I guess the thinking is don’t bother trying to convince those determined to vote no; instead try to stop swaying people away from Yes to No.
The unpleasantness, hate & violence just confirms the concerns raised aged ago about a plebiscite and more recently about this survey.
Given the LNP’s internal politics are the only reason this is being foisted on the community, the LNP need to own it, accept responsibility for all the negatives coming from this exercise in delay (& trying to keep the LNP together).
Even if it wasn’t put to a vote, if people said no they still would have been copping this abuse. Before it was put to a vote, people were still already being referred to the anti-discrimination tribunal simply for saying they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. This is not fair. The hate and violence simply isn’t necessary. There are ways to get points across and I’m sorry, but I’m seeing far more hate, violence and intolerance from the yes side. Whether you agree with the no campaign or not, and I know many people don’t and I don’t agree with all their points either but there is no excuse ever for violence or for the shouting down that is occurring. If love is love, then you should be showing that is what it’s all about rather than all the extra attacks. You should be showing the reason why the law needs to change, not demanding through hate and violence.
While I agree that there’s no excuse for violence, unfortunately the reality of human nature means it’s inevitable with a public debate/vote/survey on this topic that there’d be a lot of emotion, and when people feel they’re being persecuted/discriminated against, some of them are (eventually) going to get angry and lash out.
The fact remains that this has all been brought on by the LNP’s internal instability, and Abbott, Abetz, Canavan, etc. are more interested in pushing their views on the public, regardless the cost & other negative consequences, including delaying as much as possible, than just having a ‘free vote’ in parliament & getting past this issue.
It needs to go to the public because it is so divisive but there’s still no excuse for the violence and intolerance. Imagine all the outrage and what would be happening if the no side were going round and ripping up all the yes posters, reporting every yes article to Facebook etc… They would not be wanting to leave the house for fear of the pitchforks outside waiting for them, so why is it accepted from the other side? Why is it ok to leave filthy messages on people’s Facebook pages over something they say that you don’t agree with? Why is it ok to vandalise property that isn’t yours simply because you don’t agree but they have as much right to say it as you do. This is one of the reasons why the No side are fighting so hard. If it wasn’t about SSM, it’d be something else in a few years time and something else after that and people are standing up to say that they don’t like the way the “debate” is happening.
And forcing your point across using violence and threats still makes it ok?
As has been said over and over, you think that your rights are being denied but others see that allowing this to occur will deny other people their rights. It is all about working out the definition of marriage that society agrees with. You think it only affects two people so they are having their rights denied, others think it affects a greater aspect of society and extends to families and children. This and the other associated changes which will occur/have occurred etc… will deny those children other rights.
Whether you agree or not, I don’t really care but there is still no excuse ever for what has been occurring and for only one side to ever really be reported as the bad guys is utter crap too.
Is it really that divisive? Public opinion data for ages now shows overwhelming support for SSM.
Those advocating No need to accept their position is basically promoting intolerance & discrimination against a group of people, so an argument can be made that such speech isn’t appropriate (where the line is, is tricky).
Fights against intolerance haven’t always been civil so why be surprised or shocked this time?
The difference is those people are incorrect, and being in the majority we heterosexuals are in no danger of having our rights denied.
The slippery slope argument is fear mongering nonsense peddled; it’s sad that some people are buying into that fear, and protections can be dealt with in the bill which would actually implement the Marriage Act change.
Certainly has been, only 5 years ago the Labor party were still against it. I know I haven’t been polled except for when Reachtel did one a few weeks ago which was more just to test their new software or something and many others haven’t either. It’s a divisive issue.
So that still makes the violence ok then? Wouldn’t it be better to achieve what you’re fighting for fairly rather than through intimidation, bullying and violence?
Like our right to believe in an existing law and not have our window smashed or our face punched in etc…? Yeah, there’s clearly no evidence of rights being lost or impeded.
And if that’s the case, why can’t anybody from the yes side say why it can’t happen? Using exactly the same arguments can be used for things like polyamorous marriage. Simply saying “it won’t happen” doesn’t answer why it won’t happen, thinking 10, 15 years down the track.
Ive spoken to a few people about the vote in the last few days and I’m surprised how many have told me they voted No.
In every case they’ve given some reason that has nothing to do with the vote itself. In every case it has been something else, which the conservatives have been raising in the media in the last few weeks as a smokescreen. Sadly the misinformation is cutting through.
If you believe that the right to discriminate is more important than a person’s right to equality, that says a lot more about you than it does anyone who dares throw a table - or results to another form of violence - in order to stand up for another’s civil rights.
And yet again, not all those against are religious.
That’s also because they are issues which do interlink and have become issues with the changes or issues which have been occurring over the last decade or so which have been linked to all the equality rallies which have been occurring.
Similar to how all the yes voters think the only reason you can be a no voter is for religious reasons as Matlock also mentioned above. There are gay atheists out there getting called homophobic religious nuts!
I’m not even going to bother responding to this one because unfortunately, some people just refuse to acknowledge anything different to the way they think. I’ve already said before that all legal inequalities should be removed however I see that marriage is more than just two people coming together. The fact that so many people condone violence towards anyone who holds that view is really quite surprising. People all have different thoughts based on different experiences, if you can only convince someone of your way of thinking by literally drumming it into them then I’m sorry, I don’t subscribe to that.
The fact that anyone on the no side expects sympathy for the very limited violence that has occurred during this “debate” when gay people have dealt with worse for their entire lives…
Both things I have seen happen to gay friends.
It’s not ok for either side to do this… but for the no side to play the victim? Really?
I agree, it’s not ok for either side to do this and I certainly condemn it happening. If you can’t get your point across intelligently, respectfully and without intimidation or violence then you need to reconsider.
I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that there are an increasing number of incidents occurring like this and I’m honestly surprised that others aren’t condemning it. If it was happening, and it is happening from the no side then I condemn it. I ask others if the shoe was on the other foot now, how would they be feeling about it?
Because in the Marriage Act is where the inequality lies.
Further to that: the inequalities, as you suggest, extend beyond what a straight reading of the law would suggest. Yes, marriage equality is about more than just marriage - it’s about systemic inequality.
That is why the supposed ‘debate’ is not centred around legal inequalities - civil unions and the like - but on - among other things - the rights of organisations to “choose” (read: discriminate). If it wasn’t, the Coalition for Marriage wouldn’t be spending money on television advertising, framing the postal survey not around the rights of homosexual couples to be legally married, but about freedom of expression. Neither would conservative politicians.
It’s fear mongering from groups who are slowly losing power and authority in a progressive, secular society, and that’s by no means a bad thing.
The postal survey stuff came yesterday for my household.
I ended up going for a little drive and returned them to the street mailing boxes near the Strathfield post office (where the Locked Bag on the delivery address was located) to ensure as little chance as possible of them getting lost (yes I know it sounds silly but I was just looking for an excuse to go for a drive somewhere).
Coincidentally, the local celebrity activist Danny Lim (pictured below) was standing right next to the street mailing boxes as I pulled up to them. He was holding his sweary lollipop sign while talking to some people in white shirts. They kind of looked like Transport Officers, but he wasn’t anywhere near the station so I don’t know if they were or not. I didn’t get much of a chance to look because I stopped in a No Parking zone so just hopped out, posted the mail and then left.
