In bad faith

Same sex marriage is a 10th order issue and it is amazing that self-interested parliamentarians are prioritising it above more pressing matters that affect the wealth of this country. But those Coalition MPs who are now pushing for a parliamentary vote are acting with bad faith and should hang their heads in shame.

The Coalition’s policy on same sex marriage is clear: that there be a national plebiscite. All of the dissembling about whether a plebiscite would traumatise people, or be costly, or be contrary to a Westminter system are wrong.

Plebiscites and referenda are time-honoured methods of resolving matters that voters hold dear. There are many issues which the electorate do not wish to have their representatives vote upon. And they should be subject to rigorous debate –  to argue that someone’s feelings might be hurt is irrelevant. If you want to change the status quo, you must accept a thorough debate and should not be demanding the change to be rammed through without debate. As Ireland proved, the debate can be raucous but at the end of the day the result is accepted (in that case, same sex marriage was adopted).

As for these Coalition MPs – by voting in favour of a parliamentary resolution on same sex marriage they will be lying to their voters.

Game theory is quite clear on this. If your promise is that you will support a plebiscite there is no get out of jail when the plebiscite option is voted down in the Parliament. If these MPs indicated (directly or indirectly) that they would vote for SSM once the plebiscite option had been voted down, they would have emboldened those who opposed a plebiscite. The plebiscite option requires a credible pre-commitment that the only way SSM would be legislated is through a plebiscite. By emboldening those opposed to a plebiscite those MPs acted in bad faith.

About Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

I'm a retired general who occasionally gets called back to save the republic before returning to my plough.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

153 Responses to In bad faith

  1. Nerblnob

    90% of the proponents of SSM are only interested because it’s a wedge issue. They don’t want to discuss why Labor didn’t push it through when they had the power.

  2. eb

    Finally, something on which I can agree with Lucy!

  3. cui bono

    Dean Smith, Trent Zimmerman, Tim Wilson and some Qld newbie. No doubt in years to come they will bemoan the lack of trust between pollies and voters.

  4. candy

    They are emboldened because they are gay or like W Entsch i think have a close relative they want to please.
    As well it pleases their boss M Turnbull as he beleives that Newspoll will bounce for him. I am sure its a done deal, or a tacit understanding this will happen.
    Tim Wilson is making a big push for it naturally being gay himself. He is liked and respected so can carry this through.

  5. stackja

    Who has any faith in these MPs? I don’t.

  6. alexnoaholdmate

    No doubt in years to come they will bemoan the lack of trust between pollies and voters

    When they’re voted out or lose pre-selection, I’m sure they will.

  7. Razor

    Thanks LQC.
    The moral background to SSM requires that a legitimate result will only ocur with a decision made directly by the populus. as you indicate the people generally do see through what is being attempted here (over many other much more pressing issues).

    The supporters know that a public vote will most likely not get up – that is why Shorten was instructed to block the process for a general plebisicite. Since the blocking, the attempts are always to conduct a parliamentary vote.

    The actions of the renegade Libs will do the party harm at the next election for a broken moral promise by them will be treated harshly by a conservative support.

  8. struth

    The great fallacy pushed is that marriage is between ONLY the two involved.

    If that was the case we wouldn’t be talking about it.

    Marriage is the union of man and woman with the blessing and consent of their families and the society and culture it occurs in.

    That is done for many a practical reason.

    Pushing this through parliament without the consent of the people means gays are getting married without the consent of their society and culture.
    It is therefore not a marriage, it is , like our parliament, a farce.

    But let’s face it, those undemocratic arseholes who somehow think they can represent everyone that bats for the same side, without being elected by same, aren’t about marriage equality.
    They are about marriage (and family) destruction.
    They aren’t gay activists.
    They are Marxist activists destroying what may have been a positive out come for gays and the only route to take that can possibly do it.

  9. H B Bear

    Lying Lieborals lie.

  10. Louis Hissink

    SSM seems to be a distraction rather than anything of significance. Perhaps to divert our attention from the accelerating cost of energy? Or from the growing population of Levantine immigrants among us as the destocking of the ME continues to fulfil some or other prophecy. Who knows?

  11. Rabz

    SSM seems to be a distraction rather than anything of significance.

    An eleventy gazillionth order non-issue. But yeah, let’s ignore the following:

    – Spiralling debt and deficits
    – Out of control spending on nothing of any significance (i.e. it’s all criminal waste)
    – Jerb and economic activity killing red and green tape
    – Out of control taxation
    – Brazen attempts to appropriate peoples’ superannuation
    – Out of control immigration of insoluble third world peons
    – Decaying infrastructure, third world cities and ridiculously overpriced z-grade housing
    – The most expensive electrickery in the developed world in a country awash with cheap energy sources
    – An utterly offensive taxpayer bankrolled braindead lamestream meeja that actively pushes bullshit
    – Parliaments stuffed to the gills with foreigners, whores and quislings
    – Moozley terrorist incidents every other day
    – Sexual deviancy and collectivist brainwashing foisted on kiddies by a completely disfunctional education system
    – Three extreme left political parties and zero other choice (unless you like your socialism of an agrarian nature)
    – The re-nationalisation of the telecommunications sector
    – A budget killing massively rorted scam known as the NDIS

    Yes, now I can see why homo hoedowns are so bloody important. F*ckwits.

  12. cui bono

    They argue that a parliamentary vote will get it off the agenda, end the distraction.
    That’s true. They’ll then be able to find other distractions.

  13. Roger

    They are emboldened because they are gay or like W Entsch i think have a close relative they want to please.

    Whatever happened to serving the common good?

    This is something I have noticed with our 3rd rate politicians – they personalise issues or a beholden to lobby groups rather than thinking through policy issues in light of the common good. SSM is the perfect example.

  14. Andrew M.

    Struth says:

    Marriage is the union of man and woman with the blessing and consent of their families and the society and culture it occurs in.

    If you believe collective rights override individual rights then you are a Leftist by definition.
    (Sinclair’s definition, just ask him.)

  15. Minderbinder of Qld

    Rabz x 10

    If we continue to elect unrepresentative morons we will continue to get moronic policies. Simple, vote for the parties the MSM hate!

  16. fhb

    What about the National’s agreement that a plebiscite is a prerequisite for their support in the coalition.

  17. ,

    Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog: Funny I thought you would have bene in favour of making all people equal before the law

  18. Tim Neilson

    If you believe collective rights override individual rights then you are a Leftist by definition.

    No-one’s “rights” are being overridden simply by truthfully identifying marriage for what it is.

    Marriage is a relationship that has societal as well as interpersonal aspects.

    If someone doesn’t want to commit to the societal aspects they can have a de facto relationship.

    OK, that’s an oversimplification because the “equality” totalitarians have legislated so that de facto couples will be treated largely like they’re married whether they want to be or not – but that’s not caused by the inherent characteristics of marriage.
    The “rights” problem has nothing to do with truthful characterisation of marriage, but everything to do with so-called “progressive” attitudes to people who don’t want to be married.

  19. Exit Stage Right

    Hey Lucy, that’s a better contribution than your recent fact free tripe about The Trumpster being a rotten POTUS after 6 months in the job. SSM is a non issue with 98% of the population but the pollies have been using this as a diversion for a number of years now. If Billy Shortone wants a plebiscite on the Republic (another diversional non-issue) surely he can commit to a plebiscite or referendum on SSM at the same time? Or does that make too much sense? Cost has been mentioned as a barrier to a plebiscite-lets get all these issues resolved at the next Federal election and save on cost. I don’t think so-pollies don’t want to give the electorate a direct say on issues like SSM as they know it will go down when the majority get involved.

  20. A Lurker

    What about the National’s agreement that a plebiscite is a prerequisite for their support in the coalition.

    With Joyce thinking himself to be Turnbull’s new BFF, I predict that the Nat’s promise will go into the forgettery.

  21. OldOzzie

    Man ‘marries’ his laptop, sues for state recognition and a wedding cake

    The Washington Times – Sunday, July 30, 2017

    Chris Sevier says that if same-sex couples are able to get married and demand that Christian bakers make them wedding cakes, then he should be allowed to marry his laptop and demand a cake to celebrate the union between one man and one machine.

    The self-identified “machinist” says he married his laptop in a ceremony in New Mexico, and now he has sued to demand that a Colorado baker — who is already in court after refusing to bake for a same-sex marriage — must be compelled to make cakes for him and his computer “bride.” He also has filed a lawsuit demanding that Utah recognize his man-object marriage.

    It’s the latest battlefront in an increasingly thorny area of law, after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

    While legal analysts said the case is a stretch, a judge in Utah has allowed part of that lawsuit to proceed, and analysts concede that Mr. Sevier’s claims get to the heart of how far the 2015 Obergefell ruling stretches when it comes to nontraditional unions.

    “If marriage based on self-asserted sex-based identity narratives is a ‘fundamental right,’ ‘individual right,’ ‘existing right,’ based on a ‘personal choice’ for homosexuals, then clearly it is also a ‘fundamental right,’ ‘individual right,’ ‘existing right,’ based on a ‘personal choice’ for polygamists, zoophiles and machinists,” Mr. Sevier and several self-identified polygamists said in their lawsuit against Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Colorado baker they are challenging.

    Masterpiece Cakeshop baker Jack Phillips is slated for a day in the Supreme Court this year after justices said they would hear his appeal of a Colorado civil rights office that penalized him for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

    Now it’s Mr. Sevier and his cohorts — three polygamists — who said if Colorado can force Mr. Phillips to bake a same-sex wedding cake, then it also can make him bake a man-machine cake.

    Mr. Sevier, whose law license has been put on “disability inactive status” in Tennessee, has a history of filing unusual challenges. Earlier this year, he sued four Democratic lawmakers for displaying rainbow flags in the hallways of their government office buildings.

    Throughout the past year, he has filed lawsuits against officials in Kentucky, Texas and Utah in an attempt to legally wed his laptop.

    Next up are lawsuits against Colorado and California, he says.

