IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Australia elections , Australia politics , Julie Bishop , Malcolm Turnbull , Tony Abbott

Reply
Old 14th August 2017, 04:39 AM   #721
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
Nah, this isn't going to be a problem for Barnaby. He was never - sorry, he claims never to have been aware - that he was a NZ citizen. He can claim to have acted in ignorance on the matter. Perhaps the first and last time he'll ever do that.
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 04:44 AM   #722
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Nah, this isn't going to be a problem for Barnaby. He was never - sorry, he claims never to have been aware - that he was a NZ citizen. He can claim to have acted in ignorance on the matter. Perhaps the first and last time he'll ever do that.
He still has to convince the high court about that. As a matter of fact, the word "entitled" in section 44 could even bite the backside of politicians who have renouonced foreign citizenship since not every country recognizes renounciation. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-2...nators/8754586
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 03:29 AM   #723
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
I don't know if "I didn't know" would count as a defence. I would assume that it would be argued that he would have been required to do due diligence in ensuring that he wasn't a dual national when he was running for office.

I would say Barnaby's "I didn't know" defence will depend on what the High Court says about Canavan since he seems to be the one most similar to Barnaby's situation.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 03:45 AM   #724
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
Ha.

Ignorance will save Barnaby Joyce, says George Brandis

Quote:
Attorney-General George Brandis says his colleague Barnaby Joyce will escape disqualification from Parliament, despite holding New Zealand citizenship in breach of the constitution, because Mr Joyce was unaware of his dual-citizen status.
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 04:33 AM   #725
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What else would he say?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 05:15 AM   #726
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Not sure what the High Court will say, but I doubt if they will say ignorance is an excuse. After all the constitution uses the word entitled not knowledge. As I see it either the High Court will make the section almost meaningless or will make a referendum almost inevitable in order to stop so many politicians from being disqualified. Problem: We are about to vote on the definition of marriage, we may have to have a general election, who wants to vote in a referendum as well?
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 12:42 PM   #727
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
As I see it either the High Court will make the section almost meaningless or will make a referendum almost inevitable in order to stop so many politicians from being disqualified.
There is absolutely no way that an amendment to section 44 would be passed in a referendum (an xenophobic campaign would see to that) and you can be pretty sure that parliament wouldn't consider trying.

In any case, I have no sympathy for politicians who don't do their homework. I am of Dutch descent but I am pretty sure that I have no Dutch citizenship (Holland has a habit of trying to strip citizenship off of non-residents). However, if I were to consider running for parliament then you can be sure that I would make all the necessary enquiries first and do what was necessary to renounce any foreign citizenship if it came to that.

The bigger mystery is why anybody can get Australian citizenship and still keep their foreign citizenship (or obtain foreign citizenship and not lose their Australian citizenship). You would think that anybody wishing to become naturalized would have to first demonstrate that they have renounced all foreign ties.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 15th August 2017 at 12:45 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 03:29 PM   #728
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
There is absolutely no way that an amendment to section 44 would be passed in a referendum (an xenophobic campaign would see to that) and you can be pretty sure that parliament wouldn't consider trying.

In any case, I have no sympathy for politicians who don't do their homework. I am of Dutch descent but I am pretty sure that I have no Dutch citizenship (Holland has a habit of trying to strip citizenship off of non-residents). However, if I were to consider running for parliament then you can be sure that I would make all the necessary enquiries first and do what was necessary to renounce any foreign citizenship if it came to that.

The bigger mystery is why anybody can get Australian citizenship and still keep their foreign citizenship (or obtain foreign citizenship and not lose their Australian citizenship). You would think that anybody wishing to become naturalized would have to first demonstrate that they have renounced all foreign ties.
For starters you can be born in Australia and still be ELIGIBLE for foreign citizenship. Second, how can you prove that you have renounced all foreign ties? Remember foreign governments may not be cooperative.

Getting a referendum passed would be difficult. This would be true if the no campaign said vote no to bash politicians. Or, as you suggest, vote no and keep foreigners out of parliament, even if they are Australian citizens.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 09:42 PM   #729
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
This video lists 5 reasons against gay marriage and why they are not valid.

https://www.facebook.com/onslowartsc...iCUZis&fref=nf
Stated reasons
1. It perverts the religious definition of marriage
2. Marriage has been traditionally between a man and a woman.
3. Marriage is for procreation and raising children
4. Saying no to gay marriage will stop PC in its tracks
5. Saying no to gay marriage is about protecting religious freedom

Caution. Rule 10 violations within this video.

