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

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

    7 63.64%
  • No

    1 9.09%
  • Not voting (not enrolled)

    2 18.18%
  • Not voting (not interested or can't decide)

    0 0%
  • Not voting (boycotting survey)

    1 9.09%
Page 153 of 153 FirstFirst ... 53103143151152153
Results 2,281 to 2,291 of 2291
  1. #2281
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,416
    Saw this comment in the Australian:

    No supporters yesterday complained they were not being shown respect by the Yes camp after *derogatory messages were uncovered from ALP staffer and GetUp! director Sally Rugg, who sent a tweet this week responding to comments made by Liberal MP Eric Abetz saying “I’m sorry but you are gay”.

    Ms Rugg denied the tweet was directed at Senator Abetz who *yesterday called it “another ugly example of the intimidation and bullying engaged in by the Yes campaign”.
    So I dug up the tweets in question which anyone familiar with TweetDeck could have done in ten seconds.

    ABC News Tasmania tweeted: "Schoolkids to roleplay 'as if homosexual' if #SSM legal, 'celebrities, media' pushing yes agenda: @SenatorAbetz

    ab.co/2h7nh5x"

    Rugg quoted that and wrote: "If your heterosexuality is so fragile that putting yourself in the shoes of a queer person briefly turns you gay, I'm sorry but you are gay."

    Her comment, such as it was, wasn't directed at Abetz but concerned anyone who Abetz might consider at danger of being disrupted by such role-playing.

  2. #2282
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    So you would agree with me that it's wrong for an employer to fire a person just for being gay?
    For a secular job, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Of course, one of the most important functions of the law is to protect people from harmful wrongdoing by others.
    Yes. There should be no victimless crimes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Since gay marriage (which you believe should be illegal) clearly causes much less harm than firing people for being Christians (which you believe should be legal), your positions don't seem to be very consistent.
    No, firing people for being Christians is more harmful than keeping marriage the way it is, especially when gays already have the right to civil unions and are not discriminated against in any secular occupation.
    So let me see if I have this straight:
    • People are born male but can change to female.
    • People are born white but can change to black.
    • People are born homosexual but can never change.

    Makes perfect sense I guess …

  3. #2283
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    To late to try and shift the debate to a referendum on gender when that is not what the question is about.
    But it inevitably follows.
    So let me see if I have this straight:
    • People are born male but can change to female.
    • People are born white but can change to black.
    • People are born homosexual but can never change.

    Makes perfect sense I guess …

  4. #2284
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    But it inevitably follows.
    No it doesn't.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #2285
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    No, firing people for being Christians is more harmful than keeping marriage the way it is, especially when gays already have the right to civil unions and are not discriminated against in any secular occupation.
    I actually agree with your first statement. However both are harmful, which is why I support anti-discrimination laws and same-sex marriage legalisation.

    Civil unions do not grant the same rights as marriage, and are not necessarily recognised throughout Australia. In Qld you might be surprised to know that the Newman LNP government actually banned civil unions, so there is no guarantee that a future LNP government might not do the same thing. Recognising same-sex marriage federally will protect gay people from this possibility.

  6. #2286
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    No it doesn't.
    But it's notable that Turnbull, Wilson, Entsch, Brandis, et al. are not telling us what religious protections will be in their proposed bill, and importantly, what guarantee that they won't be overturned by the next Labor–Green government. So as former PM Howard says, we should vote no until we hear more specifics.
    So let me see if I have this straight:
    • People are born male but can change to female.
    • People are born white but can change to black.
    • People are born homosexual but can never change.

    Makes perfect sense I guess …

  7. #2287
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    But it's notable that Turnbull, Wilson, Entsch, Brandis, et al. are not telling us what religious protections will be in their proposed bill, and importantly, what guarantee that they won't be overturned by the next Labor–Green government. So as former PM Howard says, we should vote no until we hear more specifics.
    Just like every other piece of legislation. The details need to be worked out and will be shaped by what can be passed by a majority in both houses. But trying to link the SSM debate to the gender debate specifically is nothing more than a cynical attempt to stir up conservative outrage. "No" campaigners know that an SSM question will pass easily so they try to shift the question to muddy the waters as much as possible. The only real question here is:

    When two people marry does the state require them to be a man and a woman or can they be any two people?

    If you say "man and woman" due to a deeply held religious conviction. The follow up question is why is the state enforcing your religious conviction on others?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #2288
    CC Grandmaster Elliott Renzies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    But it's notable that Turnbull, Wilson, Entsch, Brandis, et al. are not telling us what religious protections will be in their proposed bill, and importantly, what guarantee that they won't be overturned by the next Labor–Green government. So as former PM Howard says, we should vote no until we hear more specifics.
    Hi Capablanca - Fan, here's some more specifics:

    AAsnZm6.jpg
    which dad is your mum?

    Zero trollerance!


    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  9. #2289
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    11,126



    "My marriage equality postal survey arrived today. To receive this on the same day as my Australian Service Medal from the ADF is ironic. On the one hand the government is honouring my service to my country, on the other they are asking my fellow Australians if I should be treated equally. Like all members of the ADF I was a volunteer. I volunteered to protect and defend all Australians, no matter who they are - there was never any ballot to decide who was worthy of that protection. We're equal enough to fight for our country, so why should we not be equal enough to marry? My Dutch partner and I have been together for four years. I want to be able to hold my head high as an Aussie from the land of the fair go, as an equal in all respects." - Luke, Australian Defence Force Veteran.
    meep meep

  10. #2290
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    The follow up question is why is the state enforcing your religious conviction on others?
    Too hard a question to answer?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #2291
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Too hard a question to answer?
    Here is an answer - though it may not be the answer you want.

    A Letter to John Dryden - James McAuley

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 4 guests)

  1. idledim

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
  •