Same Sex Marriage Debacle.

[J o h n S m i t h]

Nope, can't force an MP to vote for something if his electorate is against it.

fine,and I agree entirely. But then stop pretending you want a plebiscite. Afterall, the anti gay marriage lobby isn't really interested in a plebiscite, They're only interested in the delay tactics that it allows. That's a $550 million tactic.

They should allow a conscience vote and stop the sham. If you want/don't want it it's up to you to let your representative know it. In most cases the elected representative will listen to what the majority of his constituents are telling him anyway, especially if he hopes for their vote come the next election.

Though I can see why you run screaming from a democratic vote.

I'm not the one running from a democratic vote. I'm happy to have a plebiscite if it's binding. It's the ones who have said they will ignore the result of a plebiscite who are running from democracy.

[IQS.RLOW]

Plebicites have never been binding and never will. A conscience vote wont go through, but that won't stop you fagging for garriage.

An actual plebecite will stop you Marxists from making up bullshit about polls and halt your little societal white anting dead in its tracks.
You don't want anyone to the truth of a real poll, that's why you lot squeal when you hear plebiscite.
You'll be caught out in another communimarxist lie and you won't be able to use the minority gay community anymore.

No wonder you cling to it like a drowning man as your last hope, you lefty's are so fucking lazy you can't even be bothered to find a new Trojan horse because you flogged the last one to death.

[Rorschach]

Nope, can't force an MP to vote for something if his electorate is against it.

fine,and I agree entirely. But then stop pretending you want a plebiscite. Afterall, the anti gay marriage lobby isn't really interested in a plebiscite, They're only interested in the delay tactics that it allows. That's a $550 million tactic.

They should allow a conscience vote and stop the sham. If you want/don't want it it's up to you to let your representative know it. In most cases the elected representative will listen to what the majority of his constituents are telling him anyway, especially if he hopes for their vote come the next election.

Though I can see why you run screaming from a democratic vote.

I'm not the one running from a democratic vote. I'm happy to have a plebiscite if it's binding. It's the ones who have said they will ignore the result of a plebiscite who are running from democracy.

Only an idiot would think it won't be binding.
The reason we have them is so politicians can make POPULAR/MAJORITY-SUPPORTED decisions.
No party would not follow through such a decision because they'd be voted out or left in Opposition.
Every argument you regurgitate from those that fear democracy and the rights of the people to have a say are total bullshit.

[J o h n S m i t h]

Nope, can't force an MP to vote for something if his electorate is against it.

fine,and I agree entirely. But then stop pretending you want a plebiscite. Afterall, the anti gay marriage lobby isn't really interested in a plebiscite, They're only interested in the delay tactics that it allows. That's a $550 million tactic.

They should allow a conscience vote and stop the sham. If you want/don't want it it's up to you to let your representative know it. In most cases the elected representative will listen to what the majority of his constituents are telling him anyway, especially if he hopes for their vote come the next election.

Though I can see why you run screaming from a democratic vote.

I'm not the one running from a democratic vote. I'm happy to have a plebiscite if it's binding. It's the ones who have said they will ignore the result of a plebiscite who are running from democracy.

Only an idiot would think it won't be binding.
The reason we have them is so politicians can make POPULAR/MAJORITY-SUPPORTED decisions.
No party would not follow through such a decision because they'd be voted out or left in Opposition.
Every argument you regurgitate from those that fear democracy and the rights of the people to have a say are total bullshit.

Only an idiot thinks they're binding. If that's the case why didn't the libs support labors proposal to make the result binding? Bernardi, Abetz and Christiansen have all said they will vote no regardless and I bet there are a few other die hard libs in conservative seats who will follow suit. Turnbull has already said he'll give all coalition MP's a conscience vote after the pleb.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-24/e ... ge/7540988

If Turnbull can give them a conscience vote after the pleb? why won't he do it now?
The answer? the pleb is nothing but a stalling tactic.

I don't give a crap who gets voted out after the next election. It's still does make the pleb and less of a waste of money now.

[IQS.RLOW]

. If that's the case why didn't the libs support labors proposal to make the result binding?

Because the LNP aren't ALP collectivist cocksuckers?

[Rorschach]

Good grief.... because plebs aren't binding... referendums are.
referendums are for changes to the Constitution only.

[J o h n S m i t h]

. If that's the case why didn't the libs support labors proposal to make the result binding?

Because the LNP aren't ALP collectivist cocksuckers?

alp has agreed to a conscience vote, which is as it should be.

[IQS.RLOW]

. If that's the case why didn't the libs support labors proposal to make the result binding?

Because the LNP aren't ALP collectivist cocksuckers?

alp has agreed to a conscience vote, which is as it should be.

The ALP don't have a conscience nor do they have conscience votes.
The conscience of the collectivists must all be the same or you aren't part of the collective and will be removed.

[J o h n S m i t h]

. If that's the case why didn't the libs support labors proposal to make the result binding?

Because the LNP aren't ALP collectivist cocksuckers?

alp has agreed to a conscience vote, which is as it should be.

The ALP don't have a conscience nor do they have conscience votes.
The conscience of the collectivists must all be the same or you aren't part of the collective and will be removed.

I'll take that as acknowledgement that your argument is flawed

[IQS.RLOW]

. If that's the case why didn't the libs support labors proposal to make the result binding?

Because the LNP aren't ALP collectivist cocksuckers?

alp has agreed to a conscience vote, which is as it should be.

The ALP don't have a conscience nor do they have conscience votes.
The conscience of the collectivists must all be the same or you aren't part of the collective and will be removed.

I'll take that as acknowledgement that your argument is flawed

You can take it as acknowledgment that the ALP are Borg.
They don't believe in conscience voting.