Quote:

Today's poll shows that not only do most Australians support the legal recognition of gay marriage by 57 per cent to 37 against. It also reveals that there could be political advantage for Labor to pursue this idea. The Herald/Nielsen poll shows that gay marriage is accepted by almost 90 per cent of Greens voters, two-thirds of Labor voters and 51 per cent of Coalition voters. So by supporting such a policy Gillard would not only be moving to put Labor into the new community mainstream. She would also be representing the great bulk of Labor voters, while making Labor more appealing to almost all Greens voters. The Greens have proved to be the great electoral threat to Labor. For every vote Labor lost to the Coalition at the election, it lost 2⅔ votes to the Greens. If Labor had not lost so many supporters to the Greens, it would very likely be in power today in its own right. By recognising same-sex marriages, Gillard would rob the Greens of a powerfully emotive point of differentiation. And today's poll shows that by running with gay marriage, Labor could stymie - the preferred word among political operatives is "wedge" - Tony Abbott's Coalition.

Looks like Abbott could get  a wedgie.
Gillard should listen to the people, and bury Abbott in the process.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/support-for-gays-offers-a-way-out-for-gillard-20101121-182mq.html

Quote:

By recognising same-sex marriages, Gillard would rob the Greens of a powerfully emotive point of differentiation. And today's poll shows that by running with gay marriage, Labor could stymie - the preferred word among political operatives is "wedge" - Tony Abbott's Coalition.

Personally I don't think gay marriage is a huge political issue, but it seems that the majority of Australians want it sanctified and then gotten out of the way to deal with more pressing issues. This would be the easiest solution - starting initially with civil ceremonies.

I think Gillard will have to compromise. Abbott might have to also.

I doubt the Greens will be worried about "emotive differentiation". They are working for the people generally.

Our country is falling apart and so is Gillards face, and all they care about is gay Marriage?

OMG! :o..

Just another decoy, to distract you from what they should be doing but aren't.

http://www.theadvocate.com.au/multimedia/images/full/1008174.jpg

Abbott may be buoyed by the news that the Pope now supports condom use by homosexuals...

I don't really care if 2 blokes get chocabloke up each others rectums and get married.

However I am dead against 2 fagg0ts being able to adopt kids.

Those kids school lives will be a train wreck.

i can see it now.

Kids will have the crap teased out of them, just wait and see.

There is no great surprise that the majority of the Australian citizens want gay marriage recognised.  There is however no great surprise that pollies are 30 years behind the times.
Gay Marriage should have been a referendum question put to the people in the past 3 Federal elections. Here we have a bunch of some 300 scum-bag pollies dictating what the Australian people want and should have. Its not up to pollies to dictate to the people, they work for the people.  

I agree, lets get back to focusing on the more important issues at hand, instead of the Libs & Labs using gay marriage as a smoke screen because they don’t have policies.

Assuming that same sex couples will create hard times at school for their children or the children they adopt is a really antiquated idea. I don’t care if some parents are a lemon tree x coffee table, if they can offer love and support to children, the I would prefer children in their households than an unsuitable unstable heterosexual household.

Massively important issue.

Affects just sooooooo many of us.

Jeez, is this what we have to discussing endlessly?
Whether a pair of woofters can carry on like a married couple?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 10:13am:

Massively important issue. Affects just sooooooo many of us. Jeez, is this what we have to discussing endlessly? Whether a pair of woofters can carry on like a married couple?

apparently so!!!. its all we talk about here now.and the polls talk for us all of course.

The only reservation I have is adoption of kids, although that happens now regardless of whether or not they are officially recognised as married.

Yeah - Get it over and done with so that it stops the wingeing. Share the pain. Why should we heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?

A more accurate title would be 'australians don't give a poo about gay marriage, but think if we throw them this bone, the shrill gay lobby might shut up for a while.'

Of course there are only so many charcetrs allowed in a title, so I guess it rules thta out.

Give them gay marriage, but in exchange allow us to ban just about any public display of homosexual celebration, the mardigras, etc.

Equitist wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 9:50am:

Abbott may be buoyed by the news that the Pope now supports condom use by homosexuals...

As usual equitist, you bias precludes your accuracy of the situation.


Are you implying that ALL homosexuals have AIDS ?



