Australian gay marriage postal vote

Voting no because the media trying to tell me how to vote.

I couldn't care less but probably voting no anyway. When are we getting this shit in the meal anyway?

File: opposite day.jpg (276KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1200x800px

I'm voting no and I hope the rest of the country does. Just imagine how funny it will be when the whole country tells the fags to shut the fuck up.

They're less than 1% of the population and they get (((so much media attention)))

>>138167866
mail*

>>138167866
Apparently they are arriving from September 12.
And you have until 27 October.
Results not until 15 November!

Personally I don't care much but I am voting no, as a reaction against SJWs getting snooty

File: DHjke0EUAAAEsd1.jpg (111KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 960x720px

Based chinks

>>138168827
This is why transexuals should fuck off from gays

>>138169103
That's not how faggotry works. It's like saying heroin junkies should fuck off from methheads

I'm writing in "REEEEEEEEEEEEE" for my vote.

>>138167600
>(1) gay marriage generally;
Don't give a fuck. Hetero people clearly don't give a fuck about the sanctity of marriage judging by the divorce rate so throw it open to the homofags
>(2) the attempts to legalise or prohibit gay marriage in Australia;
See above
.(3) it's a postal plebiscite not a 'real' one - does this make a difference to you;
It means it's a waste of 120m
>(4) not compulsory - still gonna vote?
Don't give enough of a fuck to

File: IMG_1084.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>138167600
Remeber to register to vote by today or tomorrow. You must do it.

>>138167600
Vote against it lads.

File: drop kick.png (122KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 500x500px

>>138167600
I'm voting no for the sake of compassion, respect, and love of the BASED faggots.

Voting no because it will be the most hilarious thing since Trump's win if the media has to spin this.

>"L-le racist white people!" says Waleed Ali who also voted no

up until recently i was more in favour of homo marriage, just because i thought that less government is good. but i'm so sick of the homo's telling everyone that if they oppose homo marriage then they're literally hitler. democrats tried shaming trump supporters and look how that turned out. the homo's are afraid that they're going to lose.

>>138171617
No you are literally Bilal or Waleed

>>138169609
>that pic

CRIKEY

I'll be voting no because I enjoy the butthurt

File: 1497811805222.jpg (86KB, 626x656px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 626x656px

>>138169609
>tfw no rude kangaroo-punching 'strayan gf

File: Sem título.png (84KB, 562x465px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 562x465px

>>138171943
>>138169609
This is now a feels thread.

I will take the time out to research how to vote, and then I will vote against gay marriage.

>>138171617

I'm also voting no. I genuinely don't believe in gay marriage. I don't want to set a precedent for the government legislating 'love' and 'feelings.

Incest is legal in Australia because of the law that legalised homosexuality federally.
>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hrca1994297/s4.html

The same 'love is love' argument being used for gay marriage, can and will eventually be used for polygamy and incest.

I updated my electoral roll details specifically to vote NO.

>>138167600
Don't have anything against gay marriage, but would definitely vote no for shits and giggles.
It'll make global news and the salt shall flow.

Waste of time and tax payers money.

>>138167600
Daily reminder, if you don't buy your weekly bunnings sausage, you're a traitor.
I'd vote yes few years ago but now a no. I dont like project telling me what to do.

File: aXm6891xjU.jpg (61KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 650x650px

I'm voting no. And if it gets up my wife and I are committed to renouncing our registration with the government.
Words matter. We will not sit by and have our marriage debased and degraded by these degenerates.

Why did gays want to be mainstream?
They used to hate hetero norms like marriage and family.
Now they want to be special and normal.

>>138167600
>postal vote
HAHAHAHAHA :D
NOT MAD

good to see Aus posters doing the right thing and voting no
what the fuck was up with everyone a week or so ago saying they were going to vote yes?

File: IMG_0438.jpg (109KB, 542x396px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 542x396px

>>138167600
Vote no faggot

Gay Couples' Children Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, Tell of Unpleasant Upbringings
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/

Gay Marriage - Secular Reasons Against It
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-marriage-christians-communicating-to-secular-friends

Here a pastebin on problem of homosexuality

https://pastebin.com/aiTLKLJc

>>138172230
Fuck you

>>138167600
I'll vote NO to stick it too those PoliticallyCorrect idiots.
And Gays already have the the same rights as Hetero couples.

>>138167600
Obligatory they have a perfectly viable option outside gay marriage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E-P_g75ciM
A minority of gays actually want to get married. This is not being done to make gays happy, it is being done to destroy marriage.
A no vote tells PC fucktards to sit the fuck down and shut up.
Also they will never stop whining whether they get this or not.

>>138167600
1) strongly disapprove
2) prohibit til the end of time
3) as long as I can vote 'no' I dont care
4) yes, I will always vote no to this
5) why don't the gays just move to ireland and stop forcing the world to become gay

official song of the plebs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi-q0ALVzPg

Its going to be fucking hilarious when Australia votes NO and proves once and for all that the liberal cancer has not fully engulfed us yet.

The butthurt is going to be insane

>>138167600

Deffo voting no because fuck degeracy and fuck the SJW movement. It doesn't effect me one iota but telling religions they have to cowtow to the whim of some snowflake cunt is absurd.

File: G2Ww.jpg (32KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x480px

>>138167600
Don't care, gays can already have civil unions this is just an exercise in pure autism.

Voting yes because there are no rational reasons to vote no. All no voters are repressed homos, bootlickers, and/or edgelords with no sense of civic duty

Do they send something in the mail to everyone? Or only if you ask for it?

>>138182297

>no reasons

Get fukt idiot. I'd list a whole bunch of reasons but dumbcunts like you cant be reasoned with. Even the most diehard faggot realised there are valid reasons why this can be an absolute shitfight.

The people who want this don't want it so they can feel normal or accepted. They already have that. All they want to do is stick it to the establishment and give the finger to everyone. It's why they have gay parades. It's got nothing to do with celebrating not being locked up for buggery anymore and everything to do with being a degenerate cunt in public and getting away with it.

>>138182462

Mail. Postal vote.

File: 1501405553649.jpg (97KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 720x720px

>>138167600

Upfront I'm a gay guy in a monogamous long term long distance relationship with a qt kiwi. Not attention whoring, but giving some context to my answers.

1) Government shouldn't be involved with marriage in the first place. But seeing as it's more of a contractual thing than a religious/family thing these days then yes it should be allowed.

2) Public debate is good. Just sick of the demonisation of those who disapprove of the change. People are entitled to their beliefs, and there is an EXTREME amount of strawmanning going on which is unfair, unhelpful, and self evidently against the morals of those doing the strawmanning which makes it all the more infuriating.

3) Complicated. Even with my comments in (1) I see marriage as more of a cultural/societal construct that a legal one (in terms of the reasoning behind whether it is same sex or not), in which case it does make some sense for the public to vote. I also won't demonise the liberals (whom I voted for last election) for doing it this way instead of just passing it. A large part of their constituency, specifically those that vote for them, would be against it. It would be a betrayal to them to just pass it. Yes it will cost a lot of money, but I genuinely think it will pass ( and I suspect the liberal party does too), but once it's done it's done.

4) Yes. As it stands even if my partner and I got married in NZ, we would still only be considered a defacto couple for visa and citizenship purposes by Australia. I would like to one day marry my partner and have them be able to immigrate here without hassle (much easier for recognised married couples).

>>138182573

>I'd list reasons but i went because I'm a faggot who can only into emotional reasoning

Fuck off

File: 12929345239523.jpg (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x300px

>Vote no, piss off SJW's
>Vote yes, piss of Muslims

>>138168002
This

Hilarious

>>138167600
>(1) gay marriage generally?
Don't care that much. I don't understand why gays care about it, its a religious thing to make families.
I think marriage should be taken away from the government altogether.
>(2) the attempts to legalise or prohibit gay marriage in Australia?
The way they push it so hard makes me feel there is an ulterior motive here.
I don't get why anyone cares either way, outside of religious people.
>(3) it's a postal plebiscite not a 'real' one - does this make a difference to you?
No
>(4) not compulsory - still gonna vote?
My sister expressed that she is extremely pro gay marriage. I wouldn't vote myself, but she may cuck me into voting yes for it, I'll have to do it just to save face. But I think it's going to lose anyway.

>>138182888
>The way they push it so hard makes me feel there is an ulterior motive here.

A mix of genuine dogooders and virtue signalling desu. Exacerbated by us being relatively late to the party.

