The left here really need to get their heads screwed on right....

The left here really need to get their heads screwed on right. They are starting to look like idiots on this forum. If any of you clowns have actually been (or worked) to Spain or Ireland you will note firstly a large chunk of the population is catholic and goes to church regularly. You will also not that their are few aethiests and jedi knight worshippers in those places. Now people can divorce the church from the role of the State. In Ireland they voted for SSM on Saturday went to church on Sunday.

Now, last I saw in the Census the aethiests and the jedi knights do not account for greater than 50% of the Australian population, they account for far less than 25% and btw the assumption you lefties have that they will all vote for SSM is a joke of an assumption btw (some aethiests are the biggest right wing biggots around). So that means to get up you need to get the votes of the religious zealots that you are bagging on this thread. Now lets start with this question, which religion do you think will most likely get the required numbers to get this over the line (i.e. hint look at Spain and Ireland).

Now I will vote for SSM as a catholic who goes to church most Sundays. Now I will do so because I understand the pleb will not compel SS couples to be married in a church. I understand people need to be happy and what they do is their own business. However, MC has a right to an opinion and she was treated with contempt by the Project, full stop, an absolute disgrace and then to say can't have a view take your name of that stadium is a further embarrassment on those supporting this idiotic assertion. The CEO of Qantas should have made his comments as a private citizen, like MC did, rather than make the comments as CEO of Qantas (note I recognise if he said it at the pub when drinking with his mates it would still be reported in the papers but would not be based on some notion that it is the views of Qantas - you know the term these are my private views what that means).

As to the crap on law here. Past laws were written on the values at the time and those values were Christian values, so Menzies when he did the Marriage Act in 1961 was talking about man and woman - you know homosexuality back then was a crime so what the hell do you think the intent of the Act was back then. Lets put it another way, if the Marriage Act 1961 was say in Saudi Arabia what do you think marriage would imply if it remained silent. Understand the term 'intent'.

A plebiscite is needed to ensure that Australians vote on this issue, Yes I agree it will get up, unlike some here, albeit if this crap that the left keeps spewing isn't toned down it will put people offside. But we have had votes in the past that would easily have gotten up without them. The dynamics of social policy have moved on and discrimination against SS couples has abated thank God (a very good thing) so marriage is a naturally step, albeit I would say if the pleb question forced priests to marry in a catholic church you would get a different outcome (hence why I say votes can divorce the role of the church from the State - i.e. look at Ireland again).

Now the next question - should this go to a vote. Well the left says no, the right says yes. Well this is a social policy that IMO requires a vote so that if it gets up and the law is changed then no future government will have the power to change that law. The fear here is without a vote, future governments will play politics with the issue and change the law (since as most of you would know in a general sense politics in Australia is always centred on the 20% of swinging voters as 40% voters general vote left and 40% vote after taking into account primary/preference voting). We have had votes in the past for less than this - daylight savings in WA (3 times), extended trading on Sundays (WA again), the list goes on so I would think a vote on SSM would take greater precedence than some of the crap votes on issues we have had to do in the past. I personally believe if we are to have a vote it be a referendum as against a plebiscite so that it forces politicians to adhere to the will of the people in the present and in the future. I would think SS couples would support that because you wouldn't want some future right wing bigot government who gets a majority in both houses changing the law.