"The Pope clarified his stance in an interview with a German journalist, saying that in certain cases, such as for male prostitutes, the protection could be a first step in taking moral responsibility for stemming the spread of the virus that causes AIDS."

JC Denton wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:03pm:

Give them gay marriage, but in exchange allow us to ban just about any public display of homosexual celebration, the mardigras, etc.

If Bob Brown is anything to go by, they don't know the meaning of the word 'compromise'.


But they can learn...

Stupid thread about a sample poll.
The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either.

So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled.

tickfen wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:08pm:

Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled.

When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters.
Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit.
In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks.

skippy. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:15pm:

tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks.

Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians!



bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The irony of dippy and his multiple IDs......


now watch dippy bring in his other IDs to support his gay views!




bwaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

tickfen wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:19pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:20pm:

tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick...

No it isnt, no where near enough.

If the sample we at least 10,000 then maybe you could make  a comment otherwise its stupid to do so.

nichy wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:05pm:

Equitist wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 9:50am: Abbott may be buoyed by the news that the Pope now supports condom use by homosexuals... As usual equitist, you bias precludes your accuracy of the situation. Are you implying that ALL homosexuals have AIDS ? "The Pope clarified his stance in an interview with a German journalist, saying that in certain cases, such as for male prostitutes, the protection could be a first step in taking moral responsibility for stemming the spread of the virus that causes AIDS."

As usual, Nichy, you misrepresent me...

As mentioned in my first post, this is an unfolding story - and the Church is putting out a range of conflicting messages on the subject...

Notably, there have been attempts to play down the meaning of the Pope's comments that you specifically alluded to...

I remains to be seen, what the final word from the Vatican will be on this - and how loud and determined the dissenting voices will become...

tickfen wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:19pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I note you haven't shown us a poll that has asked the majority of Aussies,other than an election, like I asked, thanks for proving my point .

skippy. wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:22pm:

tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I note you haven't shown us a poll that has asked the majority of Aussies,other than an election, like I asked, thanks for proving my point .

Nope, but thanks for proving my point dippy


Its nice when you stuff up dippy



bwaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

tickfen wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:21pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:20pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick... No it isnt, no where near enough. If the sample we at least 10,000 then maybe you could make  a comment otherwise its stupid to do so.

No not really, any number over about 200 is enough to get a general feel of public opinion.....
As long as the number is large enough to be too many to have been in one place (like a club or shopping centre or a single suburb) you can get a good idea of public attitudes....a thousand+ is a pretty accurate way to check....

tickfen wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:21pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:20pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick... No it isnt, no where near enough. If the sample we at least 10,000 then maybe you could make  a comment otherwise its stupid to do so.

The sample size is the same used by Neilson and others for most polls,meeeelie, if you want to dispute it you need to delete all of your own polls you rush out to post when ever you think they suit your purpose.

tickfen wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:21pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:20pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick... No it isnt, no where near enough. If the sample we at least 10,000 then maybe you could make  a comment otherwise its stupid to do so.

So, you don't trust any of the other outcomes of the poll of the same sub-set of Aussie voters!?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:25pm:

tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:21pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:20pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick... No it isnt, no where near enough. If the sample we at least 10,000 then maybe you could make  a comment otherwise its stupid to do so. No not really, any number over about 200 is enough to get a general feel of public opinion..... As long as the number is large enough to be too many to have been in one place (like a club or shopping centre or a single suburb) you can get a good idea of public attitudes....a thousand+ is a pretty accurate way to check....

HA HA HA HA HA


whered this arbitrary figure of 200 come from sunshine?



My gawd the intelligence or lack thereof of some people.
If 200 were the minimum then youd be able to do a poll at the local dunnies at night where George Michael, skippy & pansi are hanging out!

Equitist wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:26pm:

tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:21pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:20pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick... No it isnt, no where near enough. If the sample we at least 10,000 then maybe you could make  a comment otherwise its stupid to do so. So, you don't trust any of the other outcomes of the poll of the same sub-set of Aussie voters!?

You dont trust any poll whether its an election or whatever when it contravenes your thoughts.


But no one, oops no sane person would possibly give any credit to a poll of 1400 to being refelctive of the majority of Australians.

A minimum would have to be at least 10,000.

