Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Sir Wearer of Hats

Australia to "vote" on marriage equality

37 posts in this topic

I say "vote" because it's going to be a non-binding, non-compulsory postal vote.

so basically, most of us won't vote and the pollies are free to ignore the Vox pulbii anyway (which some of them have ALREADY said they'd do).

ohh and it'll cost $122 million dollars. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I thought the various parties where maneuvering to avoid the public plebiscite, and do a "back room deal" instead ? :P

Notwithstanding... where does the figure of $122 come from ? The UK Referendum was reckoned to cost around £142 million, but much of that was spending by the various Pro/Anti groups, not government (or taxpayers) spending ?

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I thought the various parties where maneuvering to avoid the public plebiscite, and do a "back room deal" instead ? :P

Notwithstanding... where does the figure of $122 come from ? The UK Referendum was reckoned to cost around £142 million, but much of that was spending by the various Pro/Anti groups, not government (or taxpayers) spending ?

It comes from the mouth of Matthias "The Terminator". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So stupid. 

Theres not a single person I acquaint with who has voiced that they're against this. I spent the earlier and greater half of my childhood growing up in a country town of ~1,300 population. Secondary school in a town of 30,000+, then on to Melbourne.

I have had gay friends at every turn, and even in the smaller country towns, they were considered and treated normally. 

There are a few things that set Australia back a long way, and this is one of them.  

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I thought the various parties where maneuvering to avoid the public plebiscite, and do a "back room deal" instead ? :P

Notwithstanding... where does the figure of $122 come from ? The UK Referendum was reckoned to cost around £142 million, but much of that was spending by the various Pro/Anti groups, not government (or taxpayers) spending ?

The same way that all Governments decide anything will cost, by completely making up a figure off their top of their head. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

There are a few things that set Australia back a long way, and this is one of them.  

Set it back a long way?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Set it back a long way?  

In overall human rights, yes. Have you ever sat down with a gay person and had a real conversation? People commit suicide because they're not accepted and don't understand why.

In the AFL, the biggest sport in the country with a history of 100+ years, there's not been a single male player come out as gay. The stigma behind it and sport is a story for another day. The female teams have only really had a couple of years at a professional level and there's already an openly lesbian couple championing the issue. 

Australia is meant to be a country that leads in this field, but we're definitely not close to the front of the pack. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Timonthy said:

In overall human rights, yes. Have you ever sat down with a gay person and had a real conversation? People commit suicide because they're not accepted and don't understand why.

In the AFL, the biggest sport in the country with a history of 100+ years, there's not been a single male player come out as gay. The stigma behind it and sport is a story for another day. The female teams have only really had a couple of years at a professional level and there's already an openly lesbian couple championing the issue. 

Australia is meant to be a country that leads in this field, but we're definitely not close to the front of the pack. 

So how will it set it back? Is this referendum whether to not allow marriage equality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

So how will it set it back? Is this referendum whether to not allow marriage equality?

You do realise that there's a big benefit to society and the economy when people are happy and healthy?

There's no marriage equality now, and it's not a referendum. 

Its not so much 'setting back', we're already behind the times and it's a shame.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

So how will it set it back? Is this referendum whether to not allow marriage equality?

Because the bilge-minded, hate-filled bigots will get free reign now to basically slag off LGBTI individuals at the tax payers expense. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

So how will it set it back? Is this referendum whether to not allow marriage equality?

How about you give us an idea on this topic? What's your stance? What are your arguments for and against?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Because the bilge-minded, hate-filled bigots will get free reign now to basically slag off LGBTI individuals at the tax payers expense. 

LGBTI? There's something else now?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For goodness sake, what the hell is the big deal ?... why don't they just pass the law, and let gay people marry each other if they want to. I mean they're not hurting anyone, so who cares ?....live and let live I say. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

LGBTI? There's something else now?

I think they add a letter each year?  :D 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the I means, either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even New Zealand is more liberal than us, when it comes to same sex marriage. They simply voted and passed the bill through government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand

Same-sex marriage became legal in New Zealand on 19 August 2013. A bill for legalisation was passed by the New Zealand House of Representatives on 17 April 2013 by 77 votes to 44 and received royal assent on 19 April 2013. It entered into force four months after assent, to allow time for the Department of Internal Affairs to make the necessary changes for marriage licensing and related documentation. New Zealand became the first country in Oceania, the fourth in the Southern Hemisphere, and the fifteenth overall to allow same-sex couples to marry

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

LGBTI? There's something else now?

Yeah it's a bit excessive, maybe just NS (not straight) would do. Especially when the definitions are chopped and changed so often.

6 minutes ago, Astra. said:

Even New Zealand is more liberal than us, when it comes to same sex marriage. They simply voted and passed the bill through government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand

It is such a simple thing that is being made so hard. It should have happened here 10 years ago.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

LGBTI? There's something else now?

Intersex, which means IIRC those who are neither male nor female (Zoe they possess both sets of genitals)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Timonthy said:

It is such a simple thing that is being made so hard. It should have happened here 10 years ago.

Yes, I totally agree...and it should not have become such an issue. If the traditional and old boring farts get their way with the vote. Then that will be the end of it. Fingers crossed the vote swings the other way. I mean times have changed, they need to wake up and get with the programme. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Astra. said:

Even New Zealand is more liberal than us, when it comes to same sex marriage. They simply voted and passed the bill through government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand

 

 

 

 

What do you mean "even" ?

You've been following the Kiwis lead for decades.:P:P

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

What do you mean "even" ?

You've been following the Kiwis lead for decades.:P:P

:lol:..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I don't know what the I means, either. 

Indeterminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I say "vote" because it's going to be a non-binding, non-compulsory postal vote.

so basically, most of us won't vote and the pollies are free to ignore the Vox pulbii anyway (which some of them have ALREADY said they'd do).

ohh and it'll cost $122 million dollars. 

Sounds like a rather expensive way to test the waters

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I say "vote" because it's going to be a non-binding, non-compulsory postal vote.

so basically, most of us won't vote and the pollies are free to ignore the Vox pulbii anyway (which some of them have ALREADY said they'd do).

ohh and it'll cost $122 million dollars. 

I don't think there's been a government that ignored a plebiscite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I don't think there's been a government that ignored a plebiscite. 

The ruling party in the USA has tried very hard to disregard the result of the election that happened last year ... 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.