Plebiscite?

Mercury Bullet · 13-09-2016, 07:10 PM

Do we really need to spend $150 million+ for what is effectively an opinion poll?

Personally, I couldn't care less if any gay/lesbian/space ship want to get married.

Parliamentarians are elected to make decisions.

**DJR-351** · 13-09-2016, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

Parliamentarians are elected to make decisions.

Hmmm, very interesting and unusual concept, can't ever see it catching on though....

383hq · 13-09-2016, 07:27 PM

Just more wasted taxpayer dollars. Billions wasted at state and federal level.

Politicians have been busy giving themselves pay rises for years based on all the regulation/legislation they're bringing in.

Given pay rises must continue, they're now setting rules for the minority that the majority have to follow, instead of setting laws for the majority (and treating the minority like <ahem>, the minority)

Australia- well deserved of the nanny nation title given all the legislation.

**Beastie** · 13-09-2016, 07:30 PM

DBourne · 13-09-2016, 07:30 PM

Yes it's a waste, but I've decided that lets do it.

I haven't heard 1 good reason to deny marriage equality, so if this is the only hurdle they have left in their bag, then lets have it.

THEN when 99.9% vote yes, let's legalise it, then they can have absolutely no backup.

383hq · 13-09-2016, 07:38 PM

Here's one good reason:

they use to get hell at the schools I went too, so surely they've suffered enough, without now having to go through the pain of marriage (like the rest of us) as well?

They should spend the $150m on whether we all want to see higher speed limits on rural roads and freeways.
Every other country does better then 100km/h

At least the majority (y'all) would then get some benefit out of the money spent.

b0son · 13-09-2016, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBourne

THEN when 99.9% vote yes, let's legalise it, then they can have absolutely no backup.

While I don't doubt it would be voted yes, I think 99.9% is wildly optimistic.

Express · 13-09-2016, 08:30 PM

I just hope you can postal vote so I don't have to waste a Saturday morning running off to the polls for something that in the end the Politicians are free to ignore and vote whatever way they choose.

Trump · 13-09-2016, 08:55 PM

The government knows the plebiscite will fail, it is why they are pushing so hard for it.

All they need to do is just remove the requirement for marriage to be legally sanctioned across the board. Once that happens, the playing field is leveled and discrimination with respect to marriage becomes a thing of the past.

**Beastie** · 13-09-2016, 09:07 PM

This might help explain things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knob-rB35AI&app=desktop

Ben73 · 13-09-2016, 09:36 PM

$15million in advertising both side. What a waste. I have never met anyone that has said they are not sure whether it should be allowed or not.
There are only 4 answers I have come across.
1. No marriage for same sex couples, because it's wrong according to the bible (no vote)
2. Homosexuality is sick, damned if I'll support it (no vote)
3. Gay people should have equal rights (yes vote)
4.I don't care what other people do, let them marry if they want to (yes vote)

I think it would get through mostly due to people being in category 4.

If you cannot make up your mind without a political advertisement, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I heard something on the radio before suggesting Shorten didn't want a plebiscite. Before the election Shorten couldn't shut up about equal rights for marriage. If he votes against a plebiscite then well what can I say.

Rodp · 13-09-2016, 09:39 PM

So much money flushed down the toilet to essentially vote on whether we should continue to discriminate against same sex couples. Sickening.

The change is inevitable, better that we be a forward thinking first world country who respects it's citizens instead of being dragged into acceptance after everyone else has embraced equality.

Doreturnonfoot · 13-09-2016, 09:59 PM

I feel like getting a divorce in order to protest. they are making us vote on this for what result.
It makes me want to vomit -
Perhaps we should vote on the republic and new name - we could call ourselves the United Fagdom of Australia.

Mercury Bullet · 13-09-2016, 10:00 PM

The question I have is why a plebiscite and not a referendum?

I'm pretty dumb but as far as I know the difference is a referendum is binding on the politicians, whereas a plebiscite is not?

Do they want to go against the publics wishes after spending $150m?

**Polyal** · 13-09-2016, 10:05 PM

Imagine if it was just passed and then they could focus on something that makes a difference to a country that is falling apart.

They would be forced to make some actuall plans.

