Forums
LGBT
Quick find code: 23-24-393-65913078
Natster
said
:
Post said :
-snip-
I hope the cost of the vote doesn't sway people and you get marriage equality!
Me too!
But unfortunately, I think they (the Liberal government – basically Australia's version of Republicans; right-wing despite the name) were counting on it swaying people against equality.
Choosing this particular method – a non-mandatory, (technically) non-binding, postal paper vote – was a smart move by the politicians, because now they are able to blame LGBT+ people for the exorbitant cost of the vote. Many have been implying that it is LGBT+ people's fault for wanting equality, and if LGBT+ Australia didn't want equality, the government wouldn't "have" to spend $200m+ on a postal paper vote.
Nobody in Australia wanted a postal paper vote, though. We just wanted politicians to vote 'yes' in a private members' bill. It would have been quicker and cost no money. But as we know, politicians don't usually work on behalf of their electorates, but rather, themselves – and most of ours are old fellas who don't like anything that isn't also old, white, straight and male! So they chose the postal vote method, because they knew it could be used to sway for the no-vote.
Thus, we're pushing forward with this nation-wide postal paper vote next month some time and the pollies are saying it was the only way we could know for sure whether people want this – even though it's a non-mandatory and non-binding vote. Go figure?
The cost comes from the fact that we still have to send paper to each house in Australia and employ people to count the votes that are returned – but as I said, it's not mandatory, so even though we're sending 27m pieces of paper out, not all of them will be used (for example, those who abstain or are out of the country).
Post said :
-snip-
I hope the cost of the vote doesn't sway people and you get marriage equality!
Me too!
But unfortunately, I think they (the Liberal government – basically Australia's version of Republicans; right-wing despite the name) were counting on it swaying people against equality.
Choosing this particular method – a non-mandatory, (technically) non-binding, postal paper vote – was a smart move by the politicians, because now they are able to blame LGBT+ people for the exorbitant cost of the vote. Many have been implying that it is LGBT+ people's fault for wanting equality, and if LGBT+ Australia didn't want equality, the government wouldn't "have" to spend $200m+ on a postal paper vote.
Nobody in Australia wanted a postal paper vote, though. We just wanted politicians to vote 'yes' in a private members' bill. It would have been quicker and cost no money. But as we know, politicians don't usually work on behalf of their electorates, but rather, themselves – and most of ours are old fellas who don't like anything that isn't also old, white, straight and male! So they chose the postal vote method, because they knew it could be used to sway for the no-vote.
Thus, we're pushing forward with this nation-wide postal paper vote next month some time and the pollies are saying it was the only way we could know for sure whether people want this – even though it's a non-mandatory and non-binding vote. Go figure?
The cost comes from the fact that we still have to send paper to each house in Australia and employ people to count the votes that are returned – but as I said, it's not mandatory, so even though we're sending 27m pieces of paper out, not all of them will be used (for example, those who abstain or are out of the country).
× Aussie
× Forum Enthusiast
× Minigamer
x
Road to Comp ×
Serenity Isle
CC ×
Minigames
FC ×
06-Sep-2017 01:55:34 - Last edited on 06-Sep-2017 02:14:27 by Post
- Continued -
The vote is also geared to facilitate older peoples' needs, who, generally, are against equality. (Statistics from in Australia support this – I'm not just making things up.)
Younger Australians, who are largely in support of equality (again, statistics), use technology over paper primarily, and some have never received a paper vote of any kind (myself excluded – though only just, as I had to complete a census recently).
There is also some debate as to whether posted votes will be prepaid or whether we will have to go out and purchase stamps in order to return your vote and for it to be counted. No young person has stamps. You know who has stamps? My grandma. How insane is that, right?
So together it's definitely not in our favour...
I bet the pollies are happy about that:
- Paper vote preferences older, conservative Australians who actually have goddamn stamps = against equality
- "If it's not mandatory, why should I even vote?" = against equality
- "It's their bloody fault $200m of my tax payer money is going towards this thing that I personally don't benefit from!" = against equality
- "It's not binding? So I'm just gonna have to vote again in another year? Well then I'm not bloody voting this time!" = against equality
So yep. But I guess nobody ever said equality would be easy.
The vote is also geared to facilitate older peoples' needs, who, generally, are against equality. (Statistics from in Australia support this – I'm not just making things up.)
Younger Australians, who are largely in support of equality (again, statistics), use technology over paper primarily, and some have never received a paper vote of any kind (myself excluded – though only just, as I had to complete a census recently).
There is also some debate as to whether posted votes will be prepaid or whether we will have to go out and purchase stamps in order to return your vote and for it to be counted. No young person has stamps. You know who has stamps? My grandma. How insane is that, right?
So together it's definitely not in our favour...
