Now this is a booting I could get behind :laugh:

Wow Julia Banks maybe in some trouble with her citizenship, Libs may be cooked here. :laugh:

Another death on Manus Island. Feel a lot of shame that our government is doing this to people.

Fuck me.  25 full minutes (probably more but killed the stream) on SSM vote today on the 7pm ABC News channel which was a fait accompli to anybody with half a brain.  The amount of time dedicated by the hand-wringing, SJW's down at the ABC is all out of whack with the relative importance of this issue.

I'm sure the they wouldn't dedicate this much time to Japan being nuked by North Korea.  2 minutes would have killed it dead.

Didn't listen to Hack today but no doubt it was wall to wall SSM stuff or it will be for the next 3 or 4 days. 

And before you tee off I am pro SSM.

"SJWs" are only part of the story.

If it was so unimportant, then there would have been a free vote and it would have passed already. Fact is, it's a very popular reform in the community and it's a important story because of how out of touch this government is.

And they'd dedicate far more time if North Korea nuked Japan.

I'm amazed at the lack of political backbone Malcom has. The majority of the country wants it, the majority of elected officials want it, it's universally popular and yet he still keels over for some dinosaurs. Absolutely pathetic. 

I agree, though we wouldn't have this problem if parliament would just vote on it already. Liberals just don't want to back down and give Labor the win re the plebiscite. 

Jesus christ grow a pair malcom

Free vote is best for all.

TBF any party that allows SSM in will get voted out the next election. No matter the result, SSM is a political land mine.

Unfortunately Malcolm only defeated Abbot by 10 votes at the last hit-out which means that only 5 have to change their mind in the party room and he's out on his arse.

Not only that they only have a 1 seat majority in the house of reps which means one floor crosser could bring the whole thing unstuck for him personally and the Government.  So even if he went rogue and threw it up in Parliament he'd come unstuck and it'd be shot down in flames.

He's in hell of a predicament with no easy out.

$122 million dollars for a non-binding opinion poll.   The world has gone fucking bonkers.

Meanwhile the Stephen Bradbury of Australian politics, the greasy union hack who has never had a proper job in his whole entire life, Bill Shorten is going to fall over the line at the next election without a skerrick of effort.  Has there ever been a more mundane, plain, cod ordinary, less inspiring leader ever before?  He'd make beige suit look a rainbow explosion of sartorial elegance.  A piece of polystyrene broken off from a broccoli box has more personality than this banal clown. 

 

Would much rather a euthanasia debate.  If you're ranking 'importance' and 'popular reform' relative to the amount of people affected then that's top of the list.  SSM is way down the list.  

Still important, but way down the list.

This... there are literally dozens of issues that are far more touching and important to most of the population. 
The way the SSM advocates have been acting, i would laugh if it got voted down in the postal. 
Having said that i will vote for it... as it doesnt affect me, unless i have children but by then children probably won't be allowed genders so hetero marriages probably won't be allowed. 

I've seen ABC host people to debate Euthanasia many times, sure recently polling has suggested wide support there are a lot more questions about the policy of such a reform let alone getting the religious lot in the parliament to vote for it.

I really don't get it, you "support it" but you blame the "SJWs" for this still being an issue rather than the politicians that are obstructing it despite there being enough support in both houses to pass it if it was a free vote. Makes perfect sense if you're culture warrior I guess.

I want a SSM vote.

I think that it will go down in flames just like Trump won the elections and BREXIT won.

People are only just saying they support SSM. 

Which is why Parliament should vote for it based on the notion of 'equality' and not 'beliefs'.

Another, not surprisingly, ad hominem.    

No people want their say. 

And if they win, then there can be no better legitimacy, but I see a minefield of legal action if the exemption rules are not included.

A 2000 year old tradition is far more than just a belief. People need to have a say.  

What you are saying is to basically circumvent democracy and suppress the will of the people based on your notion of "equality". That isn't right. If the naysayers win, then that should be respected. According to you guys, 76% support it so what are you afraid of? 

They didn't get a say when Howard amended the marriage act in 2004 so you can throw that argument in the can where it belongs.

I see Abbot has already reframed the argument to one of 'if you're against political correctness you'll vote no' .   Gutless prick.  

> We aren't allowed to vote to go to war
> We aren't allowed to vote on tax policy
> We aren't allowed to vote on energy policy
> We aren't allowed to vote on environmental issues

> Somehow it's imperative we get to vote on something that affects a fraction of the population 

hmm

The problem I see with the vote is that it will not be compulsory, so unless the ABS is giving out free iPads to winners via a lottery system you'll mainly get those that strongly oppose and those that strongly support it to vote.

This happens at local government level and will no doubt be replicated at a national level. Generally in votes/public comment you will find people are more vocal to opposing change (human nature is very anti-change in all walks of life). It may come down to the activist groups that are able to rally the "can't be arsed" voters the best.

Apart from the "go to war", you get to vote on all of those other things. Pay attention to the policy announcements and you won't be so surprised when the government makes changes.

Howard didn't change the definition of marriage. 

This is such a huge change, the people need to have their say. The people want their say. The naysayers have a right to participate in some form of a mature debate on the issue. 

I meant in terms of direct democracy, which I thought was abundantly clear to even an imbecile. 

We have no direct avenue to effect tax policy or energy policy, as we elect represented officials to enact our will for us. Why not do the same now? Why is this issue so special that it requires direct democracy?

SSM is a massive social change which will have adverse effects on the lives of any affected persons. 

It just doesn't effect homosexual persons. It effects the adoption laws, and the definition of the nuclear family. It would result in more dysfunction among families, drug addiction, mental and psychological disorders and quite possible it could raise suicide even further. 

Also, religious institutions have a right to want an exemption from any adverse effect. In other words, they need to be exempt so that no troublemakers can ask them to be married in their Church's when we all know that such a thing can not occur. 

My apologies for not correctly interpreting your vague comments about not being able to vote on every single little policy change.
I probably shouldn't have to point this out to you, being so intellectually superior, but a plebiscite isn't a direct vote either. It's non-binding.

Post of the year contender :laugh:

There are credible studies indicating that SSM families have a far greater incidence of break down, mental disorders, dysfunction and a higher rate of suicide among the children. 

Clearly, the issues of SSM have far greater implications than many appreciate and all this needs to be debated in a proper fashion and if we are unable to do so (as seems to be the case), then the people should have their say in a private ballot. 

I really do doubt that but if you can provide a link to it, I would be happy to give it a read.