SSM Plebiscite

[LP]

I hope all your optimism is justified, but I fear people often have a private persona that varies widely from their public persona, and that the current media profile varies widely from average Australia. It feels like Brexit.

Most of the people really in a position to influence this vote have little or no on-line presence, so reading Twitter, FB or Instagram is akin to pissing in one's own pocket!

How will Grandma Moses from Birdsville or Kalgoorlie vote? You know she will vote, she always votes, she always fills in the official mail surveys, votes in every election and obeys all local regulations. Pays her tax on time, never gets a parking fine, never speeds always watches Peter Hitchener, Peter Mitchell or Peter Overton at 6pm and detests protests and graffiti.

Grandma Moses has the power, she represents the minority holding the balance of power in this close vote, and she wasn't even on the radar of the campaigners! Were they all too busy slurping kombucha in Fitzroy or Camperdown?

[PaulP]

I heard a young woman on the ABC radio yesterday.  She earnestly explained that if marriage equality was introduced sex education in schools would be changed to teach children how to engage in homosexual sex.  When questioned on her statement, she maintained that is what has happened in all countries where same sex marriage is allowed.  :

It may well happen, but it hardly means those kids will become gay because they've been taught about gay sex. It's a stupid argument. Notwithstanding the fact that such knowledge or information is hardly the preserve of formal education.

[mateinone]

I don't see teaching homosexual relationships in school as being a factoring in determining the legality of SSM.
However, separately, I do think parents have a right to have concerns about what is being taught within their schools particularly in relation to sex.

Schools require parental consent to teach sexual education and I would not be happy if the school was teaching my children how to engage in homosexual sex.

I don't at all have a problem if my children come home and tell me they are gay. I have had the conversation many times and really stressed to them how important it is that they know they can come out and talk to me in an open environment, as I don't want them going to a toilet block/park/Craigslist and engaging in high risk behavior. If they are to be in a same sex relationship, I want them to know they can do it openly.

The simple reality, which must be remembered is that HIV/AIDS is unfortunately still predominately transmitted between men (homosexual/bisexual/curious) who engage in sex (including oral) with another male. I suspect a lot of this occurs with men meeting in shady situations, because unfortunately they don't feel comfortable being able to come out (though I think there are a number of other reasons also) and so are more likely to engage in a high risk activity.

Anyone who can't acknowledge that has their head in the sand.

As an example, in the US 70% of new HIV infections in 2014 were men who engage in unprotected sex with men and who do not take drugs intravenously.

You only need to look at the guidelines for PrEP to see that it targets this community who do have the highest rates of infection
Hopefully the likes of PrEP will take this risk away in the future, but currently the risk is a reality.

I have never taken this path in the SSM debate, because I believe it muddies the waters, also as I have said I won't be voting and I don't think SSM needs to see a change in what is taught in classrooms, despite what the "NO" campaign suggests.

But the reason the NO group are raising these issues is that if the SSM debate was to be tied to education of children, then the result I think would be very different. It is the same reason the "YES" campaign is trying to be clear that it is not pushing for that. They understand the backlash would be then be very high.

I know 100% for sure, that if the next step actually was that it was going to impact what my children were being taught in regards to sexual education, that would then compel me to vote against.. but I don't believe it and I believe that it is scaremongering by the "NO" campaign.

[DJC]

I should have added that the young lady's call was followed by many others, including one from Ireland, pointing out that sex education in schools does not involve lessons in sexual technique; either heterosexual or homosexual.

[mateinone]

I should have added that the young lady's call was followed by many others, including one from Ireland, pointing out that sex education in schools does not involve lessons in sexual technique; either heterosexual or homosexual.

Yeah that is a good point about not going into techniques etc
I know that I certainly don't remember the school teachers every going into actual details on performing different sexual acts when I was at school, but then that was a very very long time ago.

I think the lady who called in has either been the victim of the scaremongering or is herself making this information up with the intent of scaring others into voting "NO"

[kruddler]

This NO campaign has not been run on bullying & hate from most of what I have seen. It doesn't mean what they are campaigning for is the right cause, but in the main most people I have seen showing any inclination of voting no, have done in a respectful manner, the same can't be said for those on the other side of the campaign.

Perhaps. From what i can tell its based on lies and mistruths.

I think the bullying from the 'yes' side is because they are fed up with 'logic' (read - complete lack of logic) from that side. Certainly doesn't make it right. But its like arguing with an idiot...

[mateinone]

Perhaps. From what i can tell its based on lies and mistruths.

I think the bullying from the 'yes' side is because they are fed up with 'logic' (read - complete lack of logic) from that side. Certainly doesn't make it right. But its like arguing with an idiot...

Is it though Kruddler
Again take the Sydney Uni example... They are saying "It is okay to say no". Now they have a right to campaign and actively state they want people to vote no. But it isn't getting to that and people are actually threatening to stomp on their head...

