Domestic Politics

[Jun]

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

There are several arguments, none worth repeating.

[bt50]

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50This makes me sound like I'm anti gay marriage thisphantomfortress.

I simply just don't care.

There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

Edited May 27, 2015 by bt50

[Braveheart]

 

 

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50

There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

 

I would love to hear it.  (not trolling)

[thisphantomfortress]

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50This makes me sound like I'm anti gay marriage thisphantomfortress.

I simply just don't care.

There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

I was being a smart ass and must say our discussion the other day actually opened my mind a lot on the issue from the other side.

[thisphantomfortress]

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50 There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

I would love to hear it. (not trolling) Short summary from our discussion recently from BT50 was;

Basically he's indifferent. But he believed that as its a religious institution that by imposing it on the religious wasn't fair. Which is a fair enough point in that if it is legalised it has to be at the discretion of the given; minister, church etc. and that discrimination cases can't come out of it should they choose not to perform the ceremony.

FWIW I was trolling BT50 and it wasn't fair for me to do it on such a sensitive issue for a lot of people. So I am sorry for that

[Braveheart]

 

 

 

 

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50 There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho I would love to hear it. (not trolling) Short summary from our discussion recently from BT50 was;

Basically he's indifferent. But he believed that as its a religious institution that by imposing it on the religious wasn't fair. Which is a fair enough point in that if it is legalised it has to be at the discretion of the given; minister, church etc. and that discrimination cases can't come out of it should they choose not to perform the ceremony.

 

What the actual fuck does that have to do with anything? Are you aware that thousands of people get married in this country every month with nothing but a Marriage license and a celebrant? Not a crucifix in sight. Nobody is advocating here for state-policy to intervene in matters of religious catechism? Are you aware that in this country that marriage is no longer a religious practice in essence? Sure, we draw the status we attribute to the institution of marriage from its historical religious significance but its standing in our (largely) secular society has long ceased to be anything to do with faith. This issue is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with fairness under the law. It's about the legal spousal rights and financial protections etc. that the state affords those with a Married status as opposed to those who are not. Non-hetero people are currently excluded from this dynamic by virtue of the pursuit of their own happiness and fulfilment. That's a crock of shit. I have zero problem with the Presbos, Maronites, Cathos, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims etc. saying that due to their dogmatic inflexibility that they are unable to provide a religious backing for same sex marriage. I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that didn't want me either tbh. Even for those who aren't that perturbed by religious discrimination and anybody with a Liberal bone in their body can't stand for the systematic denial of an individuals legal/financial rights for such an arbitrary reason. 

 

This is about rights, not religious sensibilities. 

 

So yeah, still waiting for the 'very valid' argument...

[HeartFc]

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

 

1. People will say "partner" instead of Wife/Husband more and more.

2. Gay marriage will eventually lead to people getting married to goats. 

3. They will spread more Gayness and AIDS.

4. They will adopt more children and rape them.

5. Birth rate will plummet and Muslims will take over.

 

Not trolling, I actually know somehow who genuinely believes those 5 points.

[thisphantomfortress]

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment thoI would love to hear it. (not trolling)Short summary from our discussion recently from BT50 was;

Basically he's indifferent. But he believed that as its a religious institution that by imposing it on the religious wasn't fair. Which is a fair enough point in that if it is legalised it has to be at the discretion of the given; minister, church etc. and that discrimination cases can't come out of it should they choose not to perform the ceremony.

What the actual fuck does that have to do with anything? Are you aware that thousands of people get married in this country every month with nothing but a Marriage license and a celebrant? Not a crucifix in sight. Nobody is advocating here for state-policy to intervene in matters of religious catechism? Are you aware that in this country that marriage is no longer a religious practice in essence? Sure, we draw the status we attribute to the institution of marriage from its historical religious significance but its standing in our (largely) secular society has long ceased to be anything to do with faith. This issue is nothing to do with religion and everything to do with fairness under the law. It's about the legal spousal rights and financial protections etc. that the state affords those with a Married status as opposed to those who are not. Non-hetero people are currently excluded from this dynamic by virtue of the pursuit of their own happiness and fulfilment. That's a crock of shit. I have zero problem with the Presbos, Maronites, Cathos, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims etc. saying that due to their dogmatic inflexibility that they are unable to provide a religious backing for same sex marriage. I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that didn't want me either tbh. Even for those who aren't that perturbed by religious discrimination and anybody with a Liberal bone in their body can't stand for the systematic denial of an individuals legal/financial rights for such an arbitrary reason.

This is about rights, not religious sensibilities.

So yeah, still waiting for the 'very valid' argument... Not my arguments I'm very pro. I was pointing on BT50 isn't anti gay marriage

[hedaik]

 

 

4. They will adopt more children and rape them.

 

 

 

Thats pretty much my parents argument, even though gay couples can already legally have children currently. I think its more the fact they are old and just don't like what they do.

[cadete]

 

 

4. They will adopt more children and rape them.

 

 

 

Thats pretty much my parents argument, even though gay couples can already legally have children currently. I think its more the fact they are old and just don't like what they do.

 

I know you obviously dont prescribe to the above theory but it needs to be said that the most likely person to molest a kid is actually conclusively a married straight man and the figures show this has always been the case.

 

The basic stats from Cases of Child Abuse point to it being far far safer to leave your Children with a Gay Man or even a bloody Catholic Priest (In this case its something like over 20 times safer) than it is to leave your child with a Straight Married Man this just a basic well known fact by anyone who knows much about the issue.

 

Something that shits me is when PPL allude to the terrible cases of Child Abuse that have occurred in the Catholic Church must be due to the Priests involved being gay. Despite their obviously always having being a significant number of Gay Priests in the church (As they see it as a way of remaining Catholic and not acting on their sexuality) this is not the reason why these events have occurred.

 

They occurred due to Evil People using the Institutional Nature of Church, just like how such things have regularly occurred in other Institutions in society like in other Religious Institutions, Schools, Enclosed Communities and most of all in State Child Welfare which continues to be plagued heavily by these problems.

 

They did not occur because the PPL involved were fucken gay... this is just a Homophobic view that has no stats or facts to back it up.

 

NOTE: As a Catholic like BH said I see Gay Marriage as separate to Catholicism and I am in turn a strong advocate of getting this Non Political Issue sorted ASAP on Human RIghts grounds. 

Edited May 27, 2015 by cadete

[bt50]

 

 

 

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50

There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

 

I would love to hear it.  (not trolling)

 

Well that escalated overnight...

 

Let me preface this entire argument by saying I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it, only that it is an arguable position.

 

Firstly, ask yourself why do Gay and Lesbian couples want to get married? To express their love? To be valid in the eyes of the law??

Civil unions already exist which essentially is marriage without being called marriage in the eyes of the law. Couples can express their love in a multitude of ways, I don't see the need to have a piece of paper from a body that you don't even respect to make that love feel valid, particularly when a civil union exists anyway.

In some ways you could consider it similar to an atheist arguing that they should be allowed to be baptised, despite wanting nothing to do with the religion.

 

The religious side of the argument is that marriage is a religious institution. Always has been, no matter what gods people have worshipped, if any at all. For thousands of years laws have been formed around religion, not the other way around. Whether that is right or wrong is another argument completely. Societies response to marriage in the religious sense was to make laws surrounding it. Those same laws are still available to civil unions.

Religious people that hold marriage sacred will argue that it is being devalued by including relationships that were never intended to be acknowledged.  

Even straight people that aren't religious are still meeting the religious criteria of man and woman that precede the act.

 

Interesting question, but if all mariages as they stand were deemed civil unions, and had to be ticked off by a religious institution to be recognised as a marriage, would non religious people (straight, gay or lesbian) care whether they were deemed married or not?

[hedaik]

The wedding ceremony (like Christmas, Halloween or plenty of other religious rituals) has evolved into something else now and taken on a new meaning in todays society. Its no longer a religious event and Im sure theres hundreds of things that we all do today that have their beginnings in religious tradition. Do we force the non-believers to work Sunday?

 

Like most modern weddings I wasn't married by a priest nor had any mention of a god at my wedding, are you also against that situation? 

Edited May 28, 2015 by hedaik

[Braveheart]

 

 

 

 

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50

There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

 

I would love to hear it.  (not trolling)

 

 

Civil unions already exist which essentially is marriage without being called marriage in the eyes of the law

 

Incorrect. You or the people who you have heard this from need to brush up on your Constitutional Law. 

For instance the division of property and assets etc. comes under the Commonwealth Family Law Act and has not been changed to make provision for civil unions. In most states apart from QLD civil unions are the equivalent of de facto relationships which carry ALOT less weight when compared with a legally recognised Marriage especially when it comes to legally demonstrating cohabitation, commitment and shared property. See Commonwealth Marriage Act.

 

TLDR: Marriage is not equivalent to a civil union because under Australian Constitutional law it is considered a lesser agreement and thus is treated accordingly. 

 

Change the law. That's all I want. Couldn't give to fucks about the religious side of things. 

[bt50]

 

 

 

 

 

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50

There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

 

I would love to hear it.  (not trolling)

 

 

Civil unions already exist which essentially is marriage without being called marriage in the eyes of the law

 

Incorrect. You or the people who you have heard this from need to brush up on your Constitutional Law. 

For instance the division of property and assets etc. comes under the Commonwealth Family Law Act and has not been changed to make provision for civil unions. In most states apart from QLD civil unions are the equivalent of de facto relationships which carry ALOT less weight when compared with a legally recognised Marriage especially when it comes to legally demonstrating cohabitation, commitment and shared property. See Commonwealth Marriage Act.

 

TLDR: Marriage is not equivalent to a civil union because under Australian Constitutional law it is considered a lesser agreement and thus is treated accordingly. 

 

Change the law. That's all I want. Couldn't give to fucks about the religious side of things. 

 

TBH the document I read was a Queensland one I think.

 

Would it appease marriage equality activists if the legal side was the same, albeit not called marriage??

[cadete]

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50

There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

 

I would love to hear it.  (not trolling)

 

 

Civil unions already exist which essentially is marriage without being called marriage in the eyes of the law

 

Incorrect. You or the people who you have heard this from need to brush up on your Constitutional Law. 

For instance the division of property and assets etc. comes under the Commonwealth Family Law Act and has not been changed to make provision for civil unions. In most states apart from QLD civil unions are the equivalent of de facto relationships which carry ALOT less weight when compared with a legally recognised Marriage especially when it comes to legally demonstrating cohabitation, commitment and shared property. See Commonwealth Marriage Act.

 

TLDR: Marriage is not equivalent to a civil union because under Australian Constitutional law it is considered a lesser agreement and thus is treated accordingly. 

 

Change the law. That's all I want. Couldn't give to fucks about the religious side of things. 

 

TBH the document I read was a Queensland one I think.

 

Would it appease marriage equality activists if the legal side was the same, albeit not called marriage??

 

Such laws in regards to inheritance and relationships were basicly all made in Victoria under Kennett in the 90's...  so in a word "No".

[bt50]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50

There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

 

I would love to hear it.  (not trolling)

 

 

Civil unions already exist which essentially is marriage without being called marriage in the eyes of the law

 

Incorrect. You or the people who you have heard this from need to brush up on your Constitutional Law. 

For instance the division of property and assets etc. comes under the Commonwealth Family Law Act and has not been changed to make provision for civil unions. In most states apart from QLD civil unions are the equivalent of de facto relationships which carry ALOT less weight when compared with a legally recognised Marriage especially when it comes to legally demonstrating cohabitation, commitment and shared property. See Commonwealth Marriage Act.

 

TLDR: Marriage is not equivalent to a civil union because under Australian Constitutional law it is considered a lesser agreement and thus is treated accordingly. 

 

Change the law. That's all I want. Couldn't give to fucks about the religious side of things. 

 

TBH the document I read was a Queensland one I think.

 

Would it appease marriage equality activists if the legal side was the same, albeit not called marriage??

 

Such laws in regards to inheritance and relationships were basicly all made in Victoria under Kennett in the 90's...  so in a word "No".

 

Lel. didn't think so.

[jw1739]

Interesting to read the various opinions.

 

IMO what this debate is about is changing the legal definition of marriage as it stands today in this country. As such, because politicians actually make the laws of this country, it is a political issue. Unfortunately, the debate on whether the definition should be changed is being hijacked by opinions on homosexuality, and because religious groups are quite opinionated on that subject, by opinions on religion itself.

 

I suspect that most people will adhere to their current opinions about homosexuality and religion whether or not the definition of marriage is changed. What is important IMO, and seemingly being overlooked by the chattering classes, is how a change in the definition will affect every other piece of legislation and regulation in this country. I shudder to think of the number of places in legislation and regulation that the words "married person" (or their equivalent) occur (and by default "single person").

 

I have not seen or heard in the media any consideration of the potential knock-on effects of such a change in definition, and I think the politicians owe us that before any change in the definition is considered.

[cadete]

Interesting to read the various opinions.

 

IMO what this debate is about is changing the legal definition of marriage as it stands today in this country. As such, because politicians actually make the laws of this country, it is a political issue. Unfortunately, the debate on whether the definition should be changed is being hijacked by opinions on homosexuality, and because religious groups are quite opinionated on that subject, by opinions on religion itself.

 

I suspect that most people will adhere to their current opinions about homosexuality and religion whether or not the definition of marriage is changed. What is important IMO, and seemingly being overlooked by the chattering classes, is how a change in the definition will affect every other piece of legislation and regulation in this country. I shudder to think of the number of places in legislation and regulation that the words "married person" (or their equivalent) occur (and by default "single person").

 

I have not seen or heard in the media any consideration of the potential knock-on effects of such a change in definition, and I think the politicians owe us that before any change in the definition is considered.

Please tell me you weren't someone who opposed the Republican Referendum due to Administrative reasons? 

[jw1739]

 

Interesting to read the various opinions.

 

IMO what this debate is about is changing the legal definition of marriage as it stands today in this country. As such, because politicians actually make the laws of this country, it is a political issue. Unfortunately, the debate on whether the definition should be changed is being hijacked by opinions on homosexuality, and because religious groups are quite opinionated on that subject, by opinions on religion itself.

 

I suspect that most people will adhere to their current opinions about homosexuality and religion whether or not the definition of marriage is changed. What is important IMO, and seemingly being overlooked by the chattering classes, is how a change in the definition will affect every other piece of legislation and regulation in this country. I shudder to think of the number of places in legislation and regulation that the words "married person" (or their equivalent) occur (and by default "single person").

 

I have not seen or heard in the media any consideration of the potential knock-on effects of such a change in definition, and I think the politicians owe us that before any change in the definition is considered.

Please tell me you weren't someone who opposed the Republican Referendum due to Administrative reasons? 

I was not.

[Jun]

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a serious question but what is the argument against same-sex marriage? Is there one?

Paging bt50

There is an argument and it's a very valid one. I can't be bothered typing it out at the moment tho

 

I would love to hear it.  (not trolling)

 

 

Civil unions already exist which essentially is marriage without being called marriage in the eyes of the law

 

Incorrect. You or the people who you have heard this from need to brush up on your Constitutional Law. 

For instance the division of property and assets etc. comes under the Commonwealth Family Law Act and has not been changed to make provision for civil unions. In most states apart from QLD civil unions are the equivalent of de facto relationships which carry ALOT less weight when compared with a legally recognised Marriage especially when it comes to legally demonstrating cohabitation, commitment and shared property. See Commonwealth Marriage Act.

 

TLDR: Marriage is not equivalent to a civil union because under Australian Constitutional law it is considered a lesser agreement and thus is treated accordingly. 

 

Change the law. That's all I want. Couldn't give to fucks about the religious side of things. 

 

TBH the document I read was a Queensland one I think.

 

Would it appease marriage equality activists if the legal side was the same, albeit not called marriage??

 

The "Separate but Equal" of marriage equality.

 

 

Interesting to read the various opinions.

 

IMO what this debate is about is changing the legal definition of marriage as it stands today in this country. As such, because politicians actually make the laws of this country, it is a political issue. Unfortunately, the debate on whether the definition should be changed is being hijacked by opinions on homosexuality, and because religious groups are quite opinionated on that subject, by opinions on religion itself.

 

I suspect that most people will adhere to their current opinions about homosexuality and religion whether or not the definition of marriage is changed. What is important IMO, and seemingly being overlooked by the chattering classes, is how a change in the definition will affect every other piece of legislation and regulation in this country. I shudder to think of the number of places in legislation and regulation that the words "married person" (or their equivalent) occur (and by default "single person").

 

I have not seen or heard in the media any consideration of the potential knock-on effects of such a change in definition, and I think the politicians owe us that before any change in the definition is considered.

I understand what you mean, there's an enormous amount of documents that would be involved, but how would you suspect it will affect the legislation? Is not the point to make a gay marriage legally equal to a straight marriage?

[jw1739]

 

Interesting to read the various opinions.

 

IMO what this debate is about is changing the legal definition of marriage as it stands today in this country. As such, because politicians actually make the laws of this country, it is a political issue. Unfortunately, the debate on whether the definition should be changed is being hijacked by opinions on homosexuality, and because religious groups are quite opinionated on that subject, by opinions on religion itself.

 

I suspect that most people will adhere to their current opinions about homosexuality and religion whether or not the definition of marriage is changed. What is important IMO, and seemingly being overlooked by the chattering classes, is how a change in the definition will affect every other piece of legislation and regulation in this country. I shudder to think of the number of places in legislation and regulation that the words "married person" (or their equivalent) occur (and by default "single person").

 

I have not seen or heard in the media any consideration of the potential knock-on effects of such a change in definition, and I think the politicians owe us that before any change in the definition is considered.

I understand what you mean, there's an enormous amount of documents that would be involved, but how would you suspect it will affect the legislation? Is not the point to make a gay marriage legally equal to a straight marriage?

It won't affect the legislation per se. But if the definition of marriage is extended then clearly some people previously considered single will, under some legislation and regulation, be considered married. Of course you are correct that the whole push for change aims to achieve this. But marriage brings obligations as well as benefits, and I'm not convinced that the GLBT lobby group, or anyone else, has yet considered this. For example, if a couple wishes to formally end a homosexual marriage then they will presumably have to file for a divorce.

 

I'm simply urging caution. I feel the debate is being driven (on both "sides") by emotion and rhetoric rather than consideration of the full implications of a change in definition. No more so than I would expect with any similar change in definition - for example the change in definition of the word "minor" to mean a person under 18 rather than a person under 21.

[Jun]

 

 

Interesting to read the various opinions.

 

IMO what this debate is about is changing the legal definition of marriage as it stands today in this country. As such, because politicians actually make the laws of this country, it is a political issue. Unfortunately, the debate on whether the definition should be changed is being hijacked by opinions on homosexuality, and because religious groups are quite opinionated on that subject, by opinions on religion itself.

 

I suspect that most people will adhere to their current opinions about homosexuality and religion whether or not the definition of marriage is changed. What is important IMO, and seemingly being overlooked by the chattering classes, is how a change in the definition will affect every other piece of legislation and regulation in this country. I shudder to think of the number of places in legislation and regulation that the words "married person" (or their equivalent) occur (and by default "single person").

 

I have not seen or heard in the media any consideration of the potential knock-on effects of such a change in definition, and I think the politicians owe us that before any change in the definition is considered.

I understand what you mean, there's an enormous amount of documents that would be involved, but how would you suspect it will affect the legislation? Is not the point to make a gay marriage legally equal to a straight marriage?

It won't affect the legislation per se. But if the definition of marriage is extended then clearly some people previously considered single will, under some legislation and regulation, be considered married. Of course you are correct that the whole push for change aims to achieve this. But marriage brings obligations as well as benefits, and I'm not convinced that the GLBT lobby group, or anyone else, has yet considered this. For example, if a couple wishes to formally end a homosexual marriage then they will presumably have to file for a divorce.

 

I'm simply urging caution. I feel the debate is being driven (on both "sides") by emotion and rhetoric rather than consideration of the full implications of a change in definition. No more so than I would expect with any similar change in definition - for example the change in definition of the word "minor" to mean a person under 18 rather than a person under 21.

 

But they're not just arguing for the right to get married but for the right to get divorced too. Having the same benefits and obligations is precisely at the core of the push for equality.

[thisphantomfortress]

 Having the same benefits and obligations is precisely at the core of the push for equality.

 

The arguement doesn't need to go any further than this really. Were on the wrong side of history and the last nation in the Anglosphere to get on board (albiet a fair few states in the US don't have it)

 

Plus I'm sick to death of people like Shorten hijacking it for political points. Get it done already.

[Shahanga]

Vale Joan Kirner.

 

Wasn't a fan of her government, but loved it when she showed she didn't take herself too seriously.

 

From the one and only Late Show:

 

[Pete Heartspur]

Vale Joan Kirner.

 

Wasn't a fan of her government, but loved it when she showed she didn't take herself too seriously.

 

From the one and only Late Show:

 

Totally understandable how Mick could confuse Joan Jett with Joan Kirner!

[cadete]

Vale Joan Kirner.

 

Wasn't a fan of her government, but loved it when she showed she didn't take herself too seriously.

 

From the one and only Late Show:

 

I feel real sorry for the pain she had to endure through the later part of her life and the unfair personal flak she received from the media when she was Premier but fuck me if I ever see a worse Government than the one her and Caine ran it would have to be pretty spectacularly bad.

 

Selling the State Bank plus the whole Pyramid shit - FFS that shit was a dark time for this State.

Edited June 2, 2015 by cadete

[marn11]

"I am much relieved that telling citizen theatre performers to fuck off is no longer on my bucket list"- David Leyonhjelm

 

Not sure if this belongs here or in TTDIM. This guy is all time.

[Tesla]

Make him prime minister TBH.

[Tesla]

There is a simple solution for all this housing affordability nonsense, just wait for the bubble to burst

It's gotten to the point where I almost want to happen, even though it would fuck up the economy, just because the whole thing is retarded

[Braveheart]

There is a simple solution for all this housing affordability nonsense, just wait for the bubble to burst

It's gotten to the point where I almost want to happen, even though it would fuck up the economy, just because the whole thing is retarded

You know things are bad when cunts are camping out to buy land in Rockbank.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-au/health/medical/desperate-bidders-camping-out-ahead-of-property-sale/vi-BBl4NYW?refvid=BBgDLGx

Edited June 13, 2015 by Braveheart

[Tesla]

There is a simple solution for all this housing affordability nonsense, just wait for the bubble to burst

It's gotten to the point where I almost want to happen, even though it would fuck up the economy, just because the whole thing is retarded

You know things are bad when cunts are camping out to buy land in Rockbank.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-au/health/medical/desperate-bidders-camping-out-ahead-of-property-sale/vi-BBl4NYW?refvid=BBgDLGx

Looks like it's time to fold Australia.

On the plus side, hopefully this will lead to some cleansing of Rockbank. No one wants some bumpkin bogan pseudo country town 2 mins away from all the effnik suburbs. Seriously cunts from there are more bogan than people that are from real country towns.

