SSM Plebiscite

[dodge]

There seems to be a bell curve:
- at both ends (say 2% each) there is the extreme position of both sides.  These people are deep rooted, extremely strong in their conviction and will respond with personal abuse, not necessarily argument about their side
- next inside (say 10% each) are those that are passionate about their side of the debate and will argue the debate fairly and decently, however, they will not change their mind

These two groups would be most likely to return the survey

- next is another 10%  (each) who pretty well have their minds made up, but don't engage in the debate and are unlikely to change their mind
- The final 56% don't really care, and don't really see the impact, but are more likely to "not see the harm (if there is any)" that the no side will argue.  They are also more unlikey to be bothered to return their survey.

Some in these groups would also like to know what they are responding to - eg is there an impact on free speech, "freedom of religion" , MIOs questions and maybe a few of the fringe arguments that aren't directly related to the survey ie what is the final legislation going to look like

The last two groups are obviously a huge number of people who need to be convinced by the first two groups to return the survey.  This is the pure danger of the survey.

What are the results that need to occur for parliament to go with the wishes of the survey?  55/45, 65/35?  Who knows.  We don't.

There are no winners in the short term - the side that gets their way will be intolerable with their vitriol of "victory".  Unfortunately as a country we don't do graceful winning or losing very well.

Personally, I am getting splinters.  The conservative side of me wants to no side to come out with something more convincing than they have.  The progressive side of me wants to believe that their argument is purely about SSM with no further agenda not being espoused and needs some convincing that this is the case.  Until I get the reassurance from either side and am able to support that with conviction, I won't return the form.


Paulp - there are some legal differences between de facto and married - some things as a couple are much easier as married.  You can do this cheaply at the registry office without having to buy your mates a meal and drinks...

[PaulP]

Never have been married, have no plans to be married, girl was married and divorced before we met.

It's all an expensive charade, and a hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted on a meaningless piece of paper.

The point is though, you're free to choose.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Yes, No,  or Dont care which would win the ballot?

[PaulP]

In regard to MIO's er......interesting example, I'm hardly an expert on the subject matter, so can't comment too much. The situation is not nearly as simple as the ssm issue. There may be certain situations where the "we're not hurting anyone else" argument may be used, but there would need to be an enormous amount of debate, research etc. before anyone could speak with any sense on the matter, because those relationships throw up a whole range of serious issues that is not the case with ssm.

[mateinone]

Paul
My example isn't one that I or anyone I know I think would ever support
But you see I can openly say that is where I draw the line personally on why I consider acceptable vs not acceptable.

That means I am potentially drawing a line that impacts people personal relationship. Also remember much like in the SSM debate, I am talking purely consenting adults.

So if I or others find it acceptable to draw that condemnation of a consensual relationship. Don't others have the right, especially when backed by current law and the environment they have grown up in, to determine what they do or do not support?

It is purely a devils advocate scenario.
But it shows there is a hell of a lot of hypocrisy.

What about one a little less distasteful... polygamy.
Arent those wanting to marry multiple partners restricted by laws passed making a moral judgement on their non traditional relationship?
I wonder what the vote would be there?
Regardless I am fairly sure it would not be 100% in favour

[madbluboy]

Remember when everyone thought that Donald Trump would never be president?

Guess again everyone.

FYI I know a lot of no voters and yes voters, and most of the no voters have scattergun arguments.

My best mate reckons they were handing out "No" flyers at his daughter's Greek school.

[PaulP]

Paul
My example isn't one that I or anyone I know I think would ever support
But you see I can openly say that is where I draw the line personally on why I consider acceptable vs not acceptable.

That means I am potentially drawing a line that impacts people personal relationship. Also remember much like in the SSM debate, I am talking purely consenting adults.

So if I or others find it acceptable to draw that condemnation of a consensual relationship. Don't others have the right, especially when backed by current law and the environment they have grown up in, to determine what they do or do not support?

It is purely a devils advocate scenario.
But it shows there is a hell of a lot of hypocrisy.

What about one a little less distasteful... polygamy.
Arent those wanting to marry multiple partners restricted by laws passed making a moral judgement on their non traditional relationship?
I wonder what the vote would be there?
Regardless I am fairly sure it would not be 100% in favour

Actually, I wouldn't mind a few more wives, and despite requesting a harem for my last few birthdays, my wife keeps saying no.........

I could see a case being made for such a relationship between consenting adults, but not without an enormous amount of debate, information etc. beforehand. Nowhere near as straight forward.

[mateinone]

@MIO...

Been waiting for that argument to be raised.

