The Turnbull Government

[SirRumpole]

Have a listen to the boss :

http://www.2gb.com/podcast/former-prime-minister-tony-abbott-5/

Yeah that's right Tony, it's always Shorten's fault.

Judging by the polls the majority of Australians can see through Abbot's B.S.

 

[Smurf1976]

Of course it should, followed by the future of the economy, housing affordability and the old staples health and education.

I'm not sure that I'd rate electricity as the number 1 issue but it's up there certainly.

Do nothing and we're headed toward a far bigger crisis than just about anyone outside the industry, and even many within it, realise. I'll post some details in the energy thread to avoid taking this one too far off topic.

 

[PZ.]

Same Sex Divorce

 

[Tisme]

The Lib boys are out on the hustings explaining that Bill Shorten is to blame for their inhouse fighting. Bill's like the Scarlet Pimpernel .... they seek here, they seek him there,

 

[PZ.]

Bill Shorten is very good at taking down prime ministers... 2 Labor, 1½ Liberal and counting.

All in the name of pointing Percy at the podium

 

[Logique]

Plebiscite on a republic - good
Plebiscite on same sex marriage - bad

That's Electricity Bill for you, the ultimate opportunist. I think the polls have something to say about the preferred PM, and it's not Bill.

 

[dutchie]

Same sex marriage proponents - "The majority of Australians are for same sex marriage"
Same sex marriage proponents - "But we are scared sh#tless for Australians to have a secret ballot on it"

 

[Tisme]

Plebiscite on a republic - good
Plebiscite on same sex marriage - bad

That's Electricity Bill for you, the ultimate opportunist. I think the polls have something to say about the preferred PM, and it's not Bill.

Yes well Bill maintained the snowflake rainbow people would suicide in their droves from hurt feelings should an open and public debate occur, let alone a plebiscite that didn't concur with the fabricated poll numbers.

If he doesn't get the numbers in parliament after introducing the bill, will he take responsibility for the consequent suicides?

 

[overhang]

Agreed, a plebiscite is the best way to decide this.

It's a social issue not a political one.

Because it shouldn't take a vote by peers to give a minority group the same right as the rest of us for something they're born with through no choice of their own. Furthermore it will cost at least $100 million and will be non-binding, we will still have spent $100 million for Abbott, Dutton etc to still vote no.

 

[Ves]

Because it shouldn't take a vote by peers to give a minority group the same right as the rest of us for something they're born with through no choice of their own. Furthermore it will cost at least $100 million and will be non-binding, we will still have spent $100 million for Abbott, Dutton etc to still vote no.

Yeah they're just stacking the deck.

Credit to reddit user caviidae for the image.

As it stands there are 5 paths to prevent SSM and only 2 to allow SSM.

 

[Tisme]

Because it shouldn't take a vote by peers to give a minority group the same right as the rest of us for something they're born with through no choice of their own. Furthermore it will cost at least $100 million and will be non-binding, we will still have spent $100 million for Abbott, Dutton etc to still vote no.

Last time I looked marriage was not a compulsory thing for hetrosexuals to engage in.

There is no evidence whatsover that homosexuality is a genetic or congentital condition , merely supposition based on social anecdotes.

I suppose the argument could be that if homosexuals are indeed deluding or play acting, they are therefore hetrosexuals and entitled to marry, the sticking point being the communion of opposite genders.

 

[SirRumpole]

Because it shouldn't take a vote by peers to give a minority group the same right as the rest of us for something they're born with through no choice of their own. Furthermore it will cost at least $100 million and will be non-binding, we will still have spent $100 million for Abbott, Dutton etc to still vote no.

I don't necessarily think that marriage is a Right, it's a recognition by society of a relationship. Society has the right to recognise relationships if it chooses or not recognise them either.

Everyone has the right to freedom of association, and no one is telling gays that they can't choose their partners, but the gay lobby will assume that if they can marry then they should have a right to raise children, which I don't believe the majority would approve of.

 

[Ves]

the gay lobby will assume that if they can marry then they should have a right to raise children, which I don't believe the majority would approve of.

They already do raise children????

 

[SirRumpole]

They already do raise children????

A lot of other things happen too, that doesn't mean they are good.

 

[Ves]

A lot of other things happen too, that doesn't mean they are good.

Your previous comment is baffling. Why would the "gay lobby" want to push for rights that SS couples already have after SSM is legalised?

 

[SirRumpole]

Your previous comment is baffling. Why would the "gay lobby" want to push for rights that SS couples already have after SSM is legalised?

I think the gay lobby would think that legislated SSM would further legitimise their access to children and that gay parenting would then be a closed subject.

The gay parenting debate was decided in State Parliament quietly and behind closed doors on shaky evidence. This question should be put to a plebiscite as well.

 

[Ves]

The gay parenting debate was decided in State Parliament quietly and behind closed doors on shaky evidence. This question should be put to a plebiscite as well.

Have you got any information on how the Federal Government can introduce legislation that will override the existing State legislation? Whilst there may be able to 'stop' the status being recognised under some Federal acts (tax, welfare etc.), I do not think the Federal Government has any way, in layman's terms, of saying 'you cannot do this.'

Have you read something different or is this plebiscite you are promoting based on mere fancy?

 

[SirRumpole]

Have you got any information on how the Federal Government can introduce legislation that will override the existing State legislation?

Federal Law over rides State Law as far as I know.

Reference Federal euthanasia laws that overrode State laws allowing it.

 

[McLovin]

Federal Law over rides State Law as far as I know.

No. Only if it's an area of law that the Commonwealth has the right to legislate for.

Reference Federal euthanasia laws that overrode State laws allowing it.

Territories aren't states. NSW is pretty close to passing euthanasia laws.

 

[PZ.]

Yep, the commonwealth is a federation of states. Overriding state law requires a change to the constitution. Section 51 I think it is. Another reason why the ACT and the NT should really be states and not territories.