Why won't Australia vote on gay marriage?

“Australia entrenched discrimination in the Marriage Act as the rest of the world was moving on,” Penny Wong, Australia’s first female, openly gay federal parliamentarian, recently wrote, referring to a 2004 amendment to the law that specified marriage was between a man and a woman.

Since then, 21 same-sex-marriage related bills have been introduced into parliament, all of which have failed. During that time, over 20 other nations have made marriage equality a reality, including the US, the UK (excluding Northern Ireland), and Canada. New Zealand, Australia’s neighbor, legalized same-sex marriage in 2013. Elsewhere in the region, Taiwan is currently debating marriage equality, and could become the first place in Asia to legalize it.

For now, the prime minister is committed to the plan of holding a non-binding referendum over the issue, an idea that was floated by the Abbott government. It is a controversial and unpopular move. Critics argue it would be costly and divisive, and are calling instead for parliament to vote on the issue—a study conducted last year found that the marriage equality referendum in Ireland had a “highly detrimental” effect on members of the LGBT community. Nor is there enough parliamentary support for Turnbull to pass a bill in order to hold a referendum, leaving the process all but dead in the water. Turnbull has said that if the plebiscite isn’t held, marriage equality will likely be off the agenda until the next federal election—due in 2019.

archive.is/ZUZy7

Other urls found in this thread:

discord.gg/DA7Aq
frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
discord.gg/ermrq
heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/comment-of-the-week-the-norm-equalization-case-against-gay-marriage/
discord.gg/wyDTT
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>marrying
>not being fucked by as many dicks as you can

Penny Wong needs to be stuffed in a chaff bag and taken out to sea.

bump

What's the point of getting legally married if your not religious? Like seriously what is the fucking point?

Go be a kike poofter over in NZ, they like it, in fact so much their ex PM was one

Oh and their entire rugby team are homosexuals

Didn't penny vote against it last time there was a vote?

Left doesn't want it because it's non binding and would just incite foreign interests to rail the media with propoganda.
Right wants it because it's non binding and they don't have to foot the bill personally.
Senate is not controlled by one party and none of the independents want to play ball. Simple as that.

taxes, that's the main thing aside from societal decay

Tax as far as I know.

In this country the right wing party doesn't really give a shit and the left wing wants gay marriage desperately, so the right wing that is in power was like "ok we will do a plebiscite and let the people vote directly for it and if they want it we will give it to them" then the left wing shot it down because politics. Literal retards refused what they wanted because they didn't want the right wing to look good, they dont actually give a single shit about the gays.

Marriage is a status item.

There is no point of marriage if you can't have children

taxes, visitation rights

Gays can adopt or have surrogate children.

What about childless couples?

Marriage is about status and government benefits as much as it is about children or religion now. Marriage is not exclusive to one religion.

status symbol.

Thats what pisses me off, we could have had a proper vote and decided this like civilized people, but the left had a fucking tantrum and got it cancelled because god forbid people have a say in the matter, no gay marriage must be passed without any chance of opposition.

I didn't even care about gays but fuck them for having such a low opinion of Australians that they didnt even let us vote on it, I'll be against it now out of spite.

Are two thirds of Australians church going Christians?

thots?

A child needs a mother and a father to be raised effectively.

Most gays are pedos anyway so I wouldn't trust them with a child

...

don't do that, promiscuity is degenerate

government benefits

The right wing liberal party has destroyed them. Same here. Same UK. Same you guys. Same India. Same Japan. Same everybody else. Except Hollande. Lmfao!! Go #Macaroni 2017! This is an extension of we're full get out with right wing budget deficits

Because it would allow immigration through gay marriage.

The country would be 70% chick in about 3 months.

Cunts were all about giving us a free vote on it until the leftists realised they didn't have it in the bag and that it'd probably lose.

Funny though, how Labor screech about muh homos whenever they're in opposition and then don't give a fuck about them the moment they're back in power.

