Yes to SSM, now can we move on

Via The Australian:

Same-sex marriage will be legalised in Australia after 61.6 per cent of voters ticked Yes in the postal survey.

About 79.5 per cent of registered voters participated in the historic survey with a clear majority in favour of giving gay couples to right to marry.

The parliament will now debate how the changes to the Marriage Act will look with Liberal senator Dean Smith to introduce his bill into the Senate today.

Conservatives will seek amendments to his bill to ensure stronger religious protections or support an alternative bill sponsored by Liberal senator James Paterson.

The highest vote in favour was the Sydney electorate at 83.7% (Melbourne tied):

And the lowest with 73.9% against was Blaxland:

That’s Paul Keating’s old electorate. At the risk of being labelled racist, I’d guess that the big Muslim population played a role.

The national mix was very in favour other than central-QLD poofter-bashers:

MB supports “yes”, now hopefully can we move on to issues of national importance.

Comments

  1. The overwhelming success of the same-sex marriage plebiscite, with its resounding message of support for the gay community in every State and Territory on a turnout of 79.5% across all age groups and electorates, confirms what researchers have known for some time: “citizens like to have an effective say in how they are governed”.

    In their 2007 study, “Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies”, researchers Bowler, Donovan and Karp found that in all cases a plurality of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposition, “Referendums are a good way to decide important political questions”. In all but two countries an absolute majority agreed or strongly agreed. Approval was highest in the country with most experience of referendums (i.e. Switzerland).

    This confirms historical evidence that wherever people have been given a free choice in their form of government (many US States, German lander and other jurisdictions) they almost invariably choose direct democracy. Moreover, where they enjoy such directly democratic rights they NEVER vote to limit or repeal them, even though it’s a straightforward matter to call a referendum for that purpose. Indeed, in some cases such limiting referendums have been called and either defeated or withdrawn in the face of imminent defeat.

    Unfortunately there are also many people who pay lips service to the principle of Democracy but privately abhor the idea that their fellow citizens – those whom they look down upon as “bogans” or “deplorables” or just “inferior” to themselves – should have any real say in how their country is governed.

    Until that changes do not expect to see any improvement in the low levels of trust and respect those “deplorables” have for the supercilious political elite.

  2. The religious conservatives have started the process of fear, uncertainty and doubt with the passage of legislation with the aim of delay or destroy. Where is the separation of church and state?

  3. All the blue ribbon conservative seats Warringah, Wentworth, Mackellar etc easily yes. But a no landslide in West and South West Sydney. Bennelong too for those keeping count at home.

    • As a resident of the seat of Warringah, I can see no alternative but for Abbott to resign as local member.

      Western Sydney was a landslide No. The seats of ALP frontbenchers Bowen, Husic, Burke and Clare were all resounding Nos.

      • It is amusing to see the Twitterati who likely live in the East/North blame ‘bogans’ or whatever for the West Sydney vote.

        The fact they are all strong ALP holds also kinda validates the article headline. People vote at elections on material/class issues, not identity stuff.

      • The Bogans mostly voted Yes – judging from the majorities across the states and in rural areas.

        The Beach Bogans really cut loose with a Yes vote.

        The No vote would appear to come from parts of the cities with lots of migrants who holding onto cultural traditions from other countries that are antagonistic towards SSM.

        With Parramatta clocking a 61.6% no vote I will be keeping an eye out for a removalist van marked “Warringah Removals – bringing Tony to house near you”

    • Philly SlimMEMBER

      17 electorates voted no. 5 LNP (3 NSW / 2 QLD), 1 Katter (QLD) and 11 (9 NSW / 2 VIC), yes 11, ALP electorates.

      The 9 biggest no votes were all ALP electorates, mostly Western Sydney …
      Blaxland – 74% no
      Watson – 69.6% no (tony burke local member)
      McMahon – 64.9% no (chris bowen local member)
      Fowler – 63.7% no
      Werriwa – 63.7% no
      Parramatta – 61.6% no
      Chifley – 58.7% no
      Calwell – 56.6% no (Victoria)
      Barton – 56.4% no

    • @David
      Not this one. No moral opinion just righteous indignation that this is a thing we paid 122mil for. That alone got my no vote. In a 30 year career it’s always been members of the abcdlbgtirstv community who get ahead. Especially in creative fields and being into the same sex does not automatically make a person talented or increase their talent but they definitely get heard over everyone else. If that makes me a bigot so be it. I don’t care!

