Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Bandwagon]

If it is non-compulsory what is most likely to win? A lot of merkins who don't give a shit either way and probably won't vote (like myself) will be counted out so it will be the passionate 'for' minority against the passionate 'against' minority.

I reckon the no vote will likely prevail, because my felling is that most people don't really care that much to arsed, they just don't think it's anyone's business.

 

[Twizzle]

If the plebiscite gets up, it goes to parliament to vote

If it doesn't get through the senate, it goes to a postal vote then a parliamentary vote

why the f**k dont they just have the parliamentary vote now and save $120 million

 

[Gary Gutful]

Um, except that current Labor policy is a conscience vote, with a binding vote in the future.

So at this point in time I'd say perhaps you should do a little more research on the matter before parroting something you heard on the interwebz.

Such a parrot.

 

[Bandwagon]

Such a parrot.

So much squawking to do, so little time.

 

[strider]

Have you merkins solved all the world's problems yet?

Come on - get on with it ffs

 

[Bandwagon]

I did, but the f**kin' lizard people Illuminati foiled my plans

f**k I hate those meddling kids.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I know it is a great waste of money (but the government does that all the time anyways without such whinging) but if 63% of the people want gay marriage and they vote yes, why is anyone concerned?

Gronk's concern about the small sample size and saying no anyways will just guarantee a loss at the next election by the Libs anyways and then Labor will just make it legal straight away.

Simples..........

Yeah surely Labor want to be the ones to benefit from zero cost platitudes like freeing the slaves and marriage equality.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Looks like you jumped in and got it wrong, based on Pou's subsequent reply...

The power of the church comes from having powerful friends in politics, who passed/continue laws giving them favourable treatment.

More fool us, because - just like making gay marriage happen - the majority don't have the people power to change these rules that give churches power. But to argue that "the people" gave churches the disproportionate power they have today (e.g. free land allocations from colonial days, and the wealth and influence that springs from that) is rather blinkered imo.

I think you're missing the point. Powerful politicians are powerful because of people. Powerful religious organisations are powerful because of people. People create secular political institutions and invest them with political power in exactly the same way that they create religious institutions and invest them with political power.

You seem to have this idea that religion is something that emerged outside the world of human beings (the Hand of God maybe?) and was imposed upon them. But religions are controlled by people, which is why they reflect human morality of the day. People aren't going to create religions they disagree with, any more than they are going to support those religions. The evidence is in how every religion today is different to its iterations of the past. No different from secular institutions.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Have you merkins solved all the world's problems yet?

Come on - get on with it ffs

Yep. Keep up Stridos.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I did, but the f**kin' lizard people Illuminati foiled my plans

f**k I hate those meddling kids.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think lizards are smug.

 

[phantom eel]

I think you're missing the point. Powerful politicians are powerful because of people. Powerful religious organisations are powerful because of people. People create secular political institutions and invest them with political power in exactly the same way that they create religious institutions and invest them with political power.

I think you're missing the next step in the point, that these institutions (secular, political, and/or religious) then serve to actively disempower people (the masses/majorities), as the people involved in their leadership (elites) inevitably pursue self-interest and cocoon themselves from the interests of the people (in case they act to reduce the previously conferred and much enjoyed power).

You seem to have this idea that religion is something that emerged outside the world of human beings (the Hand of God maybe?) and was imposed upon them.

Your words, not mine. I have an idea religions (at least the major ones) were created way way back when people thought earth was flat and was the centre of the solar system/universe, and when they needed an unfortunately science-free explanation for why we existed.

But religions are controlled by people, which is why they reflect human morality of the day.

They are controlled by people(elites) via their use of power, in the interest of protecting that power, and hence don't reflect morality of the day, but by their nature are conservative/regressive and lag far behind the popular morality of the day.

People aren't going to create religions they disagree with, any more than they are going to support those religions. The evidence is in how every religion today is different to its iterations of the past. No different from secular institutions.

And given the drop in support for/adherence to religion, I guess that's proof enough of the people's disagreement? Agree that no matter how they "develop", religious institutions are still playing catch-up with modern empowered/educated moralities - and yes, also agree that the elites that control them in self-interest act little different to those that control secular institutions.

 

[Gronk]

Lyle Shelton seems to me running the NO vote campaign.


Always reliable wiki describes him as..

Lyle Shelton is a lobbyist on Christian issues and a known homophobe. He devotes the majority of his time lobbying against the rights of LGBTI people and is obsessed with other people's genitals. He served as the Chief of Staff of the Australian Christian Lobby for six years and was appointed as Managing Director in May 2013.[1] He has a background in hatred.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_Shelton_(lobbyist)

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think you're missing the next step in the point, that these institutions (secular, political, and/or religious) then serve to actively disempower people (the masses/majorities), as the people involved in their leadership (elites) inevitably pursue self-interest and cocoon themselves from the interests of the people (in case they act to reduce the previously conferred and much enjoyed power).