    “While it is undisputed that self-identified gays, polygamists, zoophiles and machinists can have wedding ceremonies, the states’ selective legal recognition of gay marriage violates the establishment clause insurmountably,” Mr. Sevier says in his latest filing in the Utah case.

    In the latest lawsuit against the Colorado bakery, Mr. Sevier asks a judge to rule that the baker discriminated against the plaintiffs and orders him to provide service to machinists and polygamists just as he would traditional couples, and to reward monetary damages in the amount of $75,000.

    “The Plaintiffs also want to use the government to proselytize the Defendants into converting to their worldview in name of love and equality,” reads the complaint.

    He told The Washington Times that the goal of his lawsuits is to have the courts act honestly and restore the integrity of the Constitution. Mr. Sevier said the issue should be governed by the First Amendment, not under the 14th Amendment as courts have held.

    “The entire Constitutional narrative is the wrong one,” said Mr. Sevier. “The courts have been incredibly intellectually dishonest in these matters. They are perpetrating unbelievable amounts of malpractice.”

    John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University in California, said Mr. Sevier’s lawsuit against the Colorado baker could have merit under the reasoning of the 2015 Obergefell same-sex marriage ruling.
    “Of course the suit is nonsensical, and I suspect the lower court will treat it as such. But then, so too was Obergefell’s holding that biological sex has nothing to do with marriage,” Mr. Eastman said.

    But Robert Tuttle, a law professor at George Washington University, said he doubts the case would poke any holes in the legality of same-sex marriage because “by contrast, polygamy doesn’t involve the same type of claims of things that are outside people’s control.”

    “There’s just no legal basis for these claims,” Mr. Tuttle said. “This is certainly attention-seeking.”

  22. Rococo Liberal

    So the problems of 2% of the population are to be given centre stage. Why am I not surprised?
    And when the fussing and the fighting is over and the weak-kneed politicians cave in to wishes of the homosexualists will we cease to call the result ”gay marriage”? Of course not. Just as the government cannot deem an orange to be an apple, it can’t deem a union between two people of the same sex to be a marriage in ordinary terms.
    Of course the this all begs the question, if the homosexualists are successful in getting SSM on the statute book, will they be satisfied, or will there be new areas in which they can find that they are oppressed.
    I wonder if the answer to this constant whining by the poof lobby is to point out that diversity demands that the huge number of queers in fashion and the arts has to be cut back. 98% of fashionistas and artists must be heterosexual. It’s only fair.

  23. Ivan Denisovich

    The supporters know that a public vote will most likely not get up – that is why Shorten was instructed to block the process for a general plebisicite.

    Precisely. All the “justifications” for a parliamentary vote over a plebiscite are complete bullshit. This is the real reason. The parliamentary equivalent of Rob Hulls stacking the bench with activist judges to create laws/rulings contrary to the will of the people.

  24. DB

    The Liberal Party is going about this entirely the wrong way; they should be taking the government out of the marriage business altogether.
    Instead they should introduce a register of domestic unions for the purpose of inheritance rights and other administrative requirements.
    Then marriage can remain as a sacrament of the various religions that have fostered the institution of marriage for hundreds and even thousands of years.

  25. .

    Marriage is a relationship that has societal as well as interpersonal aspects.

    No, that is wrong and immoral. You are saying you have rights over the rights of others and you are empowering the Family Court and so on to meddle, interfere and destroy.

    The mere existence of externalities does not justify government intervention.

  26. AlanR

    Oh gawd, here we go dragging out this tired old chestnut yet again. Personally I’m sick of it. Nothing exposes the hypocrisy that is modern politics more than this issue.

    Fact: little Johnnie didn’t need a plebiscite to change the act in the first instance. I fail to understand why one is needed to change it again.

    Fact: since when have election ‘promises’ been written in blood? Things change, situations evolve, life goes on. Remember Paul Keating promising it was “l-a-w” or J.H’s “core and non-core” promises or Tony’s “no cuts to ……” We could go on, but why bother?

    Just do it!

  27. .

    Fact: little Johnnie didn’t need a plebiscite to change the act in the first instance. I fail to understand why one is needed to change it again.

    “That’s different”, as they say.

  28. Jim Peters

    I support marriage as a positive force for healthy societies. If gay partners, who constitute less than 3% of the population, genuinely want to marry, then I support it.

    Incidentally I also support policy that makes it more difficult for marriages to end.

    Anyway, as it’s such an important community issue, however, it must be put to a plebiscite.

  29. Tezza

    All in all, a great way to complete destruction of the Turnbull Coalition and the Liberal Party, all for an issue that wouldn’t make most voters’ top 100 policy concerns.

    Don’t you love the logic that: ‘we won the election on a policy promise which, regrettably, was not accepted in Parliament on its first presentation. Therefore, our obligations to those who voted for us have now been met, and we will instead implement the policy of the Opposition. Oh, by the way, come out and contribute, work and vote for us next time.’

    Tim Wilson has done his dash as far as I’m concerned.

  30. Deplorable

    So now we have how many known homosexuals in parliament maybe 12 then there are the homosexuals still in the closet plus their camp haha followers. These people appear to have been focused on the issue of homosexual marriage for the life of this parliament. No wonder the country is stuffed there is nobody steering the ship. The folly of this lot is they seem to focused on the anatomy of the politician in front of them not the future of the country. Who preselects these wankers?

  31. Deplorable

    A new party has formed it’s called THE MAGIC CIRCLE PARTY.

  32. Tom

    The latest Essential poll found 25 per cent believe were game to tell a pollster people should not be allowed to marry the same sex, the lowest percentage in a number of years.

    And yet:

    More than half (59 per cent) still believe a national vote is still the best way to decide on marriage equality, mostly those who are against it, down two per cent from a few weeks ago.

    About 29 per cent think it should be decided by parliament.

    So the anti-democratic forces want to engineer a parliamentary vote because a plebiscite conducted in the bully-proof privacy of the ballot box would unleash a huge “no” vote — much of it prompted by the totalitarian tactics of the sturmtruppen.

    Most people know the SSM campaign has nothing to do with “fairness”. It’s part of Marxism’s long march to destroy the family and marriage as an institution which, until three minutes ago, was a subject of mocking derision on Mardi Gras floats.

    Totalitarian scum like Tim Wilson are terrified of the people. Little Lord Fartleroy also knows a parliamentary vote will destroy the Lieboral Party, which is why he is encouraging it. It will be his rabble regime’s last act: 1975 will be a picnic compared with what will follow.

  33. Deplorable

    The Liberal Party is going about this entirely the wrong way; they should be taking the government out of the marriage business altogether.
    Instead they should introduce a register of domestic unions for the purpose of inheritance rights and other administrative requirements.
    Then marriage can remain as a sacrament of the various religions that have fostered the institution of marriage for hundreds and even thousands of years.

    Makes sense to me.

  34. Philby

    Anyway, as it’s such an important community issue, however, it must be put to a plebiscite.

    Wholeheartedly agree. Howard only reinforced the legislation by declaring marriage between a man and a woman as it had been always. This homosexual push is such a deviation from what the original intent was and now is that of course it requires a vote by citizens not pooftah politicians

  35. Peter Campion

    Plebiscites and referenda are time-honoured methods of resolving matters that voters hold dear. There are many issues which the electorate do not wish to have their representatives vote upon.

    In this high-tech information age we should be able to have direct input into a whole range of policy decisions without the costs and run-around of traditional ballot-box referenda. We have secure internet banking which nearly everyone trusts, the gubmint has its Big Brother website; all that’s missing is the will to take elements from both and to actually do it. Obviously our entrenched elites have no desire to share power. But in a technical sense it’s doable.

  36. Felix Kruell

    We can be forgiven for scepticism about the motives of proponents of the plebiscite – they don’t care what the people think, they care about delaying and stymieing the introduction of same sex marriage. The dual party room meeting that led to the plebiscite policy was clear evidence of this.

    A non-binding plebiscite is a giant opinion poll. We already have opinion polls on this issue, and they’ve been clear for years. No matter how the question is phrased. So let’s save the money and the potential torment and just have a parliamentary vote.

  37. struth

    Things change, situations evolve, life goes on. Remember Paul Keating promising it was “l-a-w” or J.H’s “core and non-core” promises or Tony’s “no cuts to ……” We could go on, but why bother?

    Just do it!

    Hey groovy, like, wow, yeah man, hey……just do it.

    This is a blog for adults.

  38. Tom

    We can be forgiven for scepticism about the motives of proponents of the plebiscite – they don’t care what the people think, they care about delaying and stymieing the introduction of same sex marriage.

    How is asking for the opinion of the nation’s entire adult population not caring what people think?

    Sorry, Felix, this is not even a half-hearted attempt to conceal your totalitarian heart. The SSM issue is about whether we allow anti-democrats to railroad the majority.

    A non-binding plebiscite is a giant opinion poll.

    You forgot to mention that it’s a morally binding opinion poll in the privacy of the ballot box where bullies like you can’t threaten people. You win the plebiscite, you get poofter “marriage”. Simple.

  39. Tim Neilson

    .
    #2456214, posted on August 1, 2017 at 10:23 am

    Dot, you’re talking complete bullshit.

    Governments saying that marriage is what it is and has the logical consequences doesn’t affect anyone’s liberty to lead their life however they like. If the government got out of the de facto relationship business, people would be totally at liberty to remain free of the societal constraints of marriage (though they’d also forego the benefits, if any). They could have whatever ceremonies they liked, they could enter into whatever contract they liked to regulate their relationship with each other, they could live together, their lives could be totally as they wanted.

    In fact, the existence of marriage is relevant really only to the married couple’s relationship with other people i.e. the societal aspect. And it doesn’t just constrain them. It also empowers people, if de facto relationships are left alone. For example, someone has worked hard to get wealthy. Regrettably they’ve split with a former spouse. They’re now about to shack up with a new partner. What happens to their wealth when they die? Sure, they can make a will, but their decision whether to marry their new squeeze or not may be a factor in whether a court would enforce that will. Their call. Their decision to marry or not does affect a third party – the former spouse – but it’s their property and their decision.