  4. Im actually disappointed, but not surprised in the vote. 38% voted no? Thats a lot of opposition…

    Only 57% said yes in NSW – the country’s most populated state? Thats a big chunk of people opposed to equal rights, not a minority, per se.

    Australia still has a long way to go before being considered progressive or a tolerant society. Good steps, don’t get me wrong, but not exactly a big step towards that goal.

      • Yep. The strong no vote in western sydney will inevitably be used by the Tories in the next election.

      • AlbyManglesMEMBER

        take the yes and move on, I voted yes, just get on with it, pointing fingers will make meal of it

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        “Yep. The strong no vote in western sydney will inevitably be used by the Tories in the next election”

        They poll these areas constantly and would be well aware of sentiment. I doubt much will change.

      • The fight will now go to the Liberal partyroom and don’t expect it to be easier there either. The loons are trying to make it an offence to lodge a complaint about discrimination in accordance with state law (how on earth they expect that to stand in courts is beyond me).
        The Loons are just not smart enough…. they should admit that they lost… and just enable the legalisation to come into force on Australia Day…. (to stir the Anti-Australia Day Mob).

      • I’m sure it wont take much to break down the demographics of the areas with the highest no votes and then go on from there.

        a quick scan of the top no vote regions tends to show a strong religious and no vote relationship, whereas say Chippendale in Sydney had 66% of saying they had no religious affiliation.

        Will be interesting to see how the progressives try to frame this, as the minute they start to attack Catholics they’ll also have to acknowledge the strong no vote and Islam.

    • My thoughts exactly. I’m disappointed in a significant percentage of my countrymen for their action rather than inaction or apathy for a change.

      I’m now seriously concerned the politicians are going to go to town on the bill and demonstrate that they ate grossly unfit to govern (like we need more evidence on that one)

    • I look at this question as, would you be happy if your child turned out to be gay. If the answer is No then you should have voted no.

      Would you be happy for society to encourage a teenager who is developing to experiment with the same sex because it is now classified as normal? If you answer no, then you should have voted no.

      I see in the future many yes voters regretting what they have done when their children or grandchildren bring home someone from the same sex.

    • Change the word “gay” in your response to “black” or “Asian” and then rethink your position Labyrnth.

      Same sex between mammals has been recorded between 500 and 1500 species, and goes back in human history to pre-history.

      The science shows it to be normal behaviour – only a minority of the population – but normal.

      • Ahh, going straight for the race card, just like the immigration debate…

        I have no issue with but buddies, go for your life.

        Marriage is a religious ceremony which has always been between a man and woman.

        Answer my question, would you be happy if your son came home with a Brendan and not a Brenda.

      • No problem at all with my son or daughter having same sex relationships when they are of age.

        i have two aunts who have been in a loving long relationship – including raising kids.

        Marriage is a change in legal status. You decide to have it in a religious or secular setting, but the end case is you have a different legal status according to the state.

        What are you afraid of? Less than 2% of adults are homosexual/transgender…whats the problem in extending the same legal status when they get married?

      • Lab is onto something. There would be many people who voted ” NO” despite not caring if two gay men actually want to marry, but they would have been concerned about the potential for sex ed in schools to include LGBT and teachers telling their kids they can dress how they like etc. and actually encouraging that behavior, when the parent doesn’t want it.

        Then there is the other side of the argument, what about polygamy? Why can’t i love more than one person and therefore marry more than one person? The state shouldn’t be able to tell me otherwise right?

      • “No problem at all with my son or daughter having same sex relationships when they are of age.”

        What about a sex change before they are 18, because they don’t identify with their birth gender?

      • truthisfashionable

        Just remember marriage pre dates Christianity (and therefore Islam).

        Christianity may have tried to steal marriage for it’s own uses but that doesn’t mean it owns the definitive definition of marriage

        Late edit @labrynth. Marriage isn’t a religious ceremony.

      • Mr Becker – I’m on board with truthisfashionable – marriage predates modern religion, perhaps all organised religion. It’s an ancient social construct concerned with ensuring stability and generational refurbishment by bonding breeding pairs. Marriage is primarily and ultimately about reproduction.

        The West is decadent, it’s social values are crumbling. Our barbarians are at and inside our gates. It’s just the way of things. Social fascination with androgyny, transvestism and other non reproductive sexuality always occurs just before Empire’s fall.