They unite people, which is the only way humans were able to gain power over the hostile world they found themselves in.

Your words, not mine. I have an idea religions (at least the major ones) were created way way back when people thought earth was flat and was the centre of the solar system/universe, and when they needed an unfortunately science-free explanation for why we existed.

And yet they persist alongside science. In fact science, via technology, has been a key enabler for the continued organisation along religious/cultural lines of geographically disparate human beings.

They are controlled by people(elites) via their use of power, in the interest of protecting that power, and hence don't reflect morality of the day, but by their nature are conservative/regressive and lag far behind the popular morality of the day.

They certainly help keep people anchored to their ancestors. If there was no innate desire for such historical mooring we wouldn't continue to see it.

And given the drop in support for/adherence to religion, I guess that's proof enough of the people's disagreement?

Not at all. 'Non-religious' people channel their fervour into other competing ideologies, whether socialism vs capitalism, realism vs liberalism, rationalism vs empiricism, etc etc. All require a position of faith, and all get merkins fired up.

Agree that no matter how they "develop", religious institutions are still playing catch-up with modern empowered/educated moralities - and yes, also agree that the elites that control them in self-interest act little different to those that control secular institutions.

I'd say they are dragging the chain, rather than 'playing catch-up'. Which of course is their purpose. The alternative is to rush headlong, and that never turns out well.

 

[bartman]

Written like a true social conservative...

Sorry, I must've meant to type "centrist", lol.

 

[Gronk]

Um, except that current Labor policy is a conscience vote, with a binding vote in the future.

So at this point in time I'd say perhaps you should do a little more research on the matter before parroting something you heard on the interwebz.

Hold on, doesn't the labor party establish their position on these matters outside parliament in caucus? In parliament they vote in a block and dont allow free vote and indeed you can be expelled if you cross the floor ? So correct me if I'm wrong, but a NO position labor party member would be forced to vote yes in the lower house like it or not ? This contrasts to the libs who (theoretically) allow a conscience vote in the house and allow you to cross the floor ?

Edit: this is the labor party pledge

I hereby pledge myself not to oppose the candidates selected by the recognised political labor organization, and if elected to do my utmost to carry out the principles embodied in the Federal Labor Platform and on all questions affecting that Platform to vote as a majority of the Parliamentary Party may decide at a duly constituted caucus meeting.[

 

[Gary Gutful]

Written like a true social conservative...

Sorry, I must've meant to type "centrist", lol.

You should have typed "I've got nothing".

 

[Bandwagon]

Hold on, doesn't the labor party establish their position on these matters outside parliament in caucus? In parliament they vote in a block and dont allow free vote and indeed you can be expelled if you cross the floor ? So correct me if I'm wrong, but a NO position labor party member would be forced to vote yes in the lower house like it or not ? This contrasts to the libs who (theoretically) allow a conscience vote in the house and allow you to cross the floor ?

Edit: this is the labor party pledge

I hereby pledge myself not to oppose the candidates selected by the recognised political labor organization, and if elected to do my utmost to carry out the principles embodied in the Federal Labor Platform and on all questions affecting that Platform to vote as a majority of the Parliamentary Party may decide at a duly constituted caucus meeting.[

Policy is debated, voted upon and decided at the national conference, Current policy is that members have a conscience vote on SSM. Has been for some time.

You might recall last time this came up for a vote in the house Labor's position was a conscience vote, the Liberals position was a no vote bound by the decision of the party room under Abbott. Not one Liberal member voted yes, despite as can be gleaned from recent events, there being strong support for a yes vote from a number of members. These members held the party position and did not cross the floor.

A good number of Labor members voted no, and so the motion was defeated. You'll find a list of how the parties voted at the bottom of the page in the following link https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2012-09-19/1

On the difference on crossing the floor between the two majors can be nutted down to a Labor member may be expelled from the party for doing so, a Liberal member may not. However the political ramifications / practicalities are much the same, either can find themselves ostracised to the backbench for the rest of their career.

 

[Gronk]

Tony Abbott just said that if you don't like same sex marriage, vote no. If you want religious freedom and freedom of speech vote no. If you are sick of political correctness, vote no.

Hmmm so it's started and he's going for symbolic gestures and attempting to broaden this poll beyond the deffinition of marriage. He appealing to the "disaffected base" One Nation Trump model.

 

[Bandwagon]

Tony Abbott just said that if you don't like same sex marriage, vote no. If you want religious freedom and freedom of speech vote no. If you are sick of political correctness, vote no.

Hmmm so it's started and he's going for symbolic gestures and attempting to broaden this poll beyond the deffinition of marriage. He appealing to the "disaffected base" One Nation Trump model.

Why the need to expand the argument beyond the boundaries of the issue it's self I wonder. It is clearly neither an attack upon religious freedom, nor is it an attack upon freedom of speech. Further I can't see how it is anything to do with political correctness.

This sounds awfully like a man who cannot defend his position on the merits of the position it's self.