I don't doubt that those opposed, like me, are the minority.

It takes an extraordinary person to cut through the media bias, the poorly constructed emotive arguments to stay true to their beliefs.  The majority of people just don't have the mind, the stones, or both to do this.

;)

tickfen wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:27pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:25pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:21pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:20pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick... No it isnt, no where near enough. If the sample we at least 10,000 then maybe you could make  a comment otherwise its stupid to do so. No not really, any number over about 200 is enough to get a general feel of public opinion..... As long as the number is large enough to be too many to have been in one place (like a club or shopping centre or a single suburb) you can get a good idea of public attitudes....a thousand+ is a pretty accurate way to check.... HA HA HA HA HA whered this arbitrary figure of 200 come from sunshine? My gawd the intelligence or lack thereof of some people. If 200 were the minimum then youd be able to do a poll at the local dunnies at night where George Michael, skippy & pansi are hanging out!

Yeah, THAT is why I said 'over 200'.....

You'd also get less than 200 at the local gay bashers club house or footy club.....

Try it yourself....
Head to the local shopping centre, with a clip board, and ask MORE than 200 people (at various times, on various days) for their opinions on gay marriage/gay civil unions......and see how you go...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:31pm:

tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:27pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:25pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:21pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:20pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick... No it isnt, no where near enough. If the sample we at least 10,000 then maybe you could make  a comment otherwise its stupid to do so. No not really, any number over about 200 is enough to get a general feel of public opinion..... As long as the number is large enough to be too many to have been in one place (like a club or shopping centre or a single suburb) you can get a good idea of public attitudes....a thousand+ is a pretty accurate way to check.... HA HA HA HA HA whered this arbitrary figure of 200 come from sunshine? My gawd the intelligence or lack thereof of some people. If 200 were the minimum then youd be able to do a poll at the local dunnies at night where George Michael, skippy & pansi are hanging out! Yeah, THAT is why I said 'over 200'..... You'd also get less than 200 at the local gay bashers club house or footy club..... Try it yourself.... Head to the local shopping centre, with a clip board, and ask MORE than 200 people (at various times, on various days) for their opinions on gay marriage/gay civil unions......and see how you go...

201 is greater ....the point being a sample of 200 or even 1400 is insignificant and only brain dead morons would give it any credit.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 12:31pm:

tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:27pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:25pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:21pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:20pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:19pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:15pm: tickfen wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 12:08pm: Stupid thread about a sample poll. The poll was hardly the majority of Australians, and the source have not revealed what number of people was actually polled either. So pick a number and we'll use that as the number of the sample polled. When you read the LINK for the first time meeeelie, you'll see the poll was taken on 1400 people, the same sort of size as polls taken on voting intention and considered to be a reasonable assessment of peoples intentions by most pollsters. Please show us a poll, other than an election, where most Australians were polled, if not pizz off with your multiple nicks and stop trolling with your attention seeking bulls hit. In fact, the same number are even mentioned in the thread you started yourself, under one of your other nicks. Wow dipster, 1400, guess that is the majority of Australians! bwaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Certainly a large enough group to produce a fair random sample though Tick... No it isnt, no where near enough. If the sample we at least 10,000 then maybe you could make  a comment otherwise its stupid to do so. No not really, any number over about 200 is enough to get a general feel of public opinion..... As long as the number is large enough to be too many to have been in one place (like a club or shopping centre or a single suburb) you can get a good idea of public attitudes....a thousand+ is a pretty accurate way to check.... HA HA HA HA HA whered this arbitrary figure of 200 come from sunshine? My gawd the intelligence or lack thereof of some people. If 200 were the minimum then youd be able to do a poll at the local dunnies at night where George Michael, skippy & pansi are hanging out! Yeah, THAT is why I said 'over 200'..... You'd also get less than 200 at the local gay bashers club house or footy club..... Try it yourself.... Head to the local shopping centre, with a clip board, and ask MORE than 200 people (at various times, on various days) for their opinions on gay marriage/gay civil unions......and see how you go...

you need a representative sample, not something that is queuing up outside skippys dunny!

Finance Minister Penny Wong has ratcheted up the pressure on the Federal Government over same-sex marriage, backing a South Australian branch move to vote for a national change.

