The "NO" Case in the Australian SSM Debate

[josh987654321]

It has no legal rights.

It has the will of the people behind it, which is greater then even legal rights, which can all be changed by the will of the people.

The government already has the mandate to just introduce a bill. They don’t need a dodgy survey to do it.

Why do you think the ‘yes’ campaign has been against this vote from day one? because they can easily lobby the political elite with fake and misleading polls to put this thing through. This postal survey is the only chance we have to say ‘no’ to this and yet you treat it with such disregard.

And I can guarantee you, if a no vote is returned, they will still introduce the bill.

And I guarantee you, if a no vote is returned, and it goes before parliament, it will result in a no vote there, and if it doesn’t, it will be plain to all that they are unjustly denying the will of the people and it can much more easily overturned.

You watch and wait

‘yes’ or ‘no’ result, the ones I’d be most upset with are the apathetic like yourself. Who had a chance to say something, but chose not to, and as simple as ticking a box on a piece of paper and putting it in the mail. You certainly wont get that chance when your kids or grandkids are being told they can choose their gender in schools and people are being hauled before anti discrimination commissions and fined because they voiced Catholic teaching on marriage or when Catholic Schools are being commandeered by the State to stamp out Catholic Teaching on marriage which is called hateful, homophobic and bigoted by these people.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[BlackFriar]

Yes democracy is a form of force.
Therefore it has limited usefulness in ushering in tne Kingdom, as does the sword.

 

[josh987654321]

.

Your also leaving the many good and courageous people who have stuck their necks out for the ‘no’ campaign out to dry. All the abuse they have coped will be for nothing, because you did not stand up for them, and how easy it is for you to just tick a ‘no’ box on a piece of paper and put it in the mail, that’s not even a fraction of what these other people have gone through and the mountain of abuse they have coped in standing up for marriage and the family and our freedoms in Australia.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

i am an Aussie Catholic , mate. Dont be so quick to judge. Do you know me, my activities? thats a strange thing to assume

just because I pointed out its a survey, not a vote. And regardless of the outcome, the gubbas will push SSM through within 12 months.

Should we discuss the Euthanasia bill too?

My Diocese is guided by my Bishop. We have some very big neck sticking out fish to fry starting in a couple of weeks.

You are welcome to come join us.

 

[Rau]

Yes democracy is a form of force.

Therefore it has limited usefulness in ushering in tne Kingdom, as does the sword.

That may be so. But the reality of democracy remains. Tick box Yes, or Tick box No. Or do nothing - which itself favours the “other” side, or the track the parliament is already on.

 

[Rau]

No, in fact they succeed, as many of these agenda driven activists want to do away with marriage altogether,

Yes, that is true for some (certainly not all) activists. Some are actually aghast that marriage is being “broadened”, but go along with this step, judging it as unavoidable. There are more than 2 sides in the debate!

 

[BlackFriar]

You asked the question:

… registering a vote. Is this forcing?

Now its answered and you agree so all good.

 

[Rau]

It’s a disgrace that the Liberal Nationals have let us down with such a flimsy postal vote and it’s a disgrace that we have had to fight tooth and nail for our right to vote in a democracy.

Josh - count the number of countries that got to have a vote. Ireland comes to mind due to marriage being a matter for their constitution. In the US, the matter was not even legislated, because 5 judges reckoned somewhere in the US constitution the founders provided for it. [Meaning there are some words in there that never in anyone’s wildest imagination contemplated SSM, but 5 judges figured those words carried an implication…] And in most countries, the scope of civil marriage is governed by the law, and the bulk of the countries where SSM is now legally possible simply legislated accordingly. In the ordinary course of events, that’s what would have happened in Australia too, but for the commitment to a plebiscite made by a former Government.

Plebiscites in Australia are few and far between. I believe there have been just 3:
1916: military service conscription (defeated)
1917: reinforcement of the Australian Imperial Force overseas (defeated)
1977: choice of Australia’s national song (‘Advance Australia Fair’ preferred.)

The parliament refused to conduct a plebiscite on SSM - a matter than was within the reasonable capacity of the parliament to simply pass legislation and in the face of repeated opinion surveys finding a good majority favoured SSM. The details of the Federal Marriage Act were fully and solely established through legislation. The government’s options at this time were:

1. Try to refuse any attempt to simply legislate; This would have failed in due course I believe and would seem to be questionable conduct in a parliamentary representative democracy;
2. Bring on a vote in parliament;
3. Hold the postal survey as the next best thing to a plebiscite.

I don’t blame them for going with (3).

