and you might wanna check Penny Wongs record when it comes to voting on the issue.
She's the loudest mouth out there at a convenient time when her vote is not needed.
Printable View
and you might wanna check Penny Wongs record when it comes to voting on the issue.
She's the loudest mouth out there at a convenient time when her vote is not needed.
160 million??Quote:
Originally Posted by furns
The ****ers in Canberra waste that amount several times a week
Seems like a bargain to me
Be interesting to see how the people actually think about this issue rather than the bullshit being shoved down people's throats by the atheist lefties out there who have been claiming loudly that everyone wants gay marriage without any proof to back their claims up
You are right a vocal minority has managed to hijack the conversation in this country.
What really is a nothing issue sure gets a lot of attention. Of all the things that are wrong in this country that need fixing and letting Adam and Steve get married is apparently right at the top of the list.FMD
Can thank the artist lefties out there for this one
Correct, but that was in 2012. The debate has moved on in leaps and bounds since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
And its not really "my side" being that I'm heterosexual, but I dont see any issue with the Marriage Act being amended.
And Turnbull is trapped and its all to do with the nutters. All he has to do is change the party stance on the plebiscite to a free vote in parliament and the hard right will turf him out quicker than you can say "Tony Abbott". He is holding onto the office of PM by a thread, stepping out on a divisive issue will kill his leadership. Again.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Or another way of looking at it is most people are now in favour, but the constant efforts of the religious nutters to quash the whole thing is what keeps it in limbo rather than just allowing parliamentarians to do their bloody job and vote on an issue of amending a piece of legislation according to the wishes of their constituents.
And for such a nothing issue, you see no problem in spending $160mil on it? Id hate to see what you'd spend on something more important.
Yeah but the debacle in 2012 showed you all you need to know about trusting politicians to do the right thing by their constituents.Quote:
Originally Posted by furns
As recently as last year Wong (again) and Plibersek abstained from voting at their conference on alyssum seekers despite being front and centre in the media whenever there was a photo op to be had.
Id much rather the vote be handled by the public than trust these pricks to do the right thing.
I disagree with Bernardi on pretty much everything but have way more respect for him as a representative of the people because at least he declared his hand and sticks to it.
Heaven help these assholes take a policy to the election, get it voted on then stick with it rather than chop and change every time the wind blows (royal commission into NT detention anyone?)
Oh and for the record I'd prob not base my vote on my parliamentary rep on their views on marriage equality, but would def vote yes in a plebiscite.
160 millionQuote:
Originally Posted by furns
I actually would not be surprised if the Plebiscite actually got knocked back.
I don't think the numbers in support of Adam and Steve are anywhere near as strong as the aethist lefties would have us believe
For 160 million it will be quite a ****ing laugh if it gets knocked back.
Make no mistake about it the pollies in favour of Adam and Steve don't want this going to a Plebiscite as they know it isn't a for gone conclusion to get up
oops, it's against the law to insult on the basis of religion. spaghetti hats havent hurt anyone manQuote:
Originally Posted by furns
Why are people wanting to legalize Gay and Lesbian marriage ? Haven't these people suffered enough already ?
lol - ever been to a gay wedding? I hear they're marvellous.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
And I'm with the good Member on the money issue.
Now they want to save $160m
Now?
Ok great now that we are so fiscally frugal let's look at the billions we are spending on subs or the NBN or welfare or middle class subsidies.
Oh wait, we good with blowing whatever there.
But gosh darn it that $160m is a deal breaker.
The money spent becomes earned income for the non-government sectors of the economy. It's never a question of affordability in any modern economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The only thing that is questionable is the distribution of the income when it is spent.
As I think you are trying to point out governments choose to call anything against their ideologies wasteful and anything that supports their ideologies to be a worthwhile investment.
Too right. We could smash multiple cancers, have free health care and give everyone houses but noooooo lets lest beat our chests over a false security of useless underwater bathtubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
NBN is important but.
what I don't get is a plebiscite anyway - its not binding, save the cash and ask the question at an election.
the issue is ridiculous though.
I get religious groups see it as "union of blah blah" so let churches decide who they marry, but my marriage is a legal document registered with the state, not the church. so should anyone else's if they so choose. why do I get that right, but others don't, a church had zero to do with my marriage, why should a religious view stop others from being married in the eyes of the state too.
you hear some bang on about protectin the sanctity of marriage!!!! **** me. you can win a wedding in a tv show, us straight folk have destroyed the sanctity of marriage a long time ago.
Truthbomb right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
I don't understand why political parties are so against legalizing gay marriage (if they are at all) - it creates so, so many jobs.
Why didn't they just add another tickbox to the Census we all recently did (or are still doing) and asked us to put yes/no on whether we wanted to legalize gay marriage or not. Would have been so simple and cost bugger all extra - and we know all if not most of Australians would have had to answer it.
imagine if the government told the member what he could and couldn't do
Plenty of people think the same about going to war.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
And tax reform.
