What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Non Footy Chat Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,991
Well, just imagine Darth Vader...but better looking.

He ain't Richard Gere buddy.

c8c626200bf26b2cbf31129d1df0306b.jpg
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,991
Eric Abetz reckons that Australians don't want same sex marriage. After all he says, polls are not a true sample of our society. More pple go to church on the weekend than go to the football.

Compelling argument there Eric.
 

Kornstar

Coach
Messages
15,578
Eric Abetz reckons that Australians don't want same sex marriage. After all he says, polls are not a true sample of our society. More pple go to church on the weekend than go to the football.

Compelling argument there Eric.

My honest opinion is that if we sent it to a national vote (what is the official name of it is) that a lot of people would be shocked at the results and it would be MUCH closer than most people think.

People who are anti gay marriage tend to keep their mouths shut due to fear of getting shouted down by the VERY vocal people who support it. In a vote where it's private they can voice their real opinion.

Just because the people you associate your self with aren't against it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of hill billy bogans out there that despise homosexuals.

My experience is that it is about 50/50 with the people I know. I personally don't care what anyone does so why would I vote against it but I have been shocked by several people who I know that aggressively (not out in public of course) do not support it.

It has to go to a vote but I'm really not sure that marriage equality advocates will be too happy with the result.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,991
My honest opinion is that if we sent it to a national vote (what is the official name of it is) that a lot of people would be shocked at the results and it would be MUCH closer than most people think.

People who are anti gay marriage tend to keep their mouths shut due to fear of getting shouted down by the VERY vocal people who support it. In a vote where it's private they can voice their real opinion.

Just because the people you associate your self with aren't against it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of hill billy bogans out there that despise homosexuals.

My experience is that it is about 50/50 with the people I know. I personally don't care what anyone does so why would I vote against it but I have been shocked by several people who I know that aggressively (not out in public of course) do not support it.

It has to go to a vote but I'm really not sure that marriage equality advocates will be too happy with the result.

The conservatives pushed for a public vote because they know that we tend to vote against every plebiscite or referendum. Tony hung his hat on the electorate's historical trend to err on the side of caution. So far we have only ticked off 8 of 44.

Also a plebiscite seeks only to establish a position and does not necessarily bind politicians to vote in that manner.

Facts are that our politicians have been quite capable on voting on issues of conscience in the past. So they can vote on matters like such as euthanasia, human cloning and the abortion drug RU486, but not that same sex couples can get married ? Sound odd to you ?
 

Kornstar

Coach
Messages
15,578
I think it's pretty simple. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

:lol: that's pretty much my stance.

The conservatives pushed for a public vote because they know that we tend to vote against every plebiscite or referendum. Tony hung his hat on the electorate's historical trend to err on the side of caution. So far we have only ticked off 8 of 44.

Also a plebiscite seeks only to establish a position and does not necessarily bind politicians to vote in that manner.

Facts are that our politicians have been quite capable on voting on issues of conscience in the past. So they can vote on matters like such as euthanasia, human cloning and the abortion drug RU486, but not that same sex couples can get married ? Sound odd to you ?

So they are against it but are still handing it over to the public? Isn't that giving it more chance than if they voted and it gets shot down?
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
77,991
:lol: that's pretty much my stance.



So they are against it but are still handing it over to the public? Isn't that giving it more chance than if they voted and it gets shot down?

Tone had to appear to be doing the right thing. Like when he said that climate change was real. We all know he had his fingers crossed.

By saying that there would be a plebiscite after the next election he managed to defer the matter. He'd then kick the can down the street for as long as he could (years maybe) saying that it was not top priority and way under jobs etc. When he could no longer avoid the heat, then he'd hold it but be able to word the question his way so that it would (hopefully) yield his desired result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top