Or an 18 year old is exercising her right to say also it is okay to say no and the employer fires her and brags to the world about having fired this bigot for "hate speech".
Only to backtrack when she realises that she might have broken the law.

I don't buy that argument Kruddler, because I don't see sensible engagement in discussion and allowing each side to voice their opinions.
And, I think almost everyone can see that those campaigning on the side of yes have been the worst in this plebiscite.

The yes side has shown no real interest in hearing any discussion on the topic. It is 100% parochial like it as a sports event.

Surely the easiest way (if forced down this road) is to allow those that are against to speak and to shut down actual arguments with facts and logic.
The YES side don't need to change the minds of those that are hell bent on NO. They need to persuade those who are unsure or leaning slightly away.
This could (I would have thought), been done through logic, regardless of whether or not the no side is being illogical.

[PaulP]

Perhaps. From what i can tell its based on lies and mistruths.

I think the bullying from the 'yes' side is because they are fed up with 'logic' (read - complete lack of logic) from that side. Certainly doesn't make it right. But its like arguing with an idiot...

I would have to agree, although I know others won't. It's difficult to argue with axioms, or personal comfort levels.

[kruddler]

Is it though Kruddler
Again take the Sydney Uni example... They are saying "It is okay to say no". Now they have a right to campaign and actively state they want people to vote no. But it isn't getting to that and people are actually threatening to stomp on their head...

Or an 18 year old is exercising her right to say also it is okay to say no and the employer fires her and brags to the world about having fired this bigot for "hate speech".
Only to backtrack when she realises that she might have broken the law.

I don't buy that argument Kruddler, because I don't see sensible engagement in discussion and allowing each side to voice their opinions.
And, I think almost everyone can see that those campaigning on the side of yes have been the worst in this plebiscite.

The yes side has shown no real interest in hearing any discussion on the topic. It is 100% parochial like it as a sports event.

Surely the easiest way (if forced down this road) is to allow those that are against to speak and to shut down actual arguments with facts and logic.
The YES side don't need to change the minds of those that are hell bent on NO. They need to persuade those who are unsure or leaning slightly away.
This could (I would have thought), been done through logic, regardless of whether or not the no side is being illogical.

I don't know what you've been following MIO but all the yes voters on here and in my circles are wanting to engage in a sensible argument and wanting to hear what the no voters have to say. Remember i asked you why your son said no? I haven't heard IMHO, a legitimate argument for 'no' thus far. Now i'm sure the no-voters could say the same thing about the yes side.....but there are also flat-earth people who'd do similar....with about the same amount of logic.

Maybe we hang in different circles, but your experiences during this debate are vastly different to mine.

[mateinone]

Kruddler
I think in circles of friends and acquaintances most people are being respectful.
But you only need to look at what is happening when people voice an opinion in the negative online to see how vocal the crowd is and it is a feeling that is reverberating throughout a lot of people watching from the sidelines.

Yet I bet within the confines of the people they are talking with in a friendly manner the discussion in cordial.

What I am addressing is the public campaigning and I gave you just 2 examples, but it isn't hard to find many others through such places as public Facebook posts to see the reactions.

I haven't considered this forum as not being cordial, but there is not anyone actively against, despite the fact I am 100% certain there are those who will vote against. The same goes with your group of friends and family. Part of that is that it is easier to go along with what others say, but then not actually address the reasons that will hold a person back from voting yes.

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.

Now a sensible way to discuss that might be to discuss that whilst biologically humans are made in the form that male mates with female, we have a greater sense of understanding/decision making than other species and with that we have the ability to realise that not everything that doesn't conform to the standard is a threat. That preventing SSM isn't going to change a reality that people will love who they choose.

That is just an example, but that discussion is being held. A person is instantly targeted as a bigot, that they are attempting to deny people's human right and they don't even want to engage in the discussion.

I didn't ask my son to elaborate (and would not have posted his response if he did), simply because I didn't want him to feel judged by me (and I wouldn't have allowed the judgement here). The truth is that a lot of teenage kids (and boys in particular) I think are a bit insensitive (around their friends) and it is a fact their judgment isn't fully developed until their early 20s. So unless I thought his reasons were borne through hatred, I didn't see a need to press him

Not everyone is able to stand up for their opinion in the fact of others shouting them down and so many are saying little and will just vote when the time comes.

Btw out of my friends, I don't think I have heard anyone state they are voting no either (though I am sure some will).
In fact I am one of the view who are openly stating that I am not voting
But your personal experience isn't what I am getting at with the respectfulness of this campaign. You aren't voting no and by your admission you don't believe anyone you know is... So I don't see how personal experience is reflective of what is happening when people are voicing intent to vote NO to the SSM question.

Which means you could only be relying on reading / watching as I am.
If you haven't noticed the different intents/tones of the debates... then perhaps yes we are watching this debate very differently.
\