  40. Felix Kruell

    How is asking for the opinion of the nation’s entire adult population not caring what people think?

    Because you’re assuming they ever expected the plebiscite to pass parliament…what the plebiscite has actually done is delay the issue. It was quite a cunning bit of politics by Abbott.

    Why is the plebiscite more morally binding than an opinion poll? And we see no evidence of it being morally binding – Abetz and Co can’t even bring themselves to commit to vote along the lines of the outcome.

    And relying on parliament to vote is now evidence of a totalitarian heart? I prefer to call it representative democracy…

  41. Tim Neilson

    Things change, situations evolve, life goes on. Remember Paul Keating promising it was “l-a-w” or J.H’s “core and non-core” promises or Tony’s “no cuts to ……” We could go on, but why bother?

    Just do it!

    This is absolutely correct!

    Politicians breaking promises is essential to democracy!

    You KNOW it makes sense!

  42. struth

    If you believe collective rights override individual rights then you are a Leftist by definition.

    That is actually totally incorrect.
    What you say there is a complete deviation from the true understanding of leftism.
    Leftism is classifying people into collective “groups”
    Right wing people treat others as individuals (you know character over colour).
    And therefore the entire, undivided collective known as citizens of a state, have exactly the same rights.
    And apply to every individual, regardless of what collective group the left put that individual in.

    Democracy is collective decision.
    By individuals.

    Using your (Sinc’s) argument, you could argue that no one should have the right to stop a murderer from his individual rights to murder.

    There is libertarianism and then there are extremists like dot who are actually close to anarchy because they don’t quite get the concept that the government should be controlled by the governed.
    They see all government as scary.

    Marriage involves other people, the offspring, and the way people relate to those either married or otherwise throughout the rest of their married lives, not just on the day.
    Married women, for example , are treated differently to single women in many areas of life.
    No right has been taken because no one forces you to participate in this cultural institution in the west.
    If you want to participate in this cultural institution you are recognising it as such.
    Very important point.
    Individual rights have not been denied anywhere.
    No one is denying gays the right to dress up, exchange vows in front of their friends, live together of even adopt kids (although that should not happen as it is detrimental to a child’s development).

    So does an ugly single old white bloke that can’t pull a chick to save himself get to complain because he can’t participate in marriage?

  43. cynical1

    Nothing is more pathetic than an old queen talking about his “husband”.

    Still we know who is the dart and the board, pin and cushion, catcher etc etc.

    Taking the piss maybe the only way.

    In the natural order, a man and woman perpetuate the species.

    Disorders such as infertility may stop it in certain cases.

    Or in all cases of homosexuality.

    So you are not “equal”.

    Case closed.

    See what the brothers in Fairfield think of it…

  44. Bill Griffiths

    Why not just repeal the Marriage Act? Take the government out of the business of marriage altogether. There are plenty of legal protections now for cohabiting couples, same sex or otherwise with regard to property, access to children and so on. Couples who wanted to be married could simply declare themselves to be so or choose a celebrant and engage in a ceremony. Those who wanted to marry before God could go to a church, aware that most churches would only marry heterosexual couples. Many of the difficulties of divorce would simply melt away. Get government out of the way and the whole issue becomes simpler, cheaper and controlled by the people in love rather than the dead hand of government bureaucracy.

  45. A Lurker

    So let’s save the money and the potential torment and just have a parliamentary vote.

    You are depriving the population of their say in the matter.
    If cost is your bugbear then let’s have a bundled plebiscite.
    I suggest the following issues be presented to the Australian public for their consideration – act on the results, have a follow-up plebiscite in 20 years to address other issues.

    SSM: Y/N
    Republic: Y/N
    Retaining our national anthem: Y/N
    Retaining the Australian flag: Y/N
    Changing the date of Australia Day: Y/N
    Removing Australia from the UN: Y/N
    Removing Australia from the refugee charter: Y/N
    Closing down the ABC: Y/N
    Nuclear power: Y/N
    Pausing immigration from Islamic countries: Y/N
    Introducing Sharia Law: Y/N
    Aboriginal recognition: Y/N

  46. Ivan Denisovich

    A non-binding plebiscite is a giant opinion poll. We already have opinion polls on this issue, and they’ve been clear for years.

    Miranda Devine:

    The real reason the same-sex marriage plebiscite never saw the light of day is because advocates feared that it would lose.

    They also know that support for changing the legal definition of marriage is much softer than is widely believed.

    Professional large-scale polling by Marriage Alliance — revealed exclusively and for the first time to readers of this column today — gives the lie to claims that almost 75 per cent of Australians favour same-sex marriage, and that, therefore, the debate is settled and should be rushed through a parliamentary vote.

    According to the poll of 2,500 people taken in December by Sexton Market Research for Marriage Alliance, just 33 per cent of Australians “strongly support” legalising same-sex marriage.

    A further, softer, 19 per cent said they “somewhat support” it, making for a total of 52 per cent in favour. On the other side, 25 per cent were undecided, 20 per cent “strongly opposed” and three per cent “somewhat opposed”.

    Digging deeper into focus groups, however, found that numbers of supporters decline significantly, especially among “soft” supporters, when same-sex marriage is linked to consequences such as sex education and gender politics, with 81 per cent concerned about losing terms like “mum” and “dad” and 75 per cent worried about unisex toilets.

    For example, 81 per cent of all of those polled were “concerned” about the gender of newborns removed from birth certificates, and about words in the English language such as “mum” and “dad” being replaced by “Parent 1” and “Parent 2”.

    And 69 per cent were “concerned” if children are being taught in school that “gender is flexible and they can choose whether they’re male or female”.

    On restrictions to freedom of speech in the workplace for “people with strong beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman”, 67 per cent of those polled were “concerned”.

    Breaking the figures down further, most “soft” supporters of same-sex marriage said they were concerned about social consequences.

    For instance, one question asked if you agree with the statement, “Parents should have the right to know exactly what is taught in sex education classes and have the right to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to any content that goes against their family beliefs”.

    Two thirds (66 per cent) of those who “somewhat support” same-sex marriage agreed with the statement, compared with 49 per cent of strong supporters.

    Of those who are undecided about same-sex marriage, 65 per cent agreed with the statement, compared to 84 per cent of those who strongly oppose same-sex marriage.

    On the question of replacing male and female public toilets and school toilets with unisex toilets, 80 per cent of “soft” supporters of SSM were “concerned” about the idea, as were 60 per cent of “strong” supporters.

    Over time, support for same sex marriage has also eroded, according to Marriage Alliance polling data. In August, 2015, support was at 59 per cent, with 18 per cent undecided.

    Marriage Alliance says the controversy around the Safe Schools program has helped their campaign, as have revelations of harassment and intimidation of Christians by the militant arm of the same-sex marriage lobby.

    Safe Schools, formerly known as “Proud” Schools, is a sexual indoctrination program designed by university gender studies academics, disguised as an anti-bullying program, which is designed to revolutionise family relationships and transform the way children think about gender and heterosexual sex.

    It teaches children, often without parental consent, that gender and sexuality are fluid concepts.

    When Marriage Alliance asked: “Do you think young schoolkids should be taught and encouraged to explore homosexuality and transgender ideas?”, 65 per cent of those polled answered “no”.

    Only Greens voters were in favour, with 76 per cent answering “yes”.

    While same-sex marriage advocates deny the program is linked to the push to redefine marriage, La Trobe University academic Roz Ward, an architect of Safe Schools, has explicitly drawn the connection, telling a rally in 2013 that traditional marriage was “state-sponsored homophobia”.

    Far from being inevitable, change barely has majority support according to this polls, and that’s without factoring in a “shy” no vote in ethnic and faith based groups.

    Marriage Alliance polling found key ethnic communities are overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage, including 75 per cent of Muslim and Hindu Australians.

    Support plummeted for same-sex marriage when it was linked to a social change agenda, including Safe Schools, and when freedom of speech and religion are threatened.

    The irony is that, if the plebiscite had been held in February, as the government planned before Labor scuttled it, Marriage Alliance sources say they may have lost. The poll would have occurred just before Valentine’s Day, which would have helped frame the issues as being just about “love”, the Royal Commission into institutional child sexual abuse was in the news, effectively silencing the churches, and the intimidation of opponents was not as evident.

    But the cynical campaign against the plebiscite by Opposition Bill Shorten, using it as political wedge, has backfired on those who want change.

    That is why they want to force the decision through parliament. The intimidation of opponents, so vicious that Christian organisations have had to suppress the identities of board members, serves a useful purpose.

    It warns individual politicians, especially those who might have skeletons in the closet, about the ruinous consequences of resisting.

    Only a plebiscite can legitimise the result, whichever way it goes.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/miranda-devine-equality-or-hypocrisy-the-big-lie-of-antiplebiscite-campaign/news-story/c93b78cab610cd252b43fa4863a86ca8

  47. Felix Kruell

    Still we know who is the dart and the board, pin and cushion, catcher etc etc.

    Cynical, you seem a little hung up on who does what in the bedroom…wait until you find out that lesbians don’t have darts or pins at all!

    If you want to take a strict view on what ‘equal’ means, then you have to treat socially or medically infertile straight couples the same way – no marriage for them. But we don’t do that, for obvious reasons. And we shouldn’t do that for same sex couples. Again for obvious reasons. Equal in all respects that matter deserves equal treatment at law.

  48. Lysander

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/australian-notes-291/

    Last year Tim Wilson complained about the lack of trust voters have in MPs. Now he obviously believes MPs don’t trust voters.

  49. struth

    Get government out of the way and the whole issue becomes simpler, cheaper and controlled by the people in love rather than the dead hand of government bureaucracy.

    This is why we want a referendum.
    We control marriage, not them.

    Again as my argument states above.
    The church used to be the record keepers of Marriage, but unfortunately we have already gone too far away from that as a society.
    We need records.
    We need to know who is married and who isn’t, due to many situations in life where this needs to be known.
    The government should be brought to heel by us.
    They should be made to do what we f..ing well tell them to do and no more.

