View Poll Results: How will you vote (or have you voted) in the Marriage Law Postal Survey

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    14 63.64%
  • No

    3 13.64%
  • Not voting (not enrolled)

    4 18.18%
  • Not voting (not interested or can't decide)

    0 0%
  • Not voting (boycotting survey)

    1 4.55%
Page 171 of 172 FirstFirst ... 71121161169170171172 LastLast
Results 2,551 to 2,565 of 2577
  1. #2551
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The problem with the surveys showing support for religious freedoms is that they don't specify which religious freedoms. The Smith bill already protects some religious freedoms. So if you have a survey showing support for specific religious freedoms that are not included, please post it.
    The survey I had in mind was already posted here some time ago, Patrick.
    To the question: Should people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman be able to speak freely and publicly defend that belief, 53% said yes and 24% said No. The amendment to the Smith Bill to ensure this was defeated.
    To the question: Should parents have the right to say No to sex education in Primary Schools that teaches the fluidity of gender and encourages them to think of homosexuality as an equally valid choice for them, 61% said Yes and 21% said No. An amendment to ensure this was defeated.
    To the question: Should people who do not agree with homosexuality be allowed to speak their views freely and publicly about their reasons for objecting to it, 57% said Yes and 25% said No. (Benjamin Law's continuing call for it to be made mandatory, though, may well be a sign of things to come.) An amendment to the Bill designed to ensure this was defeated.
    To the question: Should business owners and faith-based charities be allowed to hold and practice their beliefs without penalties or prosecution, 59% said Yes and 24% said No.
    That amendment was defeated.
    If the Smith Bill already guaranteed those protections, why would there be any problem with allowing the amendments? The answer is that the Smith Bill does not. Whether the Marriage Act should be the place for those protections is another question. Whether we should accept the views of a clear majority is another question. Speaking personally, I do not support all of those protections as absolute principles. With respect to the provision of services, for example, i think that if a business wishes to not provide services to a gay wedding, they should be required to advertise themselves as a gay wedding unfriendly business. With respect to withdrawing children from classes, I do not support this as an absolute principle, but do think parents should have limited rights in specified areas of moral concern or conscience. My understanding is that the Safe Schools programme is already mostly voluntary now - following community concern - and i think that's the best practical way forward. As to whether No voters should be able to continue to argue their case in a civilised manner: anything less is very worrying and the rejection of even this purely precautionary amendment, proposed by George Brandis, is not in the best interests of a mature democracy.
    Last edited by idledim; 07-12-2017 at 07:32 PM.

  2. #2552
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    11,265
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Of course not. Without that response this echo chamber may have been led to the view, from the letter Kevin posted, that there was some sort of groundswell of Anglican support for the Smith Bill, when in fact that isn't the case. I did say though that i had no wish to in any way comment on the spiritual defensibility of that position - and that is still my position. It is a simple descriptive statement and is in no way mutually exclusive to the idea that in matters of conscience we should always be careful about the tyranny of the majority.

    As you say, if it's a 'formatting' problem that has you bothered, people will decide whether or not to read it.
    Actually as I already made clear the formatting is just one of the issues. If you had bothered in that department though it might have covered some of the others (Eg long quoting with minimal/no commentary).
    meep meep

  3. #2553
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,197
    And same-sex marriage is finally legal!

  4. #2554
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,197
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    The survey I had in mind was already posted here some time ago, Patrick.
    To the question: Should people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman be able to speak freely and publicly defend that belief, 53% said yes and 24% said No. The amendment to the Smith Bill to ensure this was defeated.
    To the question: Should parents have the right to say No to sex education in Primary Schools that teaches the fluidity of gender and encourages them to think of homosexuality as an equally valid choice for them, 61% said Yes and 21% said No. An amendment to ensure this was defeated.
    To the question: Should people who do not agree with homosexuality be allowed to speak their views freely and publicly about their reasons for objecting to it, 57% said Yes and 25% said No. An amendment to the Bill designed to ensure this was defeated.
    To the question: Should business owners and faith-based charities be allowed to hold and practice their beliefs without penalties or prosecution, 59% said Yes and 24% said No. That amendment was defeated.
    If the Smith Bill already guaranteed those protections, why would there be any problem with allowing the amendments? The answer is that the Smith Bill does not.
    I tried googling those questions, but I still can't find this survey. Perhaps you can post the link? I would need to compare the exact questions with the proposed amendments, to determine if the amendments actually represented what people supported - although it's irrelevant now.

    However, amendments based on questions 2 and 3 would be completely separate from the issue of same-sex marriage, an amendment based on question 4 would cover a wide range of difficult issues, of which same-sex marriage would be only an insignificant part, and an amendment based on question 1 is a bit of a furphy, as people already have this right (subject to 18C and similar laws). So the rejection of the amendments was probably based on procedural grounds.

