Why does Australia not put gay marriage to a vote like Ireland did?

abc.net.au/news/2017-06-16/gay-thats-ok-campaign-hamilton-turns-out-colours-for-afl-pride/8621918

The campaign is titled Gay? That's OK, and driving it is Charles Beaton.

Mr Beaton's motivation is fuelled by personal experience.

He and his twin brother Lachlan grew up in the western district on a farm near Casterton doing everything together, but Lachlan never divulged that he was gay — not even to his twin brother.

Mr Beaton hopes that by encouraging the town to be visibly more welcoming, it will change the day-to-day experiences for young people growing up in a small community.

He said it may open up new conversations, help people reach out, and reduce the risk of young people experiencing self-loathing, depression and suicide.

"The mental health issues with people hiding their sexuality are real, suicide being one of those," he said.

"Lachlan had suicidal thoughts. We're lucky that he is still with us."

"It's been from all ages, and male and female, and at the end of the day we just want to make people feel welcome shopping here."

"What we're trying to do here is to make the lives easier of the 15-year-old Lachlan currently growing up in regional Victoria by saying out loud that you will be accepted for who you are," Mr Beaton said.

"I think it's important that people who identify as LGTBI can feel safe and comfortable in country areas where they haven't necessarily in the past, so it's hats-off to Hamilton.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/j0RNM
youtu.be/eyVX3uJpqxc
discord
archive.is/t5ThX
news-medical.net/news/20170413/Study-finds-positive-health-outcomes-among-married-LGBT-couples.aspx
lifesitenews.com/news/spanish-bishops-denounce-totalitarian-transgender-bathroom-law
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

...

Checked. Why didn't you archive?:
archive.is/j0RNM

...

...

Anti gay marriage is a lost battle in the west, against normies you just come across as a regressive religious bigot if your anti gay.

Unless your Islamic then its alright because of diversity

Archive tends to fuck up the formatting of local news stories. Only really needed for leftist click blogs like huffpo and slate and subscription newspapers like wapo and nyt.

>legal to smoke a dick
>illlegal to smoke a joint

There is no Jew agenda, goyim. Now, have another drink

Should be legal to do both, in my opinion. Is here in some parts of the U.S.

I hate that fucking rainbow flag more than I hate vagina

What is it about arseholes do you like?

I don't go there, not for giving or receiving

>see US legalise gay marriage
>not a year later the country is over run by degeneracy and the floodgates are open for transgender bullshit
>yeah nah cunt we'll be right aye
i don't think the government wants to have a vote or referendum because both parties stand more to lose in terms of votes than they stand to gain

I wish gay rights were not lumped in with transgender rights, but that still shouldn't change the right of gays to marry if the people vote on it.

>one is normal and healthy
>the other is harmful and degenerate

>the right of gays to marry
it's not a right, that's OK

should we allow gay incest rights? what's the harm? right?

Because youtu.be/eyVX3uJpqxc

How does get fucked sound faggot?

it's not that it's lumped in with transgender rights; it's that as soon as the left gets what they want after years of whining they move on to the next group to complain on behalf of and award oppression points to. it's an ideology predicated on being a slippery slope. at some point the foot must be put down and realistically gay marriage is such an unimportant issue, who gives a fuck about marriage aside for dogmatically religious people

Why didn't we put it to a vote? Even in states that did vote to deny it, judges ended up overturning it. In a country of over 300 million, only a handful pushed through gay marriage.

are you seriously gay just for the purpose of sucking Dick?

Marriage is a right. Yes? Then it is to gay people as well.

Try passing a bill that extends an anti-discrimination provision only on basis of sexual orientation and not gender identity. Hard to do now! Not discriminating against gays is easy to do but asking people to allow males into women-only spaces is a different issue altogether and should be treated as such.

