+- 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 - PaulP - 09-27-2017
In my circles, it's mixed. My brother and my parents-in-law voted no. Parents at my daughters school, a few neighbors, and people I see out and about all voted yes.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - mateinone - 09-27-2017
(09-27-2017, 09:49 AM)PaulP link Wrote:In my circles, it's mixed. My brother and my parents-in-law voted no. Parents at my daughters school, a few neighbors, and people I see out and about all voted yes.
So have your brother and parents-in-law posted their intent to vote no online?
And have they made those posts public?
I am not saying they should, I am just interested in the response if they have.
I am yet to see companies (for example) come out saying they don't support.
That isn't because no business owners are voting "NO".
It is because they are not going to risk their business through being accused of being bigoted, calls to boycott etc.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - Gointocarlton - 09-27-2017
(09-27-2017, 09:49 AM)PaulP link Wrote:In my circles, it's mixed. My brother and my parents-in-law voted no. Parents at my daughters school, a few neighbors, and people I see out and about all voted yes.I just want to hear one solid, non-religious argument from someone who has/will vote no. I respect peoples entitlement to their opinion and hence can vote however they like. Just help me understand.
For me, the big issue is the lack of leadership by Turnbull. Its a huge waste of money and has created division and angst. He just should shown some nuts and changed the marriage act, like Little Johnny did, and made a hero of himself. Even if he got the ass over it, he could have looked back in years to come and be able to say "I made a difference".
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-27-2017
(09-27-2017, 09:54 AM)mateinone link Wrote:So have your brother and parents-in-law posted their intent to vote no online?
And have they made those posts public?
I am not saying they should, I am just interested in the response if they have.
I am yet to see companies (for example) come out saying they don't support.
That isn't because no business owners are voting "NO".
It is because they are not going to risk their business through being accused of being bigoted, calls to boycott etc.
Not as far as I'm aware. My parents-in-law were at lunch with friends of theirs (another couple, same age group, mid 70's), and these friends voted yes and poo pooed my in-laws for voting no. That's about as public as their revelations have gone, afaik.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - kruddler - 09-27-2017
(09-27-2017, 09:43 AM)mateinone link Wrote:The number one reason I believe people will vote NO, will be simply their belief (whether religious or what they consider to be right) that marriage is a union between man and woman. Now to my knowledge people are allowed to feel like that and historical context suggests that this has been the case thought basically every society since the dawn of time.
Which as i said earlier, is based on lies and mistruths.
Their 'belief' may be that, but the reality is far different.
Something i heard on the radio the other day disproved this logic/argument and highlighted the changes that have been made to the marriage act both here and abroad.
As for the debate, in all honesty i don't actively seek it out. But i read on facebook, i hear it on the radio. It might be talked about on the TV. I know its been mentioned on Q+A a few times. That, together with friends/family discussions paints a very different picture to what you have been painting.
Sure, i stay away from news shows, deliberately, and the newspaper. No doubt i've missed a lot of things because of it, but i've also missed a lot of biased reporting in regards to it as well.
As for trying to have this debate among family/friends, there is no debate to have. Everyone is so pro-yes that its not even worth discussing as nobody disagrees with any of it. We don't go campaign for it. We don't force our views on anyone. We are pretty curious as to how anyone could be against it and are pretty gobsmacked that there is even a 'debate' to begin with.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - PaulP - 09-27-2017
(09-27-2017, 10:02 AM)kruddler link Wrote:Which as i said earlier, is based on lies and mistruths.
Their 'belief' may be that, but the reality is far different.
Something i heard on the radio the other day disproved this logic/argument and highlighted the changes that have been made to the marriage act both here and abroad.
As for the debate, in all honesty i don't actively seek it out. But i read on facebook, i hear it on the radio. It might be talked about on the TV. I know its been mentioned on Q+A a few times. That, together with friends/family discussions paints a very different picture to what you have been painting.
Sure, i stay away from news shows, deliberately, and the newspaper. No doubt i've missed a lot of things because of it, but i've also missed a lot of biased reporting in regards to it as well.