At the party's state convention yesterday, Senator Wong spoke in favour of a motion which calls on the ALP national convention to support the legal right of all couples to be married, regardless of their gender.

She told delegates she has been pushing for Labor to change its platform.

"I will be advocating for our party to support equality including to in relation to marriage or same-sex couples and I do so because I have a deeply held commitment to equality," she said.

The openly gay senator drew criticism before the federal election for saying she supported Labor's position opposing same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, around 1,000 people yesterday turned up to a march in Sydney calling for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

The crowd gathered outside Sydney's Town Hall and marched up Oxford Street after a mock wedding and speeches.

New South Wales Labor Senator Doug Cameron told the cheering crowd he believed there was growing political support to change the Commonwealth Marriage Act.

But he said the campaign for change would be hard.

"The growing political and community support for marriage equality will result in an historic change to the Marriage Act," he said.

"This will be a tough campaign. Love and commitment should be the test, not outdated and discriminatory acts of parliament."

---------------------

Gillards little puppet has finally found her voice.

A poll of 1400, dippy`s been asking around in the gay bar again.

Gay mrriage is a re-definition of marriage. It is a language game (ie charades). Non-gays will migrate away from 'marriage' and will call it sometheing else - until the gays come after that definition.

Gay 'marriage' is not about marriage (dogs don't walk on their hindlegs in nature). It is a drive to pretend that homo is hetero. Evidently it isn't but PC is about language games.

Soren wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:04pm:

Gay mrriage is a re-definition of marriage. It is a language game (ie charades). Non-gays will migrate away from 'marriage' and will call it sometheing else - until the gays come after that definition. Gay 'marriage' is not about marriage (dogs don't walk on their hindlegs in nature). It is a drive to pretend that homo is hetero. Evidently it isn't but PC is about language games.

One day dogs will mean cats too.

Quote:

Gay 'marriage' is not about marriage (dogs don't walk on their hindlegs in nature). It is a drive to pretend that homo is hetero. Evidently it isn't but PC is about language games

Since homosexuality was legalised sometime in the 80's - a huge proportion of our society has come out of the closet. Why should they lead a life of misery pretending they're straight and why shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else?

Most people couldn't give a stuff whether gays marry - so wouldn't it be easier just to pass the damn bill and move onto more important issues?

It is not just a Greens' issue - it is a social issue. It's not going to affect hetero marriage. If marriage was such a respected institution - why do the majority of married couples separate or divorce?

mantra wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 6:18am:

? It is not just a Greens' issue - it is a social issue. It's not going to affect hetero marriage. If marriage was such a respected institution - why do the majority of married couples separate or divorce?

Self defeating argument.
Dogs will mean cats too.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 6:26am:

Self defeating argument. Dogs will mean cats too.

Dogs and cats fall into the category of animal.

Homosexual and heterosexual people fall into the category of human.

Unless you believe homosexuals should fall into some other category - and if so - what would that be?

mantra wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 6:29am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 6:26am: Self defeating argument. Dogs will mean cats too. Dogs and cats fall into the category of animal. Homosexual and heterosexual people fall into the category of human. Unless you believe homosexuals should fall into some other category - and if so - what would that be?

Homosexuals want to use the heterosexual term marriage.

Dogs will mean cats too.

mantra wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 6:18am:

Quote: Gay 'marriage' is not about marriage (dogs don't walk on their hindlegs in nature). It is a drive to pretend that homo is hetero. Evidently it isn't but PC is about language games Since homosexuality was legalised sometime in the 80's - a huge proportion of our society has come out of the closet. Why should they lead a life of misery pretending they're straight and why shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? Most people couldn't give a stuff whether gays marry - so wouldn't it be easier just to pass the damn bill and move onto more important issues? It is not just a Greens' issue - it is a social issue. It's not going to affect hetero marriage. If marriage was such a respected institution - why do the majority of married couples separate or divorce?

Mantra, I would respectfully suggest that you have no idea what "most people"  think on this issue.

You might have some idea of the opinions of a minute number of fringe dwellers, but not the broader community.

Quote:

Mantra, I would respectfully suggest that you have no idea what "most people"  think on this issue. You might have some idea of the opinions of a minute number of fringe dwellers, but not the broader community.