Join the OFFICIAL /polgb/ Discord:

discord.gg/DA7Aq

frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

read it and weep faggot

I'll join the I hate faggots club instead.

There aren't any tax advantages to being married here. It's literally just a title outside of a few things like when you die without a will.

Leftists only screech about it because it's one more thing that hasn't yet bowed to their destructive will

Subhuman clammosexuals

gas this shill kike by posting here:

homosexuality is a mental disorder

Funny thing, all the pro-gay marriage parties are vehemently against having a plebiscite, because they know that they will 100% get btfo if it actually goes to a vote. Polling puts it at around a 85% no 15% yes split.

pretty sure they have all the sames rights as married couples if they are in a relationship
this

just remove the word marriage from the marriage act and other law or legislation and replace it with union. Churches can issue big fancy marriage certificates for newly weds and gay couples can do what ever ceremony they want that's not in a church.

thispeople fear the pc stigma police so of course they say yes if asked. The left knew if it went to the non binding plebiscite it would fail. Thing is by making it non binding means if it did fail it would have less impact on future votes.

Daily reminder that no clergy have ever been forced to perform a gay marriage in a church.

wtf it's australia's turn after ireland, wtf?

>hey , want to not get attacked by us in the media?
>go and do this PSA that promotes the destruction of culture

>Critics argue that referendum would be costly and divisive
Yeah, "just passing a law" like socialists did in France (which resulted in nationwide protests and more aggression aimed at gays) instead of legitimation something so divisive as "the will of the majority" would be sooooo smart.

Libs have a lot of support from the christian lobbies, which oppose gay marriage. Letting the public decide lets the government off the hook. Gays dont want a public vote because 1. They are scared it wont pass, 2. It wont pass by a huge margin, and will be a kick in the face to the gay community when if it only passes 60/40 etc.

the funniest thing about the fag marriage thing is that it's one of the few times almost every minority agrees with us on something - muzzies hate it, chinks hate it, abos came out against it, etc

lefties would be doubly btfo because everyone but them would be united on something

its about gubment gibs, id almost be for it if the homos would just admit that.

Join the OFFICIAL /polgb/ Discord:

discord.gg/ermrq

i dont give a fuck about fags
i just like pissing people off
on that premise alone
fags cant marry

get fucked fags

Being a faggot is already degenerate.

The whole point is to stick it to conservatives.

>two-thirds of australians support gay marriage
Source.

The reason they didn't hold the referendum was because it would prove the majority are against gay marriage and we'd end up with a bunch of fags and women crying in the street.

The hardcore religious may change their vote on this issue. Those that don't give a fuck and want gay marriage to pass so we can focus on other things, well, we know that it will be passed eventually anyway. Not going to change votes based on inaction by government.

Some people that are opposed are incredibly ill-informed. My mother was opposed to it

>why are you opposed to it
>it desecrates marriage and hurts those that care about tradition
>but you've never been married, and you had a kid of out wedlock so it's not like you've done your part to uphold tradition
>oh, I guess you're right

Literally a few weeks after she had forgotten this conversation she was saying 'so why don't they just allow gay marriage, it doesn't hurt anyone?'. I'm not claiming to be a genius, but there are some very ill-informed people out there

Fiancee had a tough childhood with family issues etc, so wants stability for her children. Bring married gives her that surety. I don't care for marriage but it makes her happy.

It's just posers wanting to look progressive and cool because America has it and now we want it. It doesn't matter that the government has recognised your tranny genderqueer fag partnership since 1994, the trendy kids want it to say "married" on the form.

Though to be fair insurers, hospitals, etc sometimes need a bit of paperwork wrangling to recognise your relationship where being properly-ring-on-your-finger married is a short cut. So on the grounds on cutting down on some minor private sector bureaucracy I'm all for it I suppose.