  5. #2555
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,197
    Regarding the 'Brandis Amendment' - the only one listed that is directly related to same-sex marriage, Brandis himself said:
    Secondly, he wants a line in the bill to “make it clear that nothing in the bill makes it unlawful for people to hold and to express the views of their own religion on the subject of marriage”. The Attorney-General suggested the changes were more about easing the fears of some No voters about an erosion of religious freedom, rather than addressing any actual shortcoming in the law. “Neither of those amendments, I think, are strictly legally necessary,” he told ABC Radio on Thursday morning.
    As Senator Smith said (same link): "... anyone proposing amendments should clearly explain why the [sic] belonged in the Marriage Act, rather than elsewhere in Australian law."

  6. #2556
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    729
    I tried googling those questions, but I still can't find this survey. Perhaps you can post the link? I would need to compare the exact questions with the proposed amendments, to determine if the amendments actually represented what people supported PB
    The questions were taken from the advertisement on page 5 of Tuesday's Australian. To the best of my knowledge I have transcribed them accurately. Newspoll also included a general question on the issue of religious protection in August. To the question: Do you think parliament should provide guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for SSM, 62% said Yes and 18% said No. In other words, the 2 surveys were pretty close. Interestingly, support for religious freedoms in the Newspoll survey was highest among ALP voters (68%).

    The issue of religious protections (or the lack of them) is obviously much bigger than the Marriage Act and, to that extent, I think the Ruddock review is a good thing. The problem is that nothing will come of it - the can just got kicked down the road to Nowheresville.

    ... an amendment based on question 1 is a bit of a furphy, as people already have this right (subject to 18C and similar laws).
    Not quite sure how 18C might fit in here? Maybe if Martine Delaney was black? The fact is that the A-G wanted a simple line in the bill to ensure that nothing in the bill makes it unlawful for people to hold and to express the views of their religion on the subject of marriage - a symbolic sop, if you will - and yet (in the name of love) even that could not be allowed.

  7. #2557
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,680
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Tony Abbott votes Yes is the headline at the moment - and also the answer to your question.
    Except that it turned out to be premature because Abbott can never be trusted. He was absent when the vote was taken. Andrews, Hastie and Sukkar likewise (edit: and Morrison). Broadbent, Katter, Littleproud and Pitt actually voted no.

    It's good in a way. I feel it would cheapen the moment to have Abbott actually voting in favour.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 08-12-2017 at 07:28 AM.

  8. #2558
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,680
    (From various posts)

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    I understand Kevin has some methodological concerns about the polls which show overwhelming support for religious protections, but with support running at 3:1 on most questions it's a long bow to ignore them.
    What we need there is polling regarding specific "religious protections" (Essential has done some of it from memory). Vague waffle pony-polling "that sounds nice" type questions deliver pretty useless answers no matter what the support runs at. As an example of this from a different area, Ipsos had a poll that showed overwhelming support for the idea that an elected Prime Minister should serve til the next election. An obvious outcome of that should be that voters overwhelmingly think Malcolm Turnbull should remain leader of the Liberal Party. But in fact he not only doesn't have majority support when that question is asked, he has actually been behind Julie Bishop twice and tied with her once in three recent polls.

    Of course, in my view the actual support or opposition for "religious protections" is irrelevant and should be ignored in considering whether to have those "protections" or not. The question is the merit of the claimed protections, and I discuss public support only because I think it should be accurately discussed. But I expect anyone who agrees with me on that to also agree with me that the actual support or opposition for "same-sex marriage" was irrelevant and should also have been ignored in deciding the issue, because if two adults "of the same sex" wanted to marry each other then it was never anybody's business but theirs.

    The most likely result is that poor religious families will continue to subsidise the education of the children of wealthy atheists - which is also a form of discrimination - ;
    If they were subsidising the atheist indoctrination of the children of wealthy atheists I might agree. They are actually subsidising a secular education of the children of wealthy atheists which is also available to the children of wealthy Christians. When the wealthy Christians (or for that matter the wealthy atheists) send their children to wealthy Christian schools, the poor religious families are subsidising that too. But I suspect not very much, since taxation rates for the poor in this country are trivial and they are furthermore supported by family welfare. Seems like a tax system issue to me if anything.

    It was necessary in this instance to include the signatories in order to properly respond to the letter posted by Kevin from the Wangaratta Diocese by confirming that the level of support for broad-based religious protections is greater than their support for the Smith Bill might otherwise indicate.
    While I have no objection to the signatories being quoted for that purpose, I expressly did not imply anything about the level of support for the Wangaratta Diocese letter in posting it. My only motive in doing so was to comment on strange religious conceptions of "freedom" and the way they mysteriously vanish when the religious right want to claim some old-fashioned liberty.

    Have you written to the Lakemba mosque about this? I'm sure the Imam would be eager to give you an opportunity to put your demands to the congregation.
    Demands? Merely a constructive suggestion on how to be taken seriously. If the No campaigners do not want their rights claims to be taken seriously - which in my view is probably in many cases true - they are free not to comply. Can't say I've been able to notice the views of the Lakemba mosque as they have been drowned out by the incredible volume of absolute idiocy issued by the Sheltons and co over the last few months. Perhaps if they now all shut up for a while I might be able to hear this great evil - and that's another constructive suggestion.

