SSM Plebiscite

[Lods]

Don't get too worked up about it.
It's over.
It's done!
Even if the NO vote gets up in the plebiscite.
It will be legislated
That's why this vote is a complete waste of time and money.

Faced with an open vote in Parliament not many politicians will be game to vote against change because even if they aren't true believers they realise the repercussions.
..and it will get to a vote.

[DJC]

Tony Abbott's intemperate remarks about the NRL's choice of half-time entertainment reveal the man's hypocrisy; freedom of speech apparently only applies to those with similar views.

I was also interested in his complaint that the NRL was "politicising" sport.  I have always considered marriage equality to be a human rights issue rather than a political issue.  I guess Abbott thinks that anything that doesn't conform to his extreme right wing Catholicism is an attack on his political fundamentals ... and that is sad; politics and religion shouldn't mix.

Tony Abbott probably didn't anticipate Frances Abbott's encouragement of Macklemore and he certainly didn't realise that his attempt to impose his reactionary values would make the offending song a best seller again  :

I wonder how many other households have a similar generational difference of opinion?

[Professer E]

Don't get the furore over this Macklemore character.

[madbluboy]

Don't get the furore over this Macklemore character.

Terrible rapper who by his own admission is only popular because he is white.

[mateinone]

See if i was sitting on the fence, and one side of the debate was trotting out BS like that, then it would make me vote against that and vote for the opposition.

Yes, people will vote no for whatever reason they want. I guess my point is, should this plebiscite end up being 50-50 and politicians choose to stick with no, its because of all the lies being told that have swayed people.

I just don't like ill informed people making judgements on peoples lives that will have no effect on themselves whatsoever.

Whilst I admire your passion, I don't know that I agree with it all.
I decided not to comment on the poster, despite the fact I feel it is typically persuasively leading, but not close to the worst I have seen from either side of the campaign.
For example, I think it is as much as anything reminding people that if they consider that picture to be the nucleus of a family vote no.
Now 50% of marriage ends in divorce, many many single parents are raising kids and it doesn't represent actual society. Yet it does represent still what a number of people believe a family should be and this is using a picture to remind them.  How many people are actually saying "What... gay people will be able to have babies, I better vote"

But, yes it does at least suggest that SSM = SS parents, which of course is already a reality.

I highlighted two parts above.
The 1st is that the reason people will vote no is because of lies. Which by extension suggests that the only true conclusion anyone could come to is that they must vote "YES". That if they were not deceived they would all vote yes. Whether that is your intention or not, that is as equally deceptive as that poster.

The 2nd part I highlighted is a reality of life. What percentage of people are actually in a position to determine how this will affect society with any degree of certainty?
Almost every person who is commenting on this subject is ignorant, only the degree of ignorance changes.

I agree though in the 2nd part that people uninformed shouldn't be making this decision, but that goes both ways. In fact whichever side gets more of the vote will in fact have the higher number of ill-informed people.

And that is why the government should have made this decision, or commissioned a study and based decisions on that information.
The problem with the study is that it can be heavily bias one way or the other.

For the nth amount of time I agree with Lods.
This is an absolute foregone conclusion and should just be passed through parliament

[kruddler]

The 1st is that the reason people will vote no is because of lies. Which by extension suggests that the only true conclusion anyone could come to is that they must vote "YES". That if they were not deceived they would all vote yes. Whether that is your intention or not, that is as equally deceptive as that poster.

Not entirely.

I've been asking why people would vote no. All the propoganda out there campaigning for No votes is based on lies.
I'm not saying that there is no good reason to vote no....but everything i've seen out there have been similar to the poster. BS.

The 2nd part I highlighted is a reality of life. What percentage of people are actually in a position to determine how this will affect society with any degree of certainty?
Almost every person who is commenting on this subject is ignorant, only the degree of ignorance changes.

I agree though in the 2nd part that people uninformed shouldn't be making this decision, but that goes both ways. In fact whichever side gets more of the vote will in fact have the higher number of ill-informed people.

And that is why the government should have made this decision, or commissioned a study and based decisions on that information.
The problem with the study is that it can be heavily bias one way or the other.

For the nth amount of time I agree with Lods.
This is an absolute foregone conclusion and should just be passed through parliament

The bold part was the point of that statement. Politicians are voted in to make these decisions and they don't have the balls to do so, they are trying to get the public to bear the brunt of the backlash should it go different to your own personal view.

[Lods]

"Politicians are voted in to make these decisions and they don't have the balls to do so.

......Do you agree?"

If that were the question you'd get a massive YES vote.

[DJC]

As the Government has decided that it won't make a decision on marriage equality until it knows the views of the electorate, it follows that all other contentious decisions will now require a similar process.  :

[Mav]

Wonder if the NRL knew what they were getting with Macklemore ...

One of his 4 songs was a pro-ssm anthem ^-^

Maybe my impression of NRL is pretty unsophisticated, but I would have thought there'd be a few rednecks in the crowd who were going "WTF?".  The fact the private school/uni rugby fans favour Union tends to skew the fan base.

Unlike with the pregame coverage of The Killers, there weren't many crowd shots during Macklemore's set.  The camera pretty much focussed on the performers and the young fans surrounding the on-ground stage.

Not sure that rappers are ideal for footy pregame entertainment.  Reckon the AFL killed it this time ...

[DJC]

Good article by Peter FitzSimons about Macklemore's performance at the NRL grand final and the backstory:

Now, [Ian] Roberts is two things. I have long held he is the toughest footballer to pull on a boot, at least that I have seen. His view is, he is also among the gayest men who ever lived, having never felt the slightest flicker of sexual interest in females, ever. It was the way he was born and when he declared his sexuality in 1995, while still playing, it was enormous news. To this day he remains the only male professional footballer in Australia to have done so.
...

"It will save lives," Roberts said. "Simple as that. It will save lives."

His point is a beauty. For all those troubled teens, alone in the dark as he was all those years ago, agonised over their sexuality, the lesson of that anthem being sung on that occasion, is clear. You are not alone. And not only do many people feel an attraction to their same gender, and not only should it be no big deal one way or another, but even the most macho of sports recognises that. And in short order, the state itself will likely pass legislation to say you'll have equal rights in marriage, too.

How far we've come.
...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ian-robert...ys8gk.html