JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Calaber]

Gawd, bit defensive? If you aren't gay or have gay people in your life (I am assuming but open to correction) of course you would be non-committal on the matter. That's ok. I don't judge you for that.

No I am not a fan of him because he is a liberal premier. I did/do prefer Farrell for I saw him as more socially progressive. But I still didn't like him overall, for the previously stated reason, quite a few policies of NSW liberals I don't like.

There is also the difference between saying something I don't agree with, and saying something that is patently incorrect, and potentially hurtful and divisive.

Bit defensive??? That's a bit rich, isn't it? YOU'RE the one that called Baird a ****ing arsehole. Go around on the internet calling people names and you are bound to get a bite from someone.

And no, obviously, nobody within my family or friends are gay, so I don't have the same opinions as you do. But I don't resent others for having differing views, feelings or beliefs, either.

And if you were happy with O'Farrell, perhaps you weren't too concerned that this state was going nowhere fast as long as he led the party. Everything that was so obviously vital to the growth and development of the state was put on hold under his leadership while a committee looked at it for months, if not years. Nothing progressed. He (IMO) was a do-nothing premier who was happy to sit in Macquarie Street, comfortable in the knowledge that his tenure was safe for at least one more term. I believe Baird is more determined and prepared to take a chance and make politically risky decisions that are the right ones instead of just sitting on his hands and protecting his job.

We obviously have differing priorities as to what is important. I really don't have much concern for social justice or reforms. I want to see this state's infrastructure fixed because I'm fed up with **** roads, poor rail links, inadequate hospitals with huge waiting lists, and so much more that has not been addressed by parties of either persuasion for too many years.

 

[c2105026]

Bit defensive??? That's a bit rich, isn't it? YOU'RE the one that called Baird a ****ing arsehole. Go around on the internet calling people names and you are bound to get a bite from someone.

And no, obviously, nobody within my family or friends are gay, so I don't have the same opinions as you do. But I don't resent others for having differing views, feelings or beliefs, either.

And if you were happy with O'Farrell, perhaps you weren't too concerned that this state was going nowhere fast as long as he led the party. Everything that was so obviously vital to the growth and development of the state was put on hold under his leadership while a committee looked at it for months, if not years. Nothing progressed. He (IMO) was a do-nothing premier who was happy to sit in Macquarie Street, comfortable in the knowledge that his tenure was safe for at least one more term. I believe Baird is more determined and prepared to take a chance and make politically risky decisions that are the right ones instead of just sitting on his hands and protecting his job.

We obviously have differing priorities as to what is important. I really don't have much concern for social justice or reforms. I want to see this state's infrastructure fixed because I'm fed up with **** roads, poor rail links, inadequate hospitals with huge waiting lists, and so much more that has not been addressed by parties of either persuasion for too many years.

Yes I called Baird an arsehole, for making a comment I personally found offensive. Problem with that? I didn't actually mention you at all......apologies if you thought it was aimed at you

I thought I said (overall) I wasn't happy with O'Farrell??

Anyway.........

Thanks Grennan for the insight re: studying law. An issue with tertiary study, particularly if it is in a contentious area such as law (or in my area, education), is the need to 'conform' to the canon of knowledge in order to pass. Hardly teaching critical thinking, as is oft-mentioned in the uni brochures.....as such unhelpful ideas are regurgitated from generation to education. Education is a little different, there are cutting edge ideas about teaching that work in a lab setting but are difficult to apply to the real world, for every classroom and school is different.

As generations roll past the moral compass does shift; as progressive as he may have been, Whitlam would not have dreamed of say protecting the disabled from discrimination. Arguably Tony Abbott is far more progressive than Chifley would have ever been. So the attitudes within a profession would also probably change. From what I see society is moving towards Libertarianism - a freer market with less unionism, but with greater environmental awareness and greater tolerance.

However the biggest hurdle is the major parties having vested interests. Lib/Nats are too close to big industry, ALP too close to unions and even the greens are often aligned with groups that don't really have a clue. In Libs/Nat/ALP what we have seen is that corruption seems to be a very big problem. Not since Bob Carr has a NSW premier served out their term without either being stabbed in the back or embroiled in some scandal.

 

[Calaber]

Yes I called Baird an arsehole, for making a comment I personally found offensive. Problem with that? I didn't actually mention you at all......apologies if you thought it was aimed at you

Cute. I think this "debate" between us is becoming too personal. Not what I would wish. Time it stopped.

As you have previously said, have a nice day.

 

[minux]

Well yes, marriage law is dictated at federal level, and the Coalition have the impasse on that all stitched up

Ummm...the ALP and greens had control of the Senate and failed to push through same sex marriage...so maybe the ALP have that dictated at federal level too?

I am all for people to do what they want, be who they are etc. Why do we need same sex marriage though? Give me 3 good reasons as to why a civil union is not enough?

I have an Uncle who is gay, he is also a Catholic, he and everyone he knows who is also gay has ZERO desire to take on marriage. They want it left as is. They are all pretty adamant that the only ones wanting the change are people like yourself who THINK they know what everyone wants or needs.

 

[c2105026]

Indeed they had control of senate but not of lower house. In addition when it was put to vote ALP granted it as a conscience vote; Coalition had it as party policy as a 'no' to equal marriage. Now if ALP had it as party policy that MPs were to vote 'yes' It would have passed the lower house; indeed if Libs granted conscience vote it probably could have as well. If a conscience vote were to occur now could be 50/50 due to libs controlling lower house.