      • “marriage predates modern religion, perhaps all organised religion. It’s an ancient social construct concerned with ensuring stability and generational refurbishment by bonding breeding pairs. Marriage is primarily and ultimately about reproduction.”

        Exactly this. It is a societal construct which is present across almost every society, because all societies, and quite independent of each other figured out long ago it is the most conducive way to raise the next generation.

      • Interesting stats can yo provide the bio-link? I doubt even Attenborough would agree with these stats (sorry the stats are crap).

      • “Change the word “gay” in your response to “black” or “Asian” and then rethink your position Labyrnth.

        Same sex between mammals has been recorded between 500 and 1500 species, and goes back in human history to pre-history.

        The science shows it to be normal behaviour – only a minority of the population – but normal.”
        Of course you could also change gay to peadophillic, or violent murderer, and make the same argument you have.

      • Yes Chris, homosexual behaviour (realised or suppressed) may be more widespread than most acknowledge.

        Some analyses have associated extreme forms of pornography where there is visual focus on the male organ(s) penetrating females, often roughly, often anally, with the homosexual urge albeit not generally recognised as such by the viewer. It was said Hugh Hefner in later years could only achieve satisfaction manually watching homosexual porn (all other taboos having been exhausted).

      • There’s hundreds of peer reviewed papers and books on the subject. Its all well established science, observed across almost all species, more so in mammals and birds.

      • Lab is onto something. There would be many people who voted ” NO” despite not caring if two gay men actually want to marry, but they would have been concerned about the potential for sex ed in schools to include LGBT and teachers telling their kids they can dress how they like etc. and actually encouraging that behavior, when the parent doesn’t want it.

        Then they are morons.

        Then there is the other side of the argument, what about polygamy? Why can’t i love more than one person and therefore marry more than one person? The state shouldn’t be able to tell me otherwise right?

        Given marriage is a law, the state most certainly gets to say whether or not you can be married to more than one person. One might even say that’s the whole point.

      • What about a sex change before they are 18, because they don’t identify with their birth gender?

        Careful you don’t hurt yourself sliding down that slippery slope. The straw man you’re hauling around probably hasn’t got a lot of give.

      • Mr Becker – I’m on board with truthisfashionable – marriage predates modern religion, perhaps all organised religion. It’s an ancient social construct concerned with ensuring stability and generational refurbishment by bonding breeding pairs. Marriage is primarily and ultimately about reproduction.

        Marriage is primarily and historically a legal construct around property rights and inheritance.

        If marriage was primarily and ultimately about reproduction, then people who marry and don’t reproduce, and especially people who get married who are physically incapable of reproducing, would be at least pariahs, if not explicitly outlawed.

        The “traditional marriage” most use as their preferred “definition”, is generally a very modern and very culturally specific (last half-century or so, western society) one. Consequently it’s a completely empty argument.

      • JC – not only is a male female breeding pair the most conducive way to raise the next generation, it’s still the only way to make one. We can put technology and human proxy’s around the process – but we still can’t make new humans without a sperm, egg and womb.

        I believe in sexual freedoms and have nothing against anyone enjoying their erogenous bits with other consenting human adults however they want – but it doesn’t mean society should forgo all structural logic because of it.

        drsmithy – since Feudal history, sure marriage has been a legal contract – and for most of that time with the man owning the wife – but still with the expectation of an heir. Ancient Romans, Greeks, Persians and Egyptians all had their own version. Society before these ancient civilisations also had marriage- before monotheism, even the Proto Indo European pantheon (the forerunner of all the modern theological pantheons) there was marriage.

        To see a tribal society fairly unchanged by time, look at the Australian aboriginal and see how their tribal law defines marriage.

        The reproductive union of man and woman is the long standing version – it changes and wavers throughout history but always aligning around that concept.

        As for wondering why non reproductive couples aren’t pariahs – sometimes they were (more often then not the woman was outcast as barren than the man because there is a visual indicator for men functioning). All heterosexual couples below a certain age have the potential to be reproductive (especially before we had scientific ways of testing). No homosexual couples have reproductive potential.

      • I believe in sexual freedoms and have nothing against anyone enjoying their erogenous bits with other consenting human adults however they want – but it doesn’t mean society should forgo all structural logic because of it.

