Australians Say ‘Yes’ to Same-Sex Marriage, Clearing Path for Legalization

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s not. The more I read about Malcolm Turnbull, the more I start realizing he’s just like the UK PMs David Cameron and Theresa May. They are in centre-right parties but despise conservatism and conservatives. But conservatives keep voting for them instead of punishing them.
 
Last edited:
Turnbull, Cameron and May can’t ‘move on’ if they were never conservatives in the first place.
 
Whether you like it or not, Western society is changing. Politicians can either accept that or be swept aside. Since the whole point of being a politician in a democracy is to win elections, what good would be served by any politician taking a policy stand that is likely to deprive them of power?

I get it, you don’t like SSM, but in an increasing number of countries you’re a shrinking majority. Since Australia, like the US, Canada, Ireland, the UK are not theocracies, that means their electorates are not bound by the declarations, pleadings or dictates of clergymen.
 
ATraveller said:
The more I read about Malcolm Turnbull, the more I start realizing he’s just like the UK PMs David Cameron and Theresa May. They are in centre-right parties but despise conservatism and conservatives.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.
ATraveller said:
But conservatives keep voting for them instead of punishing them.
Click to expand...
I voted for Tony Abbot, then they removed him and put in Malcolm Turnbull who is exactly what you said, then I had no real choice since Labor would have been so much worse. Just waiting for a viable 3rd option.

God Bless You
 
niceatheist said:
Since Australia, like the US, Canada, Ireland, the UK are not theocracies, that means their electorates are not bound by the declarations, pleadings or dictates of clergymen.
Click to expand...
Well of course not -nobody suggests otherwise. What a strange statement. Did you notice that the people “voted” in Australia?
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Why does one need to support all of a particular manifesto, whether that be called “conservative” or “progressive”?
Click to expand...
Because those terms have or used to have some meaning to them.
niceatheist said:
Whether you like it or not, Western society is changing.
Click to expand...
Me liking it or not is not the point.
niceatheist said:
Since the whole point of being a politician in a democracy is to win elections, what good would be served by any politician taking a policy stand that is likely to deprive them of power?
Click to expand...
So essentially act like Cuba except in this case they are formally labelled as members of different parties that in practice are really the same entity. At least the Cubans have more honestly by stating they’re of the same party. The point of democracy is to pit different views and let voters choose which one they want not to offer one view. Such politicians are exactly why democracy is failing.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
Because those terms have or used to have some meaning to them.
Click to expand...
What meaning is that? How is it that such an array of social, economic and other positions should be assumed to always “go together” in an individual person? Of course that is not always the case, regardless of political party affiliation.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
What meaning is that? How is it that such an array of social, economic and other positions should be assumed to always “go together” in an individual person? What do we call a person who favours a mix of so-called conservative and progressive positions?
Click to expand...
It would help if they would do some research into the philosophies.
There are terms like libertarian and etc. that are more precise or at least specify what is conservative or ‘progressive’ (regressive is more accurate but that’s another story).
 
Last edited:
I still object to the idea that various policy positions ought be held as a job lot. If one is “pro-choice”, must one also favour a generous social security system?
 
I have been meaning to say, I really appreciate your posts here, Josh, especially those sympathetic to the US and us Americans. It really weighs down on you when, even on this forum, one gets the impression that the whole world thinks you are crazy. God bless you too.
 
It’s probably for the best. If the the vote favored No, there would be consequences.

Economic sanctions, massive funding for media, lobbying for new hate speech laws, blackmail, etc.
 
michaelArc said:
Economic sanctions, massive funding for media, lobbying for new hate speech laws, blackmail, etc.
Click to expand...
State endorsement of SSM will have consequences too. Same Sex sexual relationships are now societally declared to be “good”, just as marriage is declared to be “good”. Much must (and will) logically follow from that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top