And yeah, it could also be to further deconstruct the nuclear family and family values. Plenty of other things have had that effect and almost no consideration is given to reverse trends.

Don't care. Don't care. Nope. Nope.

Seriously. If it wins it won't go through. If it loses, Shorten will legalize it anyway when he wins because Libs / Turnbull are a fucking joke.

Still gonna vote No though because some cunt pulled the 'be on the right side of history' bullshit on my facebook and i fucking hate that phrase.

>>138167600
1. If it is a state-bound marriage I'm okay with it, but you shouldn't be forcing churches to marry them. As long as churches are forced to marry gays my answer is NO.
2. It's two men/women manipulating the system to get tax cuts. The sooner that system collapes under its own weight the better but until then might as well use it for all it's worth
3. don't care, voting is voting
4. 10/10 would vote NO again

>>138167600
Big no from me.
We have stats from Holland, who have had gay marriage for about 20 years now. Only 10% of the gay community actually took up the option of gay marriage. So, vast majority of gay people won't get married if they have the option.
Divorce rates are staggering - 80% divorce rate amongst lesbian couples.
4% of gay marriages value monogamy in the marriage.
Conclusion - it's not about marriage equality, it is pure and simple cultural marxism.

>>138183077
>If it is a state-bound marriage I'm okay with it, but you shouldn't be forcing churches to marry them. As long as churches are forced to marry gays my answer is NO.

You know damn well faggots want churches to marry them as a smug in your face moment. A lot of faggots hate religion and want it gone so they are free to touch little boys and fag it up in public without being condemned.

I'm voting no. I don't like gays and I think its part of a communist plot to undermine the family unit. They use it to erode the purpose of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. My evidence that it is a communist plot is because all the normies will say "it's about love, love, love, love". Didn't you know all the mass murders and red terror purges that Stalin and Mao were also in the name of love? Anything that has gone through dialectic ringer and ended up as love is a waiting atrocity by hate-filled commie misanthropes who want us all dead.

I haven't tested my argument out and unfortunately haven't heard anyone publicly dissent against the media enforced narrative.

But I have a voice and it is to say "no homo"

>>138167600
Voting no because sodomites are harmful to children and the traditional family unit

You are completely deluded if you think there is any chance that Australia will vote no

Homosexuals are cancer and should all be exterminated. Government shouldn't even be talking about voting to legalise gay marriage in parliament let alone wasting millions of dollars on a bullshit postal vote. Vote NO to gay marriage!

>>138167600
I don't care about marriage at all, but I'll be voting no because any law will inevitably used to curtail religious people's rights, as it was in the US.

>>138184603
Typical that a poofta like you has a pink id.

>>138182711
>But seeing as it's more of a contractual thing than a religious/family thing these days
WRONG

File: 1481992014971.jpg (345KB, 740x746px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 740x746px

voting no, but it doesn't matter because liberals are currently shitting the bed and Labor will win a minority government next election with the Greens.

They'll proceed to vote in gay marriage even if the postal vote is 75%+ "No"

There is literally no good argument against sex marriage. I try to avoid hyperbole, but really - there is absolutely no argument against it whatsoever. Just the fee fees of people who don't understand how family, property or trusts law works in Australia.

This "vote" is not even legally binding, so even if it is 70% no, they could still put gay marriage through.

>>138185199
i have nothing wrong with the kid but the adults are freaking me out

>>138185199
That was in Brazil.

>>138184991
>there is absolutely no argument against it whatsoever. Just the fee fees of people who don't understand how family, property or trusts law works in Australia.
There's no argument FOR it given those laws.

I will be voting no. As a woman, I see this as a threat to the traditional role of women in the home, as well as the traditional family.
I do not have an issue with someone being gay or lesbian. However, marriage is sacred and should remain so. Gay people already are recognized under a different set of laws- as they should, because they are a different set of relationships. It also contributes to the slippery slope; everything is becoming incredibly sexualized. For some reason, gay people can not seem to flesh out their identities more than "I like to take it in the ass". This rubs off on their children and therefore we have a generation of overly sexualized kids who think it's okay to twerk half naked in the street. So I'm voting no. I also can't wait to see the liberal tears if the no vote passes.

Has anyone also seen the shilling being done at Lush? I walked past them today and their whole store was decorated head to toe urging people to vote yes.

>>138167600
LGBT

Let God Burn Them

>>138167600
>Ireland
>Known mainly for being full of communists
>Seems more conservative than Australia
Painful. Sort your shit out.

>>138185574
Incorrect, in South Australia a person in a de facto partnership cannot be listed on their partner's death certificate. Therefore they cannot access bereavement benefits from centrelink, they can't get access to their partner's super or life insurance, and they can't get access to any property they didn't have shared title over (like cars, bank accounts, possibly real estate...) without the consent of their next of kin. If their partner's next of kin is either greedy or homophobic or otherwise adversarial, that throws up huge problems. And even if they aren't the process of transfer is lengthy and the first mentioned partner is in mourning at the time. (registered) spouses are automatically named on the death certificate.

Also, in family court proceedings, judges have a wide discretion of determining the nature of a relationship while overseeing a break up. Say a same sex couple has been in a de facto relationship for 15 years and they own a house and have raised a child. A judge can decide they weren't de facto, they were merely cohabitating, which can severely disadvantage one party to the proceedings who might be seeking shared custody of the child, or ownership of a certain asset, or asserting equitable title to the house. If the couple happen to be married, the judge's opinion doesn't matter, the marriage certificate is conclusive evidence of the relationship.

Opposition to same sex marriage can't be because of "muh children", because gays can already adopt and raise children. It can literally only be on the basis that you don't think gay couples should be allowed automatic access to their deceased partner's stuff because that's the only gap amending the marriage act would fill. Fuck

File: tucker carlson.jpg (23KB, 302x328px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 302x328px

>>138167600
From the thumbnail I honestly thought this was a picture of mac and charlie leaving patties pub

This should be the collective response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6fgPX3NjyA

>>138186170
I understand it also affects visas in some way but I don't know much about migration law so won't comment

>>138186170
Let's take away the right for them to adopt and molest children.
Problem now solved faggot. Fuck off.

>>138186470
Let's take that right away from heterosexual couples who also adopt and molest children, and raise all children in the maternal warmth of the state

So I f I want to vote I have to enroll or is my enrollment when I turned 18 enough?

>>138186170
>Therefore they cannot access bereavement benefits from centrelink, they can't get access to their partner's super or life insurance, and they can't get access to any property they didn't have shared title over (like cars, bank accounts, possibly real estate...)
So they can't dole bludge and the second part is just blatantly untrue assuming you have a will or other binding legal contract with your buttbuddy.

>Also, in family court proceedings, judges have a wide discretion of determining the nature of a relationship while overseeing a break up. Say a same sex couple has been in a de facto relationship for 15 years and they own a house and have raised a child. A judge can decide they weren't de facto, they were merely cohabitating, which can severely disadvantage one party to the proceedings who might be seeking shared custody of the child, or ownership of a certain asset, or asserting equitable title to the house. If the couple happen to be married, the judge's opinion doesn't matter, the marriage certificate is conclusive evidence of the relationship.
Fags shouldn't be raising children, it's not my fault if they don't protect themselves legally.

>Opposition to same sex marriage can't be because of "muh children", because gays can already adopt and raise children. It can literally only be on the basis that you don't think gay couples should be allowed automatic access to their deceased partner's stuff because that's the only gap amending the marriage act would fill. Fuck
Fags shouldn't be raising children.

The role of government is the betterment and CONTINUATION of its people. Fags don't add to the gene pool as significantly now they're out of the closet so the government shouldn't have an undue amount of attention in this area.

Considering you opened with "I don't like to be hyperbolic", your entire argument is hyperbolic because you know full well the legal issues you're describing are easily avoidable.

>>138186619
Lots of people die intestate these days, my mum is nearly 60 and still hasn't written a fucking will
>Fags shouldn't be raising children
Incorrect + a blatantly homophobic proposition expressed via homophobic language. I think that you are having trouble having a rational debate on this subject.

>>138186580
Not surprising to see a fag supporter wanting to destroy families.

>>138186759
>Lots of people die intestate these days, my mum is nearly 60 and still hasn't written a fucking will
Ok that sounds like a personal problem, the law doesn't need to wipe your ass.

>Incorrect + a blatantly homophobic proposition expressed via homophobic language. I think that you are having trouble having a rational debate on this subject.
Not an argument, I think that you are having trouble having a rational debate on this subject.

