/aus/ - Australia

Land rights for gay whales !

will fagneet be able to marry the one he loves?

>>138487

Nah, the BO keeps rejecting him.

It's like romeo and Juliet but with autism,sodomy and heroin.

>voting no

good goy. seriously by voting no you're just giving the libtards exactly what they want. gay marriage is a distraction issue that prepbull uses to distract you from how incompetent he is and how much his party is fucking over the country. vote yes so we can get the fag marriage issue out of the way and so the public can turn its attention to things that actually matter.

remember, fag marriage is a political tool intended to distract you from the real issues the country faces.

>>138524

you dont really think it will end there do you?

>>138525

>le slippery slope maymay

No, Australians aren't going to allow people to marry children or suck their dogs dicks. Stop buying into conservacuck bullshit. If you vote no then you're never going to see this issue die and the public will keep being distracted while the libscum keep selling this country off to the chinks and (((corporations))).

>>138529

No, you stupid fuck. A "Yes" outcome doesn't mean that it's automatically approved and enforced. It's not legally binding for them, so they can just fuck about and drag this shit out even longer if need be.

Anyway, I'd rather vote No and laugh as inner city lefties cry their eyes out for not getting their way again.

>>138529

To add to your line of thought, Libs and Labor are both equally as treacherous. Neither side gives a shit about infrastructure or keeping Australian land in Australian hands. If they really gave a shit, Liberal or Labor, we'd have the original NBN plan pushed through when it should've been. We'd have the state governments not be complete fuckwits with roads and building plans.

Gay marriage is a distraction, but neither side gives enough of a shit to actually call it out for what it is. Shorten is trying to run his election on social justice bullshit and is already crowing about making things "fair" and introducing "equal rights". They're both garbage. We need to look towards independents. Not the Greens. Actual independents.

>>138537

"itll make the lefties cry"

sound reasoning from a 90 iq sub human

Homosexuals are not only repulsive, abnormal sexual behavior is indicative of the death of nations through the destruction of moral value and cultural fidelity in favour of the sensual and pleasurable. A vote for gay marriage is a vote for apathy and death.

>>138563

*tips fedora*

>>138538

>Libs and Labor are both equally as treacherous.

muh middle ground fallacy

>Neither side gives a shit about infrastructur

wrong

>keeping Australian land in Australian hands

so lets vote liberal. the worst of am all amrite?

>, Liberal or Labor, we'd have the original NBN plan pushed

yeah, exactly what labor tried to do…until liberals fucked it up for rupert murdoch

>horten is trying to run his election on social justice bullshit and is already crowing about making things "fair" and introducing "equal rights".

what's wrong with equal rights? honestly who cares if fags get married, its not going to have the slightest effect on our lives.

> They're both garbage.

relative to what though? there are no other options… and labor is quality compared to liberals, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to vote liberal unless you're a gullible baby boomer, a jew or rich chink.

>We need to look towards independents

good luck with that pointless endeavour.

>>138585

"the facts"

citation fucking needed

>>138596

>assange

>bad

kys good goy cuck

>>138615

But they suck my dick so good in public toilets on my lunch break. Come on man. Be reasonable.

I ain't marrying no fuckin' poofter and you can't make me.

>>138651

I like getting my dick ed sacked by homeless people through the glory holes, you chuck a sandwich over the stall door as payment and they go to town on your cock.

You don't have to look at them but you can still see them.

>>138615

It'd be great if there was some law in place, something legally binding that states that gay marriage isn't possible while still allowing homosexual relationships to be recognised. Some sort of…civil union perhaps. Imagine if we could stop giving a fuck about the definitions of a word and instead focused on actual problems. What a world that would be. Shame that we can't have that and instead have to spend $120 million dollars on a fucking postal vote.

This whole thing is a fucking farce. It's not binding in any way but it costs a fuckload of money. The push to recognise pedophilia as a sexual orientation has already fucking started from the full-retards on the left now they've got their fully fledged fag licence.

I'm voting no. Fuck 'em. The government should have no say in marriage anyway. Civil unions for those that want to sign the fucking document, and churches and whatever for those that want their sky-daddy to see the show.

>>138669

>>138762

keep voting liberal and enjoy your incompetent government. oh wait, but muh boats right? funny cus turdball admitted the refos come by plane anyway.

>>138524

Voting No means that we don't have to deal with this shit until Labour wins again

>>138529

Bullshit, a No gives the same presense that Trump and Brexit did, and that means we can then move the window over to immigration

That said I'm fucking Pissed Labour didn't block the bill and we got stuck in this stalemate we've been in for the last few years

>>138569

>muh middle ground fallacy

No, they're both to the left of us by far

UPF needs to stand up because One Nation other than Pauline isn't delivering

>>138651

The Homeless?

>>138827

>Implying anyone here votes for Libs and not One Nation, or UPF when they're allowed on the ballot

>>138596

I know one where a girl married at 17 or is it 16? and another at 18.

They're doing fine.

As long as they don't have any marxist junk they'll do fine

>>138569

>We need to look towards independents

good luck with that pointless endeavour.

Annnd thats were you fucked up.

This vote is bullshit, waste of money and does distract from real issues.

Labor is generally better than the liberals, labor might be cucks, but the lib are jew cucks for money.

>>138596

>fuckwits was Julian Assange

GET OUT NRMIEEE

>>138868

Nobody here votes for Liberal you fucking shitcunt

>>138548

Kill yourself.