I wouldn't have chosen incest exactly, perhaps multiple wives. I noticed you later included the term adult in there....that crosses off another alternative. All of which are 'right' and 'wrong' depending, basically, on which country you grew up in.

Its a valid argument on each individual basis. Like you said though, it should not be used as scaremongering tactics because one does not lead to the other.

In regards to the human rights issue...
In this country what is being proposed is an extension of what is currently legal.
All other connotations are not.

I think that is the major difference.

In other countries it might be different, but we have no say in that.

I just read this now Kruddler, but you will see I also used multiple wives in my latest post.

The bit I bolded is extremely interesting.
Marrying a second wife is an extension of being allowed to marry one right?
Marrying your brother/sister etc is an extension of being able to currently marry a consenting adult isn't it?

But this isn't about law, it is about Human Rights many are saying and so a law being part way there.. (ie is not illegal to be in a same sex marriage) doesn't really enter the equation if this is about all human's right to determine who they want to legally commit to.

I said consenting adults, to completely cut out any nonsense around child exploitation which is something the NO campaign has previously (perhaps this time also) used as an argument against Same Sex relationships.

It completely detracts from the hypothetical situation in any case which is.

Why is it okay to say NO to one relationship and not another, if it is between 2 (or more) consenting adults.

So again, because I know someone somewhere only half reads.

If I HAD to vote YES or NO to SSM, I would absolutely vote YES.
If I could voluntarily vote YES or NO to incestuous relationships I would vote NO
If I could voluntarily vote YES or NO to polygamous marriages, I would not vote
If I HAD to voluntarily vote YES or NO to polygamous marriages, I would vote YES.

I am generally for people's right to self determine and this includes their life choices, as long as others are not exploited.

But you see, I am okay with a discussion being held in a rational manner on any of these topics and with someone having the right to an alternate view and that is what the NO campaign is not doing.

They have NO more/less right (from what I consider a Human Rights perspective) to happiness than a man or women in love with multiple people. Or a brother and sister or 2 sisters or 2 brothers etc etc or a man and a woman.

However we live in a society driven by laws and as the community evolves, so to do the laws.
I agree the community should now be at the stage where an rational & understanding debate can be had to ensure that the laws we live under are supporting the entire community. That doesn't always mean giving each person what they want either.
I think we live in a society that is ready to not only accept, but embrace people's right to decide in this particular instance.

However what is being shown is the opposite of this. People campaigning so vigorously are not doing so in a legitimate fashion, they are undeniably acting as bigots. It isn't up for debate, it is as clear as day. Not only that, but the example I provide show that they are full of hypocrisy, picking and choosing which relationships they support.


My only stance on this continues to be.
This is a democratic country and is one of the great places in the world to live.
Like a lot of places it has taken a while to embrace all cultures and lifestyles, but I am glad to say that I have seen massive changes of acceptance since I was a young boy.
This has happened because people have changed the way they think.
This has happened because people have become educated to think of the hurt they were doing.

Trust people to make the right decisions, trust people to have the right conversations and to voice their concerns without being drowned out in a sea of hate.
People have concerns and they feel they have no right to have their concerns aired and their worries alleviated through sensible discussion.

This vote looked like a "lay down misère" at the beginning and I read somewhere today the support for the "Yes" campaign is now down to 55%.
This could become a Brexit or a Trump vote and if it does it will be because the community wasn't engaged correctly.
It was stomped on, it was belittled, it was hated... All the same feelings that many of those within the Gay & Lesbian community have themselves been subjected to.

Again I think this whole campaign reflects poorly on Australia

[mateinone]

Actually, I wouldn't mind a few more wives, and despite requesting a harem for my last few birthdays, my wife keeps saying no.........

I could see a case being made for such a relationship between consenting adults, but not without an enormous amount of debate, information etc. beforehand. Nowhere near as straight forward.

So Paul.

That is EXACTLY The point.
People have to be allowed to debate, learn more information etc beforehand.
You say that the current situation is more straight forward (and I agree), however is that not just because we have lived in a situation where we have become more accustomed?
If we have the right to debate one non-traditional marriage, doesn't the country therefore have the right to debate another?
If only to help confirm that the world won't end?

[PaulP]

So Paul.

That is EXACTLY The point.
People have to be allowed to debate, learn more information etc beforehand.
You say that the current situation is more straight forward (and I agree), however is that not just because we have lived in a situation where we have become more accustomed?
If we have the right to debate one non-traditional marriage, doesn't the country therefore have the right to debate another?
If only to help confirm that the world won't end?

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.