+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: SSM Plebiscite (/thread-3461.html)
Re: SSM Plebiscite - Peter Brady - 09-22-2017
In a same sex marriage how do the work out whose surname they'll use once they're married? :-\
Re: SSM Plebiscite - DJC - 09-22-2017
(09-22-2017, 01:09 PM)mateinone link Wrote:Wasn't he actually wearing a SSM Yes badge at the time?
If you are campaigning/publicly supporting a cause at the time and you attack a prominent campaigner for the opposition to your cause.
You can't then say oh, actually I attacked him because of his industrial actions (or obviously anything else).
It doesn't really matter anyway. Outside of this as well bullying, physical violence, intimidation etc by either side should be met with serious condemnation from those on either side as well as fence sitters.
Absolutely!
I'm old enough to remember the attempt to assassinate Arthur Calwell The shooter disagreed with Calwell's policies and wanted to be famous; I suspect that similar motivations influenced Labe's assault of Abbott.
It concerns me that civil society can't be civil when debating issues like marriage equality, dying with dignity, etc. Perhaps the influence of religious dogma inhibits sensible discussion but I reckon the problem is lack of leadership from those who put up their hands to lead.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-23-2017
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/enlarging-peoples-rights-is-the-australian-tradition-we-need-to-recapture-20170922-gymw5y.html
A most interesting article about the changes to the Marriage Act over the journey, and changing ideas /attitudes / laws to the notion of marriage.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-25-2017
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/logically-theres-only-one-good-reason-for-voting-no-20170922-gymr7n.html
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-25-2017
And another from Mandy Vanstone - who knew ?
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-this-is-why-tony-abbotts-no-stand-surprises-me-20170922-gyn43r.html
Re: SSM Plebiscite - kruddler - 09-25-2017
Not sure if its been mentioned previously, but Darcy Vescio was at the VFLW GF (albeit injured and not playing) to support her GF winning Darebin Falcons. She was sporting a rainbow jersey with her #3 on the back.
She was also apart of the AFL's 'yes' photoshoot where they replaced the AFL logo with 'YES'.
So while the club has been sitting on the fence, they have not had a problem with their AFLW marquee player being at the forefront of the YES push.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-25-2017
(09-25-2017, 08:35 AM)kruddler link Wrote:Not sure if its been mentioned previously, but Darcy Vescio was at the VFLW GF (albeit injured and not playing) to support her GF winning Darebin Falcons. She was sporting a rainbow jersey with her #3 on the back.
She was also apart of the AFL's 'yes' photoshoot where they replaced the AFL logo with 'YES'.
So while the club has been sitting on the fence, they have not had a problem with their AFLW marquee player being at the forefront of the YES push.
I guess it's consistent with their stated policy of letting folks make up their own minds and have their own opinions. The club could cover themselves and say that she was representing her personal opinion and not acting in any official club capacity.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - Lods - 09-25-2017
A 122 million dollar waste of money and an exercise in divisiveness.
Folks are getting their "knickers in a knot" over an inevitability.
If the YES vote is successful we'll have a vote by MP's and SSM will be legalised.
If the NO vote is successful a private members bill will be introduced in a short space of time. A vote will be taken and SSM marriage will be legalised. It will pass because enough LNP members will cross the floor to support it.
Failing that a Labor government will pass SSM marriage within a short space of time once elected.
So why a plebiscite?
The conservative opponents aren't as dumb as some folk reckon.
In fact they're quite smart politically.
They knew that in any plebiscite the passion and the emotion of YES voters would be far greater than that of NO voters. It means so much more to the YES folk.
As a result the "extremism" was always going to come from that side of the debate, not the NO side as was first thought.
Their hope (and it may still be realised... because it is trending that way) is that the behaviour of the YES campaigners would be enough to turn the swinging /non committed (there are lots who don't feel strongly either way) voter.
So a 60/40 or 50/50 is where the vote will end up...but in the end it will make no difference and SSM will be "Done an dusted" within eighteen months.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-25-2017
(09-25-2017, 08:58 AM)Lods link Wrote:A 122 million dollar waste of money and an exercise in divisiveness...............................
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/vote-no-to-fags-outbreak-of-homophobic-violence-vandalism-in-samesex-marriage-campaign-20170925-gyo9ri.html
Re: SSM Plebiscite - blue4life - 09-25-2017
I guess lots of people here have seen the CFC statement?
Personally I thought it was piss weak, "the CFC supports equality" and other such palaver without having the guts to come out publicly in support.
They would have been better off saying nothing, I hope we show more courage on the field than off.