>>138968

>>138969

>FUCKING WHITE PEOPLE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

lol u mad faggot?

>>138827

Never in my put Lib anywhere in single digits when I had a choice. It's all a fucking joke to be honest. We've got shit pickings and even shitter pickings.

If Labor was headed by anyone other than Bill Shorten the coalition would have been stomped and rolled up in a carpet and tossed out ages ago.

Having Shorten as opposition leader is the best luck Turnbull and Abbott ever had, because Shorten's even more unlikeable than those pair of fuckwits.

If Albo was in charge it would be a completely different story, but of course Labor went against the rank and file and the faceless men at the top put their man in instead. Remember that when Labor was electing a new party leader the actual voters wanted Albo and the pollies wanted Shorten, and we all know how that's fucking played out.

Not going to bother researching this myself, but could somebody clarify this to me?

What exactly is the proposed bill going to "legalise"? From what I understand, gay marriage isn't "illegal", but "non-legal", or not legally recognised. If this were passed, would this give power to the state to force all churches to recognise gay marriage? Sounds pretty fucked up, if so.

What happened to the principle of secularism? Married couples shouldn't get any bonuses at all, and if they must, then make it a system seperate from marriage

It's a truly depraved state of affairs. Vote No

>>138529

Society has been going down hill at an ever increasing rate since 1945, even in our own lifetime you should have been able to see this, 10 years ago transsexuals and gender pronouns were not an issue, if you think the slippery slope is just a meme you really need to open your eyes to what is actually happening in the world.

If I voted in the last election, do I have to re-enrol for this or what?

>>139479

>What exactly is the proposed bill going to "legalise"? From what I understand, gay marriage isn't "illegal", but "non-legal", or not legally recognised.

The plebiscite isn't a referendum so we don't know what sort of bill we'd be supporting by voting yes.

>If this were passed, would this give power to the state to force all churches to recognise gay marriage?

Quite possibly, as I believe this is what Labor and the Greens support.

>What happened to the principle of secularism?

Marriage is no longer seen as a religious act, but as a political one. Pretty sad.

>>138585

The communists killed more people than the Nazis Partially because the holocaust didn't happen

>>138477

voting no here fuck faggots and christcucks

>>139550

Nope, but if you have moved you will need to update your enrolment to reflect that change. I think you only have until the end of tonight, though.

>>139842

Voting yes myself. I don't care about faggots, who gives a fuck really.

>>139947

You should care, it will further spread degeneracy and if the vote should come back no it will be a massive shake for traditional media and many politicians.

Also. What do you think will happen if they succeed? They will move on to something else, some abo thing or something probably.

>>139951

Everything has a broader effect than is often apparent at fist glance.

If Australia votes yes the Government and media will now where we stand, they will now that they can push transsexual and other such agendas. Just look to Canada where they made it illegal to call somebody by a pronoun they disagree with. It will also encourage further degeneracy amongst the general populace.

If Australia votes no, it will have the opposite effect.

>>139953

Ehhh I think that's a bit of stretch. Wouldn't be surprised if labour pushes similar legislation here, but that doesn't mean gay marriage contributed to it.

Lefty's gonna left, whether we have gay marriage or not. You're basically arguing that we need to virtue signal to the nation in order to preserve our liberty, which is a false dichotomy. We can fight for both at the same time, or either.

And hey lets face it here, most likely the liberals wont even follow through and even if they do, they will be doing it begrudgingly in order to keep the far right conservative vote. Regardless, it will happen someday whether it's via postal survey or a vote in parliament.

I'd rather focus on all the fucked up shit the government has done that barely anybody talks about. I just want to get it over and done with and focus on issues that are actually important to me. I don't even want to get married at all. This is a distraction and it's working because we're wasting time and effort debating what faggots do. Who gives a fuck.

>>139954

Well I warned you at least.

>>139948

>>139947

>>139951

>>139953

>>139954

>>139955

>>139956

Is this two people or just one having a conversation with themselves?

If it's one person that I'm officially retarded

>>139961

Says the nigger who cannot even use correct grammar.

>If it's one person that I'm officially retarded

lol

>>140065

>Polyamorous

Disgusting. I fucked a poly chick recently, waiting on my sti test results now. Bitch was a fucking nutcase. Wanted to work in the children's court, hated men (loved cock though) and was having nudes taken of her. Someone like that shouldn't have any involvement in family law and definitely shouldn't have anything to say about marriage laws. These people live in a fantasy world, they think this shit works and that rampant lust is perfectly healthy. Praying I haven't caught something from her, I was drunk and did it raw because I wasn't thinking straight. She basically took advantage of me. Shit is fucked.

>>140067

>She basically took advantage of me.

I've had something similar happen, women are the predators now and low self esteem guys are just fuel for their ego. AIDS tests are fun, but at least she told me she might have given me the clap.

>>138529

>distracted

>No, Australians aren't going to allow people to marry children or suck their dogs dicks.

Because marriage issues are a distraction what possible reason would they have to not go for pedo marriage ffs? Better we fight them on this issue before things get even more fucked, what issues are currently being ignored anyway?

>>140065

>that last paragraph in pic

fucking wew, that's a whole new level of (F)ucked-upedness

If I voted it would def be NO. Purely because identity politics disgusts me.