    Just keep the records and stay out of it.
    They cannot do this without our consent because politics is downstream from culture.
    They can’t make this decision without us on such a major issue and will invalidate the decision they do make, if they do.
    Gay marriage by this method has no credibility whatsoever.

    Just like a lot of the undemocratic Marxism they shove down our throats, most in the country aren’t buying it.
    Multiculturalism.
    Immigration.
    Safe schools.
    Diversity quotas.
    Not our culture, and not validated by us.
    We were never asked and by god, these pricks are just shooting themselves in the foot, eventually, as we can now see with the dying Liberals, they are going to be reminded good and hard as to what happens to the undemocratic elite.
    Australians are getting very angry.

  50. struth

    If you want to take a strict view on what ‘equal’ means, then you have to treat socially or medically infertile straight couples the same way – no marriage for them. But we don’t do that, for obvious reasons. And we shouldn’t do that for same sex couples. Again for obvious reasons. Equal in all respects that matter deserves equal treatment at law.

    No No No.

    Couples have sexual intercourse, or are able to. (dictionary)
    Homosexuals do not have sexual intercourse.
    They may give each other sexual pleasure but they can’t have sexual intercourse.
    They are friends with benefits.
    Not couples.

  51. Haidee

    Multiculturalism: We were never asked.

    Plebiscite, please. We must have a say
    Stop the bullying

  52. Felix Kruell

    Couples have sexual intercourse, or are able to. (dictionary)
    Homosexuals do not have sexual intercourse.

    You may need to actually consult your dictionary…sexual intercourse involves penetration, including same sex. The definition specifically includes same sex couples.

    Try here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexual%20intercourse

    Or in the Crimes Act NSW (and other states).

    On this basis, I look forward to your advocating for same sex marriage, now that under your own test, they are equal.

  53. Lysander

    Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    It doesn’t say “Men and men” or “whatever you like…”

  54. Felix Kruell

    It doesn’t say “Men and men” or “whatever you like…”

    It also doesn’t just say one man or one woman…bring on polygamy!

  55. struth

    You may need to actually consult your dictionary…sexual intercourse involves penetration, including same sex. The definition specifically includes same sex couples.

    No No No.

    Sexual penetration and sexual intercourse are two specifically different activities.

    You penetrate during sexual intercourse.
    You don’t intercourse with all penetration.

    You can penetrate a box of donuts or a jar of warm hankies, your fist, somebody else’s earhole, but you can’t have sexual intercourse with them.

    You tool.
    So dykes slipping a tongue or finger in is sexual intercourse using your argument………….

    And don’t think quoting me politically correct (and changed) government and leftist dribble from any source can change that.

  56. Felix Kruell

    And don’t think quoting me politically correct (and changed) government and leftist dribble from any source can change that.

    You mean like the dictionary…and the law in Australia. But you have your own definition. That’s OK. You’re just progressive in that sense. I’ve leave you to your donuts and hankies. Have fun.

  57. struth

    My little collins gem dictionary is different to your politically correct , tampered with, version.

    Please tell me what sexual intercourse lezzos are having, as you have only looked at this from the blinkers of male homosexuality, obviously.

    Remember what the law meant when it stated “the sexual penetration of a minor” etc?

    The word penetration was specifically used to cover all sexual abuse that was not intercourse, and actually, physically penetrated somebody.
    That’s why they used the word.
    It’s not rocket science, and the fact that government has been captured by the insanity of Marxists doesn’t mean we all immediately bow down and become insane as well.

  58. iampeter

    The Coalition’s policy on same sex marriage is clear: that there be a national plebiscite. All of the dissembling about whether a plebiscite would traumatise people, or be costly, or be contrary to a Westminter system are wrong.

    So I disagree with this. A plebiscite is something that should be used for determining the national anthem or what the flag looks like and things like that, it should not be used to force the beliefs of the mob on everyone else. This goes against the very concept of legitimate, rights-protecting government as it is against individual rights, which is one of the fundamental concepts underpinning Western Civilization.

    If you believe collective rights override individual rights then you are a Leftist by definition.
    (Sinclair’s definition, just ask him.)

    I think that’s exactly correct and you beat me to it Andrew. This is the reason that what is really a trivial issue like SSM is a big deal IMO, as it demonstrates that many Conservatives do not understand and/or support the concept of individual rights. Which means they are just another branch of leftists, specifically of the religious/traditionalist variety, but they don’t even realize it.

    And this is of course why they bring up SSM (and immigration) all the time. As a big government, left wing movement, Conservatives in Australia have led the way on all the policies that are so destructive to our way of life, from Green laws to the welfare and regulatory state, there’s not a single issue on which they have stood for rights.

    So what’s left for them to do except try and rustle up populist issues like SSM and immigration?

  59. struth

    Yawn, of course Iampeter would come into this.

    A free for all of anarchy or else you’re a screaming leftist.

    No idea how the freedoms he enjoys now came about or that nobody is abusing anyone’s rights by not allowing gays to marry.

    People like Iampeter get their way and the strongest will soon be the totalitarians in charge of the asylum.

    You have the right to free speech.
    You have the right ( or should have the right) to.do whatever you wish so long as you don’t harm others.
    Allowing gays to marry does harm others.
    Very much so.
    In a Christian and mature outlook I believe there is an argument that it is harmful to the gays themselves.
    Look at the implications for enlistment and employment on various levels and the interactions on a day to day basis.

    We have rules and law based on Christianity in this country.
    Thousands of years of social experimentation to call on that shows the family is the key to our success, indeed our survival.
    Iampeter thinks that there is anarchy or communism, and accepts nothing in between.
    It’s too stupid so it must be trolling.

  60. Tim Neilson

    it should not be used to force the beliefs of the mob on everyone else

    This is where the bullshit factor approaches infinity.

    If LGBTQ’s want to believe that two men or two women equals a “marriage”, they’re at liberty to believe that, just like they’re at liberty to believe that two plus two equals five.

    And if a majority of the population are insane enough to accept that, and it gets legislated, well so be it.

    But the two+two=five brigade shouldn’t be allowed to force their views on the rest of society.

    Just like I can’t define myself as being a Commander of the Order of Australia and force other people to accept that. Or demand that some word in the dictionary be redefined to suit me. (Only Labor Prime Ministers are entitled to that.)

    It is wrong for politicians to break promises to voters. Yes, it happens all the time, but that doesn’t make it acceptable.
    If there’s some issue on which there’s been a drastic change since the promise was made (e.g. huge economic upheaval since an economic policy promise was made) then breaking it might be justified.
    But there’s nothing remotely approaching that here.

    It’s academic of course because a Peanut Head government is coming soon to a replica Venezuela near you, and they’ll legislate it instantly.
    But that’s no justification for the Termite government to trash its promise.

  61. Tim Neilson

    Agree with you struth, but its inaccurate to talk about “.. not allowing gays to marry”.
    You might as well talk about “not allowing” someone to be in two places at the same time, or “not allowing” two plus two to equal five.

  62. iampeter

    A free for all of anarchy or else you’re a screaming leftist.

    That’s not the alternative: it’s individual rights or you’re a leftist.

    No idea how the freedoms he enjoys now came about or that nobody is abusing anyone’s rights by not allowing gays to marry.

    You don’t understand how rights work, which means you don’t understand politics, period.

    You’re like someone who wants to talk footy but has never understood the concept “sport” before. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

  63. struth

    Agree with you struth, but its inaccurate to talk about “.. not allowing gays to marry”.
    You might as well talk about “not allowing” someone to be in two places at the same time, or “not allowing” two plus two to equal five.

    We don’t allow sister and brother to marry.
    Of course, to Iampeter, that is an infringement on the rights of the siblings and makes us all totalitarian lefties.
    Society owns marriage.
    Our culture and civilisation hold it in trust.
    A marriage celebrant has always asked if there was any reason why these two should not be married.
    Speak now or forever hold your piece.
    It is a contract between the society and the couple.
    The society are your fellow citizens who through democracy, decide the laws which govern us.
    Basic stuff.
    You haven’t had any right taken away from you.
    Society has declared that a pe d o should not be allowed near kids.
    Organisations have rules on entry.
    I wouldn’t get into the Swedish bikini team.
    Yet no ones stopping me putting one on………..until they see the result.
    You do however, impinge on other’s rights if you force those people to change their beliefs.
    Which is what it is all about.
    Gays can live with all the legal rights of the married now, but these Marxists (not gay rights) activists must force their world view on others.
    This “individual rights” seems to only exist for people anarchists want to use to destroy the joint, be they right wing or left.
    And you don’t have an individual right to harm or force others.

  64. struth

    You don’t understand how rights work, which means you don’t understand politics, period.

    You’re like someone who wants to talk footy but has never understood the concept “sport” before. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    There’s a argument in there somewhere, it’s just disguised with the name calling of a failure.

  65. notafan

    excellent words there Tim Neilson

    I agree

    some people may insist that a triangle can actually be a square but that will not make it so

  66. struth

    And I did say piece deliberately, just reading back it didn’t come out as humorously as I hoped.

  67. Stimpson J. Cat

    Goddamn uppity gay people fighting to get married and fight over which one of them becomes a step parent because they cannot both be real parents to the same child.
    Where do gay’s come from?
    That’s right, heterosexuals.
    Heterosexuals are responsible for the existence of the gay’s.
    Without them, gay’s do not exist.
    Say thank you for a change you gay Muppet’s.

  68. Snoopy

    I want to see these basstards suffering severe hopophobia.

  69. Snoopy

    Hopophobia.
    Bring.It.On.

  70. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    The best cure for the homosexual stasi is of course open borders. Within a few short years our homosexual brothers and sisters will not be irrationally and hysterically haranguing us for fake marriage certificates but for parachutes and nets to break their fall from 10 storeys up.

  71. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    I support marriage as a positive force for healthy societies. If gay partners, who constitute less than 3% of the population, genuinely want to marry, then I support it.

    Incidentally I also support policy that makes it more difficult for marriages to end.

    True. I believe it was Tim Blair who first said he supported gay marriage but would ban them from divorcing.

  72. Roger

    You don’t understand how rights work, which means you don’t understand politics, period.