 

[Rau]

Which they obviously will, and if they were to vote opposite to the survey result, then they will be accused of being dictators and denying the will of the people.

If the turnout is low, then even a mild NO vote may see an effort to legislate.

It’s the ‘yes’ side who make these accusations, who have been against a vote from day one and trying to generate apathy among ‘no’ voters so that they can win.

Some members of both Yes and No camps in the parliament have said they will vote their preferred way regardless of the survey result - certainly they will not agree to be bound by it. Both camps. And of course the Yes side didn’t want a plebiscite or postal survey - multiple prior surveys suggested Yes was the majority view and “the numbers” in parliament had also shifted to a Yes position.

 

[Rau]

It has no legal rights.

None.

The government already has the mandate to just introduce a bill. They don’t need a dodgy survey to do it.

We know this. A plebiscite will get a more accurate measure of public opinion (though need not be binding unless the parliament makes it so, and that not proposed here), but this survey will be many, many times better than the polls (small sample sizes) done in the past on SSM.

I am in favour of governments having the capacity and the willingness to poll the people regularly - on all sorts of matter. Historically, we had to rely exclusively on our representatives because that was a practical necessity. Direct involvement of the people is possible today, and at low cost, but politicians will fight to the death to avoid it as such would dramatically undercut their personal sense of power.

There is a good chance that the survey will not change anything given the expectation that it will not deliver an overwhelming NO vote. But the more the No vote is in evidence, the better chance of securing adequate freedoms. And maybe the vote will surprise.

 

[Rau]

I’m increasingly in agreement with the idea the government should get out of the marriage business to begin with. In fact, it’s actually surprising how many people still seem to think that keeping the matter under the government’s purview is conducive to keeping the definition as that of a man and a woman, considering the frequency in which that action (keeping it under the government’s purview) has resulted in the exact opposite happening.

Marriage appearing in law is not a basis to think it will remain man+woman. It appears in law for numerous practical reasons connected with protections of the parties involved including children.

So when people say “get out of marriage” - it’s not clear what people mean. The options might be:

1. There is no recognition of the relationship of the parties and no accommodations; OR
2. The Law does not use the term “marriage”, but offers some other sort of legal framework (“registered relationship”).

I don’t think either approach is viable. Marriage is universally understood in law.

 

[Rau]

Now its answered and you agree so all good.

I understand that democracy has limited usefulness in ushering in the Kingdom. But here we are, asked to tick a box. And not for the last time.!

 

[josh987654321]

just because I pointed out its a survey, not a vote.

That’s not all you did, you encouraged people not to bother voting, trying to say that it wont make a difference. I have already voted ‘no’ so no matter what happens now, at least I can hold my head high knowing that I tried. I really hope you can say the same.

Should we discuss the Euthanasia bill too?

Absolutely we should and what bloody scoundrels they are to be trying to push this through in secret.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Why would any sane Australian listen to the Catholic Church which was just determined to have 7% of their priests accused of child rape in Australia? And who refuse to report child rapists who confess to them. Might as well be getting marital advice from the Mafia.

Thanks for posting this and letting us all know your true colors. Makes me wonder what your doing here on a Catholic Answers Forum.

1. Does the Catholic Church condone child abuse? not it does not, it clearly condemns it and always has.
2. Will the Catholic Church ever allow the breaking of the seal of the confessional? no it will not, no matter how clever and crafty your arguments are or how much you try to demonize them.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Seriously, you are going to bring this up as part of the yes campaign?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Please show me where exactly I encouraged people not to fill in a survey. That’s really insulting to me. So front and centre with the proof or apologise and retract that

Again, it’s not a vote.

 

[josh987654321]

Please show me where exactly I encouraged people not to fill in a survey.

Sure. Please see below quotes.

Our survey won’t mean a thing either way then.

There is no vote

It’s not binding. It’s just seeking opinions. It can’t change the law

It’s about time people started calling it out for what it is.

Josh ,this survey, your marking yes or no, won’t change the status quo.

Josh, what legal rights does this survey have?

This isn’t even going to be a true representation of what the population wants.

Not even the government are taking this seriously.

And I can guarantee you, if a no vote is returned, they will still introduce the bill.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

So which part of that is me telling people not to fill in their survey? Where have I said that?

 

[josh987654321]

So which part of that is me telling people not to fill in their survey?

Seriously?..

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Quit being insulting.
Answer the question.
You have made an accusation. So either you are using this tack to try to make a point,
Or
You completely missed or ignored the discussion I was making.

Which is it?

So again, show me where I said what you claim I said, namely telling people not to fill out the survey…