Are there any other common arguments against gay marriage? I cannot think of any.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:28 PM   #730
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
This video lists 5 reasons against gay marriage and why they are not valid.

https://www.facebook.com/onslowartsc...iCUZis&fref=nf
Stated reasons
1. It perverts the religious definition of marriage
2. Marriage has been traditionally between a man and a woman.
3. Marriage is for procreation and raising children
4. Saying no to gay marriage will stop PC in its tracks
5. Saying no to gay marriage is about protecting religious freedom

Caution. Rule 10 violations within this video.

Are there any other common arguments against gay marriage? I cannot think of any.
6. It is a slippery slope, to being allowed to marry animals.

By the way. If you are supporting the YES vote - the subject is marriage equality.

Calling it gay marriage or same-sex marriage goes the route of Brexit.
Brexit is short for Britain Exit and its constant use poisoned the well and IMO influenced, even subconsciously, people's attitude to the subject in a negative way.
Constantly referring to "same-sex" and "gay" rather than "equality" also plays to the bigots side of the discussion by reiterating their only objection to marriage equality - anyone that is not them.

Calling it "same-sex" and "gay" rather than "Marriage Equality" only helps the NO argument.
__________________
Vote like you’re poor.

A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite

Last edited by EHocking; 16th August 2017 at 04:30 PM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 12:54 AM   #731
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
6. It is a slippery slope, to being allowed to marry animals.

By the way. If you are supporting the YES vote - the subject is marriage equality.

Calling it gay marriage or same-sex marriage goes the route of Brexit.
Brexit is short for Britain Exit and its constant use poisoned the well and IMO influenced, even subconsciously, people's attitude to the subject in a negative way.
Constantly referring to "same-sex" and "gay" rather than "equality" also plays to the bigots side of the discussion by reiterating their only objection to marriage equality - anyone that is not them.

Calling it "same-sex" and "gay" rather than "Marriage Equality" only helps the NO argument.
Just to prove your point it could lead to people marrying the harbour bridge. Stupid? Yes but it was said. Ref: https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkma...Pva#.txkmbz3RZ

The link called it gay marriage.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 01:43 AM   #732
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
A friend of mine in interviewed in this article.

Rainbow Christian Alliance: What's it like to be a Christian and part of the LGBTIQ rainbow family?

Quote:
"There's so many Christians who are members of the rainbow family who have been damaged by the church," she said.

"Whether it's because pastors have stood up in church and preached that homosexuality is evil ... or whether it's people who have come out to who they thought were a loving Christian family and have been booted out of home."

Ms Jackson said there had even been members of the RCA who were told they were possessed because of their sexuality and that they should undergo an exorcism...

...Ms Jackson does not identify as LGBTIQ but said she still felt strongly about supporting the group.

"As a mother of a bisexual child, as the sister of a gay brother, I see the damage that society does to people," she said.

"I think it's incredibly important that the Christian church mitigates damage, it doesn't cause damage, that it picks people up who have been hurt and makes them feel loved."
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2017, 10:16 AM   #733
KDLarsen
Philosopher
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
Will there any senators left at the end of the current round of "What do you mean, I have dual citizenship?!"
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2017, 06:13 PM   #734
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
There's quite a lot of them to get through, and the Census showed that 70% of Australians were born in Australia.
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2017, 07:29 PM   #735
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Will there any senators left at the end of the current round of "What do you mean, I have dual citizenship?!"
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
There's quite a lot of them to get through, and the Census showed that 70% of Australians were born in Australia.
It is not the upper house that is the problem. If any of them get declared ineligible then they can be replaced by someone else in the same party. It is the lower house that is the issue. Any of the Liberals get declared ineligible then here comes a by-election, maybe in November. If one or two lose to the Labour party then for the first time for a long time we get a new Government without a general election. Unless Turnbull seeing the writing on the wall goes to the polls first. That could mean no change in the marriage act until next year.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2017, 08:16 PM   #736
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunny South Australia
Posts: 6,799
The entitlement thing is the tricky part. Being born in Australia does not in any way stop a person from being "entitled" to citizenship in another country.

The court has created a precedent that if a person takes all reasonable steps to repudiate their entitlement or citizenship elsewhere, that is sufficient in the cases where countries do not allow someone to give up their citizenship.

