View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 16 Dec 2017 09:34 am



Reply to topic  [ 2666 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107  Next
 Up the Mighty Liberals! #inmalcolmwetrust 
Author Message
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
GeneraL CyberFunK wrote:
There is no discrimination at all for religious people and there are no issues for religious freedoms. 1. The question asking about same sex marriage does not instantly mean there is a loss of religious freedom. 2. When passed, churches can continue to deny people marriage.. which is fine.

I've already provided examples of churches/people that got sued overseas, current legislation doesn't provide detailed protection and provisions.

Quote:
There is no comprehensive commonwealth legislation protecting religious freedom or prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, however some states have introduced their own legislation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-31/howard-wants-detail-on-religious-exemptions-same-sex-marriage/8858670


Ahhh a whole parliament full of bigots, curious why labor did nothing while they were in power too.
Quote:
'Bit rich' of Labor to use bigot label

In 2004, the Howard government changed the Marriage Act to include a definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The Coalition pushed the legislation through Parliament without a postal ballot, however Mr Howard said it had the support of the Labor Party.

"The reason my government put the definition in the act back in 2004 — with the support of the Labor Party, let me stress — was that we didn't want the courts deciding it," he said.

"We took the view if this issue ever be other than what everybody understood it to be then it should be determined by the people through the parliament. We put up an amendment to define it and that was supported by the Labor Party.

"That's only 12 or 13 years ago, so it's a bit rich for the Labor Party now to say anyone against same-sex marriage is a bigot.


10 Oct 2017 11:09 am
Profile WWW
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15170
lestat wrote:
Ahhh a whole parliament full of bigots, curious why labor did nothing while they were in power too.



Oh didn't you know? Gillard valued the votes of those who might oppose SSM more than she valued the idea that SSM is a matter of equality. So did Gay Penny Wong.

It actually astounds me that people are saying Abbott is the criminal here. Gillard is the criminal and Gay Penny Wong is an absolute traitor to the cause if anyone wants to be honest about it. But we never hear about that. If it was just a matter of changing the laws then it should have been done. I mean Krudd apologised to the Aboriginals without everyone's consent or a majority consent. Why didn't Gillard change the laws? Because she was gutless. Another term in power was her greater preference. I think people should stop trying to blame the libtards. Labor screwed you, not the Liberals. The liberals asked a question about an issue that Labor wouldn't even consider trying to solve because votes were more important.


10 Oct 2017 05:39 pm
Profile WWW
Regular Member
Regular Member
User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2006 05:19 pm
Posts: 1940
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: shimma
PSN ID: shimma1138
Steam ID: stanard
It's irrelevant though. That argument can be used about any issue that hasn't been resolved "oh but the last government didn't do anything!".

Things change. The situation we have now has been caused by the current government.


10 Oct 2017 05:58 pm
Profile
Regular Member
Regular Member
User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2006 05:19 pm
Posts: 1940
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: shimma
PSN ID: shimma1138
Steam ID: stanard
But yes current politics is far too focused on the election cycle, to the detriment of all.


10 Oct 2017 05:59 pm
Profile
Makes poor choices in hats

Joined: 07 Jul 2006 10:04 pm
Posts: 2717
Gamertag: Hercy
Of course we all know that Gillard was beholden to the Christian right faction of the Labor party in the same way Turnbull currently is of his party, and that this meant that Gillard couldn't do all that she wanted.

But it's not like the Labor party did nothing. They didn't proceed with banning same sex couples from adopting (announced by Howard before he left office), they removed a lot of discriminatory laws (ironically this is now used to argue that same sex marriage is not needed), tightened up anti discrimination laws, and started issuing certificates of no impediment so that Australians could get married overseas. These were all steps along the way. Since the Liberals came to power nothing has happened except stalling tactics.


10 Oct 2017 06:12 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15170
But the Liberals have never said they actually wanted the marriage act to be changed so I'm not sure they can be guilty of stalling tactics. What you're saying is that both parties have significant opposition to SSM, so isn't that somewhat reflective of what the population may also want?


10 Oct 2017 06:44 pm
Profile WWW
Makes poor choices in hats

Joined: 07 Jul 2006 10:04 pm
Posts: 2717
Gamertag: Hercy
No, the Australian public has supported same sex marriage since since time between 2004 and 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_Australia


10 Oct 2017 06:55 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15170
But not the actual parties that represent them?

Forgive me for having trouble understanding the nuances here.


Last edited by Cletus on 10 Oct 2017 07:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.



10 Oct 2017 07:00 pm
Profile WWW
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18168
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
It's a social issue so you would expect this to be brought in by the more social-leaning party moreso than the liberals. Calls for same sex marriage were still very loud in Gillard's term so absolutely they should share blame in the current situation. They want the conservative party to bring in something that is very offensive to their core voters when they outright canned it themselves. I said it in this thread years ago and Howard said it the other day - the plebiscite is merely to abrogate responsibility of bringing in a change that would otherwise damage their standing with their core vote.

If Yes wins and they don't bring in same sex marriage then they will deserve to get blown up in the election. If Yes wins and individual federal MPs still vote against it then they only put themselves up for potential backlash.