    And you don’t understand the distinction between natural rights and legal rights, which means you don’t understand rights…period.

  73. Fisky

    Digging deeper into focus groups, however, found that numbers of supporters decline significantly, especially among “soft” supporters, when same-sex marriage is linked to consequences such as sex education and gender politics, with 81 per cent concerned about losing terms like “mum” and “dad” and 75 per cent worried about unisex toilets.

    This is exactly why they oppose a plebiscite. They know that a significant portion of SSM will melt away under the scrutiny of open debate.

  74. Deplorable

    Please tell me what sexual intercourse lezzos are having, as you have only looked at this from the blinkers of male homosexuality, obviously.

    I believe the word is d°° mbui

  75. .

    Tim Neilson
    #2456323, posted on August 1, 2017 at 11:58 am
    .
    #2456214, posted on August 1, 2017 at 10:23 am

    Dot, you’re talking complete bullshit.

    No I am not. You are basing your arguments on externalities. The valuation of these externalities is entirely subjective.

    You have no more right deciding on this than myself or Parliament does on how many kids James Packer ought to have.

    The best solution is to repeal the marriage act and various aspect of or the entire sex discrimination act.

    The second best solution is to allow for gay marriage and make similar repeals of the SDA.

    Other commenters are correct, the reason why they don’t want a plebiscite is because then Parliament would have less legitimacy over a many number of things.

    It also empowers people

    What a ridiculous argument, it isn’t a conservative one. The same “argument” can be made for gay marriage, safe schools…solar panels…

    There is libertarianism and then there are extremists like dot who are actually close to anarchy because they don’t quite get the concept that the government should be controlled by the governed. They see all government as scary.

    You haven’t been listening. What I ultimately want is sortition and recall and veto powers through CIR, automatic sunset clauses and so on. We want government by the balls. That is real republicanism.

    Ultimately under that system, the marriage act would be repealed. The churches would control marriage as they see fit and other parties could seek a lawyer and private celebrant.

    Why on earth would I support “government”. By definition, it is failure. Statistical linkage keys. The ridiculously overpriced Westconnex. Decades of corruption in our largest police forces. A well-funded military that can’t do very much because of absurd procurement decisions. Local Councils investigating churches that don’t openly support SSM ((!) an egregious and loony example of rank Stalinism!). Public schools that nearly always underperform and cost more per student than private schools. Putting degrees in gender studies and surfing on the taxpayer’s bill. Councils telling you what colour you can paint your own home. A judiciary that is selected nearly entirely on political grounds and not merit. 600 bn AUD of debt pissed away on almost nothing worth keeping or building in the first instance. Cheques to dead people to “stimulate” an economy not even in recession…

    You would be crazy to not openly support anarchy and radical change to the Constitution after all of that. Dare I say, it a sucker or even dangerous to yourself and others.

    A Lurker
    #2456409, posted on August 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm
    So let’s save the money and the potential torment and just have a parliamentary vote.

    You are depriving the population of their say in the matter.
    If cost is your bugbear then let’s have a bundled plebiscite.
    I suggest the following issues be presented to the Australian public for their consideration – act on the results, have a follow-up plebiscite in 20 years to address other issues.

    SSM: Y/N
    Republic: Y/N
    Retaining our national anthem: Y/N
    Retaining the Australian flag: Y/N
    Changing the date of Australia Day: Y/N
    Removing Australia from the UN: Y/N
    Removing Australia from the refugee charter: Y/N
    Closing down the ABC: Y/N
    Nuclear power: Y/N
    Pausing immigration from Islamic countries: Y/N
    Introducing Sharia Law: Y/N
    Aboriginal recognition: Y/N

    That would be great, but Parliament won’t allow it. Particularly Federally, where compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing entrenches a political class of “conservatives” and closet communists. They will not give up their power which is why they are reluctant to have a binding plebiscite. I suggest sortition, recall and negative initiatives are better…every proposed constitutional amendment since the mid 1970s has either increased their power, reduced the power of the judiciary or maintained the power they have.

    This is no accident.

    I’d like another plebiscite, maybe a referendum: remove the marriage power from the Federal parliament and not reserve it to the states and their absurd and obsolete residuary plenary powers.

  76. .

    Lysander
    #2456459, posted on August 1, 2017 at 2:03 pm
    Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

    Are you going to use UN treaties consistently to argue for what ought? I can accept them being used to argue for a legal case, but we really ought to junk them all.

  77. Habib

    Repeal the marriage act, that’d stun the buggers.

  78. Tim Neilson

    The best solution is to repeal the marriage act and various aspect of or the entire sex discrimination act.

    Why can’t people who don’t like the Marriage Act just not get married? Why not leave it in place for those that want it? Isn’t that better respecting people’s liberties? As I said, that requires the government to get out of regulating de facto relationships, but marriage per se needn’t be touched. (And even people who don’t want the Marriage Act can still have religious weddings and marriages, all they have to do is to decline to sign the government’s register.)

    Other commenters are correct, the reason why they don’t want a plebiscite is because then Parliament would have less legitimacy over a many number of things.

    Excellent. When do we start?

    What a ridiculous argument, it isn’t a conservative one.

    This may come as a surprise, but some of us don’t care whether a particular view fits a stereotype.

    The same “argument” can be made for gay marriage, safe schools…solar panels…

    Gay “marriage” – yes but they can get the same empowerment through civil unions, without the legislated “two plus two is deemed to equal five” bullshit, which is a good and sufficient reason to oppose gay “marriage”. [I’m not saying that gay relationships ought necessarily be treated identically to marriages, but if it is decided by society that they should, in any particular respect, that’s easily dealt with through the civil union mechanism without 2+2=5.]
    Safe schools – yes, but the empowerment of fedopiles comes at the cost of utter disempowerment of the kids and their parents, which is a good and sufficient reason to oppose it.
    Solar panels – yes, but that comes from disempowerment of the taxpayers who have to fund it, which is a good and sufficient reason to oppose it.
    Whereas people choosing to sign up for the Marriage Act or not may well affect third parties – the societal aspects – but not in a way that those parties should be entitled to complain about.

  79. .

    You’re championing inconsistency if you’re not making conservative arguments as a conservative.

    You say the marriage act should stay but then you want civil unions for those who can’t get married now. Which has the same effect as repealing the marriage act. How does putting it in the hands of government for the same outcome increase or defend liberties? You also then want to strip the government of powers, whilst at the same time having them keep power over marriage.

    You then turn to utilitarian arguments after you’ve justified something on personal preference after you couldn’t justify it on “empowerment”.

    Your position can’t really be defended or attacked either way. It isn’t a good basis to attack anyone else’s perspective though.

    This really is largely unimportant though. We’re 600 bn in debt and no one cares.

  80. Habib

    I fail to see how it’s any business of government. The less those dickheads have to do with people’s lives the better.

  81. Tim Neilson

    You’re championing inconsistency if you’re not making conservative arguments as a conservative.
    I am not going to adopt or reject a position just because of whether it’s labelled “conservative” or not.
    You say the marriage act should stay but then you want civil unions for those who can’t get married now. Which has the same effect as repealing the marriage act.
    Wrong. My position gives choice for everyone, sign up for a government regulated relationship or choose not to. It gives that choice without deemed 2+2=5 laws. (Subject only to the proviso that society might decide that regulated gay unions don’t operate exactly like marriages e.g. in relation to adoption – I don’t have any opinion on that issue per se but it might be one where a distinction could legitimately be made.)
    How does putting it in the hands of government for the same outcome increase or defend liberties?
    The government should make available the choice. That’s more consistent with liberty. Insisting that the government should not offer the choice is restrictive of liberty.
    You also then want to strip the government of powers, whilst at the same time having them keep power over marriage.
    Yes, precisely, so that people can choose whether or not they want to subject themselves to the marriage power (or gay civil union power).
    You then turn to utilitarian arguments after you’ve justified something on personal preference after you couldn’t justify it on “empowerment”.
    I did justify it on the basis of empowerment. And why should any of those three strands be inconsistent with each other? E.g. giving people a choice via “personal preference” is empowering.
    Your position can’t really be defended or attacked either way.
    Well, I half agree with that.

  82. Jannie

    Dot, why would a civil union type contract have the effect of appealing the marriage Act? I would have thought a separate institution would actually protect and even strengthen the tradition of marriage. There would be some issues such as property rights which could be common to both institutions, and individuals could not access both institutions concurrently. But sure, siblings, good mates or gay people could access it to protect existing mutual property arrangements, but not to obtain additional rights over children or adoption.

    Its a distraction from the gorilla in the loungeroom, but it wont go away so why not make a solution and get back to the main game.

  83. bobby b

    If we straights have to get married, gays should have to too.

    It’s only fair.

  84. a reader

    I’m so sick of the meme that Howard changed the marriage act. All Howard did was ensure that the legislation was abundantly clear that it meant what it was always meant to be. In the 1990s and early 2000s no self-respecting gay wanted to even think about being married as it was right-wing oppression or some similar bullshit

  85. We can be forgiven for scepticism about the motives of proponents of the plebiscite – they don’t care what the people think, they care about delaying and stymieing the introduction of same sex marriage. The dual party room meeting that led to the plebiscite policy was clear evidence of this.

    A non-binding plebiscite is a giant opinion poll. We already have opinion polls on this issue, and they’ve been clear for years. No matter how the question is phrased. So let’s save the money and the potential torment and just have a parliamentary vote.

    That is a really dumb comment. A plebiscite is not a sample of the electorate. And it will involve some actual deliberation of the issue before people are asked to give their decision.

  86. Felix K:

    If you want to take a strict view on what ‘equal’ means, then you have to treat socially or medically infertile straight couples the same way – no marriage for them. But we don’t do that, for obvious reasons. And we shouldn’t do that for same sex couples. Again for obvious reasons. Equal in all respects that matter deserves equal treatment at law.

    As Struth already said, you have no idea what you are talking about. Having a child was never the completion of marriage, consummation was, and that was achieved by coitus. So, infertile straight couples are quite safe, always have been.

