Tuesday, August 30, 2016

My two bob's worth

As you might know, I don't care two hoots about gay marriage personally, but it it is important to many people, least of all Sister who married Bone Doctor in Canberra before former Prime Minister John Howard shut it down with special legislation. Sister and Bone Doctor were legally married for a few days.

The later former Prime Minister, The Abbott, proposed a plebiscite about gay marriage; that is asking the Australian people if they wanted legislated gay marriage. Given the approval rating for gay marriage is around 70%, why??? Polling figures from Christians, from non believers in religion and from other religions have approval figures of over 50%. It should be a simple vote in parliament. Our Prime Minister personally approves of gay marriage, so we can only conclude he is stymied by his piss weak party members who are beholden to the old school, like Howard and Abbott.

There are so many really important things to focus on for political parties in Australia, but instead our the Liberals, our conservative party in power, waste their time on debating gay marriage and want to spend upwards of $160 million on a non binding plebiscite vote by the people of Australia. If strongly Catholic countries such as Spain and Mexico, not exactly first world countries, have legalised gay marriage against opposition from 'Rome', it should not be a problem here.

So, if Australia has to wait longer for gay marriage to be legal after there is political agreement, so be it and forget about this absurd plebiscite, which I think I will find to be personally quite embarrassing.


16 comments:

  1. Why embarrassing?

    If the yes vote for same sex marriage is the same as the supposed approval rating ie 70%, that's pretty much a landslide, especially considering that maybe only about 10% of the population will ever want to get gaily married.

    I'd prefer Parliament just did its job and passed the legislation rather than spending all that money on a plebiscite but what annoys ME is the assumption by Mr Shorten that if there is a plebiscite we will all lose our manners and be rude to each other.

    Apart from that, - why would it be embarrassing?

    Marie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Marie. I don't hide that I am gay at work, I don't wear it on my sleeve either. The same goes for family. I work with some very strong religious people, mostly Catholics and Moslems, and I don't want overhear comments, I don't want to have to argue the merits of same sex marriage and I don't want to argue for something I don't really care about, but I will if I have to. Also, I would rather not hear homophobes speak out in the media.

      Delete
    2. Marie

      It's Shorten's assumption that we will all lose our manners: that was the logically false conclusion drawn by the Evangelical Anglican who bailed him up outside the Presbyterian church in Canberra. It's bad enough that some will.

      Delete
    3. Vital correction: it's NOT Shorten's assumption etc etc

      Delete
    4. Marcellous, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.

      Delete
  2. Hi Andrew

    I can't think of anything kind to say that doesn't sound patronising. But I hope no one is nasty to you and I send lots of goodwill.

    Marie

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not only an expensive and I believe unnecessary plebiscite, but one that some members of parliament have already said they won't be 'bound by' if it gives them an answer they don't like.
    In the mean time they are having conniptions about their free speech. Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EC, yes, so if some have said they will ignore the vote, the whole expensive exercise is pointless.

      Delete
  4. Might be time to make a few voodoo dolls, sorry, I mean pincushions.
    I just don't get why they are insisting a $160m plebiscite is necessary when they keep telling us at the same time that we may be heading for a recession and there's no money for hospitals and schools etc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. River, good reference back to your Wednesday post. It will be a terrible waste of money.

      Delete
  5. Rome doesn't even allow so said "normal" marriages for priests ! I don't see any problem in gay marriages. In Belgium it's allowed nobody cares, but according to the statistics they have the highest divorce quote !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gattina, it should have happened years ago here and there would now be no bother. I am not surprised by the statistic of gay divorce.

      Delete
  6. Why will it cost 160 million dollars to hold the plebby thing I wonder, that seems an incredibly excessive amount of money!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grace, for a start the government will educate everyone on the pros and cons via snail mail. I s'pose most of the cost is AEC. I am looking foward to tomorrow when you 'return'.

      Delete
  7. They want to feel politically correct and part in crowd of countries who allow it, even though its nonbinding. And wastes your money.

    ReplyDelete