        Fortunately nobody is suggesting anything at all like “foregoing all structural logic”. In fact, the change to society’s “structural logic” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) by same sex marriage is pretty much insignificant, given homosexuality has been accepted in the mainstream for a good decade or two, de facto homosexual relationships are recognised in law, homosexuals can adopt, etc, etc.

        If you wish to return to “traditional marriage”, when the women and children were property, when divorce was difficult, if not impossible, then make that argument. But don’t try and pretend cherry-picking out the aspects of “traditional marriage” you want as inviolable while considering other modernisations acceptable has any intellectual integrity.

        Don’t try and bring religion or theology into it, either. It has no place in this discussion, which is about changing the law. When someone campaigns that religions be forced to perform same-sex marriages, you’ll have a point (and my support).

      • drsmithy – this is a discussion about society, of which human belief sets always play a part (theology is just an example of a human belief set).

        I think you need to re-read my post – you are making some false assumptions about it in yours. Wider social values and progress were not being discussed, only marriage. What I or you believe is irrelevant next to historic evidence and biological fact.

      • drsmithy – this is a discussion about society, of which human belief sets always play a part (theology is just an example of a human belief set).

        This is a discussion about law, which in our society, is supposed to be non-discriminatory and secular.

        Wider social values and progress were not being discussed, only marriage.

        You are the one who started a discussion about “social values and progress”:

        “not only is a male female breeding pair the most conducive way to raise the next generation”

        (If it is the most conducive, why isn’t it consistent across all human societies ? Why do some send children to boarding schools or similar institutions. Why do some make extensive use of grandparents and extended families and other does not. Why do some see “family” as the entire group, not just blood relatives ? Etc, etc.)

        Not only are you projecting your personal beliefs onto humanity as a whole, you are conflating “producing offspring” with “raising children” – and neither of those things have anything to do with the legal construct of marriage.

        What I or you believe is irrelevant next to historic evidence and biological fact.

        What “historic evidence” ? Historically, women were property. Historically, non-whites were inferior. Historically, we had no legal principles around things like speech and religion. Historically, slavery was legal. Something being done historically is not a justification for doing it today.

        What “biological fact” ? As with other arbitrary laws, Marriage law has nothing to do with biology.

        What “biological fact” dicates being a legal adult ?
        What “biological fact” dictates age of consent laws ?
        What “biological fact” dictates what is and is not murder, or why murder is illegal ?
        Etc.

      • drsmithy

        What “biological fact” dicates being a legal adult ? What “biological fact” dictates age of consent laws ? – these 2 are based on the same thing, sexual maturity. Sure, society has made it seem arbitrary over time but the origin of adulthood was sexual maturity.

        What “biological fact” dictates what is and is not murder, or why murder is illegal ? Um, death – the end of biological life dictates when murder has occurred to a living human entity.

        There are a bunch of basic social laws that are shared by just about any human society – no murder of your own, no cannibalism of your own, no incest or paedophilia, protect the young at the expense of the old and protect the breeders at the expense of all others because, without breeders, biological life ceases – basic rules that human social groups adhere to for cohesion. Morals, faith, justice etc – they all rose from these basic rules. Law is just a reflection of the ideal of justice.

        Dave – Google? That same institution that sacked a guy for saying something as controversial as men and women are different, coz hormones. The internet is becoming more unreality land every day and google is one of the main perpetrators of the doublethink.

        And that Wikipedia article has been moderated by the PC thought police to make sure no petals are triggered – the first 2 paragraphs have nothing to do with human social evolution, or history and everything to do with making sure certain cry-babies aren’t upset.

      • You can’t reason with someone that won’t listen to reason… its an undeniable fact that marriage has meant a multitude of different things to a multitude of different cultures throughout human history. Regardless of your opinion of Wikipedia or Google.

        If you’re unable to accept something as obvious as that, you’re likely to continue to be confused and frustrated by your fellow humans.

      • Do you even read Dave? A direct quote from myself

        The reproductive union of man and woman is the long standing version – it changes and wavers throughout history but always aligning around that concept.

        Yes, the definition of marriage has variation, I am fully aware of that. The core of marriage, throughout most of human and it’s history, has always been reproduction. Same sex marriage, like the homosexuality it caters to, is aberrant – this does not mean it does not and has not always accepted, it just means it is outside the normative range.

