I don’t think it’s a delaying tactic at all. There is big risk in this for the gay community that the vote will come back no which would set back their campaign a long way. It is better they stop the process and continue to push for the PM to make the call and bypass public opinion. Only that won’t happen because Malcolm promised the conservstives in his party he wouldn’t put it to parliament without a public vote first.
Less than 4% of Australians identify themselves as homosexual, while 19% still believe homosexuality is immoral. These are the numbers from the Roy Morgan survey. Add to that 60% of Australians in the sensis identified themselves as religious. A no vote is a very real scenario.
Do you think if it affected you that you would risk the postal vote knowing the outcome could go against you and the impact woukd set you back such a long way?
There are a few reasons why the LGBT community are against an SSM plebiscite/postal poll. 1. it is non-binding unless the result supports no change (a no result will give those against it an excuse not to put it to a parliamentary vote, while a yes result can just be ignored and some other excuse invented). 2. The no campaign will be hurtful to them (as was the case in other countries where the public has been asked for their say) and they shouldn’t have to be subjected to it. 3. It is itself the delay tactic (those against it know that if it’s put to a parliamentary conscience vote, without a no campaign to muddy the waters, it will almost certainly get through.)
Maybe instead of saying “it’s interesting that the fight against the poll is being strongly led by the LGBT groups” then, you should’ve said “it’s understandable…”?
Not sure we need to get stuck in to Icey over semantics.
It is interesting from the point of view that you’d assume gay groups would be all for it, but the manipulation and politicking that has lead to this sham survey has ■■■■■■ them off, understandably.
It’s ■■■■■■ a LOT of people off.
Not just gay groups.
Clone hirdy is ■■■■■■ off that he thinks he has to care. I’m ■■■■■■ off that I have* to vote on something like, ‘the boongs, should we let them vote, d’ya reckon?’
I’ll do it. Because friggin’ Duh.
But don’t think for a second that I’m happy about it, or that I’m grateful to the conservatives for this marvelous opportunity to show that I’m not complete ■■■■.
To me, this is the conveniently, or wilfully ignored nub of the issue: It shouldn’t be my business, I don’t need to grant permission and I sure as ■■■■ don’t have a fkn “right” to voice my opinion.
If people in favour of upholding the existing and age-old definition of marriage are supposedly all ‘bigots’ (according to Blitz, mainstream media, and many others), and the definition of ‘bigot’ is “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions”, would it then follow that it’s the people who are too narrow-minded to entertain that there are solid arguments to be had both for and against that are the actual bigots?
Yeah, it was.
Feel free to rebut. I’m not stopping you.
Wouldn’t want to infringe your freedom of speech.
Go on, then.
Away you go with your solid arguments…
I don’t feel the need to present any - most of the arguments have been presented already as this debate has been done to death. I imagine most Australians are sick of hearing about it and would prefer that our politicians spend less time grandstanding on minor issues and more time focusing on jobs growth, affordable housing, and improving living conditions for all Australians.
I just find it amusing that certain people, such as yourself, are so convinced of their virtue that they fail to see they are behaving in the exact fashion they would have you believe they are fighting against.
For example, while the mere idea of having a free vote is so abhorrent to many of you because it might mean that some people are subjected to opinions they find to be offensive, no such consideration is given to offending religious Christians merely for expressing their own deeply felt religious values.
And while you might feel that it’s unfair for religion to enter the debate when not all are religious, western society was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and everyone is entitled to vote as per their own conscience and moral compass (which must come from somewhere). After all, why is it any better to “impose” a secular point of view than a religious one?
To be clear, I’m not saying you are acting bigoted because you are in favor of SSM, I’m saying you are acting that way because you are bullying those who dare share an opposing point of view.
My feeling is that if there is a decisive outcome either way, whether the country votes for or against SSM, the politicians will be obliged to honor it despite it not being legally binding (and I believe that on the whole they will).