Newspoll has Labor’s lead back at 53-47 after a 54-46 blowout a fortnight ago, with primary votes at 37% for the Coalition (up two), 38% for Labor (steady), 9% for the Greens (steady) and 8% for One Nation (down one). Both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are on 34% approval and 54% disapproval, which means one-point drops in both for Turnbull, and no change for Shorten. Oddly, Malcolm Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister has blow out to 46-29, from 43-33. Paywalled report from The Australian here.
The ever-fickle Mark Kenny has a new column out about Bill Shorten’s calling of the Abbott/Turnbull bluff:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/citizenship-saga-the-onus-of-proof-politically-at-least-has-shifted-20170904-gyakke.html
Although i am gay, i was brought up in a family with a straight marriage and that was pretty abusive but i will never get the right to vote on whether str8s should be allowed to marry.
I would abolish families. they are repressive institutions, the source of most of the evil in the world.
The nuclear family has much to answer for.
swamprat @ #602 Monday, September 4th, 2017 – 9:57 pm
Dio I very much doubt that there is an argument against marriage equality that doesn’t at some level imply wrongly that someone would be harmed by allowing gay people to marry and at the core of those beliefs/assumptions are negative ideas about gay people.
In other words, although its polite to say its ok to oppose marriage equality “respectfully”, there’s probably no anti marriage equality argument that isn’t rooted in some form of homophobia or disrespect of some form. As unsavoury as that is. The simple fact is that good people hold bad ideas.
bemused
“I propose an anti-‘Impotent but Pure’ plebiscite!”.
——
The best modern labor motto i like is: “dont let the perfect get in the way of the good”. On a par with that great Labour chant: What do we want: gradual change. When do we want it: in due cause.
Of course it is not about whether “gays” have a right to marriage, it’s about whether I have a right to decide to stop others from getting married.
The No people are fighting to have that right.
Assuming it gets to a vote, I’ll be voting “Yes”.
If two people want to subject themselves to the T&Cs of the Marriage Act 1961, who am I to disagree?
The clincher for me was two years after getting married, the ATO data-matching bot disputed my change of family tax code and reassessed me as a single – despite having provided my spouse’s details in the relevant section. Two phone calls and many (stupid) questions later, it was sorted out… I hate to think what de facto couples have to put up with.
cud chewer
Dio I very much doubt that there is an argument against marriage equality that doesn’t at some level imply wrongly that someone would be harmed by allowing gay people to marry and at the core of those beliefs/assumptions are negative ideas about gay people.
The denial of the right to equal protection under the law can only be premised on the view that those who are to be denied protection do not deserve it. How else can such a denial be proposed or justified?
The denial of rights is both a consequence of and a cause of personal shaming.
cud chewer @ #604 Monday, September 4th, 2017 – 10:33 pm
If you can’t see the problem inherent in your logic, then I’m afraid that arguing with you is completely pointless. Hint: look at your use of the word “wrongly”, which is actually unnecessary in this sentence.
Oh dear, that should be:
What do we want: gradual change. When do we want it: in due course.
@CC
Got it in one. Every ‘no’ argument essentially boils down to this:
“The idea that the relationships of gay people, who I find disgusting, are going to be viewed as being just as valid and legitimate as my real and normal straight relationship offends me”
I’ll await the the torrent of comments calling me a bully for holding this view.
I find it funniest when no campaigners try to make this into an argument about semiotics. The word marriage used to have this meaning and soon it will have a different meaning and words changing meaning is bad waaaaaaaah. As if most of them don’t support a ‘liberal’ party who denigrate ‘illegal immigrants’ and believe in ‘climate change’ but don’t believe in ‘global warming’. Where and when exactly did this protectionist attitude towards the meanings of words come from? It seems to be an incredibly recent development if you ask me and tellingly so.
Oh dear, that should be:
When do we want it: in due course. Not: due cause
swamprat
I am disappointed in the ALP for supporting the LNP farce.
Your disappointment is misplaced. Labor do not support the survey.
Blanket Criticism:
Spot on.
“I’ll await the the torrent of comments calling me a bully for holding this view.”