      • @ Smithy

        “Marriage is primarily and historically a legal construct around property rights and inheritance.”
        Nope, what you talk of is a modern construct of recent millennium if not shorter.
        If one only looks at Kalahari bushmen, the last culture that has no word for owning or property… yet they have marriage.
        But I am sure you repeated this ad-nausea until you started to believe it.

        If marriage was primarily and ultimately about reproduction, then people who marry and don’t reproduce, and especially people who get married who are physically incapable of reproducing, would be at least pariahs, if not explicitly outlawed.
        Bad argument.
        Many cultures that had no possibilities for contact (e.g. South American and say SE Asia) have considered marriage null and void if an offspring was not produced. To the point that marriage begun only after the offspring was produced. Almost like a contract that was drawn to produce something that never brought any results and it lapsed.
        Outlaws… nice distraction.

      • What “biological fact” dicates being a legal adult ? What “biological fact” dictates age of consent laws ? – these 2 are based on the same thing, sexual maturity

        No they’re not. There is zero connection between those laws and the biology of sexual maturity.

        What “biological fact” dictates what is and is not murder, or why murder is illegal ? Um, death – the end of biological life dictates when murder has occurred to a living human entity.

        Death is not equivalent to murder. There’s the distinction with manslaughter, to start with, not to mention some people are able to kill without being guilty of murder, etc, etc.

        Morals, faith, justice etc – they all rose from these basic rules. Law is just a reflection of the ideal of justice.

        No, it’s not. As the myriad different manifestations of same across human societies (eg: human sacrifice, child labour, slavery, religious freedom, suffrage, etc, etc) demonstrate.

        ‘We did it in the past, therefore it is correct to keep doing it in the future’, is an utterly hollow argument.

      • Yep, I read what you said. You’ve ignored all the other motivations for marriage because you’re fixated on reasons why SSM should not meet your narrow definition of marriage. And you also don’t seem to understand that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage – it doesn’t require the same two people to be together at all.

        Sure there is a natural human tendency to nurture a family (which includes financial and emotional stability as well as reproduction). Fine. But there’s no reason why that should be the ONLY acceptable motivation for marriage. None at all.

        Remember also that certain cultures throughout history have had the culture of inter-marrying, despite the well-understood genetic problems. Then there are other cultures who married adult men to female children. Then there’s forcibly arranged marriages, and female slavery. That’s all OK in your reproductive-driven view of marriage but SSM is not?

      • Nope, this is a modern construct of recent millennium if not shorter.

        Incorrect. Marriage as a legal construct around inheritance and property, is as old as written law itself (and, it’s reasonable to conclude, probably a lot older).

        If one only looks at Kalahari bushmen, the last culture that has no word for owning or property… yet they have marriage.

        And ? Is there something about the Kalahari bushmen that would mean theirs is the definitive concept of marriage ?

        Many cultures that had no possibilities for contact (e.g. South American and say SE Asia) have considered marriage null and void if an offspring was not produced. To the point that marriage begun only after the offspring was produced.

        But their culture is not our culture. In our culture, marriage has no reproduction condition, legally or otherwise. Even our most hardcore religions, as far as I know, will not annul a childless marriage, or refuse to marry those incapable of childbirth. The suggestion that homosexuals cannot produce children and therefore should not be allowed to marry does not even pass the laugh test.

      • Exactly. Population ponzi moving us away from social progressiveness.

        Watch the Chinese community embarrass leftie Keneally at the bi-election.

    • Which equal rights are you talking about, where CommBank forced employees to attend yes rally, where all media propaganda flogs yes vote, any opposition is disparaged, is that an equality???

      • It’s only equality if you are on the “right” team. That’s the way neo liberal, snow flake, “SWJism” works. Haven’t you figured that out yet? I mean how long before a biology professor in this country will get fired for suggesting there are only two genders and the snow flakes call for his or her head? 10 years?

      • FiftiesFibroShack

        “It’s only equality if you are on the “right” team.That’s the way neo liberal, snow flake, “SWJism” works. Haven’t you figured that out yet?”

        Well, there is actually legislation that discriminates against a law abiding section of the community, which, thankfully, the community just rejected convincingly, despite what the god botherers and other morons susceptible to propaganda from the ACL and Coalition for Marriage etc. continue to spin.

    • It was the faux religious that voted no. The ones that never go to church etc, but feel like they’ve done something to secure themselves a place in heaven by saying no.

