Same Sex Marriage Debate (3 Viewers)

[cosmo 2]

[youtube]npuuTBlEb1U[/youtube]

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

It's incredible how all along SSM supporters have said that there will be protections for those opposing SSM to not be affected by this and yet when we make mention of amendments that would mean we're not enforcing certain people to go against their morals/values, they get shutdown are seen as 'bigoted'. E.g. today show, aca, SSM protestors.

In relation to the poll itself:

This was a self-selected poll, meaning those who were voting would be more likely those either strongly in favour or strongly opposed. When you're asking for something to be changed, those on the fence (who neither want or don't want SSM) or not swinging strongly to either side aren't going to vote, meaning:

In reality it's not 60% of Australia saying they want SSM. If we considered those that didn't vote, a vote in itself:

80% voted - 60% of those said yes

= 48% total eligible to vote want SSM to be legal

Then you have 52% who don't want + don't care (this is assuming that all non-voters voluntarily didn't vote - not that their vote was lost, they couldn't vote etc.)

Meaning just under half of Australia voted in favour of SSM...

(this is also overlooking the fact that votes could be seen through the envelope, some people got other people's votes etc.)

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

Agreed - the media is making a lot out of the whole vote in Western Sydney, but essentially this was a unique issue and I doubt it indicates a change in voting patterns otherwise. Anyone who is honestly surprised that an area with a high Muslim/Chinese/Indian migrant population voted No needs their head examined.

I do note two ironies. First, the Australian coming out with an article saying that conservatives should target No voters in Western Sydney. If their is one thing Conservatives oppose more than SSM, it's migration and more specifically, Muslim migration. The thought of the Cory Bernardi's/Tony Abbott's winning over Islamic voters is laughable.

Secondly, the left has gone out of it's way to promote diversity and inclusion with regards to migrant communities (specifically the Islamic community). However, the survey has shown migrants to be amongst the most intolerant in our society.

and the right knew this all along...

 

[dan964]

It's incredible how all along SSM supporters have said that there will be protections for those opposing SSM to not be affected by this and yet when we make mention of amendments that would mean we're not enforcing certain people to go against their morals/values, they get shutdown are seen as 'bigoted'. E.g. today show, aca, SSM protestors.

In relation to the poll itself:

This was a self-selected poll, meaning those who were voting would be more likely those either strongly in favour or strongly opposed. When you're asking for something to be changed, those on the fence (who neither want or don't want SSM) or not swinging strongly to either side aren't going to vote, meaning:

In reality it's not 60% of Australia saying they want SSM. If we considered those that didn't vote, a vote in itself:

80% voted - 60% of those said yes

= 48% total eligible to vote want SSM to be legal

Then you have 52% who don't want + don't care (this is assuming that all non-voters voluntarily didn't vote - not that their vote was lost, they couldn't vote etc.)

Meaning just under half of Australia voted in favour of SSM...

(this is also overlooking the fact that votes could be seen through the envelope, some people got other people's votes etc.)

Assumption:

This is assuming that all non-voters voluntarily didn't vote - not that their vote was lost, they couldn't vote etc.

You cannot make that assumption.

I can say that 32% of people voted against the changes, and 48% in favour, and 20% donkey-voted/did not vote.
You can not draw conclusions about the 20% and add them to those who opposed the changes. Because the poll was either accept or reject. You yourself say...

This was a self-selected poll, meaning those who were voting would be more likely those either strongly in favour or strongly opposed. When you're asking for something to be changed, those on the fence (who neither want or don't want SSM) or not swinging strongly to either side aren't going to vote

Which even then is not necessarily true. It is too late to try to discredit the result.

This article is timely. I think the right and proper response is instead of argument the semantics of the process, to accept the result.
http://www-archive.biblesociety.org.au/news/the-art-of-losing-well

The best Christian responses have been those who haven't try to discredit or argue against the methodology but allow legislative process to continue

 

[sida1049]

This was a self-selected poll, meaning those who were voting would be more likely those either strongly in favour or strongly opposed. When you're asking for something to be changed, those on the fence (who neither want or don't want SSM) or not swinging strongly to either side aren't going to vote, meaning:

In reality it's not 60% of Australia saying they want SSM. If we considered those that didn't vote, a vote in itself:

80% voted - 60% of those said yes

= 48% total eligible to vote want SSM to be legal

Then you have 52% who don't want + don't care (this is assuming that all non-voters voluntarily didn't vote - not that their vote was lost, they couldn't vote etc.)

