A split has reopened within the Coalition over same-sex marriage, with conservative senators warning they may vote against allowing gays and lesbians to marry even if the Australian public backs the change at a national plebiscite.

Senator Eric Abetz said he would not necessarily vote with the majority while fellow Liberal senator Cory Bernardi went further by saying he would definitely not vote in favour of same-sex marriage, regardless of the public's verdict.

Liberal National MP Warren Entsch, a leading advocate of same-sex marriage, slammed the senators' stance as "bizarre" and "extraordinary".

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has committed to a national vote on whether to legalise same-sex marriage after the next election, which is expected to cost about $160 million. His predecessor, Tony Abbott, proposed a plebiscite last year after a bitter debate over a conscience vote inflamed tensions within the Coalition.

When asked whether he would bind his MPs to vote "yes" if that was the plebiscite result, Mr Turnbull told Parliament last year that "the consequence of a 'yes' vote in the plebiscite will be that same-sex marriage will be legal in Australia".


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bizarre-and-extraordinary-coalition-tensions-flare-over-samesex-marriage-20160126-gmeomf.html

So time for Turnbull to bite the bullet and allow a conscious vote for his minions now.

your average "real" australian, is more concerned with who wins the next series of "celebrity survivor" then they are with this non issue.

I actually support gay marriage, but I would really rather we discuss actual issues that affect more than 36 people across the country.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

I actually support gay marriage, but I would really rather we discuss actual issues that affect more than 36 people across the country.

So pass the bill and move on really.

http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

I actually support gay marriage, but I would really rather we discuss actual issues that affect more than 36 people across the country.

Oh stop it.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

I actually support gay marriage, but I would really rather we discuss actual issues that affect more than 36 people across the country.

So lets get it passed and we can move on "to more important issues".

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg

Sums it up rather eloquently

Say we have a plebiscite , the people say yes but the Libs vote no , what happens then ?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg

You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off.

Its time wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 3:00pm:

Say we have a plebiscite , the people say yes but the Libs vote no , what happens then ?

Nothing at all.


But let me posit the opposite scenario. Suppose the plebiscite votes AGAINST gay marriage? Are you all going to accept the verdict or will you simply keep agitating and ignoring the will of the people?

This is a serious question. Care to respond?

Its time wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 2:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg Sums it up rather eloquently

Sure does.

Its time wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 2:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg Sums it up rather eloquently

Perhaps you should check out a dictionary regarding the meaning of 'eloquent'. It was many things. Eloquent was not one of them.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off.

Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects.

Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts.

____ wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts.

Affect

____ wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts.

I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people.

Weird, most gay couples I know have been together for years.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:48pm:

____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. Affect

;D ;D affect/effect ... like then and than .... and various other stuff ...  and the Green Grocer's "apostrophe".  >:(

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:49pm: ____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people. Weird, most gay couples I know have been together for years.

1. How many do you know?

2. For years eh? What...2 years?

::)

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:55pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:49pm: ____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people. Weird, most gay couples I know have been together for years. 1. How many do you know? 2. For years eh? What...2 years? ::)

Guys I play hockey with 5 years.

Cousin and his partner at least 10

Sisters friends at least 10

Friends brother at least 8

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:57pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:55pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:49pm: ____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people. Weird, most gay couples I know have been together for years. 1. How many do you know? 2. For years eh? What...2 years? ::) Guys I play hockey with 5 years. Cousin and his partner at least 10 Sisters friends at least 10 Friends brother at least 8

You're a worry....a very REAL worry  :P

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:58pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:55pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:49pm: ____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people. Weird, most gay couples I know have been together for years. 1. How many do you know? 2. For years eh? What...2 years? ::) Guys I play hockey with 5 years. Cousin and his partner at least 10 Sisters friends at least 10 Friends brother at least 8 You're a worry....a very REAL worry  :P

I really hate to ask why

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:48pm:

____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. Affect

Thank you.

____ wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:48pm: ____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. Affect Thank you.

No worries.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:58pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:57pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:55pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:49pm: ____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people. Weird, most gay couples I know have been together for years. 1. How many do you know? 2. For years eh? What...2 years? ::) Guys I play hockey with 5 years. Cousin and his partner at least 10 Sisters friends at least 10 Friends brother at least 8 You're a worry....a very REAL worry  :P I really hate to ask why

Yep. Please don't ask why.

Let's just say, you've got me wondering about....well about Canberrans now  :-?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people.

Your opinion is not based within factual reality. It is based on a delusional opinion of superiority.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 5:02pm:

Yep. Please don't ask why. You've got me wondering about....well about Canberrans now  :-?

What? That generally we're non-judgemental about facets of life.

If a (lib) mp is suppose to represent the electorate, then if the electorate wants gay marriage equality, then should said mp be voting with its electorate or along party lines?