    • Highest number of migrants. Those recently migrating, the muslims, the chinese, the indians are usually very conservative.
      Isn’t it great. We let them come to our country and then they vote to oppress us.

  5. The question willbe those supporting the yes vote would be willing to accept a similar 3 to 2 yes vote in the future on a proposition they don’t agree with.

    This was definitely not a resounding yes the progressives would like to portray, nor is it a resounding no that the Abbottites will try to make it seem.

  6. FiftiesFibroShack

    NSW had a lower ‘yes’ vote than QLD! Western Sydney can take a bow. Blaxland and Watson both had huge no votes and both those areas have at least 20% Muslim populations. That said, most seats in Western Sydney that voted ‘no’ have large immigrant populations, with Asians and Greeks pumping up the ‘no’ vote.

    It would be interesting to see which immigrant group had the highest ‘no’ vote, as a percentage of their group and also in total number.

    • As someone who did not vote, this is a very legitimate view. Less than 50% of eligible voters say yes. You cannot assume yes votes from the rest. The ones who want change should be the ones who need to demonstrate a clear majority.

      And look at that. MB removed my login name from use in posts and force my first name. Is that because I stopped subscribing as a result of the pathetic WA bashing? Likely. Why don’t you just ban the opinions you don’t like?

  7. I’m glad this is over. It consumed the public arena for too long. Frankly, I had no interest in the matter, surely cohabitation should suffice (same sex or opposite sex). Much ado about nothing.

    • I watched an old 60 Minutes interview with Gore Vidal. Vidal was asked about being in love and his 20 year live-in relationship with his cook, confidant and social secretary. Vidal was urbane and honest: No, he was not in love with him, he enjoyed a deep friendship with him and that being in love doesn’t last but a loving friendship does. When asked about conjugal relations Vidal simply confirmed he was a keen proponent of promiscuity, immersing oneself in the experiences of life. Vidal’s view was refreshingly frank and free from marriage hysteria.

      • Alternatively: Vidal was coy about his sexuality and his feelings for his partner, but was unable to free himself from the shackles of culturally induced self-loathing that his generation had inflicted upon him simply because of this. It is in stark difference to the social constructs that now exist where homosexuals feel that they can express their love.

  8. Looks like the only thing to do is make all marriage illegal. That should include the annulment of all existing marriages. That should put everyone on even footing, prevent people from marrying their investment properties, get rid of divorces and stop relations between all non property investors.

  9. Sorry but in your rush to derogatory comments about central Qld you missed that most of Western Sydney electorates voted NO.
    Far more p[people voted No in western Sydney than in Western Qld.
    Benelong is marginal NO, Reid is Marginal Yes, everything else in Western Sydney is clear NO including both North Western and South Western.
    Watson centred on Belmore.was also a resounding NO.
    My guess it was a combination of “faith” of both Muslim and Christian peoples and lower middle class and working people with less education, but I really am surprised at how the YES vote degraded as you moved west in (or out of) Sydney CBD.

  10. like the whinging is going to stop after this, or we are going to ‘move on’ to the pressing issues this blog talks about after gay marriage is legalised. the spectre of homophobia/transphobia/transspeciesphobia (whatever issue that can materialise to serve as a thin edge of the wedge, distract people from thinking about the 1%’s share, and shock and subvert the proles) will continue to haunt australia, and we will continue to hear about it for the next thousand thousand years.

    • Yep. Our political system depends on distractions for its survival.

      There will always be some trivia being promulgated by The Great Princes to produce confected outrage. The goal of this is distracting the 99% so that they don’t understand what is being done to them by the 1%.

      It’ll be interesting to see what the next furore is about.

  11. The irony is if the lefts open borders immigration philosophy prevails then you could run this vote again in 20 years and get a very different result. At least the country would be super vibrant (unless you’re gay)

    • We really need flair’s on this website; like reddit. I’d have a socialist or social democratic flair, then everyone would know where I stand. Shawn, he could have a melon, then everyone would know he is a melon head.

      PS we already run a defacto opens border policy, but it’s beneath a right wing government. Wonders never cease.

  12. drsmithy – this is a discussion about society, of which human belief sets always play a part (theology is just an example of a human belief set).

    I think you need to re-read my post – you are making some false assumptions about it in yours. We were no discussing wider social values and progress, only marriage. What I or you believe is irrelevant next to historic evidence and biological fact.