As for trying to have this debate among family/friends, there is no debate to have. Everyone is so pro-yes that its not even worth discussing as nobody disagrees with any of it. We don't go campaign for it. We don't force our views on anyone. We are pretty curious as to how anyone could be against it and are pretty gobsmacked that there is even a 'debate' to begin with.
My thoughts exactly.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - kruddler - 09-27-2017
(09-27-2017, 09:58 AM)Gointocarlton link Wrote:I just want to hear one solid, non-religious argument from someone who has/will vote no. I respect peoples entitlement to their opinion and hence can vote however they like. Just help me understand.
For me, the big issue is the lack of leadership by Turnbull. Its a huge waste of money and has created division and angst. He just should shown some nuts and changed the marriage act, like Little Johnny did, and made a hero of himself. Even if he got the ass over it, he could have looked back in years to come and be able to say "I made a difference".
This is it for me.
I cannot understand why anyone would NOT vote yes.
Every single thing i've heard is based on complete and utter BS that has no facts attached to it, but people believe it.
Lies and mistruths.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - mateinone - 09-27-2017
(09-27-2017, 10:02 AM)kruddler link Wrote:Which as i said earlier, is based on lies and mistruths.
Their 'belief' may be that, but the reality is far different.
Something i heard on the radio the other day disproved this logic/argument and highlighted the changes that have been made to the marriage act both here and abroad.
I am genuinely interested.
You are saying that traditionally marriages have been same sex?
I know that certainly going back to ancient Greece, Egypt, the Middle East etc that it was very clear that Same Sex unions were completely acceptable.
I was always generally of the belief that whilst this was the case, generally a relationship would be between an older and younger male and the relationship would almost be one of mentor and mentee. I also believe that these were not actually "official unions" and that in these cases the older man would also have a wife.
Now I don't claim to be an expert or even someone reasonably well read on the topic at all, so if that is not true, then more than happy to hear otherwise and that is the type of information that should be the information used to help persuade.
That is the type of sensible discussion that could have an impact, however name calling certainly won't.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - kruddler - 09-27-2017
(09-27-2017, 10:22 AM)mateinone link Wrote:I am genuinely interested.
You are saying that traditionally marriages have been same sex?
I know that certainly going back to ancient Greece, Egypt, the Middle East etc that it was very clear that Same Sex unions were completely acceptable.
I was always generally of the belief that whilst this was the case, generally a relationship would be between an older and younger male and the relationship would almost be one of mentor and mentee. I also believe that these were not actually "official unions" and that in these cases the older man would also have a wife.
Now I don't claim to be an expert or even someone reasonably well read on the topic at all, so if that is not true, then more than happy to hear otherwise and that is the type of information that should be the information used to help persuade.
That is the type of sensible discussion that could have an impact, however name calling certainly won't.
No, well not from what i heard, but as you pointed out it could have been possible.
I was only half listening, but i believe the debate centered around the rights of marriage have always been the same and should never change.
IIRC, it used to be ok to marry a 16yo. Obviously now, that is no longer the case.
I think there was a couple other variations along the same lines.
Essentially the debate of 'You can't change what a marriage represents as its always been the same' was debunked because it was an ever shifting landscape that has indeed been changed previously.
Changing it to include same sex is the next incarnation of it, just like the change to remove 'kids' from it was previously.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - mateinone - 09-27-2017
(09-27-2017, 10:34 AM)kruddler link Wrote:No, well not from what i head, but as you pointed out it could have been possible.
I was only half listening, but i believe the debate centered around the rights of marriage have always been the same and should never change.
IIRC, it used to be ok to marry a 16yo. Obviously now, that is no longer the case.
I think there was a couple other variations along the same lines.
Essentially the debate of 'You can't change what a marriage represents as its always been the same' was debunked because it was an ever shifting landscape that has indeed been changed previously.
Changing it to include same sex is the next incarnation of it, just like the change to remove 'kids' from it was previously.
I don't think people would be arguing that a marriage law can't change parameters, that would be very easy to shoot down as society changes.
No I think more, there will be people who believe that marriage has and should represent a union of man and women. That traditionally it has (throughout most/all societies historically) and that biologically man and women are meant to be together, whether determined by God or just through evolution.
But an argument to the strict interpretation of marriage within Australia wouldn't make any sense, for the reasons already pointed out.