/aus/ - Australia

>>144907

even on 4 there are a whole bunch (perhaps ironically but i dont think so) saying yes

they were pushing the "if you dont say yes labor will get in and change it anyway" argument a fair bit

>>144913

Sounds like an argument for No if ever I heard one, if it's just going to happen anyway.

>>144914

if it's shown that there isnt support for it they might not push it through if they do get in

>>144913

There has been a big swing from ironic gayposting to actual posting on cuckchan in recent years

>>144918

also what's the deal with discord?

they all use it now

I lean Yes. Can someone explain why I should vote No on this survey? Things that probably won't convince me:

>Unsourced statistics about gays being more at risk of disease, being pedophiles, etc.

>Arguments about how the left have too much power or that it's a slippery slope

You can use these arguments if you want but I just don't think I'll find them convincing outside of exceptional cases.

For the record here is my position:

>Marriage carries certain civil benefits such as medical power of attorney, visitation rights etc. This stuff should be available to gay couples.

>The change in legislation would ideally be limited to just changing the marriage act to allow gay couples to get married and allow priests and whatever to opt out of marrying gay couples

>>144922

> a slippery slope

that is my argument, if it ended at a recognised union (i dont think it should be called marriage in any case) with no adoption i wouldnt mind so much

also i feel like we're being force fed the notion that we must vote yes otherwise we're bad people so part of it is reactionary

>>144927

Can you explain why you don't think it should be called marriage? Also, I'm pretty sure gay couples can adopt already - am I wrong?

>>144922

Marriage is a social contract useful to perpetuate a functioning society by exchanging the mans ability to protect and provide in exchange for the womans ability to reproduce.

>>144929

calling it marriage is going to cause hostility between them and people who see the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman to create a foundation of a family under God.

yeah they can adopt

>>144927

in the realm of the fedora tipper that's a "logical fallacy" and clearly voting 'yes' is all about reason and logic, or you're a mean bigot.

>>144941

I think the only way that the reproductive argument could convince me is if the No campaigners wanted to make it so you could only marry if you intended to have kids and for the father to be the sole breadwinner. If that were the case I'd probably favor introducing a separate way to receive the current legal benefits of marriage.

>>144942

The religious argument seems weak to me, because if offending religious sensibilities is your main concern then you'd probably have to either support the full integration of a particular religion into our legal system or create laws respecting all major religions in the country, which might mean allowing arranged + underage marriages in the case of some religions, etc.

>>144950

I guess my response to slippery slope arguments is basically that it seems to me like if you're OK with thing N, but not OK with thing N+1, then you should fight against N+1 instead of N. In the examples of "what might come next" I've heard, it's usually something that's currently illegal such as pedophilia.

>>144922

So why not argue that same-sex civil unions should have etc civil benefits?

Isn't it a bit queer-centric to completely ignore the non-homo same-sex marriage side of things? It's practically discriminatory to say only homo's are allowed to same-sex marry

Do we really need to spell out the difference between love and sexual attraction?

>>144953

You can't strengthen the concept of marriage by introducing more allowances, only make it that much more impossible to return to sanity down the track.

>>144953

>I guess my response to slippery slope arguments is basically that it seems to me like if you're OK with thing N, but not OK with thing N+1, then you should fight against N+1 instead of N. In the examples of "what might come next" I've heard, it's usually something that's currently illegal such as pedophilia.

The point is, it's not really an argument, to people that are 'woke' in a sense it's all too obvious there's an agenda and that it's not just going to stop with this and it's also pointless to pretend that a no vote isn't directly spiting the people behind it.

This seems to be a common thing. Please let me frame everything up so the only logical conclusion is "yes". You can even ask why "yes" is "yes", why wasn't the question "do you believe marriage laws should remain the way they are ?" or something else along that line.

>>144953

>The religious argument

it's not really that but the whole point is so a certain group doesnt feel oppressed etc, the religious group might feel that way if their views and traditions aren't respected

You can't love something you cannot have sex with?

>>144956

>why wasn't the question "do you believe marriage laws should remain the way they are ?" or something else along that line.

