Ultrathread I: Thread of the Year - 2014

[Bazal]

Well, I can think of plenty....but they apply to marriage in general, not gay marriage specifically

 

[BestWingerBoyd]

I'm all for it!

 

[Misanthrope]

The only reasons for being against it tend to be of the bigoted variety, so I figured that a fine, upstanding gang such as yourselves would be all for it or (as Dutchy so eloquently puts it) indifferent.

 

[afinalsin666]

For. It's such a huge part of our culture that denying someone a part of it, for no reason, is cruel.

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

For. They should suffer like the rest of us.

 

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

LGBT people have every right to be just as miserable at hetro married couples.

 

[bartman]

Yep, can't think of a single non-bigoted (or non-religious... which can be the same thing?) reason not to pass a bill legalising gay marriage.

On another note, this thread only had 30-something posts to go before Mis can start a 2015 one - lets get to it so it can be locked up!

 

[bartman]

The two major parties are going to spend lots of time worrying about whether they try and adopt a binding vote or a conscience vote.... the conservatives will want to restrict members into voting down a gay marriage bill, and the progressives will want to force the more religious members of their party to add their numbers for passing the bill.

That stuff gets really boring very quickly. Bpth parties should just allow a conscience vote for their MPs, accept that there is more support for it among MPs this time around, and get on with passing a bill that drags our country into the future, rather than existing in some bigoted version of the 1950s.

 

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

But with that said, even Tanya Plibiesek (sp?) tried to move a binding motion to have Labor voting across party lines as opposed to conscious. Personally, I would rather follow Ireland's lead and have it go to a referendum. Too many politicians from the Left, Right, and Centre do not represent current polling on the issue.

And even as a Liberal voter, anything that royally f**ks over Corey Bernadi is a good thing.

 

[Misanthrope]

Yep, can't think of a single non-bigoted (or non-religious... which can be the same thing?) reason not to pass a bill legalising gay marriage.

On another note, this thread only had 30-something posts to go before Mis can start a 2015 one - lets get to it so it can be locked up!

I've been trying so hard to get it there. There'll be a flurry of spirited conversation and then it'll go silent for a few weeks/months. Torture, I tells ya!

But with that said, even Tanya Plibiesek (sp?) tried to move a binding motion to have Labor voting across party lines as opposed to conscious. Personally, I would rather follow Ireland's lead and have it go to a referendum. Too many politicians from the Left, Right, and Centre do not represent current polling on the issue.

And even as a Liberal voter, anything that royally f**ks over Corey Bernadi is a good thing.

I read somewhere that referendums are only an option if it's a change to the constitution (it was a quote from Abbott, who may not know anything about the matter given his general state of geniusation).

I don't trust Australia to not f**k it up. Lot of crotchety, old conservatives out there.

 

[Bazal]

I've been trying so hard to get it there. There'll be a flurry of spirited conversation and then it'll go silent for a few weeks/months. Torture, I tells ya!



I read somewhere that referendums are only an option if it's a change to the constitution (it was a quote from Abbott, who may not know anything about the matter given his general state of geniusation).

I don't trust Australia to not f**k it up. Lot of crotchety, old conservatives out there.

I believe that's correct in terms of a referendum.

I wouldn't underestimate it, though. I know of quite a few elderly, Liberal voting conservatives who would vote yes on gay marriage. That said, I also know a Greenie leaning wanker who would vote no :lol:

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

yeah, as long as they don't pass their gay onto me.

 

[Bazal]

yeah, as long as they don't pass their gay onto me.

You'll be sweet. It's only gay if balls touch

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

But gay is highly contagious, so you would catch it even from a little ball touch

 

[Misanthrope]

My brother got into a fistfight one night over a ball-touch.

He and his mates were horsing around smacking one another on the arse and such, as drunk footballers do. Some country bumpkin called him a LollyPop so he strode up to him and gave him a slight ball touch and a wink.

Guy decided to wait outside the pub to give him what for and ended up hospitalised for his trouble.

Neither of them were gay, mind, but it just shows the risks inherent with ball touching.

 

[whall15]

My prediction is that Labor will go for a conscience vote, the Libs won't, it will get rejected and we'll forget about it for another few years.

I do agree with Plibersek that it should be a party line vote instead of a conscience vote.

 

[Didgi]

I read somewhere that referendums are only an option if it's a change to the constitution (it was a quote from Abbott, who may not know anything about the matter given his general state of geniusation).

I don't trust Australia to not f**k it up. Lot of crotchety, old conservatives out there.

Yeah that's the case, but at the same time the Government has a lot of capacity, if it desired, to do something similar - even if it was just an optional opinion-garnering exercise.

I don't think either side wants that though. If it came out yes the Libs would be under huge political pressure; if it came out no the rights movement would be set back immeasurably and Australia condemned as a backwards state internationally. There's a reason we don't typically see opinion polls on this sort of thing.

The rights movement hasn't been active enough to ensure the sort of change seen in places like Ireland. Better for them to play the long game, but we'll see if they ramp it up in the lead up to this new Bill.


I disagree on a party line vote. Think of it as you will, religion is a big part of some people's lives. Requiring them to put aside their values to support someone else's, which are somewhat incompatible, is not an exercise I want to see undertaken.
Then again, religious opposition to many things is a whole other can of worms.

 

[Didgi]

Alternative discussion point: what's the more ridiculous religious objection - lesbians or bacon?

 

[whall15]

Yeah that's the case, but at the same time the Government has a lot of capacity, if it desired, to do something similar - even if it was just an optional opinion-garnering exercise.

I don't think either side wants that though. If it came out yes the Libs would be under huge political pressure; if it came out no the rights movement would be set back immeasurably and Australia condemned as a backwards state internationally. There's a reason we don't typically see opinion polls on this sort of thing.

The rights movement hasn't been active enough to ensure the sort of change seen in places like Ireland. Better for them to play the long game, but we'll see if they ramp it up in the lead up to this new Bill.

Shorten reckons he's going to introduce it on Monday, so they don't have a lot of time on their hands.

Whilst I don't really see a point of a plebiscite I couldn't see it losing unless Abbott pulled a Howard and worded it strangely. Polling has been pretty strongly in favour of it for almost a decade now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Polling

 

[whall15]

I disagree on a party line vote. Think of it as you will, religion is a big part of some people's lives. Requiring them to put aside their values to support someone else's, which are somewhat incompatible, is not an exercise I want to see undertaken.
Then again, religious opposition to many things is a whole other can of worms.

I don't see it as any different to any other issue, for mine you have to either have a conscience vote on everything bar maybe procedural matters or nothing.

Everything ultimately has a moral or even a religious element to those that are religious. Even things as relatively mundane as tax policy have a moral element based on a view about income equality (and for some libertarians government theft of personal assets), indeed Islam prescribes a flat tax and yet politicians don't get a conscience vote on that.

Also I resent this notion that religious morality is somehow important in secular society and this overall view that it is more important than secular morality. I would argue that my moral views are much more important than any religious ones because they are grounded in reality and not some antiquated collection of texts written by a bunch of primitive scientifically illiterate bigots.