And crime and punishment
And the environment.
We elect put officials to govern these issues in the best interests of society.
Sometimes that clashes with what individuals think.
The best you can hope for is that your local official carries through on the policy they took to the last election.
That's why the plebiscite is actually way more than just a vote on marriage equality.
To be fair the good Member sounds like the type of bloke that would LOVE to own a massive arsenal of guns and a backyard full of exotic animals like tigers and spitting cobras.Quote:
Originally Posted by q-money
Big Gubmint is already holding our boy back.
Dunster, I seem to recall you have some expertise in economics - couple of things I'm a bit curious about. Does the concept of trickle down economics have merit either in current implementation or in theory? On face value it seems counter intuitive but I have heard some good arguments for it.
Also am I correct in being frustrated that the current political preference with regards to the the economy is to "get the budget under control" and get a surplus happening ASAP. It seems to me a very primitive thing to try and push through, presumably with the aim of popularity rather than actual economic benefit. Am I wrong here?
Be interested to hear your thoughts
It's called trickle down economics for a reason. The income trickles down rather than flows. Does it have any merit ? Well, in the short term it places incomes in fewer hands which is obviously great of you are one of a select few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
In the long run it's not so great because it takes spending power away from those with the highest propensity to spend and gives it to those with the lowest propensity to spend [the rich].
The only way such a system is sustainable is via credit creation - namely, you force people to spend more than they earn by offering them access to credit at a scale never before witnessed throughout history. This allows for the financial capitalist to have their cake and eat it as well.
Eventually, though the average Joe gets to a point where they cannot service the debt - and that's where it all turns to shit.
Why. Because spending decreases, then income decreases, then investment decreases because entrepreneurs expect sales to decrease... which leads to unemployment... and hence the vicious cycle continues.
With respect to the budget it is what it is - a snapshot of the governments accounts at a point in time.
If the governments budget is in surplus then the non-governments accounts are in deficit [ rules of double entry accounting].
This would make sense when an economy is running beyond it's capacity but absolutely none in reality where few if any modern economies are running beyond their economic capacities.
The group that benefits most from a government running surpluses in the short term is those that either hold interest bearing alternatives to money or those that offer credit to those looking to spend more than they earn [which is the majority of people].
It's a brilliant plan to because when households can no longer service the debt the Government / Central bank steps in and props up the Banking / Finance industry with massive handouts to keep them from going under.:gent:
What you also end up with is a falling wages share of income and a rising profits share of income. The only way this can be sustained is through financial engineering such as providing easy credit to households that really can't afford it - but have little choice.
Without the credit spending, spending falls....and so on like I explained above.
So its important because the Libs said they'd hold a plebiscite?Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Sweet, I get that, its important because its an election promise and they should be held to it.
I suppose Labor can claim their trying to keep an election promise by opposing it - but they didn't win the election, so they should really let it happen.
It's all ****ing vote grabbing anyway - and that's what really shits me.
Libs promise to hold a plebiscite (that they don't need to listen to the result of anyway) - so they can appease one side of the voters without pissing off the others too much
and the Labor mob beat their chest saying they support the act being amended - so they can appease the other side of voters
fair enough - but this issue is one being impacted by religious beliefs, and last I checked I thought we were a secular society.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
rofQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
I think this is more Q than member.
Member's Left Conservatives want a slow peaceful society where, change is comfortable, the money comes in, national finances are in control, crime is low, beer is cheap, sports are winners and and we can have a job where we only have to work hard sometimes. major changes are a hassle. Reckon i could go this
I don't even think it's a vote grabbing. It's more a case of divide and conquer.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
https://anticap.files.wordpress.com/...fredgraph1.jpg
This is the situation for the USA but the situation for other developed modern economies such as Australia is pretty much the same.
People are now borrowing / using credit to fund what in the past they used to be able to save for simply because their wages as a share of total income have fallen.
Everything you said there is spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
That's why it's happening the way it is.
We can make the most of it and get the vote as high as possible for your team in order to leave the pollies no choice or we as a nation can throw up our hands and give in.
As for your last comment.
Church and state are supposed to be seperate yeah?
Because this morning all the pollies are at the traditional multi faith pre parliament service, and get sworn in using their favourite religious text.
Plenty of God squaders on the left too. Don't be fooled into thinking a pollie vote will come up roses once the blowtorch is turned on them (see: Wong. Penny,)
{generalising I know}Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
But
Aren't economies like Hong Kong built around the fact they can provide credit as a % of capitol at a greater rate than other countries can.
Thought I read Oz was like 4 x what they held vs something like 12 x for HK.
Think about that, an entire countries economy built on thin air.
Utterly fantastic.
Jeez those graph labels are a mouthful. I'm sure I'm going to be missing some of the finer points but essentially blue line = % of total country's income that is paid out as wages to people, red line is % of total country's income that is profit to companies. Isn't the profit either going to be reinvested or get skimmed by some head honcho anyway (which would put it in the other category?) or is the point to show the difference between the sum total of population and the 0.1%ers that own big companies
So can someone explain to me exactly what Adam and Steve will actually get out of being married that the EXISTING civil union process doesn't currently offer them ???
