Web words

Shepparton News - - VIEWPOINT -

The first na­tion­ally tele­vised ad­vert for the ‘No’ cam­paign has been broad­cast in homes across the coun­try. We asked our on­line read­ers if they had seen the new ad­ver­tise­ment against same-sex mar­riage, and what they thought.

Madeleine Keil: It’s fac­tu­ally in­cor­rect. That’s why we need politi­cians to pass bills rather than this in­cred­i­bly dam­ag­ing non­bind­ing opinion poll.

Gra­ham Thomas: I have lis­tened to the ar­gu­ments both for and against same sex. As with all ads it is try­ing to sell some­thing. Can both sides have a say without judge­ment? We can make up our own minds, if we have not al­ready.

Ja­son Crilly: I haven’t seen the ad and I don’t in­tend to watch it. My vote is still no.

Steve Tem­ple­man: The ad­ver­tise­ment tries to cloud the is­sue of same sex mar­riage with other is­sues. Why can’t they just stick to the is­sue that we are vot­ing on in the costly plebiscite. I be­lieve ev­ery­one should have equal rights, it will have no ef­fect on my per­sonal life, so I don’t know why all the fuss.

Tom Leigh Tom­lin: They should ask real peo­ple for their real views. Oh sorry, they can’t find any on Face­book be­cause any­one that says they are against it gets abused and ha­rassed for hav­ing a dif­fer­ent view.

Danny Ballinger: I haven’t watched it and have no de­sire to. Most no ar­gu­ments cen­tre around per­sonal pref­er­ence and ig­nore that all peo­ple should be af­forded equal rights. If you don’t like the idea of gay peo­ple get­ting mar­ried then don’t at­tend a gay cou­ple’s wed­ding. It’s fairly sim­ple and af­fords all peo­ple mu­tual re­spect.

Steve Tem­ple­man: The High Court still hasn’t made a de­ci­sion on the le­gal­ity of the postal plebiscite, so it may not go ahead and the gov­ern­ment will fi­nally have to make the de­ci­sion like it did in 2004 when Howard changed the Mar­riage Act.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.