Some gays think they are somehow gonna get approved of more by straight people if they claim they don't have anal sex. Bizarre logic.

the bronies never left

Our Conservative party offered to hold a plebiscite but our "progressive" party turned it down because even though a vote would win, they want the credit for doing it, and will do it through simple legislation.

...

Join the OFFICIAL /polgb/ Discord:

discord dot gg/ZFU8Q

it's just not a good idea to have a lot of anal sex and I hate shit, so I don't do it

Gays do have the same right to marry as straights. They both have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Neither have the right to marry a person of the same sex

A man can't live on blowjobs alone.

Ireland had to do it because marriage laws were in the constitution. Australia doesn't have to do it because marriage is just something the parliament can change whenever, like Howard did in 2005.

And holding a vote? That shit costs hundreds of millions or dollars.

But seriously why can't the gays just stop whining?
I shouldn't kick in their doors and bash them just for being faggots, and I don't.
They shouldn't get married or have disgusting degeneracy parades.

If the people voted no they'd just find another way.

he's gay, not a man.

your adding confusion to the issues by makeing it about gays, the politicians here do everything in their power to not allow regular australian have a say in any matter doesnt matter the subject

That ignores that gays are fundamentally not attracted to the opposite sex and you know that.

>just give them ground
i can guarantee you as soon as we push some legislation for gay marriage the left will be breathing down our necks about transgender bathrooms and then some canada shit about beastiality. as i said it's an ideology predicated on pushing society further into cultural decadence. keeping gay marriage illegal is the lesser of two evils, i don't want to send my kids to school to learn about the fucking genderbread man or whatever the fuck and i don't want to put up with more of this transgender shit when the left can be distracted with an issue that i couldn't care less about
>marriage is a right
nope

So?

The right to marry is the right to marry members of the opposite sex. Gays have that right. In fact gays have always married people of the opposite sex despite being gay

Good point. The longer it remains an issue the longer it will keep the left occupied and the longer it will take them to move onto other shit

Even if it's inevitable, still better to kick the can down the road for as long as possible

We tired to have a vote, but the leftist faggots wouldn't allow it, they wanted gay marriage passed without the people having a say in the matter.
so now fuck them, if it ever comes to a vote I'll vote no out of spite.

Slippery slops is not an argument.

Gays are not attracted to the opposite sex.

Also,

So what? Marriage is not the right to marry 'someone you are sexually attracted to'. Plenty of marriages have been loveless, sexless, and many marriages continue even though spouses no longer find the other sexually attractive

attraction to the other person is not a requirement of marriage

>Slippery slopes is not an argument.

Actually it is. The 'slippery slope is a fallacy' argument is a fallacy.

It is only a fallacy to say one thing inevitably leads to another without proof. It's not a fallacy to say one thing is likely to contribute towards another because x y z

There is no good reason to suppress the rights of a few for the many in this case.

Nope but gays should get the same rights as straight people, and we are attracted to the same sex and prefer to marry people of the same sex.

marriage isn't a right

Its a fallacy to imply that if x then y without evidence. It is alarmism that takes you out of the debate of the merits of the argument and puts you against greater, morally more unsavory concepts that the opposition can think of. It is a fallacy unless you have direct evidence that say, passing gay marriage will lead to a loosening of bestiality laws. Arguing for one thing is just that. Focus.

Tell that to our courts.

we were going to last year our """conservative""" major party wanted it (it was an election promise) but it was actually the more progressive groups that denied it last minute arguing that it would be a waste of money for the campaigns and would lead to discrimination of lgbt groups which is all fucking rubbish desu

I mean I assume Australia will adopt it in 2019 but they are certainly dragging their feet.