Second question how exactly is this going to create jobs and money into the economy??
Nothing stopping Adam and Steve blowing 30k on matching frocks and an elaborate civil union ceremony already
I think they get the secret key code so they can get through the pearly gates without Peter giving them the Mutumbo finger wag.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Or something like that.
Situations where theres immediate family only eg hospital visits. And having rights and freedoms that doesnt really hurt the community. Its a big cultural change for our current society. Soon it will be taken for granted by nearly everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Bit like leaguies actually respecting soccer. Only generational death will make it complete.
Well it will grow one certain part of the economy and if people are too stupid to fall for it then good on the people singing that song.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
But it shouldn't be passed based on money otherwise we'll be storing everyone's nuclear waste out in the desert for a few roubles.
Nowt wrong with treating people like equals.
I mean come on weren't you moaning a few months back about trying to get your lady friend a visa complaining that people from her country get treated differently than ones from say the UK etc?
I agree wholeheartedly but I just don't understand why the pollys etc aren't hammering home how many extra jobs it'd create, to put an even more (and arguably practical) spin on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
http://www.australianmarriageequalit...ality-matters/Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
“Civil union” is a generic term that includes a registered partnership, a civil partnership, and all other formally-recognised personal union. However, civil unions do not offer the same legal benefits as marriage, even when the law says they should. This is because they are not as widely understood or respected. Several recent reports into the operation of civil schemes in Europe and North America confirm that civil unions are not always recognised by hospitals, schools, insurers and even government officials.
Lack of recognition is also a problem when civil union partners travel inter-state or internationally. But even if a solution can be found to these practical problems, legal unions other than marriage do not give same-sex couples the same social and cultural recognition that comes with marriage. In the words of American marriage equality advocate, Beth Robinson, “nobody writes songs about civil unions”.
Worse, according to the reports mentioned above civil unions may actually encourage discrimination against same-sex partners and downgrade the status of their relationships by entrenching a second-class status .
Civil rights historians like Barbara Cox have drawn the parallel between civil unions and former “Jim Crow laws” in the American south.
“…restricting same-sex couples to civil unions is reminiscent of the racism that relegated African-Americans to separate railroad cars and separate schools. Our society’s experiences with ‘separate and equal’ have shown that separation can never result in equality because the separation is based on a belief that a distance needs to be maintained between those in the privileged position and those placed in the inferior position.”
Civil unions have not only not fulfilled their promise of equal rights and respect for same-sex couples, they appear to have made matters worse. Instead of eliminating discrimination they have entrenched it. Instead of removing stigma they have inflamed it. Instead of being a step towards full equality they are a step away.
This is probably why same-sex couples consistently show they prefer marriage to other forms of legal recognition. In US states where both marriage and civil unions are available to same-sex couples the result is always a higher take-up rate for marriage.[xi]
This is consistent with Australian research which shows that only 25.6% of same-sex de facto partners would chose to be in a civil union, and only 17.7% would remain as de factos. Of those currently in a state same-sex civil union 78.3% would prefer to be married under Australian law.
Alternatives to marriage are important for providing legal security and/or formal recognition for those partners who do not wish to marry. In Australia we are lucky to have strong legal protections for cohabiting de facto couples and some of the best state civil union schemes in the world. But there is one piece missing from the jigsaw of legal options available to Australian couples. That piece is marriage for same-sex partners.
References:
[xi] “Marriage, registration and dissolution by same-sex couples in the U.S.”, The Williams Institute, July 2008, http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...es-in-the-u-s/
^ so in essence, a fair bit
Because it's not 'really' true.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
Sure, gay people will spend more money in the 'wedding industry', but they aren't going to automatically have more disposable income because of the legislation.
The money they spend on weddings will just come from some other part of their lifestyle. So in effect whatever that industry is will be affected.
And this whole thing about 'gay tourists flocking here to celebrate' etc would have a minuscule effect on the tourism industry compared to fluctuating Aussie dollar, airline fuel prices etc.
At the core of everyone's decision on this should be of they think it's right or not.
It's unlikely that businesses want to re-invest their profits if the returns on interest bearing alternatives to money [ bonds, derivatives and so on] is greater ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
The graph shouldn't be read into too deeply all it is showing is that the capitalist share of income is growing faster than the workers share of income.
So you think that based on being able to be married the social stigma and discrimination against homosexual people will magically disappear??Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
I am not thinking it will.
People will always hate on others whom are different to them. It is a hardwired into our DNA
As for the rest of the dribble from the atheist leftist propaganda i just read far too many generalisations about how this Marriage stuff will benefit Adam and Steve rather than clear examples of where they will be better off
You obviously not paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
They are all sinners buddy.
They be spending eternity in a hot fiery place and won't be going through the pearly gates