I keep getting emails and shit at work going on about gay people think this and gay people want that. You fuckers are fucked. It's just sexuality, not your political activist group.

It's like Bill Hicks on marketing. Cept communists and politics. Stop telling me how what when why and how I think. Stop trying to control me using shit like that.

>>140661

Interesting how Australia is not a homeland or sovereign country, but rather a goody bag that one "deserves" to take from by supporting leftist causes.

>>140664

Australia is the homeland of the Aborigines. If whites were able to take it by conquest, what right do whites have to claim Australia as a homeland? Why not go back to England?

>>140680

You are a fucking poofter m8

Do you not feel bad about making your parents cry ?

>>140680

You might have had a point if China was currently seizing Australia by military conquest, or if those original Anglo-Celtic settlers had arrived to something other than completely undeveloped landmass.

>>140680

Australia is England's rightful clay, they took it through blood and now own it by blood.

Australia is being destroyed by sly, unnatural means. Poisoning from the inside and out. Who ever owns Australia if we're to fail cannot say they fought and claimed Australia, they can't say they own it. They can only say they stole it. And believe me, when whites die and there's no one to build and maintain civilisation, it'll all come crumbling down.

>>140680

That's literally how history works. Anyway, the English aren't English, why not go back to Germany/The Netherlands/Denmark?

>>141217

There it at least one positive in all this, next time the government wants to do something stupid, like invading a foreign country that will plague us with terrorists, we are entitled to bomb the abs with postal votes

It's a pretty `Dog Act' to deny someone all representation and then blame them for everything

>>141228

What the fuck has that to do with sodomites getting married ?

>>141227

Invading foreign countries is good.

>>141231

Some semblance of real democracy

I'd imagine about as many people wanted to invade iraq as are wanting gay marriage

Our pollies are better terrorists than isis

>>141232

And mass surveillance?

Who are all these trolls that are voting yes but don't even want to get gay married?

You wouldn't opt for an opposite sex civil union though, if this was particularly important?

> tfw the date of australia day is seen as far more cultural than the definition of marriage

>>141312

I would agree with what you're saying apart from the fact that you're being a massive faggot by trying to connect two totally unrelated matters to support your politics.

I'm guessing you're the strange left/right hybrid creature that posts here once a week or so ?

>>141323

You realise that politics is exactly just choosing a side on a whole conglomerate of unrelated matters? I'll take your left/right hybrid creature as a compliment

> The mistake we're making v the the mistake we think we're making

disunrelated enough?

We can do death-tolls of not allowing gay marriage v allowing gay marriage v invading another country

injury-toll, serious-impact toll, not-so-serious impact toll… practically unaffected toll?

>>141274

someone posted that sign on 4pol

>>141364

You realise you can vote for smaller parties that are more focused on the issues that matter to you so they can either take a seat (because you helped spread support for them) or at least get extra funding to stay in the political game, right?

>>141312

No but it's happening, the day Business and government start fully sharing all information will be scary indeed.

>>141953

Stick your faggy arse discord up your faggy arsehole fag

why? just let the people marry the ones they want damn, mind your own life and stfu.

>>141957

So you'd have no problem with people marrying their dogs or a 6 year old then ?

>>141960

Great slippery slope and shit, but this legislation is just for two adult consenting humans.

>>141963

The slippery slope is real.

>>139479

>would this give power to the state to force all churches to recognise gay marriage?

They could add new laws as part of it too force them however technically there are already laws in place that would force them too, the anti-discrimination act.

>>141964

>that pic

[citation needed]

>>141960

False equivalency, try again.

>>141966

Slippery slope fallacy and [citation needed]

>>141990

You don't need a citation, open your eyes to what has been happening in the world over the last 50 years, even then 50 years ago somebody like you(well everybody really) would have been saying 'muh slippery slope fallacy', 'gays will never marry', 'A man is born a man and a woman a woman'.

>>141990

> push to get homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders

> legalise gay marriage in the US

> the leftists in the US start pushing to have pedophilia removed from the list of mental disorders

> refusal to denounce pedophilia and child marriages in islam and active recognition of them among "refugees"

> YOU ARE HERE

> push to allow pedophilia activity and have it accepted as normal

The slippery slope is real, it's just very shallow and we've been sliding for decades.

>>141997

As I said, open your eyes.

>Because it's not. Other species practice homosexuality

Yes, they practice rape, incest, interspecies sex and paedophilia too, shall we add those to the list of approved sexual practices?

>You're delusional if you think the general public is going to stand for that.

As I said, 50 years ago you would be saying I am delusional for suggesting gay marriage or sex changes would ever become a thing.

>>141997

>Progress and equality aren't bad things.

Shitlib buzzwords, reddit spacing, dismissing arguments while providing none of your own. No way, you will not make /aus/ home.

>>141999

>As I said, open your eyes.

Not an argument. Provide a source for your statistics or shut up.

>Yes, they practice rape, incest, interspecies sex and paedophilia too, shall we add those to the list of approved sexual practices?

Same sex relations are not comparable to rape, incest and paedophilia. Your argument is pretty shit mate.

>As I said, 50 years ago you would be saying I am delusional for suggesting gay marriage

Not really, and again you're comparing two consenting adults having buttsex/scissoring to adults molesting children. Your arguments are complete garbage.

>>142000

>Shitlib buzzwords

Not an argument.

>reddit spacing

Not an argument.

>dismissing arguments while providing none of your own.