  13. the no-vote that was super hyper concentrated in western sydney came from “diversity”, no question. there were some electorates in south-west sydney (around lakemba and punchbowl) that went 70%+ no.

  14. Meanwhile, Hollie Hughes is prevented from taking Nash’s Senate spot because of her AAT role which she took a year after the election.

    So now it sounds like Jim Molan will get the gig.

  15. So what will be the next ’cause’ the left battles for? Lowering age of consent? Polygamy? Incestuous marriage? Any ideas?

    One thing I’ve learned over time about the left is that they never, EVER stop pushing. Anyone who thinks this ‘debate’ ends here is living in a dreamworld.

    • One thing I’ve learned over time about the left is that they never, EVER stop pushing.

      Yeah, and look at the disasters that has wrought.

      Emancipation, suffrage, public education, free speech, separation of Church and State, democracy…

      Where will it end ?!

    • No, all of those things you mentioned are still available in rightwing religious heartlands, particularly in America.

      Next thing they’ll push for is teaching creationism in schools, or ten commandments put on the courthouse – when will it stop?

    • Yep, paedophilia and trans-species intercourse I’m backing. Afterall, ‘love is love’, never mind the West and the natural order are laying in smouldering ruins. The bad guys won, it’s over. We had a good run.

    • Come on Adam. Cheer up. Gays can marry. That’s it. What’s next? Pushing for progress is good. You keep pushing back, because you like things a certain way, and if there’s enough who agree with you, then progress will be halted. That’s society. Glad to be part of it, even with backward thinking minorities like your good self who don’t agree with the very popular idea of gay marriage. I won’t call you a bigot, redneck, moron, conservative, Amish, cave-dweller, possible closet homosexual seeking to punish everyone for his own uncontrollable man lust, I’ll leave that to others. Go and hug someone you love and please stop blaming this “left” thing for all your woes.

    • No one will make you do anything….unless you’re a baker. Then you will be chained up and marched to the gay wedding cake production line detention camps, where you will make 100 gay cakes celebrating “Adam and Steve”, after which you will be stoned to death by drag queens, who will dry your remains, paint them rainbow colours, crush them into small bits, and turn them into confetti that will be thrown at gay weddings, whilst your family are forced to applaud, and your children turned into gays. Andrew, please seek help…..I may do the same after watching that annoying Breitbart punk spew his bile.

      • Breitbart was killed? And yes the incidence of homosexuality is rising, why is that? do you have the slightest clue of what is really happening?

  16. And a big round of applause for DocSmithy, as usual spending half his day trying to shut down any kind of conservative comment with false binaries, hyperbole and other nonsense! You’ll sleep well tonight big fella.

    • He wasn’t shutting down conservative comment, he took the time to point out the nonsense some were posting. I’m sure if people just said, “I voted no, because it makes me uncomfortable.” he’d not have bothered. But some of the stuff up above is just a combination of farcical scare mongering, fallacy salads and statistical hail Mary’s. It’s been just as much fun reading the overreaction and cognitive dissonance from the invested No folk as the Clinton stick ons post Trump trying to invalidate his electoral success.
      You can either go hide in a safe space of your choosing or look at the many other countries where this is already happening and acknowledge that it is neither a slippery slope to marrying fetus’, not the end of civil society.

      • You know the old story, wooden horse presented as a gift, filled with enemy soldiers. Sadly, the Establishment doesn’t give a damn about gay people, but this vote will be weaponized to further their sick agenda.

  17. While some people have alluded to it, ro me the biggest political take-home from the survey is this:

    Labor’s support for Big Australia has clearly damaged its electoral chances. At 70k a year, the influx of socially conservative migrants would have been far lower. Labor’s assumption that migrants automatically support them is way off the mark. Perhaps winning Bennelong once, allegedly on the “Asian vote” (even though they’ve lost it twice since) has taught them the wrong message.

    I wonder if Bill will work it out.

      • You’re missing the point. Shorten is overtly pro- Big Australia. The ME poll shows that Big Australia has hurt Labor electorally in a way in which it hasn’t hurt the Libs. It doesn’t matter who you’re beholden to if you can’t get elected.

      • With respect, I think you’re missing the point, MT or BS wouldn’t be allowed to lead their parties if they didn’t support mass immigration.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now