Buy My "Yes" Vote

[icyfroth]

Warnings have been issued to the eBay seller trying to flog their say in the same-sex marriage postal survey for $1500.

 

A Sydneysider who is selling their ballot paper on the same-sex marriage postal survey has been warned they face possible jail time or a $2000 fine, with an independent senator saying it's making a mockery of the exercise.

The eBay listing, which has been taken down, was published on September 18 and titled, Buy My Vote.

The bid started at $1500.

"What is this plebiscite worth to you", the seller writes in the ad description.

"The reason I'm selling my vote is because either way I don't care, but thought there are people who do."

The seller promises part of the proceeds of the auction will go to help kids battling cancer.

The Australian Bueau Of Statistics, which is conducting the survey, told SBS World News it considers any submission of a survey response that's been bought or sold a criminal offence.

The offence against the Census and Statistics Act 1905 carries a maximum penalty of $2,100. The Criminal Code offence carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment,” a spokesman said.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/09/08/same-sex-marriage-sydneysider-slammed-hawking-vote-eba...

No way this plebiscite is going to truly reflect the opinion of the general public. It's going to be so skewed.

[bushies.girl]

If you want to vote yes, vote yes, if ya wanna vote no, then do so, if ya dont wanna vote at all, that's your option   ...... Just respect others' choice to have a diffent opinion to you.

bty Stawka   I lived next door to a lesbian cpl, they were filthy, constantly drunk, fought all the time, smashed up the house, I was so pleased when they were finally asked to leave   ..... 

[imastawka]

The difference there is, Bushie, your neighbours were renting - no responsibility or

pride in their surroundings.

You get those types whatever their se xual preferences.

I'm not trying to change anybody's vote.   Vote how you prefer.    Or not.  

[bushies.girl]

---

@imastawka wrote:

The difference there is, Bushie, your neighbours were renting - no responsibility or

pride in their surroundings.

You get those types whatever their se xual preferences.

I'm not trying to change anybody's vote.   Vote how you prefer.    Or not.  

---

There are heaps of home owners around, whose houses look like a bomb site    .... There are also plenty of renters around who treat their home like a palace  

[domino-710]

---

@bushies.girl wrote:

If you want to vote yes, vote yes, if ya wanna vote no, then do so, if ya dont wanna vote at all, that's your option   ...... Just respect others' choice to have a diffent opinion to you.

---

In what way was that post disrespectful of anyone's opinion.

[springyzone]

---

@not_for_sale2017 wrote:

No matter how I try to look at this issue, I can't work out what right heterosexual people have to vote on the right of gay people to marry. It implies heterosexuals represent the norm in the community and have the entitlement and right to make judgement and have input to the lives of gay people. I don't think heterosexuals are that superior. I've known a number of gay people who are just as religious, are upstanding citizens and are genuinely good people. Sure, there are others that don't rate so highly, but one doesn't have to be gay to qualify for that list.

---

It isn't just heterosexual people who have been given the vote, it is all voters.

I don't see it as the right to make judgements about gay people at all, it is simply looking at the legal definition of marriage.

In every society over hundreds if not thousands of years, that definition has been a man & a woman.

It doesn't mean that gays have not existed or lived in unions too. As we know, in the past some had to hide it as it was illegal etc. Times have changed and I'd guess most people (in the western world) feel gays should be free to live in legally binding unions. If it had any name other than marriage, I think it would be a shoo in.

But having said that, having a vote or making a decision about anything is not to suggest that any group is 'superior'. The fact is that heterosexuals ARE the norm in society. Nature has devised it that way for the perpetuation of the species. Doesn't make heterosxual people any better or worse morally but whichever way you look at it, they are the majority.

In a democracy, majority rules. Not just on this issue but any. Our marriage laws eg age at marriage etc affect heterosexuals too. There are plenty who don't necessarily agree with them-some may believe the age could be lowered, some believe people should be allowed multiple wives. Our laws can't please everyone. But decisions have to be made. And laws do change over time.

No reason why deciding the legal definition of marriage is not relevant to all people, not just gays. 

[davidc4430]

[davidc4430]

[davidc4430]

[gewens]

Hello, everybody. Remember to stay on topic when you're posting. Irrelevant posts might be removed. Thanks. 🙂

[not_for_sale2025]

---

@springyzone wrote:

---

@not_for_sale2017 wrote:

No matter how I try to look at this issue, I can't work out what right heterosexual people have to vote on the right of gay people to marry. It implies heterosexuals represent the norm in the community and have the entitlement and right to make judgement and have input to the lives of gay people. I don't think heterosexuals are that superior. I've known a number of gay people who are just as religious, are upstanding citizens and are genuinely good people. Sure, there are others that don't rate so highly, but one doesn't have to be gay to qualify for that list.

---

It isn't just heterosexual people who have been given the vote, it is all voters.

I don't see it as the right to make judgements about gay people at all, it is simply looking at the legal definition of marriage.

In every society over hundreds if not thousands of years, that definition has been a man & a woman.

It doesn't mean that gays have not existed or lived in unions too. As we know, in the past some had to hide it as it was illegal etc. Times have changed and I'd guess most people (in the western world) feel gays should be free to live in legally binding unions. If it had any name other than marriage, I think it would be a shoo in.

But having said that, having a vote or making a decision about anything is not to suggest that any group is 'superior'. The fact is that heterosexuals ARE the norm in society. Nature has devised it that way for the perpetuation of the species. Doesn't make heterosxual people any better or worse morally but whichever way you look at it, they are the majority.

In a democracy, majority rules. Not just on this issue but any. Our marriage laws eg age at marriage etc affect heterosexuals too. There are plenty who don't necessarily agree with them-some may believe the age could be lowered, some believe people should be allowed multiple wives. Our laws can't please everyone. But decisions have to be made. And laws do change over time.

No reason why deciding the legal definition of marriage is not relevant to all people, not just gays. 

---

I understand how you have interpreted my post, and that is ok. But IMO this plebiscite is not "simply looking at the legal definition of marriage". I have been listening to outspoken politicians over the last few years who have brought religion into the debate and have raised issues about ethical and moral human behaviour. This is also a humanistic issue. Women and Aborigines were protesting about human inequity and discrimination when they were denied the right to vote in this country because of their gender and race. I think the current debate cannot escape the reality that many people (including politicians) still feel very strongly about homosexuals.

However this Government has failed to meet it's responsibility to make a decision and has placed the onus on the people. They have done this with total awareness that discrimination is still very much alive in this country. It has forced me to look deeply within myself and I do not like part of what I found. More that anything I feel the question of whether a gay couple have the right to form a bond in marriage for the rest of their lives is none of my business. I am entitled to my opinion, which I have. But this is about weak and evasive government due to reasons over and above "the legal definition of marriage". I feel the Government has cleverly manipulated the people and it is up to us now. I hope we do the right thing!