    I am not proposing any witchhunting of No campaigners. However, they are saying they want something. I am just pointing out that until they face up to their own conduct, they might convince me they should get it, but they won't be convincing Yes campaigners in general. A lot of people on the Yes side are seriously annoyed about what they had to be put through to get to this point, and rightly so. Australia doesn't have a well-developed rights tradition and unless the No side change tack they will be finding that they reap what they sow.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 07-12-2017 at 09:32 PM.

  9. #2559
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,680
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    The survey I had in mind was already posted here some time ago, Patrick.
    Who conducted this survey?

    It may be legitimate, but it is necessary to examine full details of the question wording, survey methods and the identity of the pollster to be confident it is.

    During the same-sex marriage debate a fair volume of supposed internal polling from the No campaign was referred to in public debate, primarily by Miranda Devine. In no case was the pollster identified and the only method detail I ever saw was sample size. Some of this polling reported supposed views of the LGBTIQ community but was obviously garbage.

    While it might seem that pollsters might have been shy about identifying themselves as working for the No campaign, pollsters such as Sexton have worked for No campaign groups in the past without any commercial blowback. And had a pollster working for the No campaign produced accurate projections, that would have been a big cap in their feather professionally.

  10. #2560
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,197
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    ... The fact is that the A-G wanted a simple line in the bill to ensure that nothing in the bill makes it unlawful for people to hold and to express the views of their religion on the subject of marriage - a symbolic sop, if you will - and yet (in the name of love) even that could not be allowed.
    Here is the text of the Smith bill (I'm not sure if it's the final text, but it should be close enough). There is nothing I can find in the bill that makes it unlawful for people to express the view of their religion on the subject of marriage. So the amendment is completely unnecessary.

    If Brandis is really concerned about this, he can issue a press release (as the A-G) to that effect to reassure people - that would be far more effective than an amendment.

  11. #2561
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Who conducted this survey? It may be legitimate, but it is necessary to examine full details of the question wording, survey methods and the identity of the pollster to be confident it is.
    I had a look today (I was in the library anyway), and it was a poll of 4000 Australians carried out by an 'independent researcher' for the Coalition for Marriage. And that's it! At least we know that the survey I referred to was conducted by the Australia Institute.

  12. #2562
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I had a look today (I was in the library anyway), and it was a poll of 4000 Australians carried out by an 'independent researcher' for the Coalition for Marriage. And that's it!
    Not worth the paper it is printed on then. Could be anyone using any methods (however sloppy or unreliable), could even be concocted. People who don't regularly follow polling debates often don't realise how much stuff there is out there that is either made up or else fatally flawed to a ludicrous degree. For instance one Jamie McIntyre who ran last in New England on 0.25% claimed to have polling a few years back showing him on nearly 100 times that level. Palmer United had some similarly ridiculous "internal polling" that turned out to be conducted - if it was conducted at all, which I doubt - by their own staff. We've had two clearcut instances of completely fake polls being published in recent years.

  13. #2563
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    729
    Same-sex marriage: MPs’ ‘no’ to liberty ushers in new sectarianism

    Today’s debate on religious freedom has not arisen in a vacuum. Amendments to Dean Smith’s same-sex marriage bill that would guarantee freedom of speech, association, and conscience would be redundant were there no appetite to restrict such freedoms. But there is such an appetite, and its ferocity is revealed more and more by the day.

  14. #2564
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,680
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Same-sex marriage: MPs’ ‘no’ to liberty ushers in new sectarianism

    Today’s debate on religious freedom has not arisen in a vacuum. Amendments to Dean Smith’s same-sex marriage bill that would guarantee freedom of speech, association, and conscience would be redundant were there no appetite to restrict such freedoms. But there is such an appetite, and its ferocity is revealed more and more by the day.
    Chavura writes:

    All Australians, religious or secular, should be free to decline participation in morally contentious events so long as it is no threat to others’ liberties, safety, or property.

    I would be interested in how one defines "participation" here. Supposedly a florist or cake-baker who provides flowers or cakes to a same-sex wedding, knowing that it is a same-sex wedding, is a participant, even if the florist or cake-baker is never actually present at the wedding. Why by the same token is not a taxpayer who pays taxes that are used to fund religious instruction a participant in the religious instruction? Where and on what basis can a line be drawn? What about, say, a homophobic groundskeeper who has found out that a same-sex wedding will be held in a park he maintains and wants the right to refuse to water the lawn because he considers that to be "participating"?

  15. #2565
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,490
    The amendments were just about providing the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation not protection of freedom of conscience. The people promoting these amendments are precisely the people who have traditionally opposed statutes to protect such freedoms in the past.

    If freedom of religion is something that we need then we need to have a bill of rights debate and legislate about all rights to ensure the rights of individuals to practice their religion does not lead to the restriction of others (like same-sex couples) to participate in society without discrimination.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anti-Christ's Marriage
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 26-01-2012, 10:58 PM
  2. Marriage II
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-07-2006, 11:02 PM
  3. marriage
    By alovelyboy in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 27-03-2006, 08:24 PM
  4. The philosophy of marriage
    By Thunderspirit in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 14-06-2005, 07:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •