I'm gonna register for the Australian Postal Vote on Gay

>>8735879
It's the right thing to do and the only counter argument is based in religion.

>>8735879
I won't, not even if people promise me the entire world.

>>8735879
test

>>8735879
>Convince me to Vote Yes.
Nah.
Frankly I'd even try to convince you to vote no.

This whole shit is just evil and you shouldn't give breeders the satisfaction of feeling proud.

governments shouldn't have the power to legislate personal morality and interfere in peoples personal lives

>>8735912
This argument is meaningless since it could be understood as being used for each side.

>>8735919
that's a false equivalency, eliminating a ban on gay marriage doesn't actually affect people going the other way or make them do or not do something, whereas enforcing it means forcing people to conform to religious moral authority they don't necessarily follow

>>8735934
Religions should be free to perform any ceremony they want. It shouldn't have legal significance.

>>8735879
You can do whatever you want really, I can't force you to do anything. But vote yes if you want to see people happy.

>>8735942
a marriage and a wedding aren't the same thing, plus no one is arguing that churches should be forced to do anything, just that a legal status should be available to a segment of the population that's had it denied for no logical reason

>>8735943
>But vote yes if you want to see people happy.
False. Vote yes if you want to see gay people suffer more in the near future.

>>8735942
The law includes explicit religious exemptions. Saying religious people would be compelled by the state if this law passes is fallacious. Australia already has a law against LGBT discrimination.

>>8735952
Then complain about the special treatment, don't ask for in on it too.

>>8735954
>didn't read the post

>>8735934
>A ban on gay marriage doesn't actually affect people going the other way or make them do or not do something, whereas enforcing it means forcing people to conform to moral authority they don't necessarily follow.
Fixed.

>>8735879
>hospitals can force their partners out because they're not a family member after hours, and ban them if their partner's parents requested it
>gays won't be able to buy their partner's prescription drugs even though their partner is bedridden and needs rest
>gays will have to use their vacation days and wait for it to be approved to help their partner, even if their company allows their employees to use their sick days to nurse their partners as long as they're married

>>8736066
All of that could be fixed easily without destroying the meaning of marriage.

>>8736085
It doesn't destroy the meaning of marriage. Banning gay marriage is actually destroys the meaning of marriage because Buddhists, for example, allows gay marriage.

>>8736085
t.retard

>>8736085
>50% divorce rate
The meaning of marriage has already been destroyed, and straight people did it themselves.

>>8736066
hey remember to push the beastiality bill through when it comes so I can take days off for my dog and buy prescription drugs for it

>>8736107
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH
Even if that were true (and it's NOT) nobody cares what buddhists think.

>>8736085
>marriage
It has no meaning.

Don't do it OP, the gays are evil and are gonna impose mandatory homosexuality

>>8736120
holy false equivalence batman

>>8736120
Beastiality is legal in 11 states and decriminalized in many others.

There's nothing wrong with fucking dogs, anon.

>>8736120
>thinks gay marriage will lead to bestiality
>straights are already into furries
>projecting this hard

>>8736134
so is gay sex
I want the vacation days and drugs

I'm in full support of whatever but you're not entitled to any benefits

>>8736165
Some of us have partners and aren't kissless virgins. We do need to take care of them.

>>8736127
It has no meaning for those who don't give it meaning.

File: 255DCC1100000578-2943243-Birth_Bex_was_introduced_to_the_gay_couple_after_they_joined_sev-a-34_1423259273685.jpg (113KB, 634x634px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 634x634px

>>8735879
dont vote yes

adoption is cool but supporting gays bringing children into the world without mothers is supporting child abuse

>>8736623
is that who i think it is?

>>8736623
They can already do that. Nobody in Australia is stopping surrogate births.

>>8735879
Unpopular opinion but...

I don't think Australians should be allowed to marry.

>>8736134
There are only six states and none of them allow bestiality.

>>8736623
You obviously don't know what child abuse is.
Maybe educate yourself before blabbering and exposing your ignorance.

File: ausgrill.jpg (87KB, 590x600px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 590x600px

Australia already recognises gay relationships just like other in terms of tax, welfare, adoption, financial and medical authority, inheritance, alimony and child support, divorce; everything. There is no functional distinction. The whole argument is about nothing more than terminology and extending the term "Marriage" to all relationships constitutionally so as not to potentially hurt the feelings of extremely sensitive gays when reading forms. It just shits on Christians a little bit to bubble wrap gays an equal measure.

The only place this will actually affect anyone is for potential gay Aboriginals in the Northern Territory who have yet to have a test case on gay adoption. That is it!