>>138186170
Definition of de facto in my state:
(1) A reference in a written law to a de facto relationship shall be construed as a reference to a relationship (other than a legal marriage) between 2 persons who live together in a marriage-like relationship.

(2) The following factors are indicators of whether or not a de facto relationship exists between 2 persons, but are not essential —

(a) the length of the relationship between them;

(b) whether the 2 persons have resided together;

(c) the nature and extent of common residence;

(d) whether there is, or has been, a sexual relationship between them;

(e) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;

(f) the ownership, use and acquisition of their property (including property they own individually);

(g) the degree of mutual commitment by them to a shared life;

(h) whether they care for and support children;

(i) the reputation, and public aspects, of the relationship between them.

(3) It does not matter whether —

(a) the persons are different sexes or the same sex; or

(b) either of the persons is legally married to someone else or in another de facto relationship.

(4) A reference in a written law to a de facto partner shall be construed as a reference to a person who lives, or where the context requires, has lived, in a de facto relationship.

(5) The de facto partner of a person (the first person ) is the person who lives, or lived, in the de facto relationship with the first person.
You can get fucked, anon.

Even tho I'm not an aussie, you should look at the reasons WHY marriage is institutionalized and promoted by the gov and why married men/women get benefits. Once you do this, you realize it makes no sense to allow gays to marry. Expand civil unions instead.

>>138186619
>The role of government is the betterment and CONTINUATION of its people

Maybe the government should make being childless against the law. After all that would have more of an impact on the country's birth rate than preventing a relatively small proportion of the population from getting married (assuming banning gay marriage has any effect at all).

>>138187419
Sounds retarded, they could simply offer tax incentives to people who have children in the middle class.

>>138186880
No, just the ass of heterosexual couples. The majority of people are legally illiterate, there is no good basis on which you can dole out to heterosexual couples a set of fiduciary entitlements but also deny homosexual couples those same entitlements. It's a trick, it's a device cth parliaments have used to dogwhistle and consolidate an explicitly (like you) and latently (like so many people I've met in the past few weeks) homophobic voter base. And you've fallen for it.
>Not an argument
Well my argument was that you're obviously homophobic and because of that, you're incapable of rationally talking about this subject. I think I argued that point pretty well. Are you saying you don't hate homosexuals and you aren't afraid of homosexuals affecting society adversely?
>>138186914
What was the point of this post?
>>138187249
Why do opposite sex spouses get automatic access to each other's life insurance payouts when the other dies but same sex couples don't?

>>138187507

What was the point of this post?

The definition of de facto is incredibly wide and easy to fulfil. If a Judge rules a couple are not de facto, it will be because they are no tde facto.
Stop being a manipulative, lying little pussy-bitch faggot.
Join the Men and vote NO

Fun fact - did you know that because pharmacists are empowered to witness statutory declarations, a pharmacist can solemnise a marriage in any location, and that marriage is just as entitled to the benefits of the marriage act as a marriage solemnised in a church?

>>138187507
>Why do opposite sex spouses get automatic access to each other's life insurance payouts when the other dies but same sex couples don't?
Then you change insurance company policy or expand civil unions to include death payouts. It doesn't mean legalize gay marriage...

>>138187497
This. Straight couples without children should get no break and neither should gay couples.

>>138187497
So how does banning gay marriage help with the birth rate? If it's not the job of the government to force people to have kids why should one form of childless couple (same-sex couples) be prevented from getting married?

>>138187731
We should be having a plebiscite on whether this should be legal or not, not sodomite marriage.

>>138188595
Or you could just change like 5 words in the marriage act and change literally nothing in society except you'd unclog a few court dockets and avoid tons of unnecessary litigation.

>>138167600
I don't care if gays can marry. Im just voting no because i hate leftists.

>>138188791
Marriage is for men and women to have a family and continue the Australian people, it's culture, and it's economy. They get benefits to promote that lifestyle and encourage women not to be poor, raise children alone, and to make sure the child is well cared for. If it's sooo easy to change 5 words, then I'm sure they can expand the rights of civil unions, or whatever you guys call it over there.

>>138189087
There's an approximately uniform legislative scheme for de facto relationships in australia. The problem with amending uniform legislation on controversial issues like marriage equality is that the mirror legislation doesn't change with it. If Victoria and WA amended their relevant legislation to bring de facto partnerships the rest of the way, there's no guarantee that state governments with more right wing electorates like qld, tas and nsw would do the same thing. It's clearly a job for the commonwealth parliament which is why it's always been treated that way.

But more to the point - if a de facto partnership conferred on teh members of the partnership all the rights and responsibilities and benefits of a marriage, why wouldn't you call it a marriage? That's what it would be, after all. If you build an implement with a long wooden handle and four metal prongs fixed to the end, you don't make a shovel just because you call it that. You make a pitchfork. It's just pedantic and confused logic that gives same sex couples all the rights of marriage while still wanting to """win""" the public debate by technically not calling it marriage. It's ridiculous.

>>138189444
>marriage equality
That's just it though. It's not an equal marriage. They'll never conceive a child and raise it with a mother/father influence. SS couples don't procreate or have sex like a regular marriage. It's everything opposite a marriage. The only thing that's the same is that they love each other. Call it anything other than marriage but give them almost all the same benefits, minus the ones that promote procreation.
t. gay guy that doesn't give a fuck about marriage

>>138189444
>there's no guarantee that state governments with more right wing electorates like qld, tas and nsw would do the same thing. It's clearly a job for the commonwealth parliament which is why it's always been treated that way.
So governing bodies of smaller subdivisions of Australia, which are more representative of their citizens than the federal government should be overridden by the federal government because you think they should?

A vote for no is a vote for representative democracy.

>>138182755

Do some research fuckhead. I'm not spoonfeading you.

>>138189835
You can't make "procreation" the basis for your understanding of marriage. I think there are two good reasons for this.

The first is that many people marry who have either no intention of procreating, or who have no ability to procreate, yet we don't prohibit sterile couples or couples aged over the age of 50 from marrying, and we don't make the signing of a marriage certificate include a stipulation that within 5 years the two of you will attempt to procreate, even though all of these things would be very easy to do.

The second is that the definition of marriage in The Marriage Act, which is the important thing since it's the document at the heart of this debate in Australia, makes no reference to procreation. For the recod, that definition is: "marriage " means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
>>138189893
Most people think this, actually, not just me.
>>138189914
I've done lots of research and I think you're full of shit.

>>138190266
>You can't make "procreation" the basis for your understanding of marriage.
You can, and it IS. the examples you listed are outliers. The majority of people who get married HAVE kids and get married relatively young. As long as the majority are continuing this way of life, marriage will always include heterosexual procreation. It is implied that married couples will mate. You just need to put your feelings aside and be logical as to why marriage has never included gays.

>>138190266
You are just using your uniform lecture notes and some lazy strawman trickery. Now go brag to your mates how you btfo'd /pol

>>138190681
You can't and you aren't. All sexually mature humans are capable of procreation. Homosexuals, as sexually mature humans, are biologically equipped to procreate. If homosexuals could marry, the majority of marriages would still include biological procreation, and so the "point" of marriage would survive this expansion. If you're even thinking of replying to this post by saying "but that configuration of relationship will never produce offspring", please refer to my previous post, esp. re: sterile heterosexual couples. It would be SO easy to amend the marriage act so a marriage certificate is invalid unless there's a signed attestation from a medical doctor as to each spouse's ability to reproduce.

Anyway, this is a pointless and borderline semantic debate. Regardless of your view on the point of marriage, the facts are that homosexual couples do in fact raise children. Therefore you are disadvantaging those children by not including homosexual couples inside the scope of marriage.

>>138191253
Neck yourself m8

>>138191193
Where is the strawman, friend?

File: 1503022108078.jpg (69KB, 460x475px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 460x475px

>>138191253
>comes to pol to defend fags

Seriously how deluded are these fucking faggots?

>>138191253
Again, it is not marriage for homosexuals no matter how strong your feelings for that word are. Marriage, across all nations is for heterosexuals, the recent legalization is an abomination. We weren't even given a chance to vote on it here.
Homosexuals should NOT raise children or adopt. Numerous studies have shown how dangerous it is for the child, including moleststion and mental disorders. Stop playing on feelings.

>>138191406
Well yeah, /pol/ is actually a pretty good platform, not just for testing out ideas but also for changing hearts and minds, esp. since it's such a hotbed of homophobia and arrogance. Who knows how many people are lurking this thread hearing arguments they've never heard before, and only seeing the same lazy counterarguments being thrown about with some hyper aggressive language to boot.
>neck yourself m8
>how deluded are these fucking faggots
>defend fags
>fag supporter
Wow, you sure convinced me with your hot opinions

>>138191632
>Numerous studies have shown how dangerous it is for the child, including moleststion and mental disorders.
Well you should have no problem producing these studies for me then, if they're so numerous. Here's a meta analysis of 33 such studies that found no adverse effects at all: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=userIsAuthenticated=false

>>138191651
>Who knows how many people are lurking this thread hearing arguments they've never heard before
M8, everything you've listed as a fence has been brought up before and squashed by logic. You're just playing on homosexual feelings.
>"Straight couples get married, why can't I???"
Because it goes against natural law and and has no benefit in the end.

File: Pic.jpg (394KB, 957x1024px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 957x1024px

>>138167600

>>138190266
Not enough to democratically elect a local representative who will take the action you want. Do you even live in one of those states? Or are you just trying to force something they don't even want on to them?

>>138191819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2410392
“[a]t age 28, the adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression as persons raised by man-woman parents.” In addition, there was an “elevated risk associated with imbalanced closeness and parental child abuse in family of origin; depression, suicidality, and anxiety at age 15; and stigma and obesity.”

>>138191877
>has no benefit in the end.
Hey, over here >>138186170

>>138191651
you literally suck cocks and shove shit up your ass you fucking faggot

>>138191651
fuck off, you faggot. go die of aids.

>People triggered by actual arguments

Lel. Still voting no but hope you guys work on your arguments for next time some uni student btfos you.

>>138191253
They are disadvantaging those children by putting them into a fag marriage:
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

>>138192065
Yeah I don't know why this "Anne" fella is so uppity about this anyway. According to your first post, it doesn't even fucking count. All you're doing, not you anon I tagged, is pushing that toxic gay agenda.

>>138191883
I checked it out you all seem like spergs.

>>138191819
>>138192207

1. no fucks given
2. just give it to them, who gives a fuck
3. no
4. probably not

>>138167600
1) "'Gay' 'marriage" is like saying "'square' 'circle'" - it is by definition impossible, as marriage is by definition between men and women.
2) It is just a symptom of a greater problem - the degradation of our morals and a sweeping away of our cultural bedrock from under our feet
3) No, it is all a waste of money
4)Yes, because the bedrock of our society and our traditions need to defended

Voting 'no', obviously

>>138192034
https://thinkprogress.org/conservatives-seize-on-hugely-flawed-study-about-same-sex-parents-bd797734bf40

http://archive.is/aym23

>>138192207
You mean the study where 1/3 of the participants claimed to be raised by same sex parents never lived with their gay parents and only 2 out of the thousands of participants in the study were raised by planned gay families, not heterosexual families that fell apart when one partner left due to divorce/their being gay.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/new-research-further-debunks-regnerus-study-on-gay-parenting/

http://archive.is/Z4Gu4

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/?utm_term=.dc5cef00d5f8

http://archive.is/SePdG

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/mark_regnerus_testifies_in_michigan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html

http://archive.is/ehXt8

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/10/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_2850302.html

https://archive.is/Y5erS

https://www.advocate.com/politics/prop-8/2013/03/11/debunked-antigay-parenting-study-commissioned-sway-supreme-court

http://archive.is/QVAQz

>>138191651
Dutch fags, who have had gay marriage for 20 years now, have reported no increase in acceptance or tolerance since gay marriage was introduced.
Your arguments are gayer than freddie mercury's cum dripping out of george micheals bum.

>>138192034
So children who are bullied because of homophobia that's perpetuated by you and people like you are more likely to be depressed than children of heterosexual couples, and survivors of child abuse are more at risk. Groundbreaking stuff.
>>138192207
>the family research council
okay
>>138192065
wtf I hate same sex marriage now

>>138192333
Do you just wait for the right opportunity to spam your bullshit links?

>>138192390
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/05/dutch-tolerance-of-homosexuality-increases-new-survey-shows/

>>138192531
You not liking what they have to say doesn't make them bullshit.

>>138192456
>homophobia
Dropped. Good luck cunt with your useless plebiscite that will amount to nothing.

>>138192614
Do you deny being homophobic? Or do you just not like being called it?

>>138192566
Same argument applies to my link then.

Also OP,
the gays didn't want to a vote because they were afraid of the kind of people who would be mobilized by a vote (4channers, religious zealots, rupert murdoch) and what it would lead to. I doubt they are that keen on a postal vote either considering how they seemed to be indicating they felt about a referendum.

And yes, this vote actively works against them. If I was forced to vote I would vote yes to gay marriage, but I don't give two shits who or what gets married.

But because I don't have to vote, I'm just gonna not waste my time, where as radical retards are going to be frothing at the mouth and mobilizing their fellow fuckistanis to get out and vote no and slander the idea of voting yes as much as possible.

File: 1502177707552.png (35KB, 364x313px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 364x313px

>>138168827

>mfw based chinks get the no vote up

greatestanimebetrayals.jpg

>>138168827
wtf i love chinks now

>>138192657
When lefties, which I'm assuming you are, throw around terms like (internalized) homophobia, I discredit all that you say after that word. I'm gay, which I've already told you. I don't take these stances based on ignorance. I've linked a reputable study and you are looking for ways to reason with the facts that it produced by making excuses.

>>138192675
I'm not saying yours is inherently bullshit because of who wrote it, merely that the data was flawed and so the conclusions were. Very little research has been done yet tracking planned 2 parent gay families vs straight married families because of the tiny amount of time the former has been a legal reality.

Here's some more in depth analysis of the flaws of Sullins data:

One of the first major flaws, however, is the fact that Sullins has no information about whether the same-sex couples were actually married. As he notes, “Almost all opposite-sex parents who are raising joint biological offspring are in intact marriages, but very few, if any, same-sex parents were married during the period under observation.” The same-sex couples were instead defined as “those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves.” No conclusions can actually be drawn about the impacts of legalizing same-sex marriage because the study, by its own admission, collected no data about same-sex marriage or its effect on children.

Regnerus notes that another analysis of the same NHIS data found “that children in same-sex families are quite similar to children in married couple families,” but he argues that what matters is “how scholars present and interpret the data.” He proceeds to admit that one of the ways to make children “appear to fare fine (if not better)” with same-sex parents is to control for factors like relationship instability and residential instability. Indeed, the only way that he got his negative results was to not control for the fact that most of the children in his study experienced relationship instability before one of their parents entered a same-sex relationship.

>>138192534
Guess what, fag? Even fags don't want same sex marriage:
https://juicyecumenism.com/2015/09/10/how-many-gay-marriages/

>>138193005
Furthermore, the study also found, “Child emotional problems in opposite-sex families are highest for single parent families and lowest with married joint biological parents. Compared to single parents, children with same-sex parents have less than twice the risk of emotional problems, but they are at almost four times the risk of emotional problems when compared to children residing with married biological parents.” Besides the counterintuitive finding that having two same-sex parents would result in outcomes that much worse than a single parent, the study then ignores the concerns it did find for single parenting. Neither Sullins nor Regnerus makes any argument against single people having children or adopting. Not a single state currently prohibits single people from adopting, but several nevertheless have prohibitions against same-sex couples jointly adopting.

These studies essentially compare divorced and single parent families to intact married biological straight families. Hence, the poor results. If you were to control for parental relationship instability, you would not see negative results for children.

File: 1409258109842.png (4KB, 204x178px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 204x178px

>>138167600
Do it Australia! I want Best Ireland to be the last one to fall.

>>138192741
This. It's non-binding, which means the $122,000,000 dollarydoos being spent on it is extremely wasteful, and it's non-compulsory, which means the results are about as representative of the community viewpoint as an election in the US. Even with the threat of fines, 9% of aussies didn't turn out for last year's election. How many people who support, but are indifferent to, same sex marriage (the overwhelming majority) are going to be fucked to re-enrol and return a fucking postal ballot?
>>138192988
I'm not making excuses. I'm saying that school children bully other children for being gay, or having gay friends, or having gay parents. I'm saying that that explains why they're depressed. I'm saying that the things you're saying absolutely perpetuate homophobia. You linked one study, which seems to be flawed according to an article I saw upthread, I linked 33.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-19 at 9.10.09 AM.png (156KB, 1514x1000px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1514x1000px

>>138193046
http://www.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

10% of gays are already married in the US.