Abetz and Bernardi are entitled to hold their views and make them public....I doubt it will make much difference to the outcome!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Wonder what the lib supporter view is.... vote based on the electorate's will - or vote based on personal/party line. 

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:22pm:

Abetz and Bernardi are entitled to hold their views and make them public....I doubt it will make much difference to the outcome!!! :-? :-? :-?

It will put the Libs into quite the dilemma.  If the proposed plebiscite says 'yeas,' and a Coalition Government then says 'nay,' all hell ought to break loose.

Aussie wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 7:39pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:22pm: Abetz and Bernardi are entitled to hold their views and make them public....I doubt it will make much difference to the outcome!!! :-? :-? :-? It will put the Libs into quite the dilemma.  If the proposed plebiscite says 'yeas,' and a Coalition Government then says 'nay,' all hell ought to break loose.

A likely outcome , the Libs are that out of touch one has to wonder if  they think it wont get past plebiscite when its highly probable it will .

____ wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 5:03pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:49pm: ____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people. Your opinion is not based within factual reality. It is based on a delusional opinion of superiority.

It is based on overseas experience when gay marriage becomes available there is a rush for existing couples follopwed by a very slow dribble.

Quote:

It is based on overseas experience when gay marriage becomes available there is a rush for existing couples follopwed by a very slow dribble.

Link?  Or is this more of your made up garbage?

(I concede it does make logical sense.)

God botheres are probably about the only people that will oppose it , and there isnt many of them left.

There is no marriage inequality - every gay or lesbian is welcome to marry someone of the opposite sex... it's not about equality at all.. it's about a demand to change the rules....

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 8:33pm:

____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 5:03pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:49pm: ____ wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg You probably think that constitutes a compelling argument. IN fact, it is people like him and his appalling attitude that turns people right off. He starts his rant with the position that your views dont matter and nor does your kid.  The only people who would nod in agreement are childless gay-supporters. The rest are more likely to be put off. Speaking of compelling arguments, you stated marriage equality only effect 36 people. I know more than 36 people who this effects. Your claims here in this thread does not put you in a position to pass judgment on other posts. I very much doubt you know 18 gay couples wanting to get married. Firstly, gay only affects 1% of the population. Gays are terribly promiscuous and notably poor at long-term relationships. Only those in long-term, sold relationships are likely to get married. Ergo, it affects very few people. Your opinion is not based within factual reality. It is based on a delusional opinion of superiority. It is based on overseas experience when gay marriage becomes available there is a rush for existing couples follopwed by a very slow dribble.

It?
That marriage equality only effects a max of 36 people across Australia?
Just dumping more unsubstantiated claims on top of your other baseless claims, makes them your opinions, and not fact.

Its time wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 8:52pm:

God botheres are probably about the only people that will oppose it , and there isnt many of them left.

Nothing terrifies me more than being next to someone who's in close with the Almighty during a battle.... I don't oppose gay marriage - I frankly don't give a rat's - I reject the concept that it equates to 'marriage equality', and I always respond to a demand with a NO!

So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 11:35am:

So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up?

Yep

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 11:35am:

So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up?

Of course it will be accepted.

Do you think there'll be riots in the streets or something?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 11:39am:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Of course it will be accepted. Do you think there'll be riots in the streets or something?

If the gay marriage plebiscite were to be rejected, would you keep agitating for it still? Or would you calmly accept the verdict and move on without continually complaining?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:39am: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Of course it will be accepted. Do you think there'll be riots in the streets or something? If the gay marriage plebiscite were to be rejected, would you keep agitating for it still? Or would you calmly accept the verdict and move on without continually complaining?

1. I'm not agitating for it.

2. I would calmly accept any verdict.

3. I would move on.

4. I wouldn't complain.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:51pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:39am: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Of course it will be accepted. Do you think there'll be riots in the streets or something? If the gay marriage plebiscite were to be rejected, would you keep agitating for it still? Or would you calmly accept the verdict and move on without continually complaining? 1. I'm not agitating for it. 2. I would calmly accept any verdict. 3. I would move on. 4. I wouldn't complain.

That's you - not that I beleive you. But do you think everybody else will calmly accept a NO vote?  Somehow, opponents are expected to suck-up a YES vote, but gay advocates are not expected to suck up a NO vote.

It doesn't matter, there won't be a referendum.

The window has closed.

 

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:51pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:39am: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Of course it will be accepted. Do you think there'll be riots in the streets or something? If the gay marriage plebiscite were to be rejected, would you keep agitating for it still? Or would you calmly accept the verdict and move on without continually complaining? 1. I'm not agitating for it. 2. I would calmly accept any verdict. 3. I would move on. 4. I wouldn't complain. That's you - not that I beleive you. But do you think everybody else will calmly accept a NO vote?

Yes.

There won't be rioting in the streets.

You won't have to hide under your bed.

Life will go on as normal.