If a civil union is enough - I'd like to see what'd happen if a guy asked a girl 'Will you have a civil union with me?'. LOL! It is an administrative/legal development - not an act of love. Not permitting full equal marriage sends the message that non-hetero love is somewhat inferior, which to many/most in the LGBT community, is a bit offensive. I think those two reasons are sufficient.

Oustide of your own existence - many gay people want to marry their partners. Allowing for equal marriage would give these people the option to do so. If you are gay and don't want to be married - fine as well. Noone is forcing you. But if one is against it or doesn't care, why would giving others simply the option to marry affect you? That being said, equal marriage does have a majority of popular support amongst Aussie voters.....

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[Calaber]

You have ended your comments by stating that "equal marriage has a majority of popular support amongst Aussie voters.", then adding a newpaper article to support that view.

I'm always intrigued by polls. How big was the sample group in this case and how widespread was it? The poll you referred to indicates that a majority of Australians support gay marriages, but just how valid and accurate is that poll? Have you ever been polled for anything? I haven't and I don't know anybody who has, yet polls are being conducted regularly on a wide range of subjects. Are the polls conducted within different groups for each poll, or are the participants regulars, who are asked their opinions on a wide range of topics at the same time?

I wonder if a majority of voters actually support equal marriage, or simply don't care because it doesn't affect or worry them whether it's legislated or not?

The ALP supported a vote on the issue as a conscience vote and I have no idea what the level of support was. Probably a majority in favour, given that it is their bailiwick for social reform. I also wonder how many of the opposition at the time would have supported the vote had the party line not prevented them from doing so. I guess we will never know.

I think it is likely that this issue will arise again during the current term of the government, and it is likely to be carried, because, whilst Abbott may be seen as a committed Catholic who is personally strongly opposed to single-sex unions, his own churche's leader (ie the Pope) has demonstrated that the Church needs to change and bring itself more into line with contemporary thinking.

Don't give up hope. I'm confident this country will follow the lead of others, sooner rather than later. I just believe it won't be at the top of their list of jobs for a while yet.

 

[SpaceYam]

There is one thing that actually really bothers me about the whole gay marriage issue.

Personally, I genuinely couldn't care less. I need to make that clear.

The issue is that it is being used as a vote grab by the ALP and Greens, rather than IMPORTANT policies. Gay marriage is not the one thing that will define the welfare and future of the country. It is effectively an aesthetic change that will affect an incredibly small minority of people, with absolutely no economical implications beyond maybe slight tax tweaks.

The fact is that it's a blown-out societal issue that should NOT be defining the direction of state and federal level politics. It is not a more important issue than those based around things such as the economy or Australia's diplomatic and military actions.

Personally I hope that it doesn't get passed until people realise that a) there are more important things at hand, and b) being able or not able to marry does not define you as a person, and therefore people should harden up and deal with it in the meantime.

 

[c2105026]

I think my mother was polled back in the 80s/90s, opinion poll, by phone lol. But polls are only a few thousand people at most. Most are about 1000 people. Suppose it's 1000 people, you have a 1/14000 chance of being asked (assuming we have 14 million eligible voters). Suppose one opinion poll is asked every week, 14000 weeks would need to pass before you have any certainty that you will be asked. Or......280 years.

Those who support equal marriage probably fall into two groups. Those who promote it on the left, and the middle, swinging voters who are of the attitude of 'well, why not?'.

Most on the ALP I think supported it, however some elements of ALP are still heavily union-based, and as such socially conservative. NSW ALP in particular. Some coalition MPs have voiced support for equal marriage, such as Malcom Turnbull and I think Wyatt Roy. However to do this is tricky, for most parties have in their constitution you must publicly support the party line, lest you be booted out. Like....before 2011 I would be very surprised that Penny Wong, a gay woman in a permanent relationship, and with adopted child, would have deep down actually opposed equal marriage (but she did publicly).

 

[c2105026]

There is one thing that actually really bothers me about the whole gay marriage issue.

Personally, I genuinely couldn't care less. I need to make that clear.

The issue is that it is being used as a vote grab by the ALP and Greens, rather than IMPORTANT policies. Gay marriage is not the one thing that will define the welfare and future of the country. It is effectively an aesthetic change that will affect an incredibly small minority of people, with absolutely no economical implications beyond maybe slight tax tweaks.

The fact is that it's a blown-out societal issue that should NOT be defining the direction of state and federal level politics. It is not a more important issue than those based around things such as the economy or Australia's diplomatic and military actions.

Personally I hope that it doesn't get passed until people realise that a) there are more important things at hand, and b) being able or not able to marry does not define you as a person, and therefore people should harden up and deal with it in the meantime.

...but it is bill that could pass very quickly in an afternoon.
"being able or not able to marry does not define you as a person, and therefore people should harden up and deal with it in the meantime."
true but it is symbolic of the discrimination that the gay community has faced over preceding centuries, and sometimes, still deal with today.
maybe if you were in that 'small minority of people' you would think differently?

 

[SpaceYam]

...but it is bill that could pass very quickly in an afternoon.

Very true. But because it's been blown out of proportion, this now should not be the case. Let everything blow over, have everyone begin to deal with it rationally, and THEN pass it. But hey, unfortunately Australia is full of people, and this is unlikely to ever happen because by definition, people have no sense .

"being able or not able to marry does not define you as a person, and therefore people should harden up and deal with it in the meantime."
true but it is symbolic of the discrimination that the gay community has faced over preceding centuries, and sometimes, still deal with today.

Oh, I definitely agree there. But has it ever occurred to people that society isn't actually quite ready for the change yet? On the other hand, WILL it be ready before gay marriage becomes legal? Let's face it, we're not Saudi Arabia, you can almost guarantee it will happen eventually, and I'd be very surprised if not within the next 10 years.