Not my fault your reading comprehension is shit. Still waiting for a citation on those statistical claims.

>No way, you will not make /aus/ home.

Lol what?

And really, tell me in clear and concise terms, why is equality bad? You don't want to be treated equally? I wonder how long you'd last in a different society.

>>142020

There is no point discussing anything with you, you are too stupid to see reason or look at what is happening in front of you.

>>141964

>>142023

>BTFO on every point

>resorts to ad hominem

Pathetic mate, I expected better.

I'm gonna ask again though, despite how hard you've been trying to avoid my simple yet fair question; give me a citation for these claims. You're not making any strong arguments at all and you're making your position look incredibly weak when you can't even back up what you say. "Look at what is happening in front of you" is not a fucking argument and neither is resorting to insults.

>inb4 brought to you by : VANGUARD AMERICA

>>141964

I'll let you try again because I've been in a good mood lately.

The only benefit of marriage is to encourage familial stability and child birth, both of which are irrelevant for homosexuals.

>>142020

>And really, tell me in clear and concise terms, why is equality bad? You don't want to be treated equally? I wonder how long you'd last in a different society.

First explain why the expectation of equality between 2 intrinsically unequal parties is good. Races are genetically different and won't have equal outcomes given the same opportunity, the same is true of gender.

>>138529

>he thinks slippery slope is a meme

>he hasn't noticed the normalization of incest in porn and on tv

pay attention, if the yes vote wins they will either go back to begging for immigrants or begging for some other degenerate acceptance

Vote YES and radical trannyism gets forced into schools.

And yes, your little girl will go on tumblr and come out as a boy whilst holding a box of bright blue hair dye asking for her hair to be cut short.

>>142074

Why do you torture yourself with those horrible breakfast subs?

>>142112

i didn't buy it mate. i'd rather lick the filth off of the floor of a maccas kitchen then go to subway

>>142158

>>142112

Someone redpill me on subway

I haven't been there in years

haaaay, if sexuality is on a spectrum, how come there are 'lgbt people' or whatever?

Is that a wedge between the politic/activist/weirdo lbgt stuff and personal who gives much of a shit freedoms?

Is it then an extension towards marriage being about an idea about childrens and society and stuff and not love and sex stuff?

Find life in the corner by wondering about the two different thought groups: sexuality as attraction and choices, and sexuality as identity. Is it not the activists for sexuality as identity that're in control of the discourse? Did they hijack it from the 'just regular people' lgbt people or is it just the next step in some other plan? Either way seems like a no vote is needed. To Save LGBT people from the oppression of the mainstream!

'We were fine before, were fine now, we'll be fine later. Vote No and save LGBT individuals from the socialist culture vultures."

"We're a sexuality, not a political party. Vote No. Because our lifestyle choices are not your political games."

"We just wanted a bit of respect. Don't let our names be used to strong-arm our treasured cultural institutions. Vote No."

"We've come so far, Vote No and don't let socialist agitators burn the bridges we've worked so hard to build."

I don't see enough of those kinds of arguments. Shame imo, since there's no haaaatee speeech there at all.

Come in through the old back door so to speak.

i support same sex marriage only if the fags are forced to adopt orphans. if there are no orphans you are not allowed to marry. if there are more orphans than can be adopted then they will be forced onto couples. This is the only possible benefit of faggots in our society, they are premade cucks.

>>142181

it tastes like shit and is not any healthier than the other mega chains

it only survives because for some reason tradies flock there

>>142385

You need to understand how gradualism works. What might seem like an inconsequential vote to rile 'true believers' like the Greens is another step on the path to worse 'normalizing' of abnormalities.

>>138477

Some interesting facts

> At best, 1 in 10 people are gay (very likely to be less)

> Probably only 1 in 20 are both gay and think gay marriage is a good idea (quite possibly less)

> From somewhere, another alleged 49% of semi-gay people have decided gay marriage is a good idea, even if many gays don't think it is

> If you think having the debate is uncomfortable, imagine the hurtful things to come if gay marriage is allowed

It's all a bit of a proxy for the real issue of gay couples confusing kids though isn't it

Doesn't even require asking any kid with only one parent if they'd like another and of which sex

>>142933

Ever notice how progressives see humans in a race to accept things? They're always on about how other developed nations have something we don't or how we have to change things in the name of progress? Fucking bizarre.

>>140680

because thats how its always been.

If you can't defend your culture against another then your culture dies. Natives are simply no exception.

>>142020

>why is equality bad?

Equality of opportunity is good. Equality of outcome is bad. This comes about because humans are not equal, there those who will always be born with a set of traits that gives them advantages. Attempts by commie governments to mediate this leads to the gulags and the society into the shitter.

No issue with anything else you said.

>>142082

sad but true.

>>142209

The homo vote ended up hitching its cart to the IDpol train and have royally fucked themselves.

>>142933

>Got some real un-Australian thinking in here boys

Eat a dick, I've already slung in my no vote.

>>142942

Most of them just parrot what they hear from everyone else anyway. Their views and opinions match all the way down the line. I'd actually have a little bit of respect for their stance if they showed they came up with it themselves.

I got mine in the mail yesterday

Not sure if I can be fucked voting though tbh

>>142933

I heard even the ancient egyptians had free healthcare so go figure

>>142995

> free healthcare

What ?

