Same sex marriage public vote Yes majority in Australia

[Trassk]

Just to clarify, it means the YES vote for same sex marriage has been moved by the people of Australia, just like it did with ireland, it hasn't actually happened yet in law, but this is the country saying they want the law changed, and the government needing to adhere to this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41992344

Australians have voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage in a historic non-binding poll.
The vote showed 61.6% of people favour allowing same-sex couples to wed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said.
More than 12.7 million people - about 79.5% of eligible voters - took part in the eight-week postal survey.
PM Malcolm Turnbull said the "overwhelming" result meant his government would aim to change the law in parliament before Christmas.
"[Australians] have spoken in their millions and they have voted overwhelmingly yes for marriage equality," he said after the result was announced.
"They voted yes for fairness, yes for commitment, yes for love. And now it is up to us here in the parliament of Australia to get on with it."
Supporters began celebrating the result in public spaces across Australia on Wednesday, waving rainbow flags and singing and dancing.
Mr Turnbull, a same-sex marriage supporter, is facing debate within his government over what the parliamentary bill should include.
Some conservative MPs are pushing for the the bill to include exemptions that would allow businesses opposed to same-sex marriage to refuse goods and services for weddings.

[Tackhisis]

60% is anything but "overwhelming".

[Frolk]

I find it strange they even needed to VOTE to allow it, it should just be something they allow.

[Mormolyce]

Ah I didn't see this thread. Oops.

60% is anything but "overwhelming".

62%. It's pretty much as big a landslide as you can get in modern politics.

It's 10% more than Brexit got.

- - - Updated - - -

I find it strange they even needed to VOTE to allow it, it should just be something they allow.

Yes it was a political delaying tactic by our conservative government. And a gigantic waste of money. Yay fiscal conservatism.

[Wyrt]

So, they had a vote, but the vote doesn't mean anything and they're just back to waiting for the same politicians who don't want it to make it legal?

Um, what? Why even have a vote?

[ONCHEhap]

60% is anything but "overwhelming".

In politics,it is

[Jakexe]

So, they had a vote, but the vote doesn't mean anything and they're just back to waiting for the same politicians who don't want it to make it legal?

Um, what? Why even have a vote?

The conservatives planned it to fail, it was a thought bubble by the previous (now dumped) PM, Tony Abbott who once described himself as a soldier for god. It was a delaying tactic because the conservatives just didn't want to deal with it. Now they have to, but it's going to be fun watching them contort this into a win somehow.

[Wyrt]

The conservatives planned it to fail, it was a thought bubble by the previous (now dumped) PM, Tony Abbott who once described himself as a soldier for god. It was a delaying tactic because the conservatives just didn't want to deal with it. Now they have to, but it's going to be fun watching them contort this into a win somehow.

Good thing the people of Australia aren't as backwards as Abbott was counting on then.

[Mihalik]

Cue the "but Jesus" crowd ....

[Jakexe]

Cue the "but Jesus" crowd ....

The funny thing is the 'no' side went all out with fear mongering. I didn't see one ad that actually spoke against gay marriage, every ad was about how if we allowed gay marriage religious freedoms would be removed, kids would be taught about gays etc. so they lost all those arguments as well as far as i'm concerned. Religious freedoms will be protected tho, because suddenly the government cares deeply about minorities, just so happens that minority would include them.

[Mormolyce]

So, they had a vote, but the vote doesn't mean anything and they're just back to waiting for the same politicians who don't want it to make it legal?

Um, what? Why even have a vote?

To put off having to pass the law that they've known for years was inevitable.

[Unhinged]

And the biggots lost. Bet the cunts will cry babies and try to drrail it.

- - - Updated - - -

Good thing the people of Australia aren't as backwards as Abbott was counting on then.

75% yes vote in Abbotts own electorate is funny though

[Sunseeker]

Cool, people voted in a poll.

Wake me when they actually change the law.

[toxicrusader]

People should be able to marry other people, if consensual.

It's a shame we still have to make laws to allow that.

[Very Tired]

I do miss the good old gay marriage debates.

Never have I seen an opposing side that is so simple to beat in arguments. There are conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, sure, but not nearly as many of them as those against gay marriage.

[Corvus]

People should be able to marry other people, if consensual.

It's a shame we still have to make laws to allow that.

So does that include polygamists, siblings, teachers and students and a whole range of other non-traditional forms of marriage which are being denied their rights?

Hopefully the people who back SSM will back them as well. Cause love is love, right?

[s_bushido]

I do miss the good old gay marriage debates.

No sooner said than done:

So does that include polygamists, siblings, teachers and students and a whole range of other non-traditional forms of marriage which are being denied their rights?

Hopefully the people who back SSM will back them as well. Cause love is love, right?

[Afrospinach]

People should be able to marry other people, if consensual.

It's a shame we still have to make laws to allow that.

Marriage is a legal status, kind of bizarre comment there.

[toxicrusader]

Its cool, give it another few decades and the crappy older generations that are holding us back will be dead and forgotten, and then the human race can move forward hopefully.

I think the exact same thing. The problem is, the crappy thinking older generation is able to reproduce their thoughts, so we might not take that for granted yet.

So does that include polygamists, siblings, teachers and students and a whole range of other non-traditional forms of marriage which are being denied their rights?

Hopefully the people who back SSM will back them as well. Cause love is love, right?

You mentioned polygamists. Do you even read the Bible (which I assume is where you took all this nonsense from)? All your heroes were polygamists. Surprise, surprise! You're trying to distort the main topic, and we both know it. But well, let's pretend we don't. Polygamists? As long as it's not an obligation from a freaking cult, I'm fine. They're all adults, right? Siblings? Not a fan of it, and that's not even good from a medical point of view. But tell that to those rednecks from the bible belt. Teacher and student? As long they are not under age, and it's their will, why not? Might not be seen as an ethicak thing, and teacher might be expelled from the institution the teaches, but rules are rules. And when you mention non-traditional forms of marriage, you're just beeing narrow minded. Live and let live, it's way more easier than it looks. For all I care, people can marry anime characters in Japan and while I think it's sad, it's not in my right to say they shouldn't do it.

Marriage is a legal status, kind of bizarre comment there.

A legal status, which means it is applied to all citizens of a country, right? Gays still are citizens in most western countries, I believe.

[IIamaKing]

So does that include polygamists, siblings, teachers and students and a whole range of other non-traditional forms of marriage which are being denied their rights?

What consenting adults do to get their rocks off is of less concern to me than the fate of the ants on my driveway. Siblings I could make a small exception for, we dont need a bunch of inbred babies, so if siblings or 1st cousins want to do it, they should have to be sterile.