And, if it doesn't, who cares?  It's no big deal.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 6:37pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:51pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:39am: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Of course it will be accepted. Do you think there'll be riots in the streets or something? If the gay marriage plebiscite were to be rejected, would you keep agitating for it still? Or would you calmly accept the verdict and move on without continually complaining? 1. I'm not agitating for it. 2. I would calmly accept any verdict. 3. I would move on. 4. I wouldn't complain. That's you - not that I beleive you. But do you think everybody else will calmly accept a NO vote?  Yes. There won't be rioting in the streets. You won't have to hide under your bed. Life will go on as normal. And, if it doesn't, who cares?  It's no big deal.

What if a god botherer sees a cpl of fags in street holding hands , they gonna get rowdy holding placards saying god told me he hates fags ? Didnt think of that , did ya greg?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 11:35am:

So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up?

Does the reverse applies to you lib supporters?

stunspore wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:27am:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Does the reverse applies to you lib supporters?

I've already said that if the plebiscite gets up with a YES vote then it should be legalised. I am happy to accept the verdict of the voters. I am asking if the same is true of gay advocates if the result were a NO vote. I disagree with Abetz's position, but it could be said that he is no different that gay advocates who will only accept the verdict if it goes their way.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 7:53am:

stunspore wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:27am: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Does the reverse applies to you lib supporters? I've already said that if the plebiscite gets up with a YES vote then it should be legalised. I am happy to accept the verdict of the voters. I am asking if the same is true of gay advocates if the result were a NO vote. I disagree with Abetz's position, but it could be said that he is no different that gay advocates who will only accept the verdict if it goes their way.

I would say yes, quiet for a while. I doubt that we'd have that situation.

Its time wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 10:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 6:53pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 6:37pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:51pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:39am: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Of course it will be accepted. Do you think there'll be riots in the streets or something? If the gay marriage plebiscite were to be rejected, would you keep agitating for it still? Or would you calmly accept the verdict and move on without continually complaining? 1. I'm not agitating for it. 2. I would calmly accept any verdict. 3. I would move on. 4. I wouldn't complain. That's you - not that I beleive you. But do you think everybody else will calmly accept a NO vote?  Yes. There won't be rioting in the streets. You won't have to hide under your bed. Life will go on as normal. And, if it doesn't, who cares?  It's no big deal. What if a god botherer sees a cpl of fags in street holding hands , they gonna get rowdy holding placards saying god told me he hates fags ? Didnt think of that , did ya greg?

Oh yes, those who are against SSM are the ones who will (and do) cause trouble.

The God botherers are particularly evil.


http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/59035515.jpg

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 7:53am:

stunspore wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:27am: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Does the reverse applies to you lib supporters? I've already said that if the plebiscite gets up with a YES vote then it should be legalised. I am happy to accept the verdict of the voters. I am asking if the same is true of gay advocates if the result were a NO vote. I disagree with Abetz's position, but it could be said that he is no different that gay advocates who will only accept the verdict if it goes their way.

No, will not accept the verdict in the longer time span.
I accept there will a period of time before the topic is returned to, if the scare campaign against marriage equality succeeds.

Like on the issue of Australia becoming a republic.

Some issues like the right for all Australian women to vote took nearly 50 years to achieve.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 7:53am:

stunspore wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:27am: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Does the reverse applies to you lib supporters? I've already said that if the plebiscite gets up with a YES vote then it should be legalised. I am happy to accept the verdict of the voters. I am asking if the same is true of gay advocates if the result were a NO vote. I disagree with Abetz's position, but it could be said that he is no different that gay advocates who will only accept the verdict if it goes their way.

To be honest, if a cause is worthy it should be continuously campaigned.  Just because it succeeded or not, laws should reflect the changes in society.

It could very well be same sex marriage creates big problems after a few years, and there there is a majority that wants the legislation rescinded.

Just because women didn't get equal pay or that Aborigines didn't get the right to vote straight away, it wasn't wrong to keep campaigning until it changes.

stunspore wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 1:40pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 7:53am: stunspore wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:27am: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:35am: So if the plebiscite knocks back gay marriage, will you all accept the verdict and shut up? Does the reverse applies to you lib supporters? I've already said that if the plebiscite gets up with a YES vote then it should be legalised. I am happy to accept the verdict of the voters. I am asking if the same is true of gay advocates if the result were a NO vote. I disagree with Abetz's position, but it could be said that he is no different that gay advocates who will only accept the verdict if it goes their way. To be honest, if a cause is worthy it should be continuously campaigned.  Just because it succeeded or not, laws should reflect the changes in society. It could very well be same sex marriage creates big problems after a few years, and there there is a majority that wants the legislation rescinded. Just because women didn't get equal pay or that Aborigines didn't get the right to vote straight away, it wasn't wrong to keep campaigning until it changes.

Then in the name of consistency, would you be happy for the Liberals and the anti-gay-marriage group to continue to agitate for the repeal of gay marriage laws?

Actually I don't really care about this issue - other than respect for democratic processes.