Carlton Supporters Club

Not all gay people want kids, and those that do are mostly just normal folks who will in all likelihood choose conventional methods.

You're going off on a tangent, LP.  That's an argument about the ethics of cloning, IVF, and research into reproductive techniques.

Clearly, I must live in some kind of Paully bubble, because I'm amazed that voters actually need to be turned. There seems so little in the way of proven adverse consequences to gay marriage, I'm scratching my head as to what there is to think about.

Yes, but for much of the population none of that is real.

However, playing the devil's advocate, having listened to some of my old associates. Genetics and nature is very real, and the rules apply to every mammal, there is absolutely no natural way interaction between two same sex mammals can result in offspring.

For some the same sex marriage vote is viewed as the thin end of the wedge, primarily because they are already aware of scientific research that allows an ovum to be fertilized by a partners skin cells creating a baby with genetics from two females. The research is being undertaken under the guise of allowing infertile men to have genetic offspring, but the sex of the DNA donor is irrelevant, and allegedly the major organisation funding the research is basically a LGBTI political think-tank sponsored by some rather wealthy LGBTI patrons.

Even worse for the rest of us, well the famous and wealthy anyway not so much me, in the US there have already been concerns raised about the technique because it appears that DNA coming from incidental contact could be recovered and used to fertilise an ovum. There is already allegedly a bank of genetic material being illegally compiled, stuff like celebrity hair or nail clippings, glasses, coffee cups, door handles even!

I don't know if any of this is as real as it is implied, but it's fears along those lines that have some people looking to vote "No" as some sort of tipping point.

Reality is far stranger than fiction!

PaulP, you don't have to turn voters and in general you cannot turn most decisive voters, you have to convince swinging voters, again no pun intended!

Any negativity, mistrust or tension that exists will force swinging voters to favor the status quo. It's the very same mechanism incumbents use to retain power when a war breaks out, or when some children get thrown overboard.

When under duress, perceived or real duress or threats, voters and society will reject change. It's the old "It's not a good time to be trying something new" argument, and it works!

If the Yes lobby keep coming across as bullies they will lose, Abbott knows the louder and more aggressive the Yes lobby get the less the chance of their Yes success. He will be doing his very best to calm and quiet the far right No crowd. Abbott would have been alarmed about that recent Father's Day Ad, he doesn't want the right to be perceived as bullies, he wants the status quo to seem safe.

Yet even if the right do bully, the Yes lobby cannot win by pointing the finger at the far right and calling them bullies, that is perceived as bullying and will lose the swinging voters.

Ever read Roald Dahl's "My Uncle Oswald" LP?

That's all well and good, but I'm still flummoxed as to why they need are on the fence. What is there to think about ?

Risk PaulP, some people think any change is risky, while some people think not changing is the bigger risk!

You find the exact same scenario in the climate change debate, it has nothing to do with the actual issue under debate, and everything to do with human nature.

If you think their indecisiveness is offensive, and you get aggressive about it while arguing the case, you will reinforce their personal beliefs and they will vote exactly the way that makes them feel safe. Which more often than not is to retain the status quo!

Most people live obliviously, they want the path of least stress.

btw., It is a false sense of security they have, that the status quo is safe, but it's very real to them!

No I can't say I have, but I've have seen references to it in blogs about DNA theft.

I gather it has some relevance?

Clearly, I must live in some kind of Paully bubble, because I'm amazed that voters actually need to be turned. There seems so little in the way of proven adverse consequences to gay marriage, I'm scratching my head as to what there is to think about.

I was watching The Project last night and Waleed won't speak on the issue.

There's not much to say, or maybe he doesn't want to be perceived as a bully.