Here's my guess as to why the survey is being done as it currently is: The LNP is generally more no-leaning than yes-leaning, so they want to ask people for a positive affirmation of a Yes sentiment - this lets them go by a default assumption of No in the case of people not returning their surveys. I expect that if less than 50% of the population responds to the survey they'll decide it's insufficient to go ahead with their vote in parliament, which is why it's voluntary. Essentially IMO the survey is being conducted in a way to give the LNP multiple ways to get out of changing the law, because they don't want to actually change the marriage act because they'll lose more of their voter base to more conservative parties.

>>144954

>why not argue that same-sex civil unions should have etc civil benefits?

I pretty much don't care what word is used to describe it, but I don't buy into the idea of marriage being anything other than a legal declaration of partnership in our society as it is right now. If you want to define marriage as its own thing with certain special implications, I'm OK with that as long as existing marriages are re-tested to determine whether they are "true" marriages or just civil unions. For example if one of the requirements for being married was getting a church to perform a ceremony, then any existing marriage conducted outside of a church by a secular officiant or whatever would be re-labeled to a civil union.

>Isn't it a bit queer-centric to completely ignore the non-homo same-sex marriage side of things? It's practically discriminatory to say only homo's are allowed to same-sex marry. Do we really need to spell out the difference between love and sexual attraction?

I honestly don't understand what you're saying.

>>144959

>Essentially IMO the survey is being conducted in a way to give the LNP multiple ways to get out of changing the law, because they don't want to actually change the marriage act because they'll lose more of their voter base to more conservative parties.

No I dont think goldmanSachsBull wants to get back a no the same way he doesn't want to vote against a climate change tax or anything else the Rockefellers or Murdochs want.

>>138529

No one's been mentioning the next step which will be polyamorous marriage.

>already popular in certain leftist circles (see Senator Louise Pratt's 'rainbow family')

>It doesn't hurt me, love is love and every other gay marriage catchphrase can be applied to it

>can easily convince leftists in conversation that it should be allowed

>>144959

Why does how Based Tones being the one who started all this keep being missed by people? He's using it as a Wedge to weaken Turnbull's support.

>Tones pushes his followers to let Autist Pyne's idea of a Pleb go ahead– nay, /encourage/ it to happen.

>Pleb goes ahead

>Tones goes around drumming up grassroots support for himself

>Pleb fails hard, or, Pleb succeeds but can't deliver

>Tones' shit is gold, makes another leadership attempt push and ousts Turncripple

>>144959

> I honestly don't understand

So on one hand, there's the biological argument that the man and woman who create the baby should raise their biological child (/ first dibs)

On the other, there is that gender shouldn't matter and "Any" two people should really be able to at least part-raise children (bio + step-parent, gay or otherwise)

I don't see how one can say marriage is related to love but not raising children, you're expected to get married if you're planning kids..?

Surely these people can love each other just fine without being married

Should gay couples be able raise children?

And exclude the other biological parent?

What does it mean to have a brother or sister with no relation?

Really, i would support same sex couples if not for the whole thing being about the child-raising rights of non-repro sex

Love is love

> What's marriage got to do with it?

>>138524

Vote no to keep the degeneracy from spreading. If you give an inch they'll take a mile, like they do every time the vote is yes.

>>141997

Why is it always the Frenchies that are the retarded faggots?

>>145006

Really, it seems as though the yes voters would have preferred that the plebiscite asked if gay people should be allowed to love each other, so maybe we should earmark that for the next one..

Apparently they have a pretty strong argument ready for that one lol

>>145003

This. Marriage today is a sham institution. Marrying for love is why the divorce rates are through the roof.

> how do i love my mum if i can't marry her? ;_; it's not fair

lol

>>144959

Where's our platonic marriages if we're going to allow the other lesser form of ssm?

>20 years ago anyone proposing SSM would have been laughed out of parliament.

>50 years ago anyone proposing SSM would have ended up in a mental institution

>Slippery Slope is totally a made up meme meme guys

>>145033

I quite like the idea of platonic ssm only though

There is an excuse for hetero sex in the family home since this is how families come about

You can't just explain homosex like that though

>>144922

> I lean Yes. Can someone explain why I should vote No on this survey?