I can't believe they pushed the plebiscite after it got shafted in the senate. That was their out. Turnbull obviously wants it out of the way.


10 Oct 2017 07:01 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15170
Quote:
It's irrelevant though. That argument can be used about any issue that hasn't been resolved "oh but the last government didn't do anything!".

Things change. The situation we have now has been caused by the current government


Yeah, I think this is a cop-out.


10 Oct 2017 07:04 pm
Profile WWW
Makes poor choices in hats

Joined: 07 Jul 2006 10:04 pm
Posts: 2717
Gamertag: Hercy
Cletus wrote:
But not the actual parties that represent them?

Forgive me for having trouble understanding the nuances here.


Politicians aren't representative of society. They're more likely to be Christian, more likely to be male, and own more houses than an average Australian.


10 Oct 2017 07:04 pm
Profile
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18168
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
Cletus wrote:
Quote:
It's irrelevant though. That argument can be used about any issue that hasn't been resolved "oh but the last government didn't do anything!".

Things change. The situation we have now has been caused by the current government


Yeah, I think this is a cop-out.


It is. It's not the economy.


10 Oct 2017 07:05 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15170
Hercy wrote:

Politicians aren't representative of society. They're more likely to be Christian, more likely to be male, and own more houses than an average Australian.


That being the case, The YES vote should be resounding then, I would assume. So what is everyone worried about? Is it that even if the YES vote clearly wins, the Liberals will still refuse to enact upon it? Or is it that Labor missed their chance to change something so significant and the idea of the conservatives making the change just so unpalatable?


10 Oct 2017 07:13 pm
Profile WWW
Makes poor choices in hats

Joined: 07 Jul 2006 10:04 pm
Posts: 2717
Gamertag: Hercy
Everyone is worried about the unnecessary mental harm that this process causes to same-sex attracted people.


10 Oct 2017 07:32 pm
Profile
Hates Everyone Equally
Hates Everyone Equally
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 12:56 am
Posts: 15170
True, Cyberfunk has explained that to me. I agree, it is Gillard's fault that we have the situation we have now.


10 Oct 2017 09:19 pm
Profile WWW
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
Hercy wrote:
Everyone is worried about the unnecessary mental harm that this process causes to same-sex attracted people.

This is the excuse labor tells you, what it really means is that if NO wins they can't touch the issue for a long time to come without massive voter backlash.


11 Oct 2017 08:23 am
Profile WWW
Wants it in 8 Directions
User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2006 02:28 pm
Posts: 2713
Location: Brisbane, QLD
It's not an excuse. It's fact.

Let's put it in perspective - I don't get bothered by much. This has bothered me. I am in a general state of low level rage and frustration. It has stressed me out and made me anxious and angry..

Post surgery.. my specialist and surgeon said that there is only 1 thing I really need to change in my life - my stress and anxiety levels. Running a business gives you both.. I dropped back my hours and I've done well to manage this. Stress and anxiety for me is now considered a concern in that if I get stressed and anxious.. it affects my health.. its like my immune system just decides to go on vacation and right now.. I need my immune system more than ever to help keep me well because if there is anything that might allow my cancer to come back - it's stress and anxiety which could compromise me.

My situation is different in terms of what they are generally suggesting.. but the stress and anxiety I suffer has a direct implication to my physical health. There are people out there who have been stressed out from this and it is seriously a concern in terms of their mental health. The bullying aspect towards a group of people who potentially are already victimised? This was unnecessary and you can say what you like about it being an excuse.. it is a valid concern and combined with all the other reasons to have ditched this bullshit approach - it makes it all the more legitimate.


11 Oct 2017 08:43 am
Profile
Pixel Count Lestat
Pixel Count Lestat
User avatar

Joined: 03 Jul 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 10933
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: grlestat
PSN ID: grlestat
Steam ID: m00nwalker
How would your life be different if you were married?

You have a lot of anxiety that you're being denied something essential, but look at it objectively, will a piece of paper change it? We have several people here who live very happy lives in defacto relationships, raising children, buying houses etc, these days marriage is entirely optional.

As I said prior, if you are concerned about getting more rights over defacto, then you can pursue that with power of attorney's to give your partner the control to make choices for you when you can't or you die. You should also have a will in place, I recommend everyone should regardless if you're married or not.

It will happen eventually imo, it's just a long process for society to change/adapt to new social norms.

Imo I see defacto as slowly replacing marriage, since people don't want the religious service, don't want the old traditions anymore. Possibly why maybe defacto law maybe should be improved to better reflect what society wants.

Take religion out of it and suddenly a lot of complications go away in this issue.


11 Oct 2017 09:17 am
Profile WWW
BLD4LBE
BLD4LBE
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:54 am
Posts: 4073
On the mental health excuse, remember we've been publicly having this debate for more than a decade with multiple parliamentary votes already there's nothing essentially different in the current debate that 90% of people are completely tuned out of anyway. My main beef with trying to use this as a reason to stop a political group doing something you don't want is it means we are now too immature to have any public debate on any issue of significance because that is the direct implication. Any public debate on sensitive topics is always going to cause some anguish to some people on both sides but it's not a reason to not have an actual debate and sort out the issues then just shutting up one side and doing what you want.