>>138167600
>I don't get why gay people were scared of a proper vote.

https://musingsofmatthias.wixsite.com/plebiscite

There's your answer in explicit detail.

>>138193005
I'm wondering how your links refute the link I posted... To blanket every "conservative" study as flawed is inaccurate. You're basically saying unless a fag or fag lover scientist conducted this research study, I am discrediting everything it says.

>>138193284
I did not say that. I provided specific criticism of the Sullins study you presented.

>>138193005
If you want to get married and raise a family, marry a woman. That's just the way it is. You may as well be pushing for a referendum to change the Sun to the colour purple. It doesn't matter if it passes and we all call the Sun purple, it isn't purple in the same way that same sex marriages aren't marriages, they are something else.
You can have a ceremony, you can have all the legal recognition and rights that come with marriage, but just go and call it something else. It isn't marriage, and forcing us all to call it marriage doesn't make it marriage.

>>138193046
>>138193046
>https://juicyecumenism.com/2015/09/10/how-many-gay-marriages/

In 2011, 46.4% of the population aged 15 and over was legally married, while 53.6% was unmarried—that is, never married, divorced or separated, or widowed—a widening of the gap first observed among the total population in 2001.4 In contrast, thirty years earlier, in 1981, 60.9% of the population aged 15 and over was married, while 39.1% was unmarried.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-209-x/2013001/article/11788-eng.htm

It's not just gays that aren't getting married. Marriage appears to be on the decline in general, which isn't surprising considering that atheism has risen.

>>138193198
>I'm not making excuses.
You literally are though! You are saying the reason the children are depressed is because of external factors when you have no evidence or proof other than "well it must be this because it's all I know to be "true"".
>I'm saying that the things you're saying absolutely perpetuate homophobia.
It's not homophobia, I'm not scared of or hate gays. It's fact and logic based in tradition.
>inb4 traditions change
>You linked one study, which seems to be flawed according to an article I saw upthread, I linked 33.
There was no evidence MY link was flawed. That rainbow nigger tried to blanket every opposing viewpoint as inherently flawed.

>>138169357
>>138169441
>>138192741
>>138182888
Just vote no.

>>138182297
>no rationale reasons to vote no
>then ad hominem
HAHAHAH

>>138167600
1) What is the point of gay marriage? Really, what is the point? Is it to have equal rights for gay couples. They already have that as de facto law recognises gay relationships. Is it because Love beats Hate? That's bullshit,if you love someone you don't need the government's stamp of approval. If they could explain why they want gay marriage then I would listen but thus far their arguments have had no basis, and I assume they only want gay marriage so that they can say "ner ner ner, we got gay marriage."

2) It was never even an issue here until it became an issue in the USA. Clearly leftists are coordinating their grievances on a global scale. Either that or Australian activists simply have no originality at all, they see people complaining about something in the USA and they decide to bring it here. The Labor party have been keeping the controversy alive because they know it splits the Liberal party. The Liberal party are shit house but there is a clear agenda here of wedging the Liberal party. The greens are communist scum.

I would be happy if the constitution were changed so that the government had no power to make laws about marriage. It is not the government's role to declare certain relationships legal and certain relationships not legal. This would take politics out of marriage (to some degree).

File: 2b1e93ddff6e846b6ae77f81090b0846.jpg (18KB, 564x329px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 564x329px

>>138167600

I think that faggotry is disgusting and it should be illegal for anyone to display homosexual behaviour in public. Squirting your semen up another man's hairy shithole is not love, and to think that it is love is hateful.

PS, how did the child in this photo learn to dance like a whore and make 'fuck me faces'? He has obviously been sexually abused by faggots.

>>138193609
3) The Liberals couldn't get a compulsory ballot through parliament. They are using the ABS to run the voluntary one in order to uphold their election promise. This is superior them simply passing the legislation themselves an hoping people won't mind, far superior to that. Voting should never be compulsory anyway, but that is a separate issue. There is only so much blame to put on the Liberals here. It's really a non-issue that affects a tiny fraction of Australians that leftists have been pushing simply to cause trouble.

4) Yes, I will be voting 'No' with the power of a thousand suns. This is pretty much Brexit downunder, or the closest thing to it. Where we can stick it up the elitists and tell them to get fucked.

>>138193445
>the word marriage magically cannot apply to gay people.

Beyond this being a purely semantic argument, what about in the 30 countries where marriage is the term used for homosexual couples? Are they all calling the Sun purple?

This is an issue because gay people have kids and thus inheritances, custody, and all the other travails of parenthood apply. So you can either give those people raising kids full rights or not. But don't pretend somehow gays are not eligible for full rights under the same terminology, you just don't want gay people to have those rights. It is not somehow impossible or illogical to do so.

>>138193578
The Sullins study? I posted 3 paragraphs of flaws. It did not compare married gay parents to married straight parents in raising kids.

File: 7f6q45zf2tky.jpg (51KB, 750x747px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 750x747px

Voting no because I'm a closet homosexual and I need to repress it in anyway possible.

>>138193615
Degeneracy is progress goy. Expect more in the future

>>138193644
it was written that the earth was flat, so i believed it

they wanted to change this, but I told them that it was written so they couldn't.

>>138167600
An attempt to deligitimize heterosexual marriage and its purpose of producing children within a family structure. They want your sons and daughters to think that sodomy and fetishes are the same and just as valid as having a family in the way God intended.

>>138193841
This is based in actual science though that being gay, at least in part, has a genetic basis and appears to be mostly fixed at birth. Kids who identify as gay, don't, for the most part, identify as straight later. This is giving equal fights to opposite attraction, nothing more.

>>138193888
How did gay marriage being adopted in Europe or North America negatively impact heterosexual marriage?

>>138193644
I don't want gay people to have kids.

>>138193952
they told me god created man
then some scientist said no
but i told him it was written

>>138194003
They will either way so you can either hold them to the same legal framework, of subject them to undue burden, which is why the laws have changed in the United States.

>>138193445
>same sex marriages aren't marriages, they are something else.
Doors with knobs are different to doors with handles, we need a new word to describe the second object because it's obviously not a door.
>You can have a ceremony, you can have all the legal recognition and rights that come with marriage, but just go and call it something else.
Are you even listening to yourself? If something shares every characteristic with something else, it is that something. Call it something else even though it consists of everything the first thing does... just because?

>>138194018
? I have no response to this vagueness.

>>138193976
Marxism.

>>138189914

not an argument

>>138167600
Im not australian. So my opinion does not matter here. (1)But if I was I would vote "no"... This LGBT bs is getting irrational to mentally ill people. (2) My vote would be prohibit gay marriage not because Im against happiness of a person but there are countries that enables them to do this. Let them go there. LGBT community is full of sick people

>>138194113
Not an argument.

>>138167600
Marriage in general should not be controlled by the government.
It's basically allowing some nutjob to go "legally divorcing" people for shit like not paying taxes.

>>138193712
So then what do you want rainbowfag? Gay marriage legal then what? What comes next, or does the entire LGB movement end when marriage is accepted?

>>138194077
>comparing marriage to doorknobs
Fucking hell these bantz

>>138194102
I was being satirical. The people you're arguing with are actually that stupid.

>>138193615

Point on the doll where they touched you.

>>138194249
You're out of your element, HOG0HnKs, find another thread.

>>138194194
Well Australia already, unlike the United States. has a law prohibiting, since 2013, discrimination by sexual orientation, so I personally have my plate full. Obviously you have trans people trying to litigate their issues, but they are a separate entity that I can do no more to unlatch from gay rights than you can to ban gays from serving in a legislature.

It isn't about an endpoint, it is about the reality of being able to raise kids under an equal legal framework that isn't segregated.

>>138194159
>can't refute
Not my problem

>>138194417

>can't argument
Not an argument

>>138194386
You compared marriage to doorknobs....Marriage.....to doorknobs....and I'm out of my element?

>>138194417
I asked what negative outcomes gay marriage's adoption has had on heterosexual marriages where gay marriage has been legalized and you replied "marxism". How am I to respond to that? It is so deliberately vague.

>>138167600
I don't care what fags do. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage straight or otherwise. But as long as the government is involved in marriage then I would vote no on fag marriage

>>138191883
GAYJEW, FUCK OFF!