The only other ''rights gays don't have'', recognition of surrogate children to gay parents in WA, and right to give blood after having sex with men in a six month period, is not relevant to this vote, as surrogacy is not recognised for ANY relationship, and the blood ban does not reference relationships. Marriage redefinition does not change any of that. The only other change is to WA's lack of register for gay unions, which will merge with their register of all de facto unions if the change goes ahead. Another terminology change.

All in all, this changes absolutely nothing. It's just virtue signalling to protect gays from hearing wrongspeak in formal settings.

>>8736852
>It's just virtue signalling to protect gays from hearing wrongspeak in formal settings

Well, in that case I support it.
Thanks for the quick rundown!

>>8736852
you're right and its already been paid for by taxpayers so may as well vote yes.

>>8735884

False. Marriage is not a right, and most of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with 'love'.

Marriage is an emotional relationship, but it is also a sexual relationship, a financial relationship, a co-habitation relationship, a biological relationship (having children), an extended familial relationship (a marriage is not just two people - it is two families coming together), a legal relationship and only sometimes a religious relationship.

The argument for gay marriage is solely based on the emotional relationship. A biological relationship is impossible for gay couples. So instantly a gay marriage is different to a straight marriage.

The only type of relationship that the government has a vested interest in - and should be involved in - is the one that involves the use of tax dollars, and produces new tax payers - the biological relationship.

When you argue for privileges (marriage is not a right) based solely on your emotions, you open the door to other people making the exact same argument for other things that you don't necessarily support. You create unintended consequences.

For example, If marriage is about love, then what if you love two people? Or three? Should we legalise polygamy between consenting adults?

What if you love your brother, or sister? Or a parent that loves an adult child? Incest is exactly as legal as homosexuality in Australia. The law that legalised homosexuality on a federal level was so vaguely written that it also legalised incest - and federal law trumps state law. Should we allow incestuous marriages too?

If all love is equal and marriage is about love, then why shouldn't we allow other forms of marriage excluded by the marriage act?

Gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage. If the govt is going to be involved in marriage at all, then they have an interest in providing a special status for couples that can produce children.

There are plenty of arguments against gay marriage, none of them religious.

>>8735879
Do pride events annoy you? If you answer yes, vote "no".

>>8736113

Only because they redefined marriage to be about emotions and 'love'.

Most of marriage has nothing to do with that and we should be educating people about what marriage really entails, instead of just expanding the bullshit 'muh love is equal' bullshit.

Fix the meaning of marriage. Don't double down on the failures introduced by feminism by including gays.

File: smug teacher.png (121KB, 540x391px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 540x391px

>>8739481
>this is what homophobes think

triggered

>>8739481
>giving special privileges to people who want to put more people to suffer on a dying planet

>>8739481

You do realize that when a straight couple marries they are not forced to reproduce, right? And that many straight couples adopt. And that other straight couples are incapable of producing children.

In fact nowhere in the legal corpus of the United States does it say that the government has a vested interest in encouraging the formation of child-rearing families, nor is this a prerequisite for marriage, otherwise childless married couples would see their unions annulled.

The argument that marriage should only be for people willing and able to have children excludes a lot of straight people married today, and ignores all benefits that married couples can reap from their legal status, such as tax breaks and visitation rights.

The state's vested interest in allowing children to grow up in a stable environment does not in any way lead to your argument that marriage should only be cordoned off for people who will most definitely be reproducing.

>>8741285
>You do realize that when a straight couple marries they are not forced to reproduce, right? And that many straight couples adopt. And that other straight couples are incapable of producing children.

Irrelevant exceptions.

>In fact nowhere in the legal corpus of the United States does it say that the government has a vested interest in encouraging the formation of child-rearing families,

You can't understand what is implicit, right ?

>>8741363

>Irrelevant exceptions

Nice attempt to wave away what doesn't agree with your argument. How about people who have children out of wedlock? Should they be forced to marry?

>You can't understand what is implicit, right?

The survival of the human race depends on reproduction obviously, but this is not equal to the government actually encouraging people to have children. Right now the US has no issues with underpopulation.

>>8741363
>>8741363
Are you implying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because the government wants everyone to have children but who cares if they don't?

What kind of non-argument is that?

And above all, there's nothing to support that marriage for gays would encourage or discourage straight people from slamming out babies at the same rate.

So what is your point?

>>8736852
On the giving blood; it's twelve months, and under review (because such an absurdly long period, given efficacy of testing, makes no fucking sense)
People need blood, all the god damn time.