carcajou

PS - That's also why Abbott and the social conservatives in Parliament wanted a postal vote. They know that the young millennials who form the core of the "yes" support are far less likely to participate.

spouse of scouse

Tell us your side of the story Zulu. In your opinion, what's the downside to same sex couples having the same right to marry as opposite sex couples have? What negative impact would it have on you personally? What negative impact would it have on Australia?

bcworld

There's plenty of evidence to suggest many religious people are voting yes.

And consider Ireland...they had a vote there which was easily won in favour of SSM...their 2016 census recorded 10% no religion, 78% roman catholic.

Dreamy

I'd have more respect for the views of the religious voters if they followed every single tenet of their guiding God book.

Every single one.

Not just picking and choosing which ones suited them.

I'd have more respect for the views of those who believe that 'traditional marriage' was sacrosanct if they told us which particular 'traditional marriage' they believed in, and how long that particular 'traditional marriage' had, in fact, been traditional.

If they could also detail how they behaved towards people who were divorced or had been adulterous too, that would be an added bonus. Obviously, none of them would have been divorced or betrayed the ideals of marriage, because, well, that would just be hypocritical.

bcworld

Surely the west has been continually evolving and reforming...even over recent history? You could say that traditionally women or the poor couldn't vote, or we sent 5 year old kids to work in the mill, or decided who could marry who. Or that our religions have been reforming their dogma over time. I'm pretty sure you'd argue that certain other religions are 'stuck in the dark ages'...because they've stuck to their 'traditions'.

With regard to marriage being a cornerstone of the west's success...surely marriage is almost universal...save for a few tribal variations here and there?

Beoz

Yep. Plenty list their birth religion for the census but don't follow, or pick and choose the bits they want.

So what is the point of following a religon or even listing you follow one?

scrubbedexpat098

Ooh a dig at me by you, that's a new one. He's the prime minister, if he wanted a free vote in parliament, there'd be a free vote in parliament.

scrubbedexpat098

I remember Stewart Lee arguing the point that people liked Osama Bin Laden more than Ben Elton. He said it was because at least Bin Laden had lived his life to a constant set of ideals, was very funny.

bcworld

A bit touchy there mate! It was hardly a dig. I think it's clear he supports SSM...pretty sure almost everyone would agree with that. That being the case, if he made moves to do what you suggest...pretty sure you'd find he wouldn't be PM for much longer. Look at his record over the last 2 years...he is not in control, he capitulates to the conservative faction on every issue...the tail is wagging the dog. Sure, he could choose to sacrifice himself over the issue, but I'm not sure the party room even works that way.

Beoz

That doesn't change the fact that he is a long time supporter of gay marriage.

You see he is a member of a political party which more often than not does the best for all in Australia economically. For these reasons, the majority of people remain happy under a Liberal government. They have jobs and money.

But the Liberals are a coalition of different beliefs. This is a good thing. It means we are not plagued by unionism, beat up the wealthy mentality, and bad economic management that we see from the consistent narrow views in the Labor party.

In this case, the views of gay marriage is far from consistent across the party. Mal's choice is to put that to the people. After all we live in a democracy. If you want communist leanings, Labor is there for you. If you want freedom and choices, the Liberals are there for you.

The vote is all yours.

scrubbedexpat098

As I said before it's nothing to do with left or right, he's happy to spend $120M on a bullshit referendum purely so he can wash his hands of the result. If he had any balls there'd be a free vote and we'd be done with it.

scrubbedexpat098

Not touchy, just aware of your opinion of me . They can send my son off to war without my input if they so wished, but somehow they need the popular vote to allow marriage equality. I call virtue signalling bullshit.

Beoz

Not really. The expense is unfortunate but small in the grand scheme of things.

The people of Australia voted for a plebiscite in a majority at the last election. It was an election promise. You and every complainer had the choice during the election.

People also had the choice to vote for a Mediscare lie. Many did.

Now let me see. Lets weight this up. Hhhmmmmm. Yep. My vote went it the right direction.

moneypenny20

I disagree. The only reason we are having this stupid debate is because a few years ago a Prime Minister took it upon himself to reword the description of marriage. What is traditional marriage? Go back through the ages and you'll find many different traditions - not a rational reason to prevent equality.

As for the west comment - it was traditional that blacks could be slaves, that women couldn't vote, that it was legally ok for men to beat their wives, that white men could legally remove Indigenous children from their parents. All of these traditions along with many many others have rightly been changed - not a rational reason to prevent equality.

My head spins that someone believes that they are somehow superior - preventing equality - to their neighbour, their relative, their work mate simply because of who they've fallen in love with. That, in no way shape or form is rational.

Beoz

If you want to put that spin on it, then are we good for multiple spouses? Fair is fair after all.