  87. You don’t understand how rights work, which means you don’t understand politics, period.

    LOL. This is truly rich coming from iampeter.

  88. This is exactly why they oppose a plebiscite. They know that a significant portion of SSM will melt away under the scrutiny of open debate.

    Bingo!

  89. Fisky

    The second best solution is to allow for gay marriage and make similar repeals of the SDA.

    There is no prospect of this happening. It’s Left-wing gay marriage or nothing. That’s all.

  90. Fisky

    Most “libertarians” love gay marriage. They endorse Leftist gay marriage, priests being locked up, bakers being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and so on.

  91. No I am not. You are basing your arguments on externalities.

    Did he really? I don’t think so. He said that marriage was such and such and that this has certain features that promote the public good. Not quite what you’re insinuating.

  92. I’m so sick of the meme that Howard changed the marriage act. All Howard did was ensure that the legislation was abundantly clear that it meant what it was always meant to be.

    Correct, A Reader. All the 2004 amendment did was include the existing common law definition in the 1961 Act that already defined what marriage meant as a matter of law. What these people, typically lawyers, are decrying, is that the amendment robbed the judiciary of the chance of redefining the term marriage, and thereby, the 1961 Act, via judicial activism. To which I heartily respond, tough titties.

  93. Fisky

    Iampeter believes the ancient Romans were pro-gay marriage loving atheists. This isn’t a caricature at all. That’s what he thinks.

  94. Fisky, I love these fantasies that libertarians have about classical culture. The idea that the Romans would have recognized same-sex ‘marriage’ is laughable and grotesque, which was the whole point of Nero’s jape.

  95. You have no more right deciding on this than myself or Parliament does on how many kids James Packer ought to have.

    The best solution is to repeal the marriage act and various aspect of or the entire sex discrimination act.

    The second best solution is to allow for gay marriage and make similar repeals of the SDA.

    Except that the courts will decide what is marriage. So, what your so-called ‘best solution’ does is nothing more than cede this power to the judiciary. Why we should think this is any better than the Parliament or the People deciding such matters is beyond me. And, as Fisky says, there is simply no prospect of the SDA being repealed in whole or part and from what I hear so the support of libertarians is not conditional on any of this actually occurring, so it’s all posturing and arse-covering.

  96. cynical1

    “Cynical, you seem a little hung up on who does what in the bedroom…wait until you find out that lesbians don’t have darts or pins at all!”.

    No, I am hung up on these people pushing sodomy as an alternative to traditional marriage.

  97. Cynical, you seem a little hung up on who does what in the bedroom…

    LOL, hello Mardi Gras.

  98. Tim Neilson

    I wonder what the following, from Fullagar J in the Communist party case, indicates about the idea of legislated “gay marriage” under a Constitutional power over “marriage”? The High Court’s striking down of the ACT gay “marriage” laws indicates that gay marriage is within the scope of the Commonwealth power, but since both parties agreed to fight the case on the assumption that gay “marriage” was not inherently unconstitutional that part of the case seems ripe for reconsideration. I’d personally think that a prohibition against State/Territory tack-ons doesn’t imply that a Commonwealth tack-on would be valid.

    A power to make laws with respect to lighthouses does not authorize the making of a law with respect to anything which is, in the opinion of the law-maker, a lighthouse. A power to make a proclamation carrying legal consequences with respect to a lighthouse is one thing: a power to make a similar proclamation with respect to anything which in the opinion of the Governor-General is a lighthouse is another thing.

    Just mentally replace “lighthouse” with “marriage” and all will be clear.

    And if you ever need an example of impressive, jargon laden verbiage with no discernible meaning, go to the ACT marriage case judgement and read the High Court’s purported justification for saying that the Commonwealth can legislate for gay “marriage”.

  99. Felix Kruell

    Having a child was never the completion of marriage

    That is a surprise. We’ve been fending off arguments that gays can’t marry because they can’t have kids for years!

  100. Felix Kruell

    What these people, typically lawyers, are decrying, is that the amendment robbed the judiciary of the chance of redefining the term marriage, and thereby, the 1961 Act, via judicial activism.

    Howard did so in an act of parliamentary activism. And he did so without a plebiscite. The people didn’t get a say! Who would have thought it possible?

  101. Felix Kruell

    No, I am hung up on these people pushing sodomy as an alternative to traditional marriage.

    You may be surprised that sodomy has been part of traditional marriage for a long time…don’t tell me you’ve been missing out?

    Always nice when the cloak falls and we realise with most of you it’s not actually about rights or institutions, but just about your icky feelings about gays. Bless.

  102. .

    I don’t get the conservative impulse to keep marriage regulated by the state. Canon law marriage would give you what you want.

    It is comical to think that canon law would see “marriage defined by the courts”, considering conservative support here is for the exact same thing, backdated to 1961. What was in that Act was simply the common law when the Commonwealth took over and codified what marriage and divorce was to one common law.

    The common law that was based on was from England and in part arose from ecclesiastical courts.

    It would be a contract and you could take it or leave it. If you don’t want courts to enforce contracts, either you want anarchy or you want to abolish contracts.

    “But gays” and “but the left wing give you no choice” is just political cowardice and sensationalist mental incompetence.

  103. Tim Neilson

    I don’t get the conservative impulse to keep marriage regulated by the state.

    I don’t get the supposedly “libertarian” impulse to deny individuals the choice.

    Get government out of de facto relationships (i.e. any relationship where the participants choose not to sign the government register) and you’ve achieved 100% of the deregulation that’s desirable.

    What’s wrong with people being allowed, voluntarily, to sign up to a regulatory regime if that’s what they really want to do? Just because Dot the totalitarian doesn’t like it shouldn’t mean that every other individual in the entire nation is denied the opportunity.

  104. Neil

    Howard did so in an act of parliamentary activism. And he did so without a plebiscite. The people didn’t get a say! Who would have thought it possible?

    Howard did not do anything revolutionary

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_%28Australia%29#Marriage_Amendment_Act_2004

    On 27 May 2004, approximately two months after the UK proposed its Civil Partnership Act 2004, the then federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock introduced the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004,[8] to incorporate the common law definition of marriage into the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act.[9] This bill was meant to clarify the meaning of the term ‘marriage’ in the Marriage Act because the Act had lacked a definition up till that time.

  105. .

    Tim you haven’t come up with a clever argument against gay marriage, but all marriage, following all of the bizarre nonsense you have just written. You’re being consistent only when it is convenient once again.

    You’re not giving me a Clayton’s choice because SSM is a second best to repealing marriage legislation anyway. I’ve already prioritised the choices.

  106. That is a surprise. We’ve been fending off arguments that gays can’t marry because they can’t have kids for years!

    Only a surprise to someone unfamiliar with the arguments.

    Howard did so in an act of parliamentary activism. And he did so without a plebiscite. The people didn’t get a say! Who would have thought it possible?

    No, he did not. He simply wrote the existing common law definition of marriage into legislation. That is not ‘activism’ of any sort.

    You may be surprised that sodomy has been part of traditional marriage for a long time…don’t tell me you’ve been missing out?

    Sodomy is no more a part of marriage then is lasagna.

  107. Haidee

    If it’s right that sodomy’s been part of marriage, it could account for the divorce rate; maybe spouses got turned off by faeces-fancying. icky and yucky

    Conservatives/Canon law marriage: it’s probably true to say that ‘would give you what you want’.

  108. struth

    You may be surprised that sodomy has been part of traditional marriage for a long time…don’t tell me you’ve been missing out?

    Always nice when the cloak falls and we realise with most of you it’s not actually about rights or institutions, but just about your icky feelings about gays. Bless.

    Yep, I’d certainly be surprised.
    Surprised how you’d know that.

    A marriage is consummated on the wedding night.

    Kings were watched by staff to make sure the deed was done.
    The royal sheets were checked.

    Sexual intercourse, not buggery, consummates the marriage.
    Penetration , as disgust yesterday did not.
    And still does not.

    A blowy or a tit f..ck does not.
    If I have to get crude.
    What is it you don’t get.

    Saying that anal penetration has been part of traditional marriage for a long time just gave you zero credibility.
    That’s like saying all married couple dress up as super heroes and swing from the chandelier.
    Sure, some might, but dressing up as batman does not consummate a marriage.
    Neither does sodomy.
    Sexual intercourse does.

  109. struth

    Felix, if you are gay, my response to you is this.

    You should not be discriminated against because you are gay in many areas.

    Some people are too short or too weak to join police forces, SAS etc.
    No matter how much they stick their thumb in their gob and blow they will not grow any taller.
    They can’t join the SAS.
    A short white hairy male has buckley’s of joining the Swedish bikini team.
    Blind people can’t get jobs as pilots.
    Do I have to keep going?
    And some gays wonder why they get treated the way they do.
    Many people have disorders or physical/ mental problems that prohibit certain life choices.
    You should not be discriminated against because you have a disorder, and most people feel toward gay people that we want them to find as much love and happiness in their lives as they can.
    However, to cope with this disorder you prefer delusion and insist that others walk away from the plain truth and become delusional as well.
    You can’t have the word marriage.
    You’ve got everything else that goes with it anyway.
    Therefore, it isn’t about your rights, it’s about tearing down what smacks your selfish, entitled delusion in the face.
    You can’t have it all.
    No one can.
    Deal with it for the good of your civilisation.
    Grow up.

  110. Tim Neilson

    Shorter Dot: “I don’t like the Marriage Act, therefore everyone else should be forbidden to voluntarily choose whether or not they go into it. BAN IT NOW!!! That’s the libertarian way!”

    Dot, the Federal government has Constitutional power to legislate a regime to regulate marriage. If they choose to do so, and if they choose (assuming they have Constitutional power to do so) to have a parallel regime for similar LGBTQ etc. relationships (called “civil unions” or whatever so as not to legislate a falsehood by deeming provision), but they stay right out of any relationship where the participants choose not to sign up to that regime, what’s the problem?

    Why are you so obsessed with your Stalinist wish to deny people the right to sign up to such a regime if they freely choose to do so?