>>138193976
Heterosexual relations in general are in an absolutely sorry state. This is all connected together in the cancerous tumor of leftist deconstructionism and kike propaganda. They want white females making more money than their work deserves (at the expense of the men of course) so that they turn around and spend all that money on mindless consumerism, alcohol, and birth control. It is intentional and for the purpose of weakening whites, politically and economically.

I honestly don't really care about faggots other than thinking homosexuality should not be promoted or accepted as "the same as" heterosexual relationships. The ones that are really into their fetish should not be raising children because of rampant abuse and indoctrination. But there are probably some normal gays who could raise a kid without fucking it, in the butt or the head.

>>138192333
I didn't check any of the archive links, but judging by the rest of those links you can go kill yourself faggot
>Slate
>Huffpost
>Advocate
>Right wing watch

That would be like us citing Infowars, even though Infowars is substantially more reliable than all of those sources

>>138194409
No, there is always an endpoint. The endpoint is the ultimate goal. You want gay husbands and to raise gay children in peace. That's your goal isn't it?

>>138192333
Mate people try not to hurt your snowflake feelings all the time but the facts are in. Gay people fuck kids lives up. I mean who would have thought molestation or feeding kids hormone blockers would have negative effects. One day when people but actual morals above defending degenerates sodomite adoption will be banned.

>>138194194
The queer rights movement ends when there's no longer any discrimination on the basis of queerness.

Life, for me, is all about the discourse. Life wouldn't be worth living without discourse. If every queer issue was resolved - suicide rates, homelessness, anxiety, and so on - I'd find something else to discourse on. It's about constant conflict, constant learning, constant argument. You've got to be passionate, you have to fight for something, or you might as well be dead.
>>138194483
I compared one defective manner of categorisation to another defective manner of categorisation.

>>138194561
That has nothing to do with the legalization of gay marriage negatively impacting straight marriages.

You want a segregated framework for the law where gays are treated lesser, and then are surprised that gays complain.

>>138194574
So you didn't even read anything they had to say but feel summarily inclined to dismiss it?

k

>>138194613
Well to me its being able to raise kids without hassles and let them inherit my money and such but for others it is likely different.

>>138194822
You're a tranny aren't you?

>>138194799
What year did you drop out of high school?

>>138194889
Now that's an odd question. I'm cis, and almost completely straight as well fyi.

>>138167600
I'll be voting no but telling my friends I voted yes. Thats if the overseas vote isn't fucked up by the ABS and turned into a troll fest or DDOSed.

And the main thing I am concerned about is the secrecy of the 'vote', I don't want to get on the left wing gay death squads naughty list

>>138195036
So why do you think same sex couples shouldn't be automatically entitled to their life partner's life insurance or superannuation in the event of their untimely death?

>>138194865
>Well to me its being able to raise kids without hassles and let them inherit my money and such but for others it is likely different.
You and "Anna Kerinina" both agree that there's always a fight to be fought. I highly doubt that it ends with "raising a kid without hassle". You know you want more and then when you get it, you'll want something else. You're arguing for something that even straight people don't get. All this discrimination based on sexuality never applied to straights, why should you get your special shelf?
>inb4 this is a straight man's world

>>138195036
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_8,_the_%22Eliminates_Right_of_Same-Sex_Couples_to_Marry%22_Initiative_(2008)

"Eight Maps"
A website called eight maps was launched by anonymous webmasters in January 2009. It takes the names and ZIP codes of people who donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign and overlays the data on a Google map. Visitors to the website can view markers that give a contributor’s name, approximate location, amount donated and, if the donor listed it, employer.

Testimony from donors to "Yes on 8" says that as a result, they have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, according to a February 7, 2009 story in the New York Times.[47]

Chris Jay Hoofnagle, a senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California, said, "These are very small donations given by individuals, and now they are subject to harassment that ultimately makes them less able to engage in democratic decision making."

>>138186470
This, except it's too late. All the conservatives whinging about SSM literally dropped the ball when it mattered. We're only here because they couldn't defend the family unit back in the day.

>>138193046
Well almost all of them will vote yes in a gay marriage plebiscite, but then only a minority of them will actually get married.
So the reason they are voting yes is something else.
LIKE DESTROYING MARRIAGE.
LIKE SPREADING DEGENERACY.

File: slippery-slopes.jpg (198KB, 1016x766px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1016x766px

How many faggots will kill themselves when no wins in a landslide?

>>138195162
I actually didn't agree to constant conflict. You cannot any longer defend your lesser legal framework for homosexuals so you feel necessitated to compare us to pedophiles or other straw men to make your argument work.

The laws are framed to be facially neutral, that is they ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not on discrimination against gay people.

>>138167600
Can someone clue me into the constitutional precedent for this in Australia?

Is Australian parliament not sovereign? Under what circumstance is the government able to defer votes to plebiscite ballots?

>>138195266
How has straight marriage been "destroyed" in any jurisdiction where gay marriage was legalized?

>>138194986
>cis
>straight
Trannies tripfag in /lgbt/ not here. The word cis is never used by a normal person, only trannies. You push this issue about marriage equality more than a "almost completely straight" person would. All these lead me to think you are a mtf tranny.

>>138173072
>Getting triggered over something that doesn't affect you
Can't you just ignore them? But you go do your little protest against the government, see how much of a difference it makes

Is this an anonymous vote? 10 years down the road a record of voting "no" on gay marriage will probably get you fired from your job.

I'm going to bed. I'd say it was nice arguing with you all, but it really wasn't.
>>138195398
>The word cis is never used by a normal person, only trannies.
Wrong again, but you're probably used to that by now.

File: argument.jpg (59KB, 679x516px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 679x516px

>>138195398
So basically you cannot attack her argument so you have resorted to attacking her character?

>>138194865
Yes, but only with respect to raising children. I'm not fully opposed to a faggot raising his nephew or something after his brother died. Just if he sodomizes the little fucker or fills his head with faggot thoughts at a young age. Your claim of rights based around a fetish does not somehow make faggots raising children just as good as an intact heterosexual family.

Otherwise I do not care at all about faggots. Go get AIDS and a prolapsed anus, or have a homo wedding. Why would it matter to me?

>>138173072
>my wife and I will renounce our registration, that will teach those gays and the government!

averagechristian.jpg

>>138195528
Sodomy is still a crime regardless of the legal status of gay men. Straw men are not arguments. The second you bring pedophilia, rape, or non-consensual sex into your argument against homosexuality, you are making a logical fallacy.

File: anne erin.jpg (42KB, 640x301px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x301px

>>138194986
>almost completely straight
what's that mean?

>>138182297
I second this. Voting no just to spite others is pure autism. Vote based on what you believe in assholes

>>138195324
I can. It's against natural law. It's unnatural. Simple as that. And it always has been. Are you really even gay or larping as a faggot? Also, only gays use that discrimination law to deflect from the real reason they either got fired from a job, looked at the wrong way, or some other shit. Defining your existence and how people should treat you solely on your sexuality is such a turn off.

>>138193644
How can two homosexual men or women both be the biological parents of a child?
but meh adoption!!
Not good for the kid to be placed with same sex parents on most objective, non-pozzed surveys.
Go out and be fags - stick whatever you want to up each others arseholes - but you don't go shoving a giant rainbow dildo up the arsehole of marriage, the one social and cultural institution that has done more than any other to build the civilisation we enjoy today - just to bust it apart at the seams and have a laugh at all of us straighties in some sick revenge tactic for all that bullying you got when you were young fags.

>>138195362
Gays don't want same sex marriage because they want to be same-sex married. Almost none of them actually have any interest in marriage and the ones that do are usually too unstable to be able to hold a relationship that would result in it.
Further, it has nothing to do with equal rights - that was obvious when they weren't happy with civil partnerships that conferred -all- the same rights as a married couple.

No, the real reason is much more malicious. They want to destroy the sanctity of the concept of marriage because it represents what they hate: A traditional institution that is part of the bedrock of western civilisation.

I believe in liberty, but not license. Which is why I'm voting no. I'd rather remove government from marriage than have government give people license to do things which aren't, in any way, beneficial to society.

Il vote the opposite of what the main stream media tells me to vote.

>>138195803
>its not natural
>watches his two male dogs fuck each other senseless
>lives in a society where nature is replaced by pavement
>wears clothes despite them not being natural
>probably goes and sees a doctor when he feels sick and uses unnatural medicine

averagechristian.jpg

>>138195507
Omg literally only trannies use cis. People born in their normal gender/sex do not describe themselves as cis. The word trans implies "not cis and not normal". Including a word for the opposite of trans makes it seem like that's the norm. "Oh I'm cis not trans" this is the Marxism shit I'm talking about.

