SSM Plebiscite

[mateinone]

The debate needs to be initiated by those who want that type of relationship. If they believe they have a case, I'd really like to hear it, to start the process. The process won't get started by straight couples, or gay couples, or anyone else.

Why does it need to be initiated by any specific people Paul?
It is 100% valid in the context of the current discussion.
In bold, what you are saying is that YOU would like to hear the argument if people have a case and to have open discussion/debate on it...
However you don't want others to be able to have open discussion on SSM.

Here is the thing...
We are talking hypothetical consensual relationships between 2 or more adults.

How can you be ready to listen to debate if it is started in one case, but be SO SURE that those who want to debate or have a different opinion that yours are SO WRONG and have NO RIGHTS?

C'mon Paul, this is pretty straight forward stuff, we are not actually discussing whether there should be polygamous marriage or incestuous relationships. We are talking about the fact that we do as individuals and as society have views on what relationships we find to be acceptable as well as what we consider marriage to constitute.

So explain why people on the NO side have no right to their opinion and to wanting this to be an open discussion.

[PaulP]

I've never said the no voters have no right to have an opinion. I've said their opinion is wrong and baseless, and I stand by that.

The debate regarding ssm is very real, and it was initiated by the LGBT lobby because they want to marry.

So far as I am aware, there is no group of people in Australia public acknowledging the practice of incest, and if there is, there is nothing I am aware of where such a group(s) is asking for marriage equality.

You keep mixing up your terms. Once minute you say marriage, then you say relationships. Make up your mind. People will practice what they want under the radar.The gay lobby wants public and official recognition that their relationships have the same status as ours. Is there an incest group that wants the same ?

It is not up to me to go searching high and low for any group that feels maligned, misjudged, hard done by etc. If they have a case let's hear it.

[mateinone]

I am not mixing up anything Paul.
I am discussing hypothetical situations where relationships are currently restricted/forbidden due to the law and pointing out that the same people who claim that preventing people from a form of relationship (SSM) would almost certainly be against other relationships (ie incest). So the argument that people have no right (which is what a large percent of YES votes are saying) is hypocrisy.

It doesn't matter whether people want to marry in incest and I find it almost unbelievable that you are not understanding the pretext of why that is raised.

You are stating that if they want to marry, then you think there should be discussion
You have denigrated suggestions that the YES campaign is run in a bigoted and bullying way, because look at what they have been through.

Your last comment "If they have a case let's hear it"

Suggests that people have the right to hear and to determine.

The entire argument I have put forward for why this needs to be done in a respectful manner and in pointing out that people do already make judgment on what is acceptable and what is not is completely lost on you.
I don't know how it is lost on you, I don't how you think it is actually about allowing polygamous or incest and there being any tie, but if I can't explain it to you in the number of posts I have, then I am not going to be able to.

Let's say this
I disagree with people attacking people for their view. THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE ESSENCE OF WHAT BIGOTRY IS
I don't have to agree with a persons view to understand that it is a cornerstone of our society that people are allowed to  have their view
That I DON'T consider this a human rights issue.

Outside of that Paul, you are not engaging in the discussion, perhaps we both are not, so I leave you the freedom to voice your opinion, but don't see any point in debating back with you.

[PaulP]

I have never once stated that people are not allowed to express their view. Expressing a view is one thing, being accountable for that view is quite another. I would not have the slightest problem if you told me my views were sh1t and wrong.

I have loads more to type, but I can't be bothered.

[LP]

And in those last few posts hides the very reason for the political types to believe that the vote will be a split.

The "Yes" campaign has become self-destructive, it suffers an identity crisis. Their best chance is to lobby people who don't give a stuff either way to vote "yes", and accept at best a 60/40 result. Instead they have turned radical and are attacking the campaign and voters who say they will vote "No". It's a scenario the "Yes" lobby cannot win, but it seems they cannot help themselves, they have become the mob that attacks the opposition! They are not happy accepting that others do not share their view of the world, and they seem to want acceptance from everybody, even those who would persecute them. It's quite bizarre that they are intent on shooting themselves in the foot. Does this say something about society and psychology?