Is that why the Liberals are warming up to the idea of passing a Bill? Will this affect their popularity if some of the Libs dare speak up and say they support gay marriage? Phillip Ruddock has a gay daughter and I assume he will also vote for the bill.

I think you might be the one listening to the fringe dwellers.


Quote:

Mr Hunter said his co-sponsored Bill would now be introduced next year and said Senator Wong's statement would have a "massive" impact on Labor members. He said some members of the Right faction, including Treasurer Kevin Foley, had indicated to him they supported gay marriage. "It is clear that the Right is not one homogenous unit and a lot of them, including some very senior people, do support same-sex marriage," Mr Hunter said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/wongs-gay-marriage-push-gathers-pace/story-e6frea83-1225962371637

I must say this whole thing about a pair of woofters getting married is incredibly tedious.

It's been this way for decades and decades.

Don't we have greater things to worry about than this non-issue?

Let's just leave things as they are and be done with it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 8:52am:

I must say this whole thing about a pair of woofters getting married is incredibly tedious. It's been this way for decades and decades. Don't we have greater things to worry about than this non-issue? Let's just leave things as they are and be done with it.

------


andrei we all know you will have a meltdown if this happens...lol.. sorry to laugh but you do get a bit hot and bothered by it..

I wonder about gay divorce do you think it will be the same as hetros'....

or will they be more civilised about it..

Quote:

Most people couldn't give a stuff whether gays marry - so wouldn't it be easier just to pass the damn bill and move onto more important issues? It is not just a Greens' issue - it is a social issue. It's not going to affect hetero marriage. If marriage was such a respected institution - why do the majority of married couples separate or divorce?

If 'most people don't give a stuff' why bother changing anything?

The case for change has not been sufficiently made, so lets not waste anymore time on indulging this childish temper tantrum.  Ya know they only want it cos they can't have it.

mantra wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 7:54am:

Quote: Mantra, I would respectfully suggest that you have no idea what "most people"  think on this issue. You might have some idea of the opinions of a minute number of fringe dwellers, but not the broader community. Is that why the Liberals are warming up to the idea of passing a Bill? Will this affect their popularity if some of the Libs dare speak up and say they support gay marriage? Phillip Ruddock has a gay daughter and I assume he will also vote for the bill. I think you might be the one listening to the fringe dwellers. [quote]Mr Hunter said his co-sponsored Bill would now be introduced next year and said Senator Wong's statement would have a "massive" impact on Labor members. He said some members of the Right faction, including Treasurer Kevin Foley, had indicated to him they supported gay marriage. "It is clear that the Right is not one homogenous unit and a lot of them, including some very senior people, do support same-sex marriage," Mr Hunter said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/wongs-gay-marriage-push-gathers-pace/story-e6frea83-1225962371637[/quote]

Mantra, there is this misconception out there that Liberals are opposed to it.

I think you will find that there is plenty who are for it, and this opinion has been shaped by personal experiences.  Many who are opposed to it full stop tend to be those who dont have a family member or friend who has come out.  Its amazing how peoples opinions change when
they have someone in the family come out.

I dont think this is an issue of party lines.  Its about time Penny Wong came out in support to.  What an insult that she had to take a party line on such a personal issue.

I agree keep it as it is.

Things are perfectly fine as they are.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 11:48am:

I agree keep it as it is. Things are perfectly fine as they are.

I really hope for your sake your little daughter isnt gay.  You should always approach these types of things with a bit more of an open mind Andre, because one day you might be in a position where the love you have for that person far overrides any pre-conception you have on the issue.

Quote:

I dont think this is an issue of party lines.  Its about time Penny Wong came out in support to.  What an insult that she had to take a party line on such a personal issue.

I agree, I hope to see Alexander Downer and Christopher Pyne "come out" next.

Verge wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 12:01pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:48am: I agree keep it as it is. Things are perfectly fine as they are. I really hope for your sake your little daughter isnt gay.  You should always approach these types of things with a bit more of an open mind Andre, because one day you might be in a position where the love you have for that person far overrides any pre-conception you have on the issue.

I don't feel massively strongly about it Verge.

I just think things are pretty good as they are.

Gay people can cohabit, live their lives together and be happy.

I just don't see the need to change our ways to fit a small minority, there isn't much wrong with them now.