1) The encouragement of sexual perversion. "Traditional Marriage" (life-long, one-man-one-woman, protection-and-support-of-children, no-sex-outside-of, etc) appears to be something innate in humanity due to it's virtual universality*. If you start messing with it you end up eroding the moral force of Marriage, and decisions are made on the margins, which is fancy economic speak for "people will be a little more inclined to all sorts of sexual perversion".

IE: More players, more random hook-ups but only for the hot guys, more men "trading up for a new model", more women kicking the "boring, loyal beta" out of the house, more abandoned children, more people not having kids at all, more irritating feminists, more porn addiction, more paedophilia, more bestiality, etc, etc.

Sure the percentages on this probably won't be huge, and divorce has done far more damage, but the lives ruined will be non-zero, and this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back which will then be fucked by the new deviants.

2) Cost. General social stability, and the raising of the next generation give the government a reason to support Traditional Marriage, but no such arguments justifies the cost of supporting Same-Sex "Marriage".

3) The welfare of the homosexuals. The life-style of a practising homosexual is self-destructive physically, emotionally, and spiritually**, encouraging people to take such destructive life choices should be avoided. (it's also often quite destructive of those around them)

4) The slippery-slope. No one really believes that the government is just going to say "OK, all gay civil unions are now called 'marriages'", this will continue to escalate until the push-back is successful.

* There are a few variants that suggest it's partially cultural, ie: one-man-multiple-women, men-can-sleep-with-whores, weddings-in-church, the allowed ages and age-differences, etc. But Same-Sex "Marriages" doesn't appear to be one of them.

** People have already provided sources for the first two in this thread, the teachings of the vast majority religions will provide you sources for the third.

>>145037

>If you start messing with it you end up eroding the moral force of Marriage

Or to put it another way: the people who have an instinctive disgust response the sodomy, and "don't want it in their community", are actually right, even if they don't really know how to explain their instincts rationally.

For example most people instinctively know not to smear poop all over their face, even if they can't rationally explain the germ theory of disease.

>>145038

If we put marriage in a vacuum and remove all these things that are linked to marriage from the argument, then what are we actually supposed to be arguing about?

Gays should have the right to something meaningless?

Do gays think that the consummation of a marriage is really just having a bit of fun? Sure it might be enjoyable but that doesn't make it any less a serious sort of business when the woman falls pregnant, which you would say is the actual goal

>>145046

And it should be equally meaningless to everyone?

> How dare you say that your Old-World marriage has meanings that don't fit with our argument!

It's quite funny watching the feminists flipflop

Sex toys Yes, Sex bots No, Artificial insemination Yes, Artificial wombs no?

One day biological parents might be a thing of the past, but is it just another 'because we can' ?

Doesn't centralized federal government control of marriage give them a foot in the door to reproductive rights?

They already just assumed that they should be in charge of marriage for the sake of nationalism

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

What is uniform diversity?

> uniform

ˈjuːnɪfɔːm/

adjective

adjective: uniform

1.

remaining the same in all cases and at all times; unchanging in form or character.

"blocks of stone of uniform size"

> diversity

dʌɪˈvəːsɪti,dɪˈvəːsɪti/

noun

noun: diversity

the state of being diverse.

"there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports"

a range of different things.

plural noun: diversities

Should councils / local government decide whether to allow/recognize variations of ssm as they see fitting their community?

Same sex marriage postal votes 'sent to dead people'

Same-sex marriage postal vote forms have reportedly been sent to dead people, casting doubts over the accuracy of the Federal Government’s $122 million survey.

In the latest hiccup for the poll, a Canberra woman claims a form was sent to a now-deceased former resident.

“Got our postal surveys. Including one for the former owner of the house who died eight years ago,” ‎Catherine Beasley wrote on Facebook.

https:// au.news.yahoo.com/a/37218041/same-sex-marriage-postal-votes-sent-to-dead-people/

>>145197

More importantly, is she a Yes or No? :p

>>145220

i made a bait thread with this on 4

fuck i'm good or they're shit

https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/142900075

>>145220

I don't see what the problem is with that.

It's the swastika of love, love is love, right?>>145220