Bring the detention centre onshore and create some jobs. Then no more centre debates. And saves some coin.

Legalise gay marriage....if I hear the acronym lgtabcfreakin whatever past feb I'll lose it.

So many bigger fish to fry...

Trump · 13-09-2016, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doreturnonfoot

I feel like getting a divorce in order to protest. they are making us vote on this for what result.
It makes me want to vomit -
Perhaps we should vote on the republic and new name - we could call ourselves the United Fagdom of Australia.

Pull your head in.

nstg8a · 13-09-2016, 10:18 PM

There's an old saying something along the lines of 'if voting made a difference, do you really think they would let you vote?'
Rings truer than ever...

78xcgxl · 13-09-2016, 10:23 PM

Absolute waste of time and money. Just pass it through parliament and be done with it, I'm sick of hearing about it. Typical useless Liberal government...

Streets · 13-09-2016, 10:41 PM

I think it is sad that gay people are being used as a political football by these grub parties. The plebiscite is not about this issue - not really. Politicians are just using it to take shots at each other at the expense of the people whom this concerns. Gay marriage is inevitable - so we should just join the rest of the world already and legalise it.

The Yeti · 13-09-2016, 10:43 PM

I'm pro marriage equality, but if it were to be simply approved in pavement can you imagine the bull **** from the noisy crackpots

At lest with a vote as half arsed as a plebiscite is the people will have had their say

I think it will get up but I don't think it will get over 75% I've spoken to a few loons who don't want it (neither have a real reason aside from it's just wrong)

rjk74 · 13-09-2016, 10:45 PM

So true, in the grand scheme its a non issue, just let them get married as others have pointed out we've got bigger issues to deal with.

CoupeKing · 13-09-2016, 11:27 PM

Should have been implemented years ago. Legalise it already ffs, and stop worrying about your social status or bank account you bunch of fake *&^%$! And the suicide-rate will drop too.

MattSAU2XR8 · 13-09-2016, 11:34 PM

Labor will get back in eventually and so law will get passed eventually. So indeed a waste of time in the long run other than generating some short term employment for whoever organizes the plebisite...

MrEL · 13-09-2016, 11:53 PM

This is dragging out and more of a drama queen then Robbie Farah.

**GO FURTHER** · 14-09-2016, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

The question I have is why a plebiscite and not a referendum?

I'm pretty dumb but as far as I know the difference is a referendum is binding on the politicians, whereas a plebiscite is not?

I'm sure the British government wished Brexit was a plebiscite and not a referendum in hindsight

Never allow the great unwashed to make decisions that can change history

MethodX · 14-09-2016, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjk74

So true, in the grand scheme its a non issue, just let them get married as others have pointed out we've got bigger issues to deal with.

But then some will want to marry animals and children, then fords and Holdens?
What then huh huh?

asagaai · 14-09-2016, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

The question I have is why a plebiscite and not a referendum?

I'm pretty dumb but as far as I know the difference is a referendum is binding on the politicians, whereas a plebiscite is not?

Do they want to go against the publics wishes after spending $150m?

Was it because the Monk was being pressured, and he and his self flagellating group of nastymen decided to go to plebiscite to quell the rumblings, knowing that the public is oftentimes conservative and a lot of people on the quiet would vote against it.

And if somehow the plebiscite voted in favour (like the Brexit surprise) well the monk and his self flagellating group of nastymen could just ignore it and say well it is not binding on parliament.

And then the richy rich kid came to town, and to keep the monk, who was in the solitary corner, and the monks self flagellating group of nastymen, calm and avoid stirring them up to take Templar arms against the non believers, rolled out the Monks plebiscite.

A real waste of money and potential to bring some nasty puss to the surface in the community, and others have said all to do with politics- and I also think the Monks religious beliefs.

superyob · 14-09-2016, 08:09 AM

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Untold billions wasted by politicians yet suddenly there is concern about a a piddling 160 million??? More like Shorten et al knows that it will fail along with their dreams of ushering a new age of perversion...

mcflux · 14-09-2016, 10:03 AM

^^^ I've reported your post based on the last portion of that vile final sentence.

nuthin' fancy · 14-09-2016, 10:05 AM

It is a bit political, really.