"Ignorance is not a defence" is a legal maxim.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 03:49 PM   #737
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Ironically, under section 34 of the constitution, a subject of the Queen is eligible to be elected to parliament. Yet Great Britain is a "foreign power".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2017, 05:59 PM   #738
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Will there any senators left at the end of the current round of "What do you mean, I have dual citizenship?!"
I think Pauline Hanson's safe

Not sure about Derryn Hinch
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 02:43 AM   #739
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Ironically, under section 34 of the constitution, a subject of the Queen is eligible to be elected to parliament. Yet Great Britain is a "foreign power".
I believe that is the source of the trouble. In 1899 Great Britain was NOT a foreign power and most people in Australia had British Ancestry. Hence section 34 was reasonable. Now, as you say, Great Britain is a foreign power and many Australians have parents born outside of Australia (and even Great Britain).
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 09:54 PM   #740
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Nother one

Labor Senator Katy Gallagher's mother was born in Ecuador.

Ecuador says that makes Katy one of theirs.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2017, 10:09 PM   #741
JamesXXVI
Thinker
 
JamesXXVI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Nother one

Labor Senator Katy Gallagher's mother was born in Ecuador.

Ecuador says that makes Katy one of theirs.
Looks like News Corp has been working hard to pull their enemy into this mess.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-2...enship/8851006

Quote:
The Daily Telegraph has obtained a passenger entry card that shows Senator Gallagher's mother was born in Ecuador.

The newspaper said Senator Gallagher may have inherited Ecuadorian citizenship from her mother under the South American country's constitution.

...

The 2008 Ecuadorian constitution says anyone born in the country is an Ecuadorian — as well as their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

But Senator Gallagher said the 2008 constitution was not in effect when her mother was born and did not apply retrospectively.
Here's the Tele's front page:

JamesXXVI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 04:14 AM   #742
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Ecuador says that makes Katy one of theirs.
This shows a possible problem with section 44. A country that is hostile to a particular politician could declare that the politician is eligible for citizenship in that country thus causing the politician to run afoul of section 44.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2017, 04:45 AM   #743
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This shows a possible problem with section 44. A country that is hostile to a particular politician could declare that the politician is eligible for citizenship in that country thus causing the politician to run afoul of section 44.
Why stop at one politician. Imagine what would happen if the leader of a hostile nation said "We have no wish to be hostile to Australia. As a peace gesture we will make all Australian politicians citizens of our nation."

In a month or two when the High Court makes its rulings we will find out if the above is just a joke or something which could happen. If the later then a referendum would almost certainly would be inevitable.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 06:27 PM   #744
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Same sex marriage survey

Postal ballot forms have been sent to all voters in Australia regarding same sex marriage. They ask, "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" and voters are to mark either the "yes" box or the "no" box. https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/si...ple_survey.pdf

This is the Turnbull government's way of skirting around a plebiscite bill which was earlier blocked by the Senate. Malcolm Turnbull (a same sex marriage supporter) has come under criticism for not simply changing the law already and sparing taxpayers the cost of a survey. OTOH although Turnbull has said that "religious freedom will be guaranteed", no bill has been drafted yet and conservative opponents have seized on this to say that this guarantee can not be trusted.

Australians are asked to return their forms by 27 October. The survey closes on 7 November and results are expected a week later.
https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/postal-forms
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 09:20 PM   #745
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
I'm going to say yes, even if a yes does actually mean maybe.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 09:50 PM   #746
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
I'm going to say yes, even if a yes does actually mean maybe.
Without knowing what the proposed legislation is, you would be voting for a "pig in a poke".

I'm all in favour of same sex marriage provided that it is performed by a celebrant who WANTS to perform same sex marriages and this is not guaranteed. Obviously there is no way that Catholic priests who refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony would be jailed but there is every prospect that a civil celebrant's licence or job may be on the line.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 10:01 PM   #747
cullennz
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Without knowing what the proposed legislation is, you would be voting for a "pig in a poke".

I'm all in favour of same sex marriage provided that it is performed by a celebrant who WANTS to perform same sex marriages and this is not guaranteed. Obviously there is no way that Catholic priests who refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony would be jailed but there is every prospect that a civil celebrant's licence or job may be on the line.
I heard they did it arse about face.

Should have sorted an out clause guarantee for the marriage providers first to shut half the naysayers argument down

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 10:48 PM   #748
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I heard they did it arse about face.