You do have the same rights as straight people. The right to marry a person of the opposite sex. 'Marriage' is not informed by sexual attraction or love although they often coincide. It is informed by two people of the opposite sex forming an institution for the purpose of raising children, specifically their own biological children

>mug childless couples

To be honest, to be completely doctrinally consistent it would be correct to forbid childless marriages, but this could never really be done in practice because it is hard to prove people intend to have a childless marriage unless they are actually infertile or something

>slippery slope is not an argument
you don't know what a the slippery slope fallacy is clearly. if i can point to a cause and effect snowball of degeneracy and accurately predict what happens next that is not the slippery slope fallacy. saying that it's not going to happen is a retarded argument because we're talking about an ideology who's motto is to 'push them further left'
by genderbread man i am referring to pic related, of course i was mistaken in assuming it's gender as it is of course a gender bread person and its' gender is not to be assumed. i must check my cis priviledge. we already have shit like this archive.is/t5ThX going on in victoria and i'll be damned if i let it happen to glorious QLD

>separate but equal

When you ban childless marriages let me know. Gay marriage is essential for same rights to say "I'm married" "That's my husband" and to build gay families via surrogacy and adoption. Christians complain how degenerate gays are but won't give them the tools to build families either. Can't have it both ways.

Because they realized it might not actually pass. Very rough estimates of 40 yes 60 no.
If it passes as no then they're fucked.

Alright, how's this for you.

If we allow people of the same sex to marry, why shouldn't we allow brothers and sisters to marry? Or fathers and daughters, or mothers and sons?

If you are worried about inbreeding, let's say one of them has themselves sterilised in some manner, which is quite easy to do.

Is there anything at all that supports gay marriage on principle that wouldn't also support this?

I have never ever to date heard a gay marriage proponent give a real response to this. It's always squibbed with something like 'that's different' without saying why.

what do you mean without evidence. the evidence is in every other country that has fallen victim to this retarded progressivism ideology. straya is the last bastion of hope for the west at this point.

Incest is a proven harm. Not just the breeding but how it damages relationships. Comparing incest to gay attraction is inherently fallacious which is why it never receives a real response. Instead of contending with the merits of the argument you choose to change it to equate it falsely with things it has no relation to.

A minority of people are attracted to the same sex biologically. People who commit incest are not somehow wired to not be attracted to people who are not related to them.

Germany does not have gay marriage and bestiality is legal.

Spain has gay marriage and bestiality is not legal there nor has it become legal since the adoption of it.

>Instead of contending with the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman you choose to change it to equate falsely with things it has no relation to.

Gay sex isn't harmful? What about aids?

Because it's not a constitutional matter

>Incest is a proven harm. Not just the breeding but how it damages relationships.

Is it? Isn't this exactly the sort of argument that was used against gay relationships since forever? That they are inherently unhealthy both physically and mentally? Isn't that in fact still borne out to some extent when considering health and economic status of gay people as a whole?

>A minority of people are attracted to the same sex biologically. People who commit incest are not somehow wired to not be attracted to people who are not related to them.

Why does attraction matter if it is inherent or not? There is a good deal of support for the idea that some people are gay either through choice or through environmental influence. Would these gays also not be entitled to marry like incest couples?

Being gay is no longer considered a crime in Anglo countries. Incest, pedophilia, bestiality, still are. Therefore, giving rights to homosexuals, is not giving rights to criminalized behaviors, as would allowing incestuous couples to marry (states generally have laws restricting this and nobody has seriously pushed for them to be removed), allowing bestiality or pedophilia. They are false equivalences. Nobody is seriously arguing for the legalization of incest or pedophilia apart from perhaps some ancaps.

The argument is that gay men and women are fundamentally, by birth, attracted primarily to the same-sex, and therefore will be happiest and most productive if allowed to marry others of the same-sex and produce children via surrogacy or adoption within that plane of existence.

AIDS is not inherent to gay sex in particular.

Condom use is prudent for all unmarried adults.

