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 146 of 168 FirstFirst ... 4696136144145146147148156 ... LastLast
Results 2,176 to 2,190 of 2510
  1. #2176
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    The successful boycott of Coopers Brewery was simply consumers choosing beer brands that don't support views that don't match there own.
    Or more likely, a few pubs and very noisy activists threatening Coopers Brewery that was too gutless to stand its ground, unlike Chick-Fil-A that realized that it would have plenty of support if they did.
    1. In the USA, state after state votes to keep marriage as it's always been.
    The Left: judges should overrule the people.

    2. In Australia, the people vote to allow gay marriage.
    The Left: the minority should shut up and let the majority have its way.

  2. #2177
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Seems a bit of exaggeration on behalf of The Sun. Should we be surprised is the main question.
    You can find the same narrative in other papers, e.g. The Independent, Daily Mail, and even the leftist Guardian.
    1. In the USA, state after state votes to keep marriage as it's always been.
    The Left: judges should overrule the people.

    2. In Australia, the people vote to allow gay marriage.
    The Left: the minority should shut up and let the majority have its way.

  3. #2178
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Yes, this is a silly bill restricting free speech. Simple solution: do away with all anti-vilification bills and adopt the American First Amendment. I didn't realize that you also like the term ‘mimophant’.
    Attorney general George Brandis acts as judge and jury to decide whether something proceeds to court. Yet he's a vocal rainbow shill who also has form on backing down on defending free speech.
    1. In the USA, state after state votes to keep marriage as it's always been.
    The Left: judges should overrule the people.

    2. In Australia, the people vote to allow gay marriage.
    The Left: the minority should shut up and let the majority have its way.

  4. #2179
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    You can find the same narrative in other papers, e.g. The Independent, Daily Mail, and even the leftist Guardian.
    The basic story is correct but the hyperbole of the Sun does the story a disservice. A bit like your own shrill exaggeration which I guess you have adopted from the alt-right press.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #2180
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    A useful word; but confusing, as it looks similar to the (far more common) word hierophant, as though it was derived from the combination of two Greek words: "mimeomai" and "phainein".
    Someone who appears to emulate? The above was quite plausible actually.
    1. In the USA, state after state votes to keep marriage as it's always been.
    The Left: judges should overrule the people.

    2. In Australia, the people vote to allow gay marriage.
    The Left: the minority should shut up and let the majority have its way.

  6. #2181
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Latham is a clueless dill who couldn't tell the difference between a free boycott and closing down a company by force. There are still people in parliament who voted for him as leader!
    Right now, Turnbull should be leader of Labour, and Latham leader of Liberal.
    1. In the USA, state after state votes to keep marriage as it's always been.
    The Left: judges should overrule the people.

    2. In Australia, the people vote to allow gay marriage.
    The Left: the minority should shut up and let the majority have its way.

  7. #2182
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Athough the comparison is crass (those making the comparison have not demonstrated that gay marriage has anything in common with so-called interracial marriage), they should be allowed to discriminate. The government should not tell private businesses who to serve.
    It is a fact that people have claimed religious grounds for discrimination against both gay marriage, and against interracial and interfaith marriage. So if discrimination on religious grounds against gay marriage is allowed, then it's hard to see how discrimination on religious grounds against interracial and interfaith marriages can be outlawed. Either gay people will have to be given an inferior status, or all discrimination will have to be allowed. You may be happy with the second choice of supporting discrimination against religion (except when you're not, as with Coopers!), but I don't think that the 'No' case in Australia will want to argue that.

  8. #2183
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    It is a fact that people have claimed religious grounds for discrimination against both gay marriage, and against interracial …
    The alleged religious case against interracial marriage was non-existent except in places with prior racism, e.g. the USA South when it was still run by Democrats, and Apartheid-era South Africa. There is no biblical case, or indeed a case in any other religious book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    … and interfaith marriage.
    A Catholic priest should be allowed to refuse to marry a couple where one is not Catholic, or insist that the non-Catholic ensures that the kids are raised Catholic. If the couple doesn't like it, then they can find another priest, minister, or civil celebrant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    So if discrimination on religious grounds against gay marriage is allowed, then it's hard to see how discrimination on religious grounds against interracial and interfaith marriages can be outlawed. Either gay people will have to be given an inferior status, or all discrimination will have to be allowed. You may be happy with the second choice of supporting discrimination against religion (except when you're not, as with Coopers!),
    But that charge can work both ways: why are people not allowed to refuse to serve gay wedding, but are allowed to refuse service to a brewery? What would have been very unacceptable would be government discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    but I don't think that the 'No' case in Australia will want to argue that.
    That is a problem. Freedom lovers should never have consented to the government interfering in economic transactions beyond restraining fraud or coercion and enforcing contracts.
    1. In the USA, state after state votes to keep marriage as it's always been.
    The Left: judges should overrule the people.

    2. In Australia, the people vote to allow gay marriage.
    The Left: the minority should shut up and let the majority have its way.

