Same-sex marriage survey: Australia says Yes to SSM

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: scubagravy
a reply to: cuckooold

It is not the majority at all.

Australian Population : 24 000 000+

People who voted: Roughly 12 500 500

YES voters : 7 million. That's about 28% of the population

So it works out to be around 62% of 65% of 100%

Not to mention the current state of the Liberals ATM,

They will not be elected next election. So that leaves Labour, and i i dare say Bill Shorten does not want it. It will be relinquished.

There was an 80% return rate on the survey of eligible voters, that is considered a majority return and statistically viable.

Bill Shorten totally supports same-sex marriage, and it is Labor policy to support same-sex marriage as well.

www.sbs.com.au...

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants same-sex marriage to be a reality within weeks after the 'yes' campaign won the national postal survey.

You are wrong.

Yes the return rate may have been 80% but 4 million were not counted because there was no mark for yes or no on the ballot paper, so that left 12.5 million eligible voters.

We both are not wrong, just different views.

But my numbers are right.

a reply to: links234

Why do you think children (what age?) and ineligible voters should have had a vote?

This is a political issue, so only those in the electorate get a say.

Regardless, from anecdotal evidence, children (under 18's) seem to be overwhelmingly in support of a "yes" vote... so that would have only added to the majority.

I'd like to see a national vote on whether the government should even be in the business of recognizing marriages.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

People aside it is a beautiful part of the world, I took my boy to Fraser island last year and smashed my land cruiser around the island, great experience, if you get the chance to go I would recommend it, lake McKenzie is spectacular, some of the clearest water I have seen.

originally posted by: scubagravy

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: scubagravy
a reply to: cuckooold

It is not the majority at all.

Australian Population : 24 000 000+

People who voted: Roughly 12 500 500

YES voters : 7 million. That's about 28% of the population

So it works out to be around 62% of 65% of 100%

Not to mention the current state of the Liberals ATM,

They will not be elected next election. So that leaves Labour, and i i dare say Bill Shorten does not want it. It will be relinquished.

There was an 80% return rate on the survey of eligible voters, that is considered a majority return and statistically viable.

Bill Shorten totally supports same-sex marriage, and it is Labor policy to support same-sex marriage as well.

www.sbs.com.au...

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants same-sex marriage to be a reality within weeks after the 'yes' campaign won the national postal survey.

You are wrong.

Yes the return rate may have been 80% but 4 million were not counted because there was no mark for yes or no on the ballot paper, so that left 12.5 million eligible voters.

We both are not wrong, just different views.

But my numbers are right.

😂 you are sounding like the Hillary voters, we won cause numbers and stuff.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: scubagravy

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: scubagravy
a reply to: cuckooold

It is not the majority at all.

Australian Population : 24 000 000+

People who voted: Roughly 12 500 500

YES voters : 7 million. That's about 28% of the population

So it works out to be around 62% of 65% of 100%

Not to mention the current state of the Liberals ATM,

They will not be elected next election. So that leaves Labour, and i i dare say Bill Shorten does not want it. It will be relinquished.

There was an 80% return rate on the survey of eligible voters, that is considered a majority return and statistically viable.

Bill Shorten totally supports same-sex marriage, and it is Labor policy to support same-sex marriage as well.

www.sbs.com.au...

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wants same-sex marriage to be a reality within weeks after the 'yes' campaign won the national postal survey.

You are wrong.

Yes the return rate may have been 80% but 4 million were not counted because there was no mark for yes or no on the ballot paper, so that left 12.5 million eligible voters.

We both are not wrong, just different views.

But my numbers are right.

😂 you are sounding like the Hillary voters, we won cause numbers and stuff.

That is the worst thing anybody has ever said to me

a reply to: scubagravy

I'm special, and a prick, so I guess that makes me a special prick.

Well, well, well... Australia welcome to the 21st century... Sorry that there are still a handful of people that refuse to leave the stone age, but they are clearly in the minority. Even though they'd never admit it.

originally posted by: cuckooold
So, finally catching up with the rest of the world, the Australian people have spoken, and a majority want same sex marriage legalised. In a pathetic time-wasting exercise by the government, they abrogated their responsibilities to the people, and the people have returned a convincing yes vote.

www.abc.net.au...

Australians have had their say, with 61.6 per cent of the nation voting Yes to legalising same-sex marriage.

The final count was 7.8 million responses in support of same-sex marriage, and 4.9 million against.

Australian statistician David Kalisch said the final number of responses was 12,727,920 people, representing 79 per cent of eligible Australians.

About bloody time.

Are you sure there was 61% support.

Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything - Joe Stalin.

a reply to: cuckooold


Firs of all I dont givea stuff which way the vote went. We have friends in the UK who are gay.

I have suspected from the start that having the electrocal commision conduct this so called 'vote' is the start of a new kind of voting system with which Australians will 'elect' a president.