Meaning just under half of Australia voted in favour of SSM...

(this is also overlooking the fact that votes could be seen through the envelope, some people got other people's votes etc.)

I agree with dan964 that this is an incorrect interpretation of the results. What you're doing is stating that there exist three groups (yes, no and non-voters), and then dividing them into two groups (by grouping no-voters and non-voters as not wanting SSM to be legal). The problem with what you're doing is that I can do exactly what you just did, and claim that only 30.72% of the voting population are against legalising SSM.

Based purely on the numbers you're quoting, the only valid statistical procedure (that I can immediately see) is to assume that everyone either leans towards a yes or no, and extrapolating the results of the yes/no votes as a representation of the voting population as a whole, which leads to the conclusion that approximately 61.6% of the voting population are for SSM (given an extraordinarily small confidence interval, due to the number of people who voted).

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

I did not say that non-voters were no voters (hence why I wrote no-voters + non voters. I'm saying it's incorrect to say 60% of Australia (majority of Australia) want SSM to be legal. Only 48% do. That was the point.

It's also not valid to say that the 'best Christian responses' haven't tried to change the process, if you are indeed referring to my post.

Many people, not just christians, were against the prospect of a postal vote, and I don't think that opposing the process makes anyone invalid.

Also, with regards to the 'self-selected poll', critical thinking courses will teach you that self-selected polls are the least likely to bring in accurate results of a large demographic (i.e. Australian people)

EDIT: dan, with regards to the link you posted, I do not believe that what your proposing to be 'christian acceptance' is necessary. I should not be forced to recognise a union between 2 homosexuals as a marriage, as I take it to mean. Legally it will be so, but religiously - not. Just as I wouldn't accept certain definitions of other things within acts - solely defined that way for the act's purpose.

The last bit that says 'how are we going to convince Australians' etc. is also kind of fallacious, in assuming that WE are the ones that convince. It's the Holy Spirit, not humans... we're just the messengers.
Regardless, irrelevant to the matter at hand (the first sentence in this post).

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

I agree with dan964 that this is an incorrect interpretation of the results. What you're doing is stating that there exist three groups (yes, no and non-voters), and then dividing them into two groups (by grouping no-voters and non-voters as not wanting SSM to be legal). The problem with what you're doing is that I can do exactly what you just did, and claim that only 30.72% of the voting population are against legalising SSM.

Based purely on the numbers you're quoting, the only valid statistical procedure (that I can immediately see) is to assume that everyone either leans towards a yes or no, and extrapolating the results of the yes/no votes as a representation of the voting population as a whole, which leads to the conclusion that approximately 61.6% of the voting population are for SSM (given an extraordinarily small confidence interval, due to the number of people who voted).

No... I put no-voters into the total amount of votes and then said that only 48% showed support for SSM. YOU are assuming that then the converse would be true.
And hence saying that part that you bolded, is a straw man.
Again I would not extrapolate the results to represent the population's votes as a whole since it was a self-selected vote (not sure how you got to the conclusion in that paragraph 'based purely on the numbers I was quoting').

In reality, since we're asking for a 'change', you would need more than half the population to actively 'seek out that change' to be fair to say half of Australia wants it legalised.

This is not to say I'm going to be protesting the result (however I believe we should be representing the data appropriately), I just think there should be enough regulations for those opposing it, as previously promised. No compulsory safe schools program. No cake-baking enforcements. etc.

 

[enoilgam]

This is not to say I'm going to be protesting the result (however I believe we should be representing the data appropriately), I just think there should be enough regulations for those opposing it, as previously promised. No compulsory safe schools program. No cake-baking enforcements. etc.

So, if we do change the law to protect bakers and whatever, does that mean Gay cake makers can refuse service to straight weddings, or can Muslims refuse service to Jews? If safe schools can be opted out, can Christian programs in public schools be opt out with children being able to go back to class instead of being forced to do nothing?