>>138195513
>her

>>138195149
I think they should have all that, all the legal rights that a man and woman couple have, just not the word marriage.

That word marriage is mine, same as the idea of what that means, words and ideas are powerful and I don't like when noisey leftist commies mess with them. If we change marriage to include gay couples, then we change a nation to not include borders or the monopoly of power, then we have a bunch of trans mullato thugs running around clicking their fingers to silence professors that have ideas that could hurt their feelings.

>>138181728
Unfortunate, liberals could have done a tiny bit of good for the country but they trashed their name and everybody automatically rejects any good changes they try to make

File: fags.png (443KB, 1506x3976px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1506x3976px

>>138167600

>>138195613
So gay men aren't pedophiles and molest children with your logic?

>>138167600
Mental illnesses should not be encouraged
Registered just to vote no.

>>138167600
don't care
let them get married and be sad miserable cucks
yes, it's not real so who gives a fuck
if it's not real why would I vote

File: Marriage Equality.png (258KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 960x720px

Anyone want to try to make something like this and share it around?

>>138196122
>reasons to hate faggots:
>if homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability

that's as far as I got and my sides are fucking worn out.

>>138195613

So you are saying that a man who sexually abuses a boy is not homosexual but some magical third sexuality which you defined for the convenience of not making gays look bad?

>>138182815
>Vote whatever you want and don't tell anybody whether you voted yes or no, don't piss off anyone

>>138192046
good

http://www.coalitionformarriage.com.au/
Everyone here should do doorknocks and letter drops for maximum butthurt.

File: 1478155415338.png (117KB, 320x263px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 320x263px

>>138182297
>>138195773
>I'm going to vote yes and encourage disease ridden child molesters
>there's no logical reason not to
>you're a fag if you don't like fags
There is zero positives to society by normalising degeneracy even more, more fags equal less kids and more immigration not to mention all the shitskin kids they will adopt and molest.

Vote yes so (((they))) can move on to trannys and the rest of their agenda.

>>138167600

I dont give a shit, I dont even have a birth cert so dont need to vote in this country, do what the fuck you want. Marry a Child, Marry a Dog, Marry a fucking rock

>>138196284
infertility is a disability, and it's no laughing matter

File: a73cac00.jpg (91KB, 486x744px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 486x744px

Vote YES
dont listen these homophobic virgins

>>138195613
I'm talking about those exceptions. It isn't a logical fallacy to want to prevent little kids from being sodomized or being groomed to be a faggot themselves. Otherwise I don't care, but you are not equal to an intact heterosexual family in reality. Adoption should be solely focused on the child's best interests, not fetishist rights. I think you have the right to not be denied solely on the basis of fetish, but it should be a discriminatory factor to adoption.

>>138183444
It is all about the freedom of choice though. However if that little of an amount of people take the option its not worth wasting 23 million on it

>>138167600
I think divorce should be illegal and gays are noisy af

>>138195988
Procreation is normal. Man and woman having sex to have a child is normal. Sticking your penis up a poop shoot or scissoring is not normal. Now, I don't give a fuck what you attribute to normal, good or bad connotation, but it's not normal.

File: 1478765042087.png (743KB, 920x3004px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 920x3004px

>>138195988
>faggots and their false equivalencies
everytime.jpg

>>138196303
See>>138195177

The survey might not be secret, or kept secret enough. It raises some important questions on democracy even if the reason for it all is pretty stupid

>>138196455
I agree, my friend. Implying that a disability is a reason to hate someone definitely is a laughing matter though.

>>138195149
straight partners aren't unless names as beneficiary

if not, you have to fuck around going through a trustee claim process and proving why it should go to you

source: my dad died 5 yeas ago without a will and without mum named on his super/insurance so i got to watch the whole process play out

solution for faggots: sort your fucking wills out and name your favourite fuckpiece as a beneficiary on your super and life insurance like the rest of us have to do

>>138196458
Poland! No!

>>138184292
abbos used to say two women will become whores instead of mothers if they allow gays. it was considered a crime like common assault.

File: de55e822983b609cbedda8b8b3916f06.jpg (81KB, 736x489px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 736x489px

I think this postal vote could go either way, but we need to get down to the root of the problem, which is that there are foreign influences in the Australian political system which need to be killed ASAP and that Australian culture has been way too irreligious and hedonistic. We need to revive Christian identity in Australia so that we will have a more robust conservative culture like they have in the USA outside the coastal cities.

>>138195341
Government was elected on a promise to give us all a say directly. Opposition don't want that (but also didn't want a parliament vote or anything else while they held power, only now do they care about the poor suffering poofters) so bills to set it up never pass. This "let's do it as a fucking ABS survey then" thing is a cheeky sidestep where the opposing parties can't fuck with it.

>>138196485
Holy shit, death to all fags.

>>138196485
>believes a priori arguments deserve a legitimate response
averageamerican.jpg

>>138195341
The constitution allows for a binding referendum, which is a vote to change the constitution.

There is no power that allows the public to vote on passing a specific item into law (as in what happens in California with 'propositions'). Like most jurisdictions we don't have direct government.

Plebiscites can be compulsory or non-compulsory but they can't be binding on Parliament. In theory, Parliament could pass a bill that meant that their plebiscite was binding, but that has never happened.

In the current scenario, the Government does not have the numbers in the upper house (Australian Senate) to create a plebiscite whether binding or non-binding. What they have done, as a fall back, is to rely on existing powers that allow the government of the day to instruct the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct a survey of the Australian population. The ABS is the body responsible for carrying out the census. So this is a plebiscite in name only, it is really a survey conducted by the ABS.

Tony Abbot before he was deposed made it policy that gay marriage would depend upon a plebiscite. When TA was deposed before the last election, his deposer, Malcolm Turnbull kept the policy as a way of keeping certain people onside, though he himself is clearly a leftist in favour of it. A few weeks ago there were murmurs that MT was going to just pass gay marriage into law without bothering with a plebiscite and certain homosexual Members of Parliament were pushing for it, but there was enough of an uproar from the root-and-branch members of the party that this didn't happen. If it had happened there was a strong likelihood that TA or somebody would challenge MT for the leadership.

But the situation is that they can't get Parliament to create a plebiscite in any case because they don't have the numbers, so the issue is continuing to be an ugly one for the government as it is very divisive for the ruling party, so they have determined to use the ABS to run this survey

>>138196484
putting dick in mouth isn't normal but I still do it.

>>138196788
That's something we quickly overlook - Gillard had the opportunity to push through same sex marriage. Seemed a natural thing for that old carpet licker to do but she didn't because it would backfire on her - too many of the senior Union leaders were the old Catholic boys who would take her out politically in a box if she pushed through same sex marriage.

>>138197036
You should be more reserved m8. Wouldn't want to catch an std now, would you?

>>138197139
STD's aren't normal but you can still get them.

>>138197052
Yes. It helps the ALP not to make it law because then they can put pressure on the Liberals about it.

>>138167600
I, as a wog, claim that all of you are faggots in heart. I worked for you - that means your convict temp guberment - with my clear intentions and found that out. then i resigned. and could not get a jon since then and 6 years passed.

now as awake i say you are fags and good luck scum. 150 million up north and billion + bit further. take as much as you can before going back home cunts.

plz report to spooks - between sucking on a americunt dick, dealing drugs and obediant woof woof cool they might send some rookie. I have not fucked a male yet.

You know, more needs to pushed on the fact that Isreal refuses same sex marriage yet (((they))) are pushing it on the west.
Makes you think.

Voting yes because I have nothing against homos, they deserve the same legal rights as everyone else.


>>138196784
How about fuck you statist moralist cuck

does someone have that pic of that girl at a prides festival having a forced smile while a man in ass-showing pants is walking by. need it for evil

>>138196934
I really don't know why we have such an issue when poofs are like 3% of the population, really who gives a fuck. I'm voting no because a) I don't like gays and b) I want to watch people get butthurt if no wins

>>138167600
I dislike the slight alteration to what marriage is that the media/popular culure has been pushing,

>"marriage is about two people loving each other"

this phrase was only meant to be colloquial, but it has opened way for no fault divorces, because if marriage is about emotion between 2 people why not divorce if your feeling fade.

marriage as an institution is fundamental to a working civilization, lets not speed up it's demise.

marriage is an agreement to paternal security for men, and resource security for women, they are the best environment for children. These successful unions are helped by the positive experiences called love, but to simplify equate marriage to the feeling "love" negative all the biological imperatives in humans the have supported our next generations.