Gays have much better health outcomes when permitted to marry and have kids.

news-medical.net/news/20170413/Study-finds-positive-health-outcomes-among-married-LGBT-couples.aspx

There is not a good deal of EVIDENCE; however, that being gay is a choice apart from Christian conservatives who wish to criminalize homosexuality.

two of our states allow gay couples to adopt so idk what you're on about there. a family isn't contingent on getting married user. Adoption for gay couples is another thing i lean to being against though as the studies show that the child has a much higher chance of suicide, depression, anxiety, being gay, etc... people are paid to be a foster parent over here anyways so i would rather straight couples to take the burden if at all possible.
>germany does not have gay marriage
so it's an irrelevant comparison then
>Spain has gay marriage and bestiality is not legal there nor has it become legal since the adoption of it.
yes but what has though? oh wait, it's fucking transgender bathroom bullshit!!!!!! clearly this points to a fucking TREND user lifesitenews.com/news/spanish-bishops-denounce-totalitarian-transgender-bathroom-law

Incest marriage and gay marriage are certainly equivalent from a point of principle. The illegal aspect of incest is a furphy, it would just have to be decriminalised as homosexuality was. The 'it is harmful' argument doesn't fly when it is perfectly conceivable that an incestous couple could have a romantic or sexually relationship at least as healthy as most homosexual relationships which are usually in fact incredibly dysfunctional. This is especially so in situations such as where close blood relatives only meet for the first time later in life as adults.

If you support gay marriage on principle, you must support incest marriage on principle. The 'Its unhealthy' argument is trash and hypocritical.

Majority of Australia does not allow gay adoption therefore laws are not at parity. Having the right to say you are married matters. It is a social constraint as much as a biological one. Much of the higher rates of mental illness among gays can be eliminated or at least ameliorated by giving them the same access to marriage and adoption rights as heterosexuals get.

To me, transgender rights are a separate issue because transgender people are to me, gay, but do not see themselves as gay. They have a different approach to life.

No but it's inherent to sodomy, the only way gays can have sex. If gay wasn't a thing, aids would've gone the way of sars.

>Gays have much better health outcomes when permitted to marry and have kids.

So you're saying if we allow incest marriage then incestous couples will also overcome the unhealthy aspects of their relationship like gays do?

I'm not arguing whatever that first paragraph is about
Marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story. You can't have gay marriage just as you can't have a square circle

Because the vote will end in a definite NO and lefties will start wrecking the country.

I'm not even joking with this either

Morals aren't democratic.

Is heterosexual love and incest compatible. If so, why do I not see arguments based on that? If incest is comparable to a sexual orientation, well it is not. Enough. Your arguments are never directly about the similarities of gay marriage to somehow legalizing incest but about critiquing homosexuals when much of the downtrodden status of homosexuals results from them being denied open acceptance and equal rights in the first place. Incest would continue to be harmful to healthy breeding, legalized or not. Homosexuality never results directly in children.

Straight people have sodomy as well.

They cannot overcome the unhealthy breeding patterns that incest causes.

That's why aids is only 23% from heterosexual contact, which makes no mention of how many of those were because the dude was bi.

>Incest would continue to be harmful to healthy breeding, legalized or not.

I already addressed this. If the incestous couple had themselves sterilised or heir tubes tied then that element is eliminated. Once that is done there is absolutely nothing on principle to differentiate an incestous couple from a homosexual couple for the purposes of marriage.

You are saying that gays should be able to marry due to 'inherent' sexual orientation or perhaps love. But this should not matter at all whether it is inherent or not. What matters is the sexual attraction or love, which can also exist between an incestous couple.

Otherwise you would be setting up a test whereby gays could not marry the other sex if they so chose, or straights could not marry the same sex if they so chose. You would need to prove some sort of immutable sexual orientation from birth in order to determine if and who you can marry.

In sum, there is not a jot of difference between a sterile consenting incestous couple and a consenting gay couple.

AIDS absolutely disproportionately affects the gay community but that is not an argument against marriage rights.