When either group starts badgering eighty year old ladies pushing shopping trolleys through supermarkets because she voices an opinion in opposition, they have all lost! These people vote like Thor's Hammer, the harder you push them the less they move!

If the vote is not definitive, in the next election marginal and minor parties will campaign on the basis of having any decision reversed and the country's political system will be in chaos!

[PaulP]

Yeah right. People voting no are not in any way influenced by religion, family, decades of indoctrination etc. It's all down to some loony in a rainbow onesie in a car park.

Penny Wong has been on Q+A about a dozen times over the last decade, each time debating exactly the same points, giving the same facts, the same answers, each time to a newly minted conservative, expressing exactly the same views, opinions etc. Rather tiring wouldn't you say ? At the same time, mental health issues and suicide attempts have spiked in the wake of the plebiscite.

Meanwhile, Abbott has declared climate change to be a third order issue, and has threatened to cross the floor if the government introduces clean energy targets.

But no matter what happens, we must at all times tip toe through the tulips very quietly, very daintily, very respectfully, and most of all, very slowly. Never must we even attempt to rush anyone, or say anything that may even slightly upset the apple cart. We must hear everyone's opinion, then debate, the hear those opinions again, then rinse and repeat. And proceed slowly at all costs. There is much thinking to do. Apparently several decades of climate science and several decades of gay equality isn't enough. there is still much thinking and much debating and much respecting of one anther's opinions, still to occur.

Shh. Be quiet. Keep still. Don't move. Someone is giving their opinion. We must all be respectful and attentive.

[LP]

Shh. Be quiet. Keep still. Don't move. Someone is giving their opinion. We must all be respectful and attentive.

Isn't that what is being demanded, is there irony in aggressively touting people to be respectfully attentive to someone desires?

[PaulP]

Isn't that what is being demanded, is there irony in aggressively touting people to be respectfully attentive to someone desires?

I think the batteries in your irony meter might need replacement.

We have an opportunity to start the process of making our neck of the woods a better place, even if it's only slightly better.  A happy LGBT group means our society has improved, and we all stand to benefit from that, not just gays and lesbians. More tolerance, more compassion and more equality.

Forget about the left, right and middle. Forget about shock jocks, christian groups and little old ladies in car parks. Forget about exchanging witless barbs with some idiot (i.e me) on a footy forum. Think of the bigger picture.

As heterosexual people, we may not see how this affects the LGBT mob, but affect them it most certainly does.

[Baggers]

Yeah right. People voting no are not in any way influenced by religion, family, decades of indoctrination etc. It's all down to some loony in a rainbow onesie in a car park.

Penny Wong has been on Q+A about a dozen times over the last decade, each time debating exactly the same points, giving the same facts, the same answers, each time to a newly minted conservative, expressing exactly the same views, opinions etc. Rather tiring wouldn't you say ? At the same time, mental health issues and suicide attempts have spiked in the wake of the plebiscite.

Meanwhile, Abbott has declared climate change to be a third order issue, and has threatened to cross the floor if the government introduces clean energy targets.

But no matter what happens, we must at all times tip toe through the tulips very quietly, very daintily, very respectfully, and most of all, very slowly. Never must we even attempt to rush anyone, or say anything that may even slightly upset the apple cart. We must hear everyone's opinion, then debate, the hear those opinions again, then rinse and repeat. And proceed slowly at all costs. There is much thinking to do. Apparently several decades of climate science and several decades of gay equality isn't enough. there is still much thinking and much debating and much respecting of one anther's opinions, still to occur.

Shh. Be quiet. Keep still. Don't move. Someone is giving their opinion. We must all be respectful and attentive.

Hear hear! Love your work. It's really not that difficult is it? These consenting adults would like to be able to access legal marriage... done, next!

And as for Abbott crossing the floor on the climate issue... yes, please do cross the floor, Tony... and keep going out the door and then run so fast that you speed through time until you finally arrive in 1962, England. You're home! You're where you belong!

[madbluboy]

Could you imagine if that young girl was fired for voting "Yes"?