  9. #2184
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    The alleged religious case against interracial marriage was non-existent except in places with prior racism, e.g. the USA South when it was still run by Democrats, and Apartheid-era South Africa. There is no biblical case, or indeed a case in any other religious book.
    It is still a fact that people have claimed religious grounds for opposition to interracial marriage. Are you suggesting that people claiming religious objections will need to justify themselves in court? Otherwise their reasoning is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    A Catholic priest should be allowed to refuse to marry a couple where one is not Catholic, or insist that the non-Catholic ensures that the kids are raised Catholic. If the couple doesn't like it, then they can find another priest, minister, or civil celebrant.
    No one is suggesting otherwise. But can a Protestant baker refuse to serve a Jewish wedding? You say he can, but I don't think the 'No' case will want to argue this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    But that charge can work both ways: why are people not allowed to refuse to serve gay wedding, but are allowed to refuse service to a brewery? What would have been very unacceptable would be government discrimination.
    Because the beer drinkers are not providing a service, they're buying a product.

  10. #2185
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,623
    Bolt was claiming the laws rammed through parliament with negligible opposition yesterday are examples of the restrictions on free speech that supporters of same-sex marriage said wouldn't happen.

    In fact he has got it exactly the wrong way around. The restrictions on free speech (some of them, as my article noted, of a previously untried nature) have come in for the remainder of the plebi-survey only (rather than post-legalisation) and have only come in because the plebi-survey is being held and has produced a very unruly "debate".

    Had same-sex marriage been passed by parliament, or even had it not been passed by this parliament and left to a future one to legalise, these laws would not have been passed at this time, if ever.

    So far from same-sex marriage causing these laws, it is the obstruction of same-sex marriage that has led to a popular vote in the first place that is to blame.

  11. #2186
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    698
    Law is playing into the (not entirely unsupported) stereotype that men who are anti-gay may have repressed same-sex attraction and imagining that they might have consensual but acrimonious sex with him. KB
    I was afreud you'd see it like that ... o well, we're only jung once. I'm just wondering what Law was playing with when he called a female journalist a c..t. (fire?) The question is: if the No side used that 'hatef.k' tweet in their advertising, who would be villifying whom? Likewise, if the church take offence at the antics of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, are they guilty of hate crime for taking offence?
    Last edited by idledim; 14-09-2017 at 10:20 PM.

  12. #2187
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    698
    In fact he has got it exactly the wrong way around. The restrictions on free speech (some of them, as my article noted, of a previously untried nature) have come in for the remainder of the plebi-survey only (rather than post-legalisation) and have only come in because the plebi-survey is being held and has produced a very unruly "debate".
    What is more amazing is that they've been brought in by a government that was trying to amend S18 not very long ago in the name of free speech - and what is even more amazing is that they've efectively made it impossible to argue against Labor when Labor makes it all permanent after the next election (as they surely now will).

  13. #2188
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    698
    Is it true that the survey fails the most basic torch test - and that anyone who shines a torch on a completed survey envelope can clearly and easily see which box has been marked? Radio Talkback Callers who had received survey forms were alleging this to be the case last night.

  14. #2189
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,623
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    I'm just wondering what Law was playing with when he called a female journalist a c..t. (fire?)
    I am unable to find this, though I am able to find a great many other cases of him using this word. Who was he referring to and what's the source?

    The question is: if the No side used that 'hatef.k' tweet in their advertising, who would be villifying whom? Likewise, if the church take offence at the antics of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, are they guilty of hate crime for taking offence?
    Hate speech is typically defined with reference to a vilification on account of a characteristic. So anyone insulting Benjamin Law for that tweet is not insulting him for his sexuality but is insulting him for his curious sexual fantasies, which isn't covered. Anyone who makes abusive remarks about gay men who send up religion on account of them sending up religion (rather than on account of them being gay) is also on safe ground.

    But when it comes to what was passed yesterday I cannot answer these questions because I have no idea what the scope of the legislation's definition of a view being in relation to the MLPS means (either in terms of the offence or the defence under it, and whether those are considered in the same way or not). I suspect it is still safe for Mr Law to continue his hate-lusting after Andrew Hastie (per implied protections for political discussion).

    I opposed this aspect of what was passed yesterday as much as I could in the very limited time available but it was clearly a multi-party stitch-up. Hinch's speech about it was excellent albeit with a few factual errors. The only others to express concern were Bernardi, Hanson and Roberts. Hanson's speech I found unlistenable and generally irrelevant but she did later ask Cormann a very good question: If a Yes campaigner carries a sign calling No supporters "Homophobic Bigots" to a rally, will this be illegal under the new legislation? Cormann couldn't answer it and I haven't seen anyone else answer it either.

  15. #2190
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,623
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Is it true that the survey fails the most basic torch test - and that anyone who shines a torch on a completed survey envelope can clearly and easily see which box has been marked? Radio Talkback Callers who had received survey forms were alleging this to be the case last night.
    My understanding is that this is true. They don't know whose vote it is, but the risk of an unscrupulous Aus Post employee fiddling the survey is increased.

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
  •