 

[enoilgam]

Also on the whole "Christian" thing, if you take a good look at the survey and couple it with polling data, it's clear that Christians are deeply divided on the issue. Look at the results for Groom in Queensland - that area including Toowoomba is a major Christian stronghold and the Yes vote only lost by a single percentage point. The traditional marriage view certainly isn't shared by the vast majority of people who identify as Christian.

 

[sida1049]

No... I put no-voters into the total amount of votes and then said that only 48% showed support for SSM. YOU are assuming that then the converse would be true.
And hence saying that part that you bolded, is a straw man.
Again I would not extrapolate the results to represent the population's votes as a whole since it was a self-selected vote (not sure how you got to the conclusion in that paragraph 'based purely on the numbers I was quoting').

In reality, since we're asking for a 'change', you would need more than half the population to actively 'seek out that change' to be fair to say half of Australia wants it legalised.

This is not to say I'm going to be protesting the result (however I believe we should be representing the data appropriately), I just think there should be enough regulations for those opposing it, as previously promised. No compulsory safe schools program. No cake-baking enforcements. etc.

You're still missing the point; you are saying that only 48% of the voting population voted yes, and since this number is less than 50%, it is insufficient to legalise SSM. I'm use the exact same reasoning process you've used, and gave the number that only 30.72% of the voting population voted no, and since this number is less than 50%, we should not oppose legalising SSM. This isn't a strawman, it's a proof by contradiction. You use your argument to demonstrate why we should not legalise SSM based on the votes, then I used your argument to demonstrate why we should not not legalise SSM, which is a contradictory result. Therefore, your argument is flawed.

Also, please note that what I did with the numbers and the conclusion is not the converse of what you did: it is the equivalent. (The converse of your reasoning would be saying "SSM is not being legalised" implies "percentage of the total voting population (regardless of whether their vote was counted or not) who voted yes is less than 50%". The converse is reasonably true, if your reasoning is correct. But I hope you can see by now why it isn't.)

I think you're overstating the impact of selection bias here. Think about this for a minute. Around 12.7 million Australians voted successfully, which is 79.5% of the voting population. Meaning approximately 3.27 million Australian voters were not counted. So what you're asking is we need around 0.17 million more yes votes to convince you that SSM poll result should be legally recognised. That means that in your standards, the SSM result should be a "no" if 95% of the rest of the 3.27 million voters would have voted no.

That's insane. If you are not convinced that there is a flaw in your suggestion to withhold the result legally until we have surveyed the rest of the voting population, then literally nothing will.

All of those numbers are derived from the statistics, and assuming your argument is valid.

Now that is the extreme case. Realistically, the selection bias of the the 80% who voted will be practically negligible in the true voting population consensus, and the probability of the true proportion of yes votes being less than 50% is near zero. I'm not kidding about the "near zero" claim. It's pretty easy to compute an approximation of this probability (the link is there if you want to understand the basics of inference on proportions), and even if you choose to be overly conservative and give a much larger standard error than you reasonably should, this probability will still be astronomically low.

That is why your claim is unreasonable.

 

[enoilgam]

That is why your claim is unreasonable.

It's a line of argument that has been spread across the comments page of a few news sites. It's ridiculous - we will never know how that 22% would have voted and frankly, who cares. Those people made a choice not to participate and have their voices heard. Their views in my opinion dont count - if they wanted them to then they should have exercised their right to participate.

 

[cosmo 2]

yeah for example i did not vote and i'm in the "dont care eitherway" camp

why do people assume the people who didnt vote supported either yes or no

 

[sida1049]

yeah for example i did not vote and i'm in the "dont care eitherway" camp

why do people assume the people who didnt vote supported either yes or no

Yeah, though I did it just because it makes the inference much easier. Though surely, a gun to the head, everyone can give a binary answer they'd be able to live with?

 

[cosmo 2]

oonga boonga or death

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

So, if we do change the law to protect bakers and whatever, does that mean Gay cake makers can refuse service to straight weddings, or can Muslims refuse service to Jews? If safe schools can be opted out, can Christian programs in public schools be opt out with children being able to go back to class instead of being forced to do nothing?

