TOPIC:

ArkRoyal wrote: Grassy: can you imagine if the 'no' side wins with 51 per cent of the vote on 51 per cent of the electorate? It will be chaos, Grassy, with Bill Shorten threatening to over-throw a democratic vote.

Ark, the libs have said if yes wins then they will introduce the bill, if no they wont. But if no, then with labor likely to win the next Fed election they will bring the bill in for a conscious vote, which is the way it should have been handled right from the beginning.

SS: he has indeed said that, that is true; but, trust me, it will be very hard to reverse a popular vote if it is 'no'. Witness the Brexit vote as an illustration. Honestly, he would be better off avoiding such talk as it would not win votes for the 'yes' camp.

It will be less of a problem, of course, if it is a 'no vote' and less than 50 per cent vote.

I would have preferred it to go through parliament with the appropriate protections for others.

NO.....Reason....I dislike the minority of the population wanting the laws changed to suit their situation..accept that you are different and get on with it..if we were all the same there wouldnt be a problem,but the fact is that we are all different. You already have laws to protect your life choices,,,,stop messing with the fabric of normal life that the majority of us live by.

Grassy wrote: Don't think I would have put it like that BC,but I may vote the same.

Still haven't really read or heard an arguement for the Yes Case,as to whom Lesbians and Gays want recognition from and Why?

Is it just for a Simple Civil Service Union for Registration purposes?Or do they want the Main Religious Institutions in the Country to recognise their case?

The No Vote just about think the sky is going to fall in,so I'm leaning towards Yes,but I still need a good reason or 3 to vote that way.

I wanted to vote NO but the Catholic Church's attitude on protecting priests has swayed me to vote YES

Senior Seagull wrote: The disappointing thing in this whole process is that extremism at both ends of the spectrum has once again reared it's ugly head. The need by some to dream up unrelated collateral issues that could arise from a simple change to the marriage act is really disappointing, this is such a simple issue!! the proliferation of red herring side issues is just a tactic to scare and distract people away from being able to simply say yes or no to a simple uncomplicated non invasive question about a persons basic human rights.

Problem is that only people who favor the "No" vote get ripped into by every do-gooder in the country.
Pathetically hypocritical that they continue to sprout the "How dare you say what someone else can and cant do" line, while telling people what they can and cant do.

Agree McRobb, that's why putting it to a plebacite or even the current "opinion pole" only results in these sorts of attacks on both sides of the argument. it should have been a simple conscience vote by our elected members which would have been over and done with months ago so more important issues could be dealt with. At the moment it's a massive distraction.