I know they killed their slaves when they got too worn out to work, I guess that's sorta healthcare

>>142998

the source escapes me, but i'm pretty sure it was egypt

> The medicine of the ancient Egyptians is some of the oldest documented. From the beginnings of the civilization in the late fourth millennium BC until the Persian invasion of 525 BC, Egyptian medical practice went largely unchanged but was highly advanced for its time, including simple non-invasive surgery, setting of bones, dentistry, and an extensive set of pharmacopoeia. Egyptian medical thought influenced later traditions, including the Greeks.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_medicine

>>142181

Placing your order is stressful and the food is shit

>>143132

ugh. hope the vote comes back as No, I'd really hate to think these fuckheads get their way through this sort of bullying.

>>143134

The vote will come back with like a 7% participation rate.

Unfortunately, only fundies will vote for it, and there's more cucked iPhone retards than fundie Christians in Australia.

I didn't get my mail. How long do they finish the processing the mail? I want to vote before I leave Aussie.

>>143140

Yeah, it doesn't feel good.

>>143145

>Any poofta can go through and remove votes as they see fit. Bravo government

>>143149

Anything to stop votes disappearing after the envelopes are opened?

> Also what th is wrong with the 8ch site these days? 100% posted for days

> mfw 20 minutes to pass the censorship panel

> Yes and no campaigners in Australia's same-sex marriage survey could face fines of up to A$12,600 ($13,985) if their material includes hate speech.

> The Government is finalising a deal with Labor to pass protections governing the conduct of the survey campaign.

> The bill, expected to pass Parliament by the end of this week, would make it an offence to vilify, intimidate or threaten to cause harm to a person on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or religious conviction.

> The offences - which are understood to cover a wide range of communication from tweets to pamphlets - would only apply during the survey period, which started yesterday and concludes with the announcement of the result on November 15.

Now that's some advanced revenue-raising techniques isn't it

> We're going to have a fair and open debate about whether x is good or bad

> 10,000$ Fines for everyone who says something bad in this fair and open debate

Are No campaigners being vilified simply by not being represented by one of the major parties?

Is it the individual or the process that is inciting hatred?

Perhaps it is the government to blame as much as anyone

win for the bean-counters, lose for the fags cucks and homophobes

> takes first place for offending everyone

Openly gay and proud Seattle mayor steps down after fifth accusation of child molestation:

https://www. theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/12/seattle-mayor-ed-murray-resigns-sexual-abuse-claims

http://archive.is/FydTN

MP who made tearful admission for an impassioned Yes vote rainbow family is dissected:

http://www. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4882492/How-Labor-s-Louise-Pratt-s-son-ended-three-dads.html

http://archive.is/PsQIf

They'll quite happily show all these gay couples kissing during ordinary television hours, completely oblivious to what can actually incite hatred

>>143223

> I'm sure he can explain the difference between getting married and getting married*

*technically/legally a civil union

>>143242

>should the laws be changed to prevent governments ?

Would be better, I'd vote yes to that

So will we actually get rid of gay marriage in all it's forms if the no vote wins? Or is this a choose between gay marriage and really gay marriage type question?

>>143236

>only one dick

fuck off homophobe

>>142933

Reminder that no-fault divorce doesn't mean no one is getting fucked when you get divorced. No-fault divorce means that a stupid bitch can randomly decide she wants a divorce and it can't be held against them that their reasons for divorce are idiotic when they go to fuck you for money.

>>143145

They would certainly be caught, since every vote has a serial number and if they get way less letters from a whole area (placed in probably the same mail box) they'd know exactly who collected them and they would be fucked

>>143372

Marriage as an institution today is a complete sham scam and should be completely abolished, voting No is only doing a minute percentage of the population a long-term favour. Especially lesbian couples.

<mum is actually voting no because of the simple reason "i hate gays"

why didn't i just think like that?

>but but civil unions aren't consistent across States

>and and civil unions don't protect the partner's Basic Human Rights' to inheriting the deceased property

Just make a Will, retard.

>>143223

Bigot by definition is relatable to pro-gays not anti-gays. If someone were to come out and support the no vote in the media they would be attached.

>>143223

Heh, think of how this photo is going to follow that fucktard around for the rest of his life.

>>143376

100% agree, voting no for the same reason. Take marriage out of the government's hands, even if Australia is a largely secularist country.

Or just don't call it marriage for the fags, develop something else entirely.

Captcha was gdpzry. It clearly supports Yes for the economic benefit of scamming millions more out of idiots getting married/divorced.

i love these faggot posters in windows. now i know where not to shop in the future

get a load of this

GOV FUNDED

>>>/pol/10607746

>>143417

Hmm, I wonder if that includes comments like 'Safe Schools is child abuse'.

>1 month ago

i should just get used to stale threads shouldn't i

>>143448

this thread is pretty fast for this board

Getup Activists are cold calling people on SSM and other topics.. they do this a lot nowdays. I think the best way to counter this is make sure everyone who gets calls trying to push some agenda onto them should take down their names and Number if they can get it and report it to Telstra.

The activist seem to use their own personal Phones to do this I am not sure where they get the Phone numbers so taking down their number if provided maybe posted here it could be barred.

Report to Telstra here.

https://say.telstra.com.au/customer/general/forms/UNWELCOME-CALLS-INITIAL-ENQUIRY-FORM

>>143510

That is wong on so many levels …

> Following the Federal Government’s announcement last month of the same-sex marriage vote, the bride posted a Facebook status declaring her support for the “yes” vote.