Two thirds of Australians are Christian, not many are churchgoers.

because the government should only have an interest in promoting the nuclear family, with the unique fruits of a heterosexual marriage, that is pro-creation.

that is what marriage is definitionally. why should the government care about recognising the frivolous "declaration of love between 2 consenting adults"? it's like demanding the government hand out official framed "i love you" love notes between couples.

Sounds like they are trying to meme that flase number so normies will conform

>Taiwan is currently debating marriage equality, and could become the first place in Asia to legalize it.

Huh, I would have thought for certain that gay marriage would be legal in Thailand

The real question is should be, why is the state involved in telling people who they can marry in the first place?

All the corporate bullying around this issue that has been going on recently has pissed your minorities and average Australians right off, and I have no doubt that if this thing goes to a plebiscite it will either be totally BTFO or a close enough split that will still reveal almost half the country are not with the gays. Hopefully Libs win again in 2019 so we can have this plebiscite and put this bullshit on the scrapheap once and for all.

Thailand is weird in that they would much rather you be a ladyboy than gay.

It's especially grating when they already have civil unions (at least here in vic) so there's literally nothing for them to gain here outside of shitting on tradition and white/western civilisation as usual

gay marriage undermines the the evo-bio normative schema that the contract of marriage was devised to map to.

see

heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/comment-of-the-week-the-norm-equalization-case-against-gay-marriage/

What about childless couples? Marriage maps to a social as well as a biological schema.

>heartiste is a Sup Forums faggot
yeh i called it

Deep down people know fags shouldn't marry. The USA made a mistake and left it up to faggot judges.

Aussies know better. Aussies will make the right call.

(((((((((((((((((((penny wong)))))))))))))))))))

>>>/GenderStudiesDiploma/
Whatever you are writing about does not belong here

Australia is Israels backup Country that's why we still have detention centres that break every humanitarian right

Israel is Australia's greatest ally

What exactly can't homosexual couples do besides adopt without experience with children (which heterosexual couples can't do either) or force a church to marry them (which heterosexual couples can't do either)?

If Sup Forumsgbt can answer me, I'll get this passed in 20 years tops.

>Australia is Israels backup Country

retard

That marriage is not solely a scheme to get men and women to have babies. It confers undeniable social benefits as well. Being able to say "that is my husband" is a position of privilege, therefore denying gay people that is treating them as second class citizens. If marriage were solely religious and all couples had children, these hypernatalist points might be more relevant.

Surrogacy, adoption, full tax and visitation bennies, social privilege of saying you are married.

Join the OFFICIAL /polgb/ Discord:

discord.gg/wyDTT

Pretty sure we're the only major English speaking country to not have it, and if we get a chance to vote on it we will keep it that way.

Hellfire for you

I was shitposting you fucking slowpoke

>gay people are not second class citizens
Fuck off you yankee faggot

there is no way two thirds of the people support it, only retards and old grandmas take polls

Hold the line, brother. We might poke fun at each other, but you are better.

>Surrogacy,
Which they can't do because they're not biologically infertile.. so they have to pay the full price.

>adoption,
Again, they can, just not without experience.. neither can heterosexual couples. Are you sure gay marriage in Australia isn't asking for homosexual privilege?

>full tax
Untrue since the 80s, which is what that movie about "two male names get married" is about

>and visitation bennies,
Untrue since the early 00s.

>social privilege of saying you are married.
And the main brunt of the issue. They want a word. They're that shallow that they'll stop the entire legislative political process for a word.

Are you sure gay marriage in Australia isn't asking for homosexual privilege?

Because, fuck off.

>What about childless couples?

that still does not undermine the evo bio schema that the contract of marriage was devised to map to as they are still operating under the proximate norms of the biological schema as opposed to the ultimate norms. i.e. all the proximate norms surrounding monogamous mating are still observed they just don't successfully conceive (reproduction is the ultimate norm.)

the social schema is a subset of the biological schema. were it not for the biological schema, marriage would not exist as there would be no need. secondly, the social aspects of marriage can be satisfied without undermining marriage as a biological schema. the fact that the left refuses to do this shows you where their goals lay.