_________________
Vzzzbx, you lose again!


11 Oct 2017 01:12 pm
Profile
BLD4LBE
BLD4LBE
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:54 am
Posts: 4073
Oh and Labor going to an election promising a plebiscite and then refusing it once in is all because they want to be the ones to bring it in, by trying to block by any means necessary is because they want to be the party to bring it in. If they truely gave a flying fuck about it then they would have been all for getting it sorted as quickly as possible and instead of reneging on their campaign and party stance after the election in a dummy spit at the realisation they won't be able to bring it in.

_________________
Vzzzbx, you lose again!


11 Oct 2017 01:21 pm
Profile
Makes poor choices in hats

Joined: 07 Jul 2006 10:04 pm
Posts: 2717
Gamertag: Hercy
Labor's policy platform at the 2016 election was to legislate in favour of same sex marriage within 100 days.

All of the same sex advocacy groups supported Labor's position to block a plebiscite. So do you really think that those groups don't "give a flying fuck" about same sex marriage too? This conspiracy theory that Labor is stalling same sex marriage until they are back in power has absolutely no evidence for it and plenty of evidence against it such as:
- their position being in line with advocacy groups.
- they introduced a private member's Bill in this current term of parliament.
- there is no doubt that Labor will vote in favour of any legislation that arises from the postal survey.

And your contention that the current debate is no different to the past 10 years is countered by CyberFunk and lots of other affected people who are feeling a difference. For you to say otherwise is only possible if you are wilfully blind to what people are saying.


11 Oct 2017 02:37 pm
Profile
Forum Faggot
Forum Faggot
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
Posts: 18168
Location: Brisbane
Gamertag: Madmya
Steam ID: Madmya
Hercy wrote:
- there is no doubt that Labor will vote in favour of any legislation that arises from the postal survey.


Even if it's no?


11 Oct 2017 02:40 pm
Profile
Makes poor choices in hats

Joined: 07 Jul 2006 10:04 pm
Posts: 2717
Gamertag: Hercy
What legislation will arise if the vote is no?

In any case, Labor is openly advocating for a yes vote, which is further evidence against the conspiracy theory that they are stalling same sex marriage.


11 Oct 2017 02:47 pm
Profile
Regular Member
Regular Member
User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2006 05:19 pm
Posts: 1940
Location: Sydney
Gamertag: shimma
PSN ID: shimma1138
Steam ID: stanard
Froggy, it's given people a sense of legitimacy to spout their discriminatory views.

And as for mental health concerns:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-18/same-sex-marriage-survey-lgbtqi-mental-health-support/8955956

Warnings from the last few years:
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/mental-health-experts-back-labors-samesex-marriage-plebiscite-veto-20161002-grtg32
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/08/09/mental-health-experts-warn-government-against-very-damaging-sa_a_23073012/
Quote:
Research shows that around eight Australians will take their own life every day. That alarming statistic is catastrophically higher in young LGBTQ people, who are at a six times' greater risk of suicide than their heterosexual counterparts


If someone like GCF who is older and wiser is having troubles dealing with this, imagine being a 15 years old kid still trying to figure your shit out? Which relates to another crappy thing about all this is that they're releasing the results for each electorate right? So imagine the scenario where it passes nationwide by say 60%, but you're that 15 year old kid stuck in a small country town that only votes 30% in favour? Sounds great. Or as Matt Canavan said, should they just 'just grow a spine and grow up'?


11 Oct 2017 03:02 pm
Profile
BLD4LBE
BLD4LBE
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:54 am
Posts: 4073
Hercy wrote:
Labor's policy platform at the 2016 election was to legislate in favour of same sex marriage within 100 days.

All of the same sex advocacy groups supported Labor's position to block a plebiscite. So do you really think that those groups don't "give a flying fuck" about same sex marriage too? This conspiracy theory that Labor is stalling same sex marriage until they are back in power has absolutely no evidence for it and plenty of evidence against it such as:
- their position being in line with advocacy groups.
- they introduced a private member's Bill in this current term of parliament.
- there is no doubt that Labor will vote in favour of any legislation that arises from the postal survey.

And your contention that the current debate is no different to the past 10 years is countered by CyberFunk and lots of other affected people who are feeling a difference. For you to say otherwise is only possible if you are wilfully blind to what people are saying.


Because non of the advocacy groups want anything of this to do with the coalition either? The leader and his party supported a plebiscite before it became politically expedient for them not to, the core of the issue that they wanted SSM as fast as possible clearly is not something labor really care about considering they voted it down whilst in gov and then went on to vote down a plebiscite which would have had this sorted already.

"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.”

Except when you know you won't get to own the issue and you show everyone you as well don't actually care. I think it says it all that they became very passionate about it as an issue again as soon as they lost Government, you would know working for them.

_________________
Vzzzbx, you lose again!


11 Oct 2017 03:10 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2666 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.