Needless to say, good to see a high level of multiculturalism in that video

[Shahanga]

There is a simple solution for all this housing affordability nonsense, just wait for the bubble to burst

It's gotten to the point where I almost want to happen, even though it would fuck up the economy, just because the whole thing is retarded

What bubble?

The one in inner Sydney?

Shits me that journos and pollies think that inner Sydney is the centre of the universe.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Shahanga

[Tesla]

There is a simple solution for all this housing affordability nonsense, just wait for the bubble to burst

It's gotten to the point where I almost want to happen, even though it would fuck up the economy, just because the whole thing is retarded

What bubble?

The one in inner Sydney?

Shits me that journos and pollies think that inner Sydney is the centre of the universe.

The way I see it, when people are convinced that something can only rise in price, that's the most obvious sign of a bubble. Not only that, but people thinking that growth of 10% and above a year is in anyway normal, especially given the current economic climate, is just plain wrong. This is not going to end well.

[thisphantomfortress]

The Andrews government seem pretty keen on paying compensation. 

Interesting to see the Greens and coalition on the same side for a change.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/opposition-to-block-sale-of-port-of-melbourne-20150623-ghv417.html

[Tesla]

More contracts signed for level crossing removals, including the two St Albans crossings, which are probably the two worst in the state TBH (no bias), as well as Blackburn and Heatherton. 

Also good to see that the best option has been chosen (road to remain level and rail to go under it), well worth the extra cost. 

[Moraiwe]

More contracts signed for level crossing removals, including the two St Albans crossings, which are probably the two worst in the state TBH (no bias), as well as Blackburn and Heatherton. 

Also good to see that the best option has been chosen (road to remain level and rail to go under it), well worth the extra cost. 

I don't know the crossings in question but I'm curious - why is it best to have the rail go under the road (and not the other way round)?

[Tesla]

More contracts signed for level crossing removals, including the two St Albans crossings, which are probably the two worst in the state TBH (no bias), as well as Blackburn and Heatherton. 

Also good to see that the best option has been chosen (road to remain level and rail to go under it), well worth the extra cost. 

I don't know the crossings in question but I'm curious - why is it best to have the rail go under the road (and not the other way round)?

Well it's not really specific to these, but in general I'd rank the options as follows:

Road remains level, rail goes under

Road remains level, rail goes over

Rail remains level, road goes under

Rail remains level, road goes over

That's unfortunately also, in general,  the order of most expensive to least expensive (rail costs more to move up or down than road because it can't have as steap a gradient, while digging costs more than building a bridges. 

The reason I say it's better to keep the road level is because it looks better and it has the least affect on existing properties and connections. Often if the road moves up or down connections to minor roads will be removed as it's not worth the cost of recreating the connection, and also existing properties may require to be demolished. As for why rail under road as opposed to rail over, mainly just because it looks better tbh, no huge bridge in the sky.

That's all speaking generally though, specific cases could be different. 

[thisphantomfortress]

Burnley station has road over rail and its a fucking nightmare. Goes into single lane traffic and creates a bottleneck 

[Tesla]

Burnley station has road over rail and its a fucking nightmare. Goes into single lane traffic and creates a bottleneck 

Yes, but that's with the rail line remaining level rather than the road remaining level. That's more important than whether the rail goes over or under. 

Nunawading is an example of what's happening, road remains level, rail goes under, station rebuilt in the cutting (under ground level). 

Edited June 23, 2015 by Tesla

[thisphantomfortress]

Burnley station has road over rail and its a fucking nightmare. Goes into single lane traffic and creates a bottleneck 

Yes, but that's with the rail line remaining level rather than the road remaining level. That's more important than whether the rail goes over or under. 

Nunawading is an example of what's happening, road remains level, rail goes under, station rebuilt in the cutting (under ground level). 

I was supporting your previous point when Moraiwe asked why it's better. Nunawading is closest station to my parents place. The difference it made there cannot be understated, traffic used to back up to theirs almost 3km away, now it barely gets halfway to Canterbury Rd.