First, Christian programs are never enforced on students, there's always the opt-out option. Secondly, sure. I think everyone should be entitled to serve who they want. We should not be forcing anyone to serve anyone they don't want to. It's their business. There are other places that will do it.

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

You're still missing the point; you are saying that only 48% of the voting population voted yes, and since this number is less than 50%, it is insufficient to legalise SSM. I'm use the exact same reasoning process you've used, and gave the number that only 30.72% of the voting population voted no, and since this number is less than 50%, we should not oppose legalising SSM. This isn't a strawman, it's a proof by contradiction. You use your argument to demonstrate why we should not legalise SSM based on the votes, then I used your argument to demonstrate why we should not not legalise SSM, which is a contradictory result. Therefore, your argument is flawed.

Also, please note that what I did with the numbers and the conclusion is not the converse of what you did: it is the equivalent. (The converse of your reasoning would be saying "SSM is not being legalised" implies "percentage of the total voting population (regardless of whether their vote was counted or not) who voted yes is less than 50%". The converse is reasonably true, if your reasoning is correct. But I hope you can see by now why it isn't.)

I think you're overstating the impact of selection bias here. Think about this for a minute. Around 12.7 million Australians voted successfully, which is 79.5% of the voting population. Meaning approximately 3.27 million Australian voters were not counted. So what you're asking is we need around 0.17 million more yes votes to convince you that SSM poll result should be legally recognised. That means that in your standards, the SSM result should be a "no" if 95% of the rest of the 3.27 million voters would have voted no.

That's insane. If you are not convinced that there is a flaw in your suggestion to withhold the result legally until we have surveyed the rest of the voting population, then literally nothing will.

All of those numbers are derived from the statistics, and assuming your argument is valid.

Now that is the extreme case. Realistically, the selection bias of the the 80% who voted will be practically negligible in the true voting population consensus, and the probability of the true proportion of yes votes being less than 50% is near zero. I'm not kidding about the "near zero" claim. It's pretty easy to compute an approximation of this probability (the link is there if you want to understand the basics of inference on proportions), and even if you choose to be overly conservative and give a much larger standard error than you reasonably should, this probability will still be astronomically low.

That is why your claim is unreasonable.

There's a different between committing an act (changing something), and omitting to commit an act (not changing it). This vote was out for a Change. If the majority did not vote for a change (regardless if they didn't vote or they voted no), then it shouldn't change. Law reform comes about when the majority want the change (meaning they seek it - obviously if someone doesn't care they are neither seeking out the change or opposing it.

Again, I'm not saying the non-voters are no voters, I'm saying that yes voters were the only ones actively seeking the change.

I am not assuming the non-voters' stance, I am saying that under half the population WANT (not if they don't care) the legislation to pass.

This is ALSO overlooking the fact that the vote wasn't even well-regulated (with people not receiving theirs, some people taking more than one vote etc.)

 

[spaghettii]

There's a different between committing an act (changing something), and omitting to commit an act (not changing it). This vote was out for a Change. If the majority did not vote for a change (regardless if they didn't vote or they voted no), then it shouldn't change. Law reform comes about when the majority want the change (meaning they seek it - obviously if someone doesn't care they are neither seeking out the change or opposing it.

Again, I'm not saying the non-voters are no voters, I'm saying that yes voters were the only ones actively seeking the change.

I am not assuming the non-voters' stance, I am saying that under half the population WANT (not if they don't care) the legislation to pass.

This is ALSO overlooking the fact that the vote wasn't even well-regulated (with people not receiving theirs, some people taking more than one vote etc.)

Non-voters aren't going to be counted with those who voted properly, just as donkey voters aren't counted. Every election only considers the votes of those who actually voted properly - just look at the American election; a majority of people supported Clinton and many didn't vote because they didn't give a shit and since they didn't vote, Trump ended up winning. People can't just turn around and say "Nah (name) should've won bc (winner) only got less than half the population's votes" because stiff shit for the people who didn't vote, they aren't going to be included.
If someone has the opportunity to vote and doesn't take it, then they shouldn't be included, should they? The gov will only be considering those who actually bothered voting properly.

I'd just like to add that I'm not saying this simply because the yes vote won lmao, I'd be saying this even if the no vote won because thats just how stuff works

 

[dan964]

I did not say that non-voters were no voters (hence why I wrote no-voters + non voters. I'm saying it's incorrect to say 60% of Australia (majority of Australia) want SSM to be legal. Only 48% do. That was the point.