> “I know it’s something not everyone will agree on and that’s fine but this is what I stand for and frankly it doesn’t effect [sic] my relationship with one bit,” she wrote.

> Days later, the couple were summoned by Pastor North’s office and were told he would no longer marry them, nor would they be allowed to hold their wedding ceremony at the church.

> In a letter, Pastor North wrote that the bride’s Facebook statement had “practical consequences” for their wedding.

> frankly it doesn’t effect [sic] my relationship with one bit,” she wrote.

Yes, well that is the privilege of being born before the gay marriage vote isn't it

> Vote yes for a new generation of "Unfortunates"

> You know you want to, Australia

> You can even Be the unfortunates!

> Nominate yourself for gay adoption now!!

>>143487

I got one of these a while ago, I told the person I was interested in speaking but just had to do something quick and will be back in 15 seconds. I sat the phone beside my computer speaker and blasted Great Southern Land, they hung up after about 30-40 secs. I wasn't impressed.

>>141217

Mate it all adds up and you can just tell people "Vote no to protest this gay overpriced vote"

After seeing the fucking idiot no voters and their hysterical, entirely bullshit scare campaign for voting no (and also engaging in a whole heap of gay bashing while they're at it - so much for 'traditional' christian values hey), i'm much more supportive of banning these retards from voting.

They want to withhold rights from people? Hope they fucking like it when they get the same treatment one day in the future. Pack of backward bigoted cunts

>>143605

>Pack of backward bigoted cunts

hypocrisy, ho!

>>143608

yeah so hypocritical not to just sit back and let bigoted fuckwits shit all over everyone and tell blatant lies about gay people and ssm. peace and love can kiss my arse when dickheads who need to go back to fucking primary school try and claim that ssm is equivalent to child rape.

by the way what's it like being on the same side as islamists in this debate? they looove throwing gay people off buildings - does it make you happy knowing the anti-ssm have more in common with terrorists than the average aussie?

>>143613

>bigoted fuckwits

hypocrisy, ho!

>>143613

>>143605

Read the actual proof anons posted here, you deluded sperg.

>>143605

>I'm just like you fellow posters, eh goy- er, guy- er Mate!

>>143605

Wow anon, the no campaign isn't even allowed to use language like that (imagine calling the yes voters fucking idiots lol), and then equating a no vote with terrorism

Talk about withholding the right to bigot

It would be nice if the no campaigners didn't act and sound so much like spoilt children, we might actually be able to sit down and explain that this will affect `Actual' children, not just the yes voters

lol wait did i type that no

ffs

> The comedian and TV star posted a tweet 11 days ago that read: “Sometimes find myself wondering if I’d hate-f*** all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system.”

Sure sounds like he was born that way

> Gay guy reveals what it will be like for straight kids with gay parents, doesn't actually care tho

"We didn't have any gay role models. We had no one to talk to and no one to tell us, 'Don't worry, it will all be OK'."

The road to happiness has not been an easy one for Luke Nixon and Eddie Sahovic. And while the Brisbane couple aren't ready to marry just yet, they've joined the fight to have their love recognised.

"Even though I had a supportive family, I thought being gay meant that my life would change, that I would lose my families, my friends, or any prospect of a normal life," Mr Nixon said.

"This vote is not just a vote for people you don't know. It's a vote for your friends and family. For me, it's a vote for Eddie, my friends and my life.

"For many of you, the verdict of this vote will have little or no impact. For us, it will change everything."

Lest we forget the 9/10

Are you going to be the one to sit down and explain to little johnny why his family tree diagram isn't valid?

>>138852

>I know one where a girl married at 17 or is it 16? and another at 18.

>They're doing fine.

>As long as they don't have any marxist junk they'll do fine

>I mentioned marxism because it makes me look edgy

The other 2 couples I knew that married too-early were Conservative Christian vegies. One pair are still technically 'married', however they've been completely separated for 10 years.

>>143699

>> Gay guy reveals what it will be like for straight kids with gay parents

How about we let straight kids tell us that

https://www.facebook.com/MarriageMate/videos/760969384088409/

I'm really starting to think there's some legitimacy in social justice movements being an idea cultivated by the right side of politics - they are massively effective in attacking isolated subcultures and that over-confidence means when it comes to the big issues in mainstream voting, they completely shit-the-bed and push swing voters to the conservative side.

>>143900

You're thinking of "Political Competition". I've seen a few cases where both sides keeping each other honest actually worked; UQ in the mid 90s being one of them, funnily enough.

>>143793

> Today I fired a staff member who made it public knowledge that they feel "it's okay to vote no".

> Advertising your desire to vote no for SSM is, in my eyes, hate speech.

> Voting no is homophobic. Advertising your homophobia is hate speech. As a business owner I can't have somebody who publicly represents my business posting hate speech online…. See more

> She added that it wasn’t a “you’re voting no, you’re fired situation”.

> “As a business that works with children of all kinds, we have a responsibility to working with vulnerable people and having someone who is out and proud about their beliefs (of which are statistically proven to have horrible effects on young members of [only the gay?] community) is a risk for the wellbeing of the children we work with.”