    The distinction between a marriage and an LGBTQ etc. relationship is a simple matter of reality. Legislation shouldn’t prescribe falsehood into law. That’s why the law shouldn’t call something a “marriage” that simply isn’t.
    But (subject to constitutionality, and to policy decisions on each specific right and obligation that goes with the Marriage Act) there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be such a regime for LGBTQ etc. relationships to be signed up to, but only if the participants voluntarily choose to do so.

    There’s not the slightest inconsistency in anything I’ve posted.

    You’re the one who’s being inconsistent, claiming to stand up for liberty by denying people the liberty to sign up for the Marriage Act if they freely choose to do so.

  111. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Fisky, I love these fantasies that libertarians have about classical culture. The idea that the Romans would have recognized same-sex ‘marriage’ is laughable and grotesque, which was the whole point of Nero’s jape.

    They would have recognised it by having the happy couple fight a few lions while the crowd cheered them on.

  112. Felix Kruell

    You can’t have the word marriage.

    Want to bet? Gays have it in most of the Western World now, and they will have it here too. And the world will not collapse, civilisation will continue, and you can continue to consummate your marriages in the missionary position with the lights out and feel superior as a result.

    And true conservatives and libertarians will approve that the institution of marriage has been embraced by even more people, and that the state has ceased discriminating against individuals without just cause.

    A disorder? Really? And you want me to grow up?

  113. struth

    Want to bet? Gays have it in most of the Western World now, and they will have it here too. And the world will not collapse, civilisation will continue, and you can continue to consummate your marriages in the missionary position with the lights out and feel superior as a result.

    And true conservatives and libertarians will approve that the institution of marriage has been embraced by even more people, and that the state has ceased discriminating against individuals without just cause.

    A disorder? Really? And you want me to grow up?

    Really, it’s all about you isn’t it?
    At the expense of everyone and everything else.

    Why do you have a penis?
    Did nature put it there to give you something to do with the hand you’re not scratching your arse with?
    It is a sexual organ for the sake of reproduction.
    The only reason the natural world has sex at all is for reproduction.
    Your wires are crossed.
    You have a disorder.
    So do many other people in this world, in many varied forms, as explained above.
    Deal with it without selfish resentment toward others.
    Like many millions of other people do, who are adult enough to realise they are not perfect.
    You don’t have marriage anywhere.
    You just have people humouring you and your delusion.
    And that is lazy and insulting to you.
    You are like a spoilt brat that has been given a lollie to shut him up.
    It does you no good and is an insult to you, and has bad flow on effects later, as well.

    That first paragraph of yours says so much.
    The gay activism which is Marxist hatred of the west using gays as a victim group, is quite noticeably bringing down our civilisation, which is it’s aim, and with which envy and entitlement (displayed in your first paragraph) is used.
    Your blindness to this, due to emotion over maturity and any recognition of what gave rise to the civilisation that gave you so much, will definitely cause our civilisation to collapse, as is starting to happen.
    We will then be replaced by a civilisation that will throw you off the top of the nearest building.
    Or burn you alive.
    You fucking entitled idiot.

  114. And true conservatives and libertarians will approve that the institution of marriage has been embraced by even more people, and that the state has ceased discriminating against individuals without just cause.

    But there’s the rub, two homosexuals cannot ’embrace’ marriage. You can pretend, sure, but you cannot really perform the functions of marriage, privately or socially. Moreover, the state does not discriminate against individuals, nothing stops homosexuals from marrying the opposite sex.

    BTW, it’s always amusing to see libertarians promote state intervention (marriage redefinition) in the name of getting the state out of marriage.

  115. Tim Neilson

    Felix Kruell
    #2457154, posted on August 2, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    Ah, yes, the old “it’s happening, therefore it’s good” argument.

    So it’s just a race between LGBTQ etc. “marriage” and sharia law.

  116. Felix Kruell

    Ah, yes, the old “it’s happening, therefore it’s good” argument.

    No, the ‘it’s happening’, therefore ‘you can’t have the word marriage’ is wrong. Not so good at reading comprehensive are you?

  117. Felix Kruell

    We will then be replaced by a civilisation that will throw you off the top of the nearest building.
    Or burn you alive.
    You fucking entitled idiot.

    Looks like we can’t have a civil discussion here. Sad.

  118. The, “Oh, X happened, and the civilization has not fallen” could also be said about the current situation. It could be said about 18C, it could be said about deficit spending, and so on. It’s an intellectual dull and stupid argument. Bless.

  119. Felix Kruell

    You can pretend, sure, but you cannot really perform the functions of marriage, privately or socially.

    Is it still pretending when the law has changed, the dictionary has changed, and society’s attitudes have changed? The functions of marriage have changed before, and those changes have been absorbed over time, so there is no more pretending. It will be the same here.

    Libertarians above have made the argument that best for the state to get out of marriage, but for so long as they are involved, they shouldn’t discriminate without good grounds. Nothing inconsistent with that argument.

  120. struth

    Looks like we can’t have a civil discussion here. Sad.

    The truth is uncivilised to you?

  121. Fisky

    The, “Oh, X happened, and the civilization has not fallen” could also be said about the current situation. It could be said about 18C, it could be said about deficit spending, and so on. It’s an intellectual dull and stupid argument. Bless.

    This argument also works against the Left. People make “racist” statements quite often, indeed the President of the US has said many “racist” things. But civilisation hasn’t fallen – stock market’s up by 20 points! We should let racism slide, it’s really not a big deal.

  122. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Attitudes have not changed.

    Even among people who believe in the fantasy of homosexual marriage no one actually believes that sham is the equivalent of a heterosexual union. Even homos know that. And until 3 minutes ago they were cool with that.

  123. Fisky

    I don’t get the conservative impulse to keep marriage regulated by the state.

    But libertarians are the loudest supporters of state-regulated marriage. Indeed they even want to expand the area of state control to encompass homosexual couples.

  124. Is it still pretending when the law has changed, the dictionary has changed, and society’s attitudes have changed?

    Yes, but just yet the law has not changed, the dictionary has not changed, and society’s attitudes can be determined by a plebiscite.

    The functions of marriage have changed before, and those changes have been absorbed over time, so there is no more pretending. It will be the same here.

    I’m not talking about this or that incidental function but about those that make marriage what it is.

    Libertarians above have made the argument that best for the state to get out of marriage, but for so long as they are involved, they shouldn’t discriminate without good grounds. Nothing inconsistent with that argument.

    The state cannot get out of marriage, either or both the courts and the Parliament will be involved. There is no discrimination. Marriage just is a relationship between the sexes. Anyone can engage in such a relationship. It is not discriminatory to consider relationships between the same sex another type of relationship.

  125. struth

    Is it still pretending when the law has changed, the dictionary has changed, and society’s attitudes have changed?

    Society’s attitudes have changed so much you don’t want to let it have a say!!

    You are trying to ram this through without the support of the people.
    You don’t get marriage that way.
    What I would like you to consider is the institution of a family.
    The institution, that if kept strong, helps to keep government at bay.
    Totalitarian are attacking it with every tool they have.
    And homosexuals and SSM is one of the biggest tools they have.
    The flow on effects from things like safe schools and gender insanity war on the family will only be much more enabled.
    You’ve got everything except the word now.
    If you had any brains you would realise the preservation of a free market west is your best chance of surviving.
    We want you to survive.
    We want the west to survive.
    Diminishing marriage, for our breeding couples , thereby empowering cultural Marxism, won’t help you guys in the long run.
    It will get you tossed off of tall buildings.
    However “uncivilised” it may sound.

  126. struth

    It will get you tossed off of tall buildings.

    Although that could be read two ways.

  127. .

    Tim Neilson
    #2457125, posted on August 2, 2017 at 11:30 am
    Shorter Dot: “I don’t like the Marriage Act, therefore everyone else should be forbidden to voluntarily choose whether or not they go into it. BAN IT NOW!!! That’s the libertarian way!”

    This is pretty dumb Tim. You could go to a solicitor and ask for a no fault divorce based marriage contract.

  128. Felix Kruell

    The state cannot get out of marriage, either or both the courts and the Parliament will be involved. There is no discrimination. Marriage just is a relationship between the sexes. Anyone can engage in such a relationship. It is not discriminatory to consider relationships between the same sex another type of relationship.

    The courts might need to be involved to adjudicate disputes, but why do you think they otherwise need to be involved in marriage?

    Your definition of discrimination is a little limited. Let’s reword your statement and see if that helps.

    There is no discrimination. Marriage just is a relationship between the races. Anyone can engage in such a relationship. It is not discriminatory to consider relationships between the same races another type of relationship

    If we allow the state to exclude a class of people from a state sanctioned right, either explicitly or inherently by how that right it expressed, it should be for a clear purpose. As so many courts in so many countries have found, there is no clear purpose that requires marriage to be limited to opposite sex couples.

  129. struth

    There is no discrimination. Marriage just is a relationship between the races. Anyone can engage in such a relationship. It is not discriminatory to consider relationships between the same races another type of relationship

    You’ve just shot yourself in the foot.
    Work out how.

  130. struth

    Trying to be smart and changing it to “races” doesn’t work.

    Marriage is a relationship BETWEEN the races, is the key to this.

    Foreign affairs agreements aren’t signed by members of the same country.

  131. Tintarella di Luna

    Funny I thought you would have bene in favour of making all people equal before the law

    People are equal before the law

  132. struth

    If we allow the state to exclude a class of people from a state sanctioned right, either explicitly or inherently by how that right it expressed, it should be for a clear purpose. As so many courts in so many countries have found, there is no clear purpose that requires marriage to be limited to opposite sex couples.

    It’s fine to agree with everything free speech prohibiting, bribe taking, politically activated, constitution avoiding, weasels courts say when it suits you, but the bastards were to be militantly ignored and ridiculed when they didn’t.
    Pathetic.
    So what about sharia courts?
    And many, many, others.

  133. Felix Kruell

    Trying to be smart and changing it to “races” doesn’t work.

    Because….

  134. Felix Kruell

    It’s fine to agree with everything free speech prohibiting, bribe taking, politically activated, constitution avoiding, weasels courts say when it suits you, but the bastards were to be militantly ignored and ridiculed when they didn’t.

