I cant make polls but heres something:
Q: should the marriage equality issue be decided by
1. Pollies through legislation now:
2. A referendum or plebiscite
3. By pollies but after the next election so each member has a chance to state their stance on the issue before voters go to the polls next time
4. Slobs.
Thoughts?
im leaning towards 3.
reason: the issue of gay marriage is actually not up to the pollies individual stance. a member of parliament is there to enact the wishes of his/her constituency.
if the electorate overwhelmingly demands either a yes or no on the issue then the elected official should obey their wishes regardless of their personal stance.
fair point. but i can also see the counterpoint in that the issue of marriage equality(whether we like to admit it or not) affects only a very small part of the population.
so for other issues of this 'size' are people going to expect the right of a referendum for them also?
what about going to war? retirement age? immigration?
it opens up a can of worms.
and again, I'm not saying your point it wrong, and tbf id be happy to do it that way as well.
i just thought the counter argument on this is fair.
Most referendums fail
Add in the bit that Abbott and co can doctor it in such a way to suit there agenda.
Just look at what Jack Boot Johhny done with the republic referendum.
Plenty were keen and still voted no as they didn't like the model of pollies electing the president (Obviously miss the point how we don't vote for the PM Governor General Now)
Add in the other aspect that people get the shits about having to vote will add a good no vote on principal.
Referendum would be the worst option for the move getting up
forgive my ignorance as i only studied legal studies to perv on chicks, but can't you only have a referendum in australia to change a specific part of the constitution?
marriage is defined in the marriage act 1961, not in the constitution, therefore it has to go through parliament, not to a referendum yeah?
also, i believe the referendum in ireland was voluntary, so easier to skew a campaign to where you want it to go
always harder to get something up/vote it down in a country where everyone is legally compelled to vote, i.e. straya
NEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSS
Yeah i think its technically a plebiscite. thats where a law is introduced by da people that doesn't need to alter the constitution.
a referendum is a vote of the peeps that changes constitutional law.
and i think even a plebiscite can not be binding in some instances.
(oh and smart chicks in glasses was always the best perv in school - well played).
I do find the whole debate rather laughable.
The gay community and their actions go completely against the church and its beliefs in god.
The gay community then feel that they have some sort of divine right to be included in what is regarded as an important part of what is actually a practice deeply intertwined with religion.
Considering their sins go completely against the word of god the arrogance is astounding.
What is even sadder is the bit they wish to change is the marriage act. An act of parliament that was established to recognise a marriage between man and wife in common law which also took into account and accepted traditions tied back to the church and God by government act
Does seem rather bizarre that they want a piece of religions offerings but won't actually accept religions offerings fully.
Then again the whole thing is really just a leftist stunt to legitimise a practice that most involved are ashamed to be open about and also to their grander plan to eradicate religion all together
As for the first person that mentions equality. Spare me the bullshit. Of all the issues in this land involving equality this is the least deserving of any attention yet for some reason it gets the most attention
what's the church got to do with any of this? this isn't about religious weddings, it's about legal marriages
this is about equal rights for equal relationships
why should my bond with my partner be considered legally any different from anyone elses?
can blacks and chongers get married yet?
Marriage and Religion are closely intertwined. That is a fact.
Religion is closely intertwined with a belief in homosexuality going completely against the word of god. That is a fact.
Peoples religious views and traditions should be respected. That is a fact
The Gay community are choosing to piss on all of these with their belief they should be allowed to do as they please.
As for equality. They have a civil ceremony allowed already that allows them to be Adam and Steve. They now wish to drag a religious pinnacle through the gutter to satisfy their quest for alleged equality.
No respect whatsoever for the traditions and beliefs of others
.
and what if you don't believe in the whole concepts of sin or god?
you seem to use the word fact with no understanding of what it actually means
it's not a fact that anyone's religious beliefs should be respected - it's your opinion and it differs greatly from mine
marriage and religion are not intertwined - I've been to several weddings that had no mention of religion at all
seems a bit silly to let people who think such things demand that others obey their rules, particularly given the ones who do believe are in the minority
if you want to live in a country that is ruled by religion, move to the Islamic State
Last edited by boz-monaut; 29-05-2015 at 05:14 PM.
As for people moving to the Islamic State I wonder how our gay and lesbian people would actually go over there??
Maybe they should be a bit more appreciative of the tolerance they get here as we aren't the ones throwing them off high rise buildings and what not and are happier to let them be judged by a higher power for their sins as opposed to pissing on stuff that is important to us
As for your thing about marriage and religion not being intertwined complete bullwhip. Thousands of years of history of it say the two are. Marriage is all through the good book and wasn't something religion put dibs on 40years ago for a laugh
Yeah you may have been to non religious weddings but lets not escape the fact that they are just the result of an earlier attack on marriage/religion
Just because they happen doesn't make it right. They are less of an issue as the people involved are at least man and woman so doesn't go against the good book even if the pair are neglecting the religious connections to it