Should have sorted an out clause guarantee for the marriage providers first to shut half the naysayers argument down
That sounds too sensible for a politician.

Of course this is the only concern that might be considered reasonable. Expect to see a parade of clean wholesome women with children on TV commercials forecasting the end of the world over the next month.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 11:33 PM   #749
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Without knowing what the proposed legislation is, you would be voting for a "pig in a poke".

I'm all in favour of same sex marriage provided that it is performed by a celebrant who WANTS to perform same sex marriages and this is not guaranteed. Obviously there is no way that Catholic priests who refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony would be jailed but there is every prospect that a civil celebrant's licence or job may be on the line.
Priests can refuse to marry anyone for any reason now. For example if one of the people was divorced. So the "religious freedom" argument is not valid. Nor is any of their other arguments to vote no.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2017, 11:38 PM   #750
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Priests can refuse to marry anyone for any reason now. For example if one of the people was divorced. So the "religious freedom" argument is not valid. Nor is any of their other arguments to vote no.
Any attempt to rope priests into the same sex marriage proposal would probably run afoul of section 116 of the constitution.

This doesn't say anything about civil celebrants though.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 12:50 AM   #751
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,091
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Any attempt to rope priests into the same sex marriage proposal would probably run afoul of section 116 of the constitution.

This doesn't say anything about civil celebrants though.
Do not tell that to those running the no campaign!
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 01:12 AM   #752
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Without knowing what the proposed legislation is, you would be voting for a "pig in a poke".
No, this is not true. The question is very simple. Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? That's it. One simple question. Should the law be changed? Yes, it should. We agree on that, right? It's very obvious that a majority of Australians agree with that statement. It is one question and it is asking only one thing.

Turnbull has committed to the policy that if the survey returns a majority yes vote, then the law will be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. When the survey returns that result, then we can start thinking exactly how the law should be changed. If it doesn't, then we don't need to think about that at all. Nothing else matters at this point - only the question of whether the law should be changed or not. If you think the law should be changed, then vote yes.

It's a very simple question.

Howard and Abbott and whoever else is saying that the question of religious freedom will need to be addressed and whatever other irrelevancies are distractions, and I think that's why they're doing it.
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours.

Three Word Story Wisdom
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 01:36 AM   #753
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No, this is not true. The question is very simple. Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? That's it. One simple question. Should the law be changed?
No, there are two questions: "should same sex couples be allowed to marry" and "Is a celebrant permitted to refuse to marry a couple" ?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 01:58 AM   #754
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Without knowing what the proposed legislation is, you would be voting for a "pig in a poke".
Except I'm not voting on proposed legislation. All that would happen in the case of a "yes" vote is that the Liberals would be allowed a conscience vote on the matter. Whether the Liberals propose legislation or amendments designed to kill it remains to be seen.
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 01:59 AM   #755
Syameese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No, there are two questions: "should same sex couples be allowed to marry" and "Is a celebrant permitted to refuse to marry a couple" ?
No, the first question is correct, the second is just ******** - parliament will not pass legislation to that effect.

I am surprised you even consider it an issue. Sure Howard/Abbot the most dishonest/disingenuous politicians ever will promote it as an issue, but it isn't an honest argument.

Can it be a tactic to scare people, of course - that is Howard/Abbots standard ploy. A legitimate concern never.
Syameese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 02:02 AM   #756
cullennz
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 21,318
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No, there are two questions: "should same sex couples be allowed to marry" and "Is a celebrant permitted to refuse to marry a couple" ?
The second question is a bit stupid.

Purely just in my opinion though.

The whole thing to me is. Who cares. Doesn't affect anybody. Marry who you want as long as it's mutual and the right age.

The second question will directly affect people. Albeit, backward people imo


Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 02:14 AM   #757
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by Syameese View Post
No, the first question is correct, the second is just ******** - parliament will not pass legislation to that effect.
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
The second question is a bit stupid.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 02:37 AM   #758
Syameese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Thank you for agreeing with both of us
Syameese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 02:53 AM   #759
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by Syameese View Post
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Thank you for agreeing with both of us
You have to misquote somebody for that trick to have a chance of working.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2017, 03:08 AM   #760
Syameese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You have to misquote somebody for that trick to have a chance of working.
mirror - look at it

Seriously, I took my own view and Cullennz points to be basically the same, if worded differently. Imo the argument about punishing celebrants is at best contrived or at worst dishonest, evidence to the contrary?
Syameese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.