Ah, but “it’s not a marriage” in a certain user’s opinion. End of discussion.
swamprat,
You, as someone directly impacted by this farce, have every right to be offended by it and refuse to partake in it.
I, as someone not directly impacted by this farce but supportive of your Rights, can only do one thing to show my support and that is vote “YES”.
Anything less on my part, I believe, would be an insult to you and your friends in the LGBTI community.
That’s a neat summary of the “No” case. If the Tony Abbott’s of the world had had their way, homosexual acts would still have been a jailable offence. Until recently, same sex marriage wasn’t an issue, now it is and many who weren’t too fussed about it before (like me) need to respond. None of the “No” arguments I’ve come across make any sense because either:
– they are based upon particular interpretations of ancient ‘holy’ books that I don’t accept, and/or
– they are irrelevant (free speech, marrying bridges or goats, etc), and/or
– they are stupid and/or bigoted (said to devalue existing marriages) and/or
– there is no proposal to make it compulsory
The only practical “negative” aspect of same-sex marriage I can fathom, for some, is that you won’t know which gender someone is referring to if they talk of their spouse, wear a wedding ring, or say that they are married.
Cc
Yes good people think bad things. If they think enough of them they become bad people but thinking one bad thing doesn’t make you a bad person.
Di0.
Absolutely. The idea and the holder of the idea are two separate things. But one should be able to describe someone’s ideas as homophobic and have the person accept that that one is talking about his/her idea. Unfortunately most people take this one step too far and claim the right not to be offended. Being able to criticise bad ideas does mean having the freedom to offend people who choose to be personally offended for being told that their passionately held beliefs are crap.
Newbie, quite a while ago straight people started using the term “partner”. Once upon a time if you heard someone refer to his partner, you’d know he was talking about a male partner. Go figure.
True Newbie, but then there are many people who enjoy “not a marriage” who aren’t being targeted by homophobes because they aren’t gay.
Player One @ #594 Monday, September 4th, 2017 – 10:07 pm
And where did I supposedly say that?
You will have the legal right to boycott the survey should it be held. I support you having that legal right.
P1, I used the word “wrongly” in its contrary-to-the-facts sense.
I’ll break that down for you even further. Part of a lot of homophobic arguments is the claim someone will be harmed by the existence of same sex marriage, either directly or indirectly. For instance, married people are “harmed” because gay people enjoying the same status in civil law demeans their marriage. Well at least that’s what is really being asserted. I used the word “wrongly” because, its wrong in point of fact.
But then facts aren’t your department, judging by the hopeless positions you keep taking.
I think I discovered a new field of mathematics. Its called P1-logic. With this I can surely disprove Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. Where do I claim my million dollar prize? 🙂
Essential?
cud,
P1-logic.
But are there any rules that you apply to it?
For interest, I’ve done a head-count of my family, which includes: two sets of grandparents, parents, adult children and their various partners, assorted spouses and ex-spouses and quite a few adult grandchildren. Our family includes a gay male, a lesbian and 2 bisexuals. We also have a band of evangelicals among our kin. Among those eligible to be surveyed, almost all resent the very idea but will participate if the survey forms are sent out. The split is 49 x Yes, 11 x No and one unknown.
Among my most-frequently-seen friends and their families, the count is above 20:1 in favour (I can think of just 2 likely to say No) and sentiment against the process is very pronounced.
Offsetting this to some extent, the band of evangelicals are a part of an extended group of about 25 adults who are all susceptible to clapping, swaying, laying on of hands, monotonous and/or tuneless singing and organised muttering to the deity. They will vote No and say Amen.
Barney, that’s the beauty of P1 logic. Any attempt to discover the rules completely re-orders the logic in a quantum fashion 🙂
Interesting article about how the energy market is gamed for FCAS services and how big a difference SA’s battery could make in breaking the cartel.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/how-teslas-big-battery-can-smash-australias-energy-cartel-64548/
New thread.
Essential 53-47.
26% support changing OZ day date, 54% opposed. That so many are so attached to meaningless arbitrary dates makes me lose faith in the intelligence of my fellow Australians. I would like some extra questions to drill down into the reasons for such attachments, such as “Are you a moron?”