It's also not valid to say that the 'best Christian responses' haven't tried to change the process, if you are indeed referring to my post.

Valid, I am referring moreso to your approach which it appears to attack and try to invalidate the whole survey thing. I think that is unwise and there comes a point where we both need to recognise (i.e. art of losing well) when our society departs from our "Christian ideals/values". The best Christian responses have acknowledged the outcome of the process with great disappointment mind you, but do not then bicker AFTER THE RESULT, about the process being unfair etc, or trying to argue semantics in the an attempt to say the survey did not accurately represent people's views on the issue.

Many people, not just christians, were against the prospect of a postal vote, and I don't think that opposing the process makes anyone invalid.

Also, with regards to the 'self-selected poll', critical thinking courses will teach you that self-selected polls are the least likely to bring in accurate results of a large demographic (i.e. Australian people)

EDIT: dan, with regards to the link you posted, I do not believe that what your proposing to be 'christian acceptance' is necessary. I should not be forced to recognise a union between 2 homosexuals as a marriage, as I take it to mean. Legally it will be so, but religiously - not. Just as I wouldn't accept certain definitions of other things within acts - solely defined that way for the act's purpose.

The last bit that says 'how are we going to convince Australians' etc. is also kind of fallacious, in assuming that WE are the ones that convince. It's the Holy Spirit, not humans... we're just the messengers.
Regardless, irrelevant to the matter at hand (the first sentence in this post).

very relevant, I am surprised you would think the Gospel is not relevant.
ah yes the Holy Spirit convicts people of the Gospel; I have said that previously, but as I have tirelessly said, I also voted so no; but think that it comes across to me, that marriage is more important than the Gospel. the art of losing well doesn't mean accepting homosexual marriage as you have inaccurately claimed. it means admitting our opinion on marriage does not have weight in the public sphere and instead of complaining about the methodology and over semantics of the survey, to face the fact that it is the Holy Spirit's job to convict people and fighting for our rights or our version of marriage has ben very unhelpful with regards to that witness not because we shouldn't speak up; but because Christian witness has been damaged because Christians have not shown love in this. (by this you they will know you are my disciples).


Your initial response that I have seen to the vote was to immediately try to poke holes. I don't think that is helpful or appropriate way forward when our opinion is not held/agreed with.

your first sentence is also where i dispute. 60% of australians who voted (emphasis), whose votes were counted/valid; wanted same sex marriage. Democracy and decisions are made on those for instance who participate in the election not those who for some reason or another do not vote. If hypothetically the 20% did vote, they could have voted for or against, which most likely would not change the outcome.

this is where I disagree on. neither me nor John are suggesting, as you have implied we do that we accept same-sex marriage morally. This is not what he is saying. it is about responding well, when according to the world, our position is "proven" to be unacceptable.

to state again: the best Christian responses I have seen in response to the outcome, have been to accept the results of the survey, as indicative of what Australians want (more people want ssm than those opposed even if your argument holds which I don't think it does), and to spit the dummy and complain about vote rigging. It not very Christlike to complain when Christianity is not accepted by the majority (or close enough to majority) on a particular social issue.

 

[dan964]

Most of the people were opposed on the grounds of hatred from the no camp.

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

Non-voters aren't going to be counted with those who voted properly, just as donkey voters aren't counted. Every election only considers the votes of those who actually voted properly - just look at the American election; a majority of people supported Clinton and many didn't vote because they didn't give a shit and since they didn't vote, Trump ended up winning. People can't just turn around and say "Nah (name) should've won bc (winner) only got less than half the population's votes" because stiff shit for the people who didn't vote, they aren't going to be included.
If someone has the opportunity to vote and doesn't take it, then they shouldn't be included, should they? The gov will only be considering those who actually bothered voting properly.

I'd just like to add that I'm not saying this simply because the yes vote won lmao, I'd be saying this even if the no vote won because thats just how stuff works

I don't think we can make a comparison between a self-selected 'poll' and a compulsory election...

Which is also not a change in legislation/law reform - just a temporary position in government being filled.