You mean people who vote.

voting is compulsory here retard

law degree and this is evolutionary psychology not gender studies.

Lol none of that is true

found the fag

America and Australia should make pederasty legal.

The LNP is happy to take the stance of pushing a plebiscite since it gets them votes from demographics like muslims, and anyone who would vote against them for it wouldn't give them a vote anyway.
Whether or not it's legalised is irrelevant because de facto relationship laws fill the same needs anyway, so it doesn't matter if that shit doesn't pass, it's just an issue to push for political purposes. People don't like that it's been politicised, and some just don't want gay marriage, so a plebiscite is seen as risky hence it never happens.

(((Divorce lawyers)))

Because a plebiscite is fucking expensive and this is L I T E R A L L Y what the federal parliament is for.

Fucking politicians are too scared for their own fucking jobs and would rather waste taxpayer money to safeguard their career.

Guillotines for all of them.

People can have kids outside of marriage therefore the social schema is not a subset of the biological. Marriage was traditionally a property arrangement by which a woman was sold from her father to another man. That doesn't exist anymore therefore the traditional purpose of marriage is lost anyways.

but the ultimate purpose of marriage is the facilitation and protection of long term mating reproduction and you cannot change it to allow things which fundamentally undermine this otherwise you wreck it as an institution, which coincidentally is what the left has been saying hey have been trying to do to marriage for decades.

put simply, allowing gay marriage will logically allow and normalise cuckoldry within marriage and destroy the institution for heterosexual men. which means men won't enter into it. which mean women who wanted to get married will be BTFO as well.

gay marriage will fuck over (harm) straight cis heterosexual men and women (80-90% of the population)

What fucked up system you have.
Sorry.

>the ultimate purpose of marriage is the facilitation and protection of long term mating reproduction
[citation needed]

I like it, it means when you go to vote, they are ready for the numbers and you don't wait very long. If it was voluntary I'd probably have to wait hours or some shit.

Its your duty to vote any IMO. You can draw a dick on the ballot if you like.

Tax breaks that are designed to incentivise couples to make children.

I like this post

The ultimate purpose of marriage was originally ensuring that property is paid for when it moves from family of birth to another new man. No longer do we have dowries or other relics of that age. Marriage now confers primarily social benefits as many couples choose not to have kids, are infertile, or divorce, which is not the ideal arrangement for the kids.

Gay marriage has not "destroyed" or weakened the institution of marriage anywhere where it has been adopted and provides much needed money from couples spending tens of thousands on their weddings and honeymoons.

If you have evidence that gay marriage (in countries where it is legal) has directly harmed the heterosexual population, I welcome it.

kids outside of marriage is not marriage retard. marriage was traditionally a paternity investment contract where the man agrees to support and provide for a woman and her children in exchange for paternity certainty. thus it is essentially a contract for long term mating. children outside of marriage is short term mating i.e. the man does not provide for the woman or her children i.e. he does not contribute paternal investment (he may, but he need not and is maladaptive for him to do so if he is pursuing a short term mating strategy).

the traditional purpose is not lost. it still exists but is continually being attacked by leftists to undermine it and normalise and effect cuckoldry in society which is exactly what the goal of gay marriage is.

To show your commitment to another person, who you want to spend the rest of your life with.

It's the norm to get married even if you aren't religious, you must see that

Aussies, heed my warning: don't become a gay meme country like mine. Gay marriage legalized in 2005 and only went downhill from there.

Degenerate brazil

marriage was traditionally a property arrangement in the bible whereby a father owned his daughter and traded her to another man for a price. We no longer do that, so the notion of "traditional" marriage is a farce.

Gay marriage encourages monogamy amongst homosexuals as well as avoiding forcing them into sham marriages with females that are bad for the females as well as any kids who result from such arrangements (who are more likely to be gay).

correlation =/= causation