I'm pretty happy with them.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

Verge wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 12:01pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 11:48am: I agree keep it as it is. Things are perfectly fine as they are. I really hope for your sake your little daughter isnt gay.  You should always approach these types of things with a bit more of an open mind Andre, because one day you might be in a position where the love you have for that person far overrides any pre-conception you have on the issue. I don't feel massively strongly about it Verge. I just think things are pretty good as they are. Gay people can cohabit, live their lives together and be happy. I just don't see the need to change our ways to fit a small minority, there isn't much wrong with them now. I'm pretty happy with them.

YOU'D have to "change your ways" ?

I fail to see how this INEVITABLE change to legislation will lead to ANYONE changing their domestic and personal lives

buzzanddidj wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 2:03pm:

I fail to see how this INEVITABLE change to legislation will lead to ANYONE changing their domestic and personal lives

Exactly, it would change nothing and people's lives would not change a bit.
Hence its all a bit of a beat up and a non-issue.

So we may as well just leave things as they are.

I am pretty happy with the current situation and if it changes nothing, then leave it all alone and we'll move on.

mantra wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 6:18am:

[quote] Why should they lead a life of misery pretending they're straight and why shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else?

Yeah, I know... I am a lesbian stuck in a male body. But do I get any sympathy from society? No.  It's a miserable exsitence.

:'( :'( :'(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 2:05pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 2:03pm: I fail to see how this INEVITABLE change to legislation will lead to ANYONE changing their domestic and personal lives Exactly, it would change nothing and people's lives would not change a bit. Hence its all a bit of a beat up and a non-issue. So we may as well just leave things as they are. I am pretty happy with the current situation and if it changes nothing, then leave it all alone and we'll move on.

I was referring to the likes of you - and your personal arrangements
EQUALITY under the law is hardly going to make YOU "jump the fence"
The vocal minority are the LOUDEST opponent of this reform - yet the least affected by it

Will the "bride" slip his finger through the "groom`s" ring at the ceramony?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 2:15pm:

Will the "bride" slip his finger through the "groom`s" ring at the ceramony?

LOL

Such a nice way with words

Non-heterosexuals make up 2.7% of the total population. Just relax. In nearly all societies, at least 1 to 3% will not be straight. There has been no increase or decrease over the history of civilizations.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 5:29pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 2:15pm: Will the "bride" slip his finger through the "groom`s" ring at the ceramony? LOL Such a nice way with words

Thanks Anne, it would be rather startling if the best man  accidently misshandled the groom`s ring, and bent it out of shape wouldn`t it.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 9:10pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 5:29pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 2:15pm: Will the "bride" slip his finger through the "groom`s" ring at the ceramony? LOL Such a nice way with words Thanks Anne, it would be rather startling if the best man  accidently misshandled the groom`s ring, and bent it out of shape wouldn`t it.

LOL
Ouch

This country has far more serious issue to deal with other than this rubbish.

skippy. wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 1:29pm:

Quote: I dont think this is an issue of party lines.  Its about time Penny Wong came out in support to.  What an insult that she had to take a party line on such a personal issue. I agree, I hope to see Alexander Downer and Christopher Pyne "come out" next.

I just dont think its an issue anyone should have to take a party line on.

I know an ALP candidate in a conservate Vic seat who when asked about gay marriage said he didnt support it.  The guy is gay, and has said that personally he supports it but was told at preselection "this is our policies, and you must follow them to be endorsed."

The guy had to lie about such a personal issue.  Since when is personal choice a party issue, and that goes for ALL parties.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 7:29am:

This country has far more serious issue to deal with other than this rubbish.

I agree 100%.

A total non-issue affecting a tiny percentage of the population and the system is just fine as it is.

A complete waste of time and energy.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 10:35pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 30th, 2010 at 7:29am: This country has far more serious issue to deal with other than this rubbish. I agree 100%. A total non-issue affecting a tiny percentage of the population and the system is just fine as it is. A complete waste of time and energy.

It might only affect a small percentage, but polls tell us that over 50% of people support it.

Just because it doesnt affect me personally, doesnt mean I dont support it.  

There is a big difference between affect and support Andre.

The campaign for gay marriage is symbolic of the struggle against oppression and prejudice reality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

;D