I will be voting "NO"

but if you'd have asked me 3 years ago, i'd have shrugged and voted "YES" out of ignorance.

I think the majority of Australians don't care, hopefully enough of them get sick of the propaganda and go for no as well

>>138197279
Nothing stopping a gay man from marrying a woman. How can a law be discriminatory if it is applied to everyone equally?

>>138197202
fucking awesome post, anon, love it.

>>138197279
>Voting yes because I have nothing against homos, they deserve the same legal rights as everyone else.

Homosexuals do have the same legal rights. They have the exact same rights to enter into a heterosexual marriage as a heterosexual does. And equally, a heterosexual is equally without the right to enter into a homosexual marriage as a homosexual is.

>>138197190
Yes, but stds have a negative/bad/shameful connotation associated. Stop sucking infected and pozzed dick.

File: xYCpPX.jpg (183KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1200x800px

>>138197364
This?

>>138197516
>when you are mentally retarded and don't even know what marriage is

>>138167866
You should care a bit. The slippery slope is fucking real. Never give lefties an inch.

>>138197365
>I really don't know why we have such an issue when poofs are like 3% of the population, really who gives a fuck. I'm voting no because a) I don't like gays and b) I want to watch people get butthurt if no wins

Completely agree. Who gives a fuck. They are such a small percentage and what percentage of those actually want a marriage? Can't they just go to a lawyer can get some sort of prenup done if there are any legal questions?

>>138197521
(citation needed)

For all your bitching, here's how it's going to go

> All the major cities and suburbs will vote yes in overwhelming majorities
> all those dumbfuck ice head bogans out in country Australia will be swamped by the yes votes coming in from the cities
> gay marriage will be legalised

And the kicker is: it won't effect any of you at all

>>138197592
What is it then, precious?

>>138197579
He should get those moles checked out.

>>138197716
a gay ceremony for faggots obviously

>>138197202
top tier shitpost m8

>>138169488
Who do I need to contact register with to vote no? I would Google it but I don't care THAT much...

>>138197643
I think the government should just say they will no longer issue marriage licences. Just civil unions or something, everyone has the same rights. Then let religious bodies decide who gets married

>>138197689
I dunno, anon. I suspect the Cathlics will block vote NO. Same with the mussies. Someone else posted that the Chinkies are organsing an ethnic NO block vote.
I got a feeling NO will be triumphant. Of course, that won't kill the issue and the butt hurt, excuses and twisted logic will be tops.

>>138197657
So it's a good thing getting herpes or aids? That's a new one, but considering fags have an entire cult around getting pozzed to stop worrying when they'll get it, I wouldn't be surprised.

>>138197850
Try contacting the lemon party. They are solid with this shit.

>>138193220
That's not a lot.

I hope you guys all realise what a fuck up this is as well going forward for the Libs

It's encouraged thousands of young, leftist Aussies to register because they're actually passionate about this issue. They will swamp the Libs next election.

>>138197850
Online at the aec website

>>138197765
And there's nothing stopping them from holding ceremonies right now. So again, a legally recognised gay marriage is not needed.

>>138197907
I didn't say that and that's not a citation.

>>138197579
yes ty, ty for being a progressive and an ally like the girl in the picture

>>138197897
Polling has shown that a yes vote gets up in every single seat bar Far North Queensland

It's a forgone conclusion

>>138197977
but they can't have a marriage ceremony, that's what they want. They want to have a really gay marriage ceremony with a child fucker to make it legit.

I say make it rain baby.

>>138197984
You implied getting an std was normal. And you don't need a source to tell you the obvious.

>>138197959
nah, they already registered to vote green.

>>138197890
That's my preferred too. It's not the governments role to decide what is a marriage and what is not a marriage. But, keep in mind, under de facto law, if two people live together in a romantic relationship for long enough time, they are legally equivalent to being marriage and this already applies to same sex couples.

>>138198075
I said it wasn't normal but that it can happen. Still not a citation though. Where are the citations?

>>138198047
polling can't accurately deal with a voluntary postal vote.
polling gave trump a 5% chance of victory.
stay cool, anon, we'll win this one.

>>138197959
>Implying the Liberals are anything other than another progressive party.

>>138198156
Yeah...I'm through with you. Stop sucking so much dick like a slut though, that's my only tip for you.

>>138198249
Still waiting on that citation.

>>138198176
>5%
Was it really that high? I could have sworn it was 2% max.

>>138167600
Voting no. There is supposed to be no slippery slope but jesus christ 100+ genders and tranny kids? No thanks.

>>138198072
They can do it, they just have to pay the child fucker enough money to have a non-binding ceremony. This logically can't be about ceremonies. They can get someone to dress up as a priest. Ceremonies are for show.

If they wish to be able to force priests to perform the marrying, contrary to the religious beliefs of said priest, purely so they can say 'ner, ner, ner we are defiling your religion and the government said we can do it so ner.' then that's complete bullshit.

>>138197716
>What is it then, precious?
marriage is some bullshit that came from the bible. Contract that women are property. People who want to get married in general are ignorant and retarded. Gay men who want to get marriage are twice as retarded.

One man loves the other man so much that he wants to lower his status to that of women before they had rights. And they want to get the government involved in their person affairs by making it legally binding with the state.

Epitome of stupidity!

>>138167600
>>138168827
Counterfeit women will be protected by law if you vote YES

>>138198097
yeah knew about the defacto thing but why are they having such a sook over being able to marry. I heard some shit about they don't have the same rights as a married couple, are they full of shit or what?

>>138197689

Yeah, that's true,

I'll probably be dead before all the children raised by these degenerates are old enough to fuck society up.

>>138185551
>>>138185199
>That was in Brazil.

Poor kid will be riddled with bad aids...

>>138198047
>Polling

Remember Trump?
Remember Brexit?

>>138197003
kind of scary to see his internet history posted on the news

>>138198351
Clearly they want a binding ceremony. You almost know what marriage is. I'm proud of you, fellow emu. Keep replying to reveal more answers.

>>138198176
I support gay marriage anon

> muh Trump

I hate this meme

Most polls had Hillary winning by 3% or so on Election Day. Which she did. She won the popular vote by 1.5%, and trump won due to the electoral college.

The polls were spot on in regards to the popular vote.

You underestimate how passionately people care about this issue. It's only old cunts that don't like gay marriage

File: IMG_0841.png (215KB, 501x272px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 501x272px

>>138198290
Right here.

>>138198372
The whole thing is a political charade. There is no credible reason why gay marriage should be made legal.

>>138198500
that isn't peer reviewed. Still need a citation, do you have an actual citation? There are plenty of places you can look for citations. I would really like to see your citation.

>>138198453
I passionately want fags and their supporter to STFU! Oh how I wish I could just go one day without hearing about men who like to fuck each other up the arse.

Gay marriage is cultural appropriation of a straight institution. Can we blow some leftist minds with that paradox maybe?

>>138198453
You are wrong. State specific polls were obviously biased in favor of Clinton. Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, all of which had polls right before the election where he was an 8 point dog or worse.

>>138198372
The only arguments here so far have been: homophobic reactions making kids depressed, love is love, it doesn't hurt anyone, and "I can't leave my spouse money when I die" which was refuted with make a fucking will then

While a bunch of voting Aussies are gathered. Tell me what political party to join. I want to join a party. I'm a trad con. I considered just sucking it up on some of the economic policies and joining the Democratic Labour Party. Yay or Nay?

>>138198658
>marriage
>straight institution
explain this please

>>138198565
can't the bottom bitch just claim he identifies as female now and get married. It's starting to get really confusing

>>138167600
Voting no. Should be good.
>>138195773
>Voting no just to spite others is pure autism
Just because you say something doesn't make it so. You'll learn that when you're older ;)
I am voting no to stick it to the left, most of my friends are too. Enjoy it.

>>138198573
Would you suck on my cock instead?

>>138198720
join the party on manus island

>>138198842
Only if you can find a citation. Also you'll need a citation to show that you don't have a micro penis, and one to prove you aren't ugly as fuck.

>>138173072
>And if it gets up my wife and I are committed to renouncing our registration with the government.
lol, you're just finally leaving her for a man when it gets legalized, aren't you?

look at you trying to make weird excuses. lol.