I bet the pollies are happy about that:
- Paper vote preferences older, conservative Australians who actually have goddamn stamps = against equality
- "If it's not mandatory, why should I even vote?" = against equality
- "It's their bloody fault $200m of my tax payer money is going towards this thing that I personally don't benefit from!" = against equality
- "It's not binding? So I'm just gonna have to vote again in another year? Well then I'm not bloody voting this time!" = against equality
So yep. But I guess nobody ever said equality would be easy.
× Aussie
× Forum Enthusiast
× Minigamer
x
Road to Comp ×
Serenity Isle
CC ×
Minigames
FC ×
06-Sep-2017 02:07:48 - Last edited on 06-Sep-2017 02:15:42 by Post
Post
said
:
$120 million of our tax money is going to this plebiscite, might as well vote guys!
PS. Post, I love your name! How apt for these forums
$120 million of our tax money is going to this plebiscite, might as well vote guys!
PS. Post, I love your name! How apt for these forums
Mental Health
|
Sweaty Fingers
|
Mod Meadows
15-Sep-2017 00:38:50
Another interesting thread. I should spend more time in Off Topic.
Ahura said :
Chief Elf said :
Demisexuality is referred to as developing a sexual attraction to only with whom they have an emotional bond.
You can't 'develop' a sexual attraction towards someone. There either is attraction or there isn't. If a relationship was made by having chosen someone whom you have emotional bond with, then that's no real sexual attraction and unlikely going to be a succesful relationship. Attraction happens largely on a subconcious level, not a rational level.
It depends exactly how you're understanding 'developing'.
The only people I've ever considered to be hot have been people I knew very well. If I don't know them well enough, they're not on my list of people I can be attracted to.
It doesn't matter what they look like or whatever other generally-considered-attractive traits they might have. The default answer to "Don't you think [celebrity] is hot?" is "No, I've never even spoken to them."
So if I meet someone for the first time, it's a given that I'm not attracted to them straight off. I might think they're someone I'd like to get to know better, but that's not the same as an interest in forming a romantic/sexual relationship with them - yet.
If I get to know someone very well, then and only then do they join the list of people I think are hot. A qualifier for joining some people's "they're hot" list is "they're a man" or "they're a woman" or "they're very tall" or "they have nice muscles."
A qualifier for joining mine is "I know them extremely well". And yes, since that's not something that happens at sight, I am never attracted to anyone at sight, and I'm quite rarely attracted to anyone at all.
BUT once I do think a person is hot, I think they're hot just as thoroughly as anyone else does with people they're attracted to.
93-94-178-66118830
Ahura said :
Chief Elf said :
Demisexuality is referred to as developing a sexual attraction to only with whom they have an emotional bond.
You can't 'develop' a sexual attraction towards someone. There either is attraction or there isn't. If a relationship was made by having chosen someone whom you have emotional bond with, then that's no real sexual attraction and unlikely going to be a succesful relationship. Attraction happens largely on a subconcious level, not a rational level.
It depends exactly how you're understanding 'developing'.
The only people I've ever considered to be hot have been people I knew very well. If I don't know them well enough, they're not on my list of people I can be attracted to.
It doesn't matter what they look like or whatever other generally-considered-attractive traits they might have. The default answer to "Don't you think [celebrity] is hot?" is "No, I've never even spoken to them."
So if I meet someone for the first time, it's a given that I'm not attracted to them straight off. I might think they're someone I'd like to get to know better, but that's not the same as an interest in forming a romantic/sexual relationship with them - yet.
If I get to know someone very well, then and only then do they join the list of people I think are hot. A qualifier for joining some people's "they're hot" list is "they're a man" or "they're a woman" or "they're very tall" or "they have nice muscles."
A qualifier for joining mine is "I know them extremely well". And yes, since that's not something that happens at sight, I am never attracted to anyone at sight, and I'm quite rarely attracted to anyone at all.
BUT once I do think a person is hot, I think they're hot just as thoroughly as anyone else does with people they're attracted to.
Lumine
Patrona Emerita
of the
Patrona Emerita
Caped Carousers
quest cape clan
93-94-178-66118830
15-Sep-2017 10:20:15
And that's what demisexuality is. I don't like the label very much - my reaction on first learning about it was "Oi! I'm just as sexual as anyone else! Ask my husband if you don't believe me!!"
But actually, I'm not, in the sense that (as I understand it) most other people have situations in which they can be attracted to someone else as soon as they see them, and I don't.
Still, I'm fine with being as I am. Being the other way feels vaguely spooky.
93-94-178-66118830
But actually, I'm not, in the sense that (as I understand it) most other people have situations in which they can be attracted to someone else as soon as they see them, and I don't.
Still, I'm fine with being as I am. Being the other way feels vaguely spooky.
Lumine
Patrona Emerita
of the
Patrona Emerita
Caped Carousers
quest cape clan
93-94-178-66118830
15-Sep-2017 10:20:31
Quick find code: 23-24-393-65913078 Back to Top