People who practice incest can simply cease doing it an engage in normal relationships. It is not an orientation. The inherency matters a lot. Incest is not a sexual orientation. People who are homosexual who do not have sex are still homosexual. People who are interested in incest but do not practice it are not incest-sexual.

poor guy comes into town from the station and sees that shit everywhere

>Having the right to say you are married matters.
you have that right and you can go get married somewhere else if you want the symbolic church bullshit.
>Much of the higher rates of mental illness among gays can be eliminated or at least ameliorated by giving them the same access to marriage and adoption rights as heterosexuals get.
we differ in opinions here as i believe that legislation will not help as i think it's an amalgam of social stigma, predisposition to mental illness and the realisation that you will never have biological offspring that causes the majority of mental illness in gays. forcing legislation won't help with that imo but i would rather wait to see the long term studies before i jump to conclusions.
>To me, transgender rights are a separate issue because transgender people are to me, gay, but do not see themselves as gay. They have a different approach to life.
yes it is a separate issue but that is besides the point. the left will clearly jump to the next issue the day after as trends clearly show which is what i want to prevent. i do not need my kids asking me why the guy reading to kids at the library is wearing a dress and why he can't play with legos at school because they're not gender neutral enough

now that's just incestphobic and bigoted

>It is not an orientation. The inherency matters a lot. Incest is not a sexual orientation. People who are homosexual who do not have sex are still homosexual. People who are interested in incest but do not practice it are not incest-sexual.

Putting aside that this is a very stilted view of what constitutes a sexual orientation, who is to say that some are not born inherently predisposed to be attracted to their close blood relatives? Why would that not be a sexual orientation? Would it matter if it was socialised as opposed to inherent at birth?

Nobody is even entirely sure what causes homosexuality yet or if it is immutable, so you can't actually really even get on the inherency high horse

Even so you would still be denying two people who love each other from marrying, whether or not they can go and bang someone else

By the way what the fuck is with anti-Christians demanding the right to get married?

You are just being silly now.

>People who practice incest can simply cease doing it an engage in normal relationships. It is not an orientation

Oh and also

"People who practice homosexuality can simply cease doing it an engage in normal relationships. It is not an orientation"

Now ask yourself if you sound like the homophobes you hate, and whether you are just standing in the same position in relation to incestous couples

Not an argument

because everyone has to have their cake and eat it too

People who engage in incest are not known to have a fundamental attraction only to those who they are related to. They don't date only their family members, to the exclusion of others. Incest is a choice, being gay is not a choice.

Fucking bigot.

There are not children who are attracted near-exclusively to images and physical figures of people related to them, at the exclusion of non-related people. It is not an orientation and therefore does not merit the same rights. Homosexuality can be detected in children and is persistent throughout a lifetime in ways incest is not.

>Incest is a choice

People don't choose they fall in love with user. Would you really deny two people in love the right to marry because they lack a 'sexual orientation for incest'? You

but if i was stuck in the Oedipus complex development phase i would have the right to marry my parent because it's not my fault i was born that way?

No but incest is not a lifetime preference found in children that persists to adulthood.

No.

Congrats on wrecking everybody in the thread

Why does this matter?

Are you saying that if I was gay I wouldn't be allowed to marry a woman for the purpose of procreation because I'm not sexually attracted to her?

Just fuck off Homosexuals, since pol allowed your flag you are outragesly annoying. Your sexuality is fucking unimportant, the best tolerance is ignoring what you identify as. You split our Society. You aren't fucking important you dramaqueens, you can fuck each other without very few complaining and merely anyone harming you, fuck your emotions and stick them into your ass, if Australia gives you Attention or not isn't important. I guess you are just trolls, nobody else would Show such an immense amount of stupidity. Literally fuck yourselves and be satisfiyed, you all just have a kink not fiting into heterosexual norms. LGBT doesn't matter, cry baby, cry.

Nope, I believe that anyone should be able to marry a woman or a man to their own preference. I wouldn't dare discriminate against bisexuals.

that is the most bigoted thing i have heard all day. you clearly need to spend more time in the re-education camps