I seem to be getting a lot of these "The page isn’t redirecting properly" …

> Scott Morrison says No to same-sex marriage

Daily Telegraph-9 hours ago

> Same-sex marriage vote is occurring without details

The Australian-11 hours ago

failed in succession

> Although secrecy has allowed only a few glimpses on the search giant’s true objectives and alliance, those glimpses outline a surprisingly clear picture of Google’s role in a U.S. dominated global world order.

> Surprisingly, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, U.S. regime change efforts did not stop. They increased, albeit with a striking difference. Since 1991, every U.S. regime change attempt has failed, leading to the destruction of the target country and the rise of terrorism.

> It is not surprising and certainly not sheer coincidence, that the research and development of the PageRank algorithm, which later became the key component of Google Search (GS), was indirectly funded by the NSA. In addition, the venture capital firm, which provided most of the capital to establish Google Inc, was created and controlled by the CIA. It is also well documented that Google continued to maintain a cosy relationship with the CIA.

> The truth in Schmidt’s statement was confirmed in a 2015 research done by Dr Robert Epstein, which demonstrated how bias in an internet search ranking can influence peoples’ opinions in an election scenario. He found that it may shift the preferences of 20 to 80 per cent of the undecided voters and consequently change the overall election results by 25 per cent without the voters ever noticing the bias. His research was repeated in India and the UK with similar results.

> It might be reasonably expected that after such revelations went viral, Google may become the subject of a thorough investigation by the FBI. However, nothing has happened. Dr Epstein’s research fell entirely under the radar of the mainstream media and the FBI did nothing.

> Ironically, ever since the Clinton defeat, GS search results and the mainstream media have been saturated with the “Russians meddled with the election” allegations, which have so far not been proven.

> The recent increase of U.S. active military presence at nearly every point of the globe with the resulting fear of regime change in those countries which do not subscribe to an American world order have already created an arms race. However, it is unlikely that these countries will ever be safe unless they free themselves from Google’s dominance.

- https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/dont-be-evil-googles-soft-power-to-regime-change,10692

Don't let the american-led marriage-regime change destroy our country!

Terrorism and gay marriage Is tearing across europe

Strangely i can get to the 404 page but that's about it

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/paul-kelly/deception-on-freedom-of-religion-key-to-ssm-yes-case/news-story -/blahblahidcode

> Malcolm Turnbull

You came here expecting a story just like I got on the phone expecting an hour-long chat with President Trump. Sadly, sometimes it just doesn't pan out. No, don't you start shouting as well.

Bob Katter

This reminds me of the time [laughs] when I was a young fella and [very high-pitched bit, not immediately clear what is being said] and [explosive laughter] so I said show me the piglet then [laughter to the point where the hat shifts] and he said [explosive giggle] you've come to the wrong place! [Wipes tear from eye.] But seriously, if we're going to talk about errors, let's talk about the supermarket duopoly that has a stranglehold on this country.

Christopher Pyne

Off the record, I think we may have a little problem.

Clive Palmer

Ask Hedley Thomas once he gets off his Skype call with Rupert. #yesRupert

George Brandis

If this is going to be like explaining metadata to David Speers, kindly count me out.

Eric Abetz

This error is just a distraction. Ordinary Australians want us focused on jobs, growth, the economy, union corruption, the ABC, and the return of Tony Abbott.

Julia Gillard

There's more chance of me becoming the full forward for the Dogs than there is of you finding that article here. Move forward.

They didn't really just sneak through another Internet Censorship law did they?

>>143975

>> Advertising your desire to vote no for SSM is, in my eyes, hate speech.

That kind of bigotry ftw, amirite?

https://www.facebook.com/remibroadway/posts/10159128419505136

>>144037

But wait, there's more

> Madlin Sims doubles down on her decision to sack worker after Facebook post

> Canberra businesswoman fired contractor after 'it's OK to vote no' post

> Ms Sims now claims the contractor was not only a homophobe, but a racist

> Has revealed the scale of the backlash against her since private post on Sunday

> No campaign slammed sacking as proof of freedom of speech concerns

> 'An appetite on the part of 'yes' campaigners … to punish, those who disagree'

> Do you know more? Email tips@dailymail.com lol

- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4897442/Madlin-Sims-doubles-SSM-vote-No-sacking.html

> She compared it with employing a staff member who posted racist material online. Ms Sims added she had gay friends, staff members and clients.

> 'It's just like if I had a racist person working for me especially someone who's so vocal with their beliefs.'

would it be ok to say " It's ok to fire people who vote yes" ?

obligatory (plz don't hurt me)

>>138524

Look at Sweden and Canada you fuck, the insanity will not end and the distractions will always continue, better we keep them trapped here you poof.

>>144037

i think

chauvinist

ˈʃəʊv(ɪ)nɪst/

noun

noun: chauvinist; plural noun: chauvinists

1.

a person displaying aggressive or exaggerated patriotism.

a person displaying excessive or prejudiced support for their own cause, group, or sex.

"she wrote off all the local males as hopeless chauvinists"

synonyms: sexist, male chauvinist, misogynist, woman-hater, anti-feminist, male supremacist; informalmale chauvinist pig, MCP

"he learned to show women some respect, but he's still a chauvinist"

> It really can apply to other people!

Do you think "Gay Chauvinist Pig" is probably acceptable in the spirit of equality?

I'm not sure if this is Kosher but isn't calling russia undeveloped a little harsh? It's not exactly, well, i was going to say ethiopia

If we are just defining "Developed countries" as ones with ssm, then saying all the other developed countries have ssm means exactly what ?