When votes were counted by the electoral commisison, did secruitineershave the RIGHT to carry out visual-at-the-table surivleance scruiteny of the count and interject and dispute a 'vote" ?

Betcha this is a new model for something bad. Thats why I for one, did not vote in the crap because I would not legitimise something that is fundamentaly undermining the referundem or plebicite process.

a reply to: Azureblue

It wasn't a vote, it was a survey to decide if a deeply divided government would do the job they are supposed to do. It was a $120 million waste of money as the government already knew the majority (about 60%) support SSM, but they were too craven to put a bill before parliament.

It was a stalling technique by an unpopular government, simply kicking the can down the road, wasting time on something that should not even be an issue.

originally posted by: cuckooold
a reply to: Azureblue

It wasn't a vote, it was a survey to decide if a deeply divided government would do the job they are supposed to do. It was a $120 million waste of money as the government already knew the majority (about 60%) support SSM, but they were too craven to put a bill before parliament.

It was a stalling technique by an unpopular government, simply kicking the can down the road, wasting time on something that should not even be an issue.

Bingo, we have a winner.

a reply to: cuckooold

61.6% ......?


... more like 66.6%

church of the poisoned mind .

fully sick peeps .

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: puzzlesphere

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Typical! Absolutely bloody typical.

All you both can do is sling mud.

No application of thought ... nothing ... just call people names.

Sad it is. Typical though.

P

What application of thought did you bring to the conversation outside of, "I'm right because of my experiences"? I really don't see you with any room to talk here.

originally posted by: Sovaka
And watch nothing come of it?

The Government already knew what Australians wanted, there was ZERO reason to have this expensive "non" vote.
It still needs to go through the Senate, which I doubt it will pass.

No reason from a public perspective. But if I was running a homophobic leaning government and I wanted to give the illusion of choice and freedom to the electorate, I would do this.
Either that or they were idiots expecting a no vote.

originally posted by: pheonix358
And in another 30 years we will have yet another inquiry into how children ended up, scared as hell, being raised by same sex couples after their parents died.

This is only the first step.

It is planned.

There is no need for any change as same sex couples can have all of he benefits now, except children ofcouse but that is biology.

P

Do you have any evidence to suggest children being raised by same-sex couples end up being "scared"?
"There is no need for any change as same sex couples can have all of he benefits now, except children ofcouse but that is biology."
Except for the part where they can get married the same as a hetro couple. Same-sex couples can have children just not naturally.

originally posted by: cuckooold
a reply to: Azureblue

It wasn't a vote, it was a survey to decide if a deeply divided government would do the job they are supposed to do. It was a $120 million waste of money as the government already knew the majority (about 60%) support SSM, but they were too craven to put a bill before parliament.

It was a stalling technique by an unpopular government, simply kicking the can down the road, wasting time on something that should not even be an issue.

"It wasn't a vote, it was a survey." technically your exactly right, and yes it was a $120m waste of money big, big time. particularly when I go in a centerlink and see big posters saying "report welfare fraud"

To waste $120 million dollars like this is proof they regard such sums as chicken feed and for them the "report welfare fraud" posters are just a laugh around the restaurant table.

WA taxpayers have given the Packer family a $3-4 billion corporate welfare handout in the form of a new football stadium. Its built on publicly owned land but is as close to packers casino as possible to be used as a funnel to the casino.

I have read a small part of the lease agreement for the land and the public purse will pay for every possible outgoing one can think of, including its eventual deconstruction and remediation of the land. Over the 20 year life of the stadium this will amount to perhaps another $billion or so.

I say to all unemployed people get your snout into the trough and go for it, go for it, go for it, go for it to the max.

a reply to: ShiveredIce

Do you have any evidence to suggest children being raised by same-sex couples end up being "scared"?

That you even have to ask that shows your inability to see things from another's perspective. try it through the eyes of a 12 year old child, who just lost both parents. They have enough on their plate without having to learn an entirely new social structure. Yes, some would be petrified.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

So... evidence?... application of thought?... or are you just going to rant at people that only you have the empathy to see another's perspective?

Petrified of two loving married dads? I don't buy that at all! They may find it unusual if they had never come across it before, but with education and awareness, it would be accepted in no time.

My good friends have been in a loving relationship for over a decade. They recently adopted a 12 year old boy after a long time of fostering a range of children. He's been through a lot (not my place to divulge), but he's really cool, has a girlfriend, and after fostering him for a while (which led to the adoption), they have become a tight-knit family.

My friends are now planning their wedding, because of this vote (in case you hadn't realised, they are a gay couple, and still aren't allowed to get married in Aus), and the boy is going to be the ring bearer.

It's not an "entirely new social structure" at all, there have been same sex relationships for all of history.

I think its funny how the churches bang on and on about how people who love each other should get married, then get their collective knickers in a twist when same sex couples want to marry.

Good on ya Aussies, the world needs more weddings.