    They don’t always get it right. But on this issue, they did. The arguments they used are remarkably consistent, across multiple states and countries. But by all means disagree, and tell us what clear purposes should allow the state to limit marriage to opposite sex couples. I hope yours are better than the laughable purposes put forward to the courts in the US in particular.

  135. iampeter

    The only reason the natural world has sex at all is for reproduction.

    Sounds like you’re the only one with “wires crossed” and potentially a “disorder”. Although it’s probably not fair to call “stupidity” a disorder.

    Looks like we can’t have a civil discussion here. Sad.

    Welcome to The Cat – the Internets top destination for clueless, religious, traditionalist leftists that can be triggered with the drop of a hat. These people make the secular lefties look pretty sane by comparison. There’s nothing like this anywhere on the internet.

    “If we allow the state to exclude a class of people from a state sanctioned right, either explicitly or inherently by how that right it expressed, it should be for a clear purpose. As so many courts in so many countries have found, there is no clear purpose that requires marriage to be limited to opposite sex couples.”
    You’re wasting your breath, these people don’t understand what “rights” are or how they work, they don’t understand politics but spend their time on a political blog getting triggered by people they disagree with but can’t debate.

    Bottom line, their argument amounts to the definition of marriage having a causal relationship to what a government should or should not do for some reason. They just have no clue what they’re talking about.

    The best solution is to repeal the marriage act

    I agree this would solve the problem for those of us on the Right, but that’s not what the leftie, Conservative movement is about. Gotta meddle in peoples lives because culture or jesus or something else not related to politics!

  136. .

    The best solution is to repeal the marriage act

    I agree this would solve the problem for those of us on the Right, but that’s not what the leftie, Conservative movement is about. Gotta meddle in peoples lives because culture or jesus or something else not related to politics!

    That also got labelled “totalitarian”, as did I.

    The level of discourse here is like monkeys flinging shit at each other.

  137. a reader

    Struth and Tinta you are on fire!

    And sure enough here comes Peter to tell us that everyone left of Genghis Khan is a communist

  138. The courts might need to be involved to adjudicate disputes, but why do you think they otherwise need to be involved in marriage?

    Did I say there need to be other reasons for involvement; no, but even so, the courts would be required to determine what counts as marriage for the purposes of the court.

    Your definition of discrimination is a little limited. Let’s reword your statement and see if that helps.

    There is no discrimination. Marriage just is a relationship between the races. Anyone can engage in such a relationship. It is not discriminatory to consider relationships between the same races another type of relationship

    If we allow the state to exclude a class of people from a state sanctioned right, either explicitly or inherently by how that right it expressed, it should be for a clear purpose. As so many courts in so many countries have found, there is no clear purpose that requires marriage to be limited to opposite sex couples.

    It’s not limited at all. Marriage just is a relationship between the sexes. Your little rewording does nothing to highlight any purported limitation. Further, the state does not exclude a class of people from marriage. As was already stated, they are completely free to marry someone of the opposite sex, but if they want to engage in a relationship with the same sex, that is not marriage. Finally, as to your last claim, Article 16 of the UN declaration:

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    I’m sure we can find this thought expressed in the common law or civil law jurisdiction of each of these courts, which they seem to have arrogantly set aside.

  139. The only reason the natural world has sex at all is for reproduction.

    Sounds like you’re the only one with “wires crossed” and potentially a “disorder”. Although it’s probably not fair to call “stupidity” a disorder.

    So you’re saying that sex is unrelated to reproduction?

    You’re wasting your breath, these people don’t understand what “rights”

    You certainly don’t given our last encounter on that subject.

    Bottom line, their argument amounts to the definition of marriage having a causal relationship to what a government should or should not do for some reason. They just have no clue what they’re talking about.

    A causal relationship? Indeed, you are clueless.

    Gotta meddle in peoples lives because culture or jesus or something else not related to politics!

    Yes, yes, culture is unrelated to politics. This will be news to Cicero and Pericles. You really are a nincompoop.

  140. Gab

    Let the Australian voters have the opportunity to vote on this via a plebiscite as promised at the election.

    Anything less than that is undemocratic and just plain wrong.

  141. Fisky

    Beep boop! Autistic libertarians!

  142. struth

    I am finished with this thread.

    Our opposition aren’t arguing, just calling everyone stupid for not agreeing with them.

    I don’t take these space cadets on for their benefit, but for those that read the blog and are of two minds.
    These hopeless cases have proven themselves morons.
    The main reason they are morons is that they stopped arguing and started name calling AS THEIR ARGUMENT.
    That’s totally different than making points and name calling, which is actually sometimes quite funny.
    So stick a fork inyerselves………………….ya done.

  143. Iampeter

    So you’re saying that sex is unrelated to reproduction?

    No and he wasn’t saying it was merely “related” to reproduction.

    Yes, yes, culture is unrelated to politics.

    Nope, didn’t say that either.

    A free for all of anarchy or else you’re a screaming leftist.

    And while we’re on the subject of straw men that keep getting thrown up, this isn’t the alternative anyone is suggesting either.

    Our opposition aren’t arguing, just calling everyone stupid for not agreeing with them.

    This is just too funny. Scroll up and see for yourself that the first instance of anyone being called “stupid” was by you. Your lack of self awareness is pretty awesome to behold.

    So in summary what has occurred here is:
    Someone posts an alternative viewpoint in Cat comment thread.
    Immediately flamed by unhinged leftists that seem to dominate the comments here.
    Threadbare attempt at debate, because like all leftists the thought of having to logically prove your points is incomprehensible.
    More flaming, more ad hominems.
    Assortment of logical fallacies, with straw-men being a big crowd favorite.
    More flaming.
    At this point you are getting flamed back so you run away crying because while you can dish it out you can’t take it.

    So, just a typical Cat thread.

  144. .

    Gab
    #2457756, posted on August 3, 2017 at 12:11 am
    Let the Australian voters have the opportunity to vote on this via a plebiscite as promised at the election.

    Anything less than that is undemocratic and just plain wrong.

    The Liberals won government with this as a promise. Just have it at the next election to save money.

    It would be great if this was ignored because the Liberals will be destroyed. They have no conservatives or liberals in the party anymore. They’re just careerists who are just as statist as the ALP and the Greens. They’re in it for the money because they lack talent or work ethic to make it elsewhere.

  145. struth

    Our opposition aren’t arguing, just calling everyone stupid for not agreeing with them.

    This is just too funny. Scroll up and see for yourself that the first instance of anyone being called “stupid” was by you. Your lack of self awareness is pretty awesome to behold.

    The main reason they are morons is that they stopped arguing and started name calling AS THEIR ARGUMENT.That’s totally different than making points and name calling, which is actually sometimes quite funny.

    Comprehension skills needed much?

    So in summary what has occurred here is:
    Someone posts an alternative viewpoint in Cat comment thread.
    Immediately flamed by unhinged leftists that seem to dominate the comments here.
    Threadbare attempt at debate, because like all leftists the thought of having to logically prove your points is incomprehensible.
    More flaming, more ad hominems.
    Assortment of logical fallacies, with straw-men being a big crowd favorite.
    More flaming.
    At this point you are getting flamed back so you run away crying because while you can dish it out you can’t take it.

    No argument there, just as described above, Iampeter comes in to prove me correct.

    People got thrashed in this argument and they know it.
    Boo hoo, get over it.

  146. No and he wasn’t saying it was merely “related” to reproduction.

    Sure, he made the stronger claim regarding sexual organs and their relation to reproduction. That is how we know they are sex organs, and we know they are disordered in some way when they cannot properly perform this function.

    Nope, didn’t say that either.

    To quote you again: Gotta meddle in peoples lives because culture or jesus or something else not related to politics! It’s pretty clear you said that culture is unrelated to politics.

    Threadbare attempt at debate, because like all leftists the thought of having to logically prove your points is incomprehensible.
    More flaming, more ad hominems.
    Assortment of logical fallacies, with straw-men being a big crowd favorite.
    More flaming.
    At this point you are getting flamed back so you run away crying because while you can dish it out you can’t take it.

    No one’s runaway, cupcake.

  147. Iampeter

    AS THEIR ARGUMENT.That’s totally different than making points and name calling, which is actually sometimes quite funny.

    Lol You did this and thus help to derail the thread as you always do. Here is your exact summary statement for that comment which you started with a straw man and ended with both a straw man and ad hominem: “Iampeter thinks that there is anarchy or communism, and accepts nothing in between. It’s too stupid so it must be trolling.”

    People got thrashed in this argument and they know it.

    Yes you did get thrashed because you don’t know what you’re talking about and went into ad hominems almost immediately when a logical, alternative argument was presented. Also random, logical fallacies, are not arguments and cannot “thrash” anyone.

    Boo hoo, get over it.

    You’re the one who dished it out and now can’t take it so is running away crying. Like you said “I am finished with this thread.”

    You do this all the time and are joined by your doppelgangers so any dissenting point of views get drowned out in stupid and then run away crying, while projecting exactly what you yourself are doing onto others.

    If you were joking you would be a great troll, but sadly you are just seriously this hopeless.

  148. Combine Dave

    I got news for you….

    No one cares.

    Not about SSM at all.

    It’s probably not even in the top ten of the people’s priorities.

    BUT… if you were to suddenly take away something that was promised to them, like say a plebiscite.

    Those same people will be very angry (even those thinking of maybe voting yes), and the LNP will be out. For a long time too I’d imagine.

    They might even start giving their votes to quite extreme parties who promise to right the “wrong’ or at least reverse the changes made, not because they are angry about SSM (probably don’t care either way like most people) but angry you took away their voice/choice on the issue.

  149. struth

    Yes you did get thrashed because you don’t know what you’re talking about and went into ad hominems almost immediately when a logical, alternative argument was presented.

    Mirror needed……….

  150. Felix Kruell

    Our opposition aren’t arguing, just calling everyone stupid for not agreeing with them.

    Ahh the irony….

Comments are closed.