> May 24, 2015 - Being the last developed English-speaking country not to allow same-sex couples to marry may just be what's required to move Australia …

> Gay Marriage and why Australia is the developed country left behind ..

Also practically the first to have a vote though

> Marriage vote among most important human rights issues of our time …

The Sydney Morning Herald-18 hours ago

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has come out strongly in favour of support for same-sex marriage, describing it as one of the most important …

> narcissism

ˈnɑːsɪsɪz(ə)m,nɑːˈsɪsɪz(ə)m/

noun

noun: narcissism

excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one's physical appearance.

Psychology

extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.

Psychoanalysis

self-centredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder.

> On Thursday, about 15 students, including members of the uni's Catholic Society, set up an information table on the main campus thoroughfare with placards saying: "It's OK to Say No".

They offered free kebabs and two large bowls of delicious Lebanese hummus made by one of their mothers.

It was the first time the No campaign has had a presence on campus where "Marriage Equality" stalls have featured almost every day this semester.

"The idea was pretty much to give the No campaign perspective on campus," said 21-year-old IT student, Francis Tamer, one of the organisers.

"The message was that it's OK to vote No. We weren't looking to convince people how to vote. We're just saying its OK to have your own opinion."

After an hour 40 to 60 activists arrived with a megaphone, led by "Queer officers" of the Students' Representative Council, which has an annual budget of $1.7 million.

For the next five hours they screamed abuse at the Catholic students, calling them: "homophobes" "bigots" "neo-Nazis" "gay-bashers" and chanting: "Bigot scum have got to go" and "We will fight, we will win, put the bigots in the bin".

Pretty classy that

> "Bigot scum have got to go" and "We will fight, we will win, put the bigots in the bin". -"Make that vote a No!!"

for balance:

> ‘It’s gonna end with concentration camps’: Alt-right executive boasts of a future Europe with Hitler on their money

- https://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/its-gonna-end-with-concentration-camps-alt-right-executive-boasts-of-a-future-europe-with-hitler-their-money/

>>144202

It's business, they are all doing it.

>>144202

2010 was the year Akermanis angered a bunch of homos by saying they shouldn't out themselves while playing footy, not exactly a bold prediction

>>144241

I call bullshit. Every barcode generator I've dealt with leaves out vowels.

>>144292

Fags no longer want to leave out the vowels

>>143986

i think this is the root of a lot of the issues

we have this notion that we must keep up with the progressiveness of Europe and the US and if we dont we will some how become a third world nation .. or something

keeping up with the joneses but the joneses are digging their own graves

Shitty sslcam.news.com.au busting up my theaustralian.com.au links

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/analysis-the-same-sex-marriage-amendment-draft-bill/news-story/51dd89ef12058a8fc864ac3bc95f6216

> 14 Subsection

39I(4)

7

After “disciplinary measures against a marriage celebrant”, insert

8

“(including a religious marriage celebrant)”.

Clear as mud

And what's this about defence force gay marriages being allowed overseas, shouldn't you be required to follow the law of the overseas country / Not break foreign countries law for the sake of it?

>>144328

They should not be allowed to join the defence force in the first place.

How can you complain about terrorists if our own armies march around breaking everyone's rules?

>>138529

i voted no because maybe god exists.

im an atheist though so i'm not really sure what made me do that.

>>144317

If it were three years ago I would have voted yes in a heartbeat. But today I am just so incredibly pissy about the way the left has been treating everyone, I voted no out of spite.

How do fee paying Union members cope with so much Marxism? infecting the party?

voted no, and filled out 'no' votes for my elderly parents who were overseas at the time :^)

Rolled 1 - 1 (1d1)

>>138480

This is a nice comment. Thank you.

>>144664

how'd they get your number? random? this should be illegal

>>144664

The correct answer is 'Voting No because of this spam'

It's probably automated but maybe it'll stop them from bothering others maybe ha.

>>144683

you cant reply to them either

fucking assholes

764 CORPORATIONS THAT SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/open-letter-of-support/

>>144664

Came here to ask how the fuck did they get my number

>>144823

Probably straight off the electral roll

t. no message received

>>144829

I'm on the electoral roll and not got it

My cousin and everyone she knows in SA has got it

I'd guess out of the thirty something yes organisations, one of them collected numbers of friends of campaigners, similar to how dodgy tertiary education and gyms operate.

>>144817

>what is a phonebook

>>144843

>>144817

>>144774

Look yourself up on white pages and tell me if you're there. I'm not.

> If you are a silent elector or a defence force member registered with the AEC as deployed overseas you will be sent your survey forms by the AEC rather than the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

> The AEC is undertaking this task on behalf of the ABS to uphold the privacy of silent electors.

> Survey forms distributed by the AEC will include a reply paid envelope that will enable the ABS to receive your survey response.

Isn't the AEC not allowed to get involved tho? hence the whole abs thing

they've gone full Stalin over it on Whirlpool. Whatever you do don't mention shilling, they can't handle it. They are trying so hard to engineer a yes vote. You can say you're going to vote no as long as you come off stupid as and can be bullied. If that isn't the case you'll be banned by Chang.

>>144903

Whirlpool moderators have been cancerous for ages. Stopped visiting years ago.

>>144874

I don't need the government defiling my pure waifu

>>144903

You should see /r/australia

It seems like australians everywhere except on chans are tumblr tier cunts

>>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