-sex marriage is in effect a vote on whether or not to restrict the rights of some citizens – which in the USA at least, the courts decided was illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ex-Hasbeen    3,792
10 hours ago, XCOM! said:

Perhaps another?

Should any organisation shown to be involved in paedophilia and/or protecting paedophiles within its ranks, be banned from attempting to influence public policy with moral-ethical arguments.

Maybe we should have an annual plebiscite to decide the payrise for Federal Politicians.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cottoneyes    746
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Maybe we should have an annual plebiscite to decide the payrise for Federal Politicians.

And have payroll deductions from their wages to cover the cost of that plebiscite and any other they hoist upon us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FatPom    2,216
4 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Maybe we should have an annual plebiscite to decide the payrise for Federal Politicians.

If they did that, the polling booths would be open from 1.15 - 1.30am on a Friday before a major holiday and they would hope that nobody would notice.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goughy    1,993

They also wouldn't advertise it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ex-Hasbeen    3,792
14 hours ago, FatPom said:

If they did that, the polling booths would be open from 1.15 - 1.30am on a Friday before a major holiday and they would hope that nobody would notice.

Not a chance.

It'd be 3pm EDST on the first Tuesday of November. Polls open for 15 minutes, but nowhere near any racetrack or TAB, and no Wifi or mobile reception nearby either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goughy    1,993

I think this is a week written article, and the author I think has the same point of view as many of my religious friends. And my point of view about ssm is pretty much like this too, even regarding churches and ministers.

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/08/marriage-equality-from-one-christians-perspective/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XCOM!    143

It has already been made clear that churches, ministers, etc, will be exempted from performing marriage ceremonies on religious grounds, but that won't stop the dog-whistling to the religious that this is a serious issue to consider - Abbott was out doing it 5mins after the postal thing was announced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter    1,561

My father was a uniting church minister and he would have married gay couples. 

I think youll be surprised. Most will do it. 

Or are you making the point that ministers of churches will discriminate against gay couples? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goughy    1,993

I don't think that's it at all. I think the point of this is that this is not an issue of religion, and religion should have no part of it. It's an issue of state, and religion and any issues any church has with it is another separate issue......

That's the issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roxii    3,996

I agree this is not an issue of religion, it's an issue of the people, and some of them are heavily invested in their religion (and usually like to bang on about it). 

So whilst it's not a religious topic per se religious people are allowed to voice their objectives as too are bigots and homophobes. 

Hopegilly thoough in the wash up they will realise they are a minority these days, or better still their loony rantings may just convince more people to vote contrary to their opinions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldave    112
5 hours ago, XCOM! said:

It has already been made clear that churches, ministers, etc, will be exempted from performing marriage ceremonies on religious grounds, but that won't stop the dog-whistling to the religious that this is a serious issue to consider - Abbott was out doing it 5mins after the postal thing was announced.

How long will it be before the rainbow people aren't satisfied with a civil ceremony and want to be married in a church, it's a slippery slope I tell ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ex-Hasbeen    3,792
3 minutes ago, oldave said:

How long will it be before the rainbow people aren't satisfied with a civil ceremony and want to be married in a church, it's a slippery slope I tell ya.

I agree with that. Same issue for devout Christians who have a religious conviction against it. Will they be made to go against those convictions. eg: a photographer made to take photos or a person who works at a reception centre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prince    255

interesting how labor say they are the LGBTQI  representatives now.  I wonder how the average labourer in the CFMEU feels about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prince    255
2 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I agree with that. Same issue for devout Christians who have a religious conviction against it. Will they be made to go against those convictions. eg: a photographer made to take photos or a person who works at a reception centre.

nup, money trumps any values. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×