So my countrymen,
what will you vote for this coming november?
pls provide good arguments. Im leaning towards yes, but I'm mindful of the slippery slop idea, the fact that children need a mum and dad, and also that the normalisation and promotion of homosexuality is no good as a whole.
However, I also recognise that they (the homos), want it so I'm like whatever just give em what they want.
so yeah, argument for and against pls
Other urls found in this thread:
gaymarriage.procon.org
youtube.com
washingtonpost.com
archive.is
en.wikipedia.org
advocate.com
archive.is
nytimes.com
archive.is
christiantoday.com
chaladze.com
archive.is
nature.com
en.wikipedia.org
liveabout.com
nydailynews.com
archive.is
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
youtube.com
face-book.com
aph.gov.au
humanrights.gov.au
thedenverchannel.com
archive.is
irishtimes.com
archive.is
youtube.com
twitter.com
...
Vote against it. I say this because the status quo must be maintained or else the flood gates are going to open and the consequences look like this;
>first gays get a say and the laws are reformed to accept them. Children can now be adopted by gay couples and sometimes sexually abused.
>then its people with fucked up sexual desires i.e. beastiality who want laws to be reformed and accept them which has already happened in Canada.
>then finally its pedophiles who want to legally have a say and want the age of consent to be lowered which will be supported by cucked left.
This website goes over the pros and cons of gay marriage;
>However, I also recognise that they (the homos), want it so I'm like whatever just give em what they want.
so if they want your bike, you better give it to them you cuck
changing the foundation of civilization to suit 2% of the pop is fucking stupid, you dont need marriage to love someone, they should be happy with what they have instead of ruining it for the rest of society, nothing wrong with civil unions, but you cannot have marriage, no civilization has ever been built on SSM
this is my vote
youtube.com
Genetic Evidence of Homosexuality:
advocate.com
nytimes.com
christiantoday.com
chaladze.com
Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers:
nature.com
The benefits of gay marriage:
liveabout.com
nydailynews.com
One of the great thing about traps, is that they don't give much of a fuck about being cûckjoined... only cock-joyed
>Genetic Evidence of Homosexuality:
There is also genetic evidence for cancer so what?
vote no for the banter
they just push and push.
its illegal to assault a faith.
just go to the registry office you hethan cunts.
Well generally support for people who cannot control how they are is stronger. People don't claim to ban interracial marriage because Blacks do not control their race and are born that way. Discrimination against inborn traits is generally frowned upon in developed countries.
Shut your cunt mouth and die of AIDS, faggot.
it would be cool if all you wanted was to be recognized as married and live out your lives.
but no, thats not the case. and so i will vote no, like every sane individual, not out of hatred or homophobia. but because it's whats best, especially for homos.
This sort of paternalistic and patronizing attitude is likely why gay marriage will pass at some point anyways. People are tired of others trying to play gatekeeper for them.
"Sure you can have this, but only if you never ask me for anything again!"
You don't get to make that decision.
I see we've got another methed up freak on Sup Forums. Hey, do us a favour and throw yourself of a roof top, you child abusing sodomite.
h-holy shit
Homosexuality is natural but also is cancer and well both don't benefit humanity at all
>you dont get to make that decision
but i do
>paternalistic and patronizing
typical misunderstanding.
this doesn't just affect you. "the gays" this affects society as a whole.
stop flinging shit and grow up.
Just because you are a man and find men sexually attractive does not mean that you HAVE TO be with them.
I'm voting no because the faggots that invaded and spam /r9k/ with their ERP loli hookup threads are really gross and obnoxious and just shit up everything. So now I hate faggots.
Female relatives of gay men have 1.3x as many children:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Well no but we don't force straight men to be with men so why should we force gay men to be with women?
But you don't and the inevitability of why this has come up as such a pressing issue is proof of that. There is no path to forcing gays to never be able to get married.
We should have a free vote in Parliament
Barring that a postal vote could come in favor of gays, triggering a free vote, or against, triggering a court decision in favor of gays.
Either way this will all likely help Labor win big in 2019 elections if gay marriage doesn't somehow pass before then.
>so why should we force gay men to be with women?
Who is forcing gay men to be with women?
You fags do normally have daddy issues
ye this is a big factor if i vote no. just wanna see lefties get triggered
Well some are certainly trying.
see pic
thats hardly an argument to get me to vote no, which i am open to
Ugh this is such garbage. They can't even work out what causes type 1 diabetes but they're supposed to be able to spot which genes are the assfuck faggot genes? And they confirm their hypothesis how? Grooming the kid to be a faggot his entire life? This is why I think most gays are reprehensible pedophiles.
My job isn't to convince you that sodomy is evil, anymore than it is to convince you that murder and theft is evil. My job is to put my boot on the necks of child molesting faggots and degenerates.
ur gonna lose the plebiscite with that attitude
So many problems would be solved if grown men could have relationships with young boys.
Women are far too privileged and have fucked up society for too damn long.
Women will increasingly become the upper caste of our newly stratified society. Young boys will feel the pinch more and more from how the women around them treat them as a subhuman species.
If grown men could interject and get boys away from toxic anti-male/pro-female society and culture, then men would grow up happy, content and free.
Who cares what they want?
When have feefees ever been actually important?
>t the lamest super hero ever
I'll be voting no of course like all sane people. Only fags and stupid women will vote yes.
>gay marriage is a pressing issue
totally. nothing else going on.
this is why people are disgusted with you spoiled, narcissistic a-holes
the only reason its even being talked about is because its gonna get you cock suckers to vote with whatever side agrees and you will fuck up the country in the process.
all because you wanted to get married. congratulations. you sure showed us
Well no, if it were a specific gene it would have come up in genetic testing of related homosexuals that has been done countless times.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
There is a concordance between same sex attracted identical twins and similarities on chromosome 8 as well as, especially, the XQ28 region of the X chromosome though.
There is also the factor of epigenetic tags that are found to give up to 70% similarity in predictive power for whether identical twins will be gay. Those are methylated attachments to DNA that do not alter the DNA itself but merely how it is expressed.
u reckon no will win?
I believe immigration reform is equally pressing for Australia. If they legalized gay marriage they could move on to that issue but some conservatives have failed to realize that social conservatism is not only unwieldy and polarizing, but also unpopular and at best a distraction from real issues. Social conservatism is dead in developed countries.
I used to work with a homo, and I mentioned to him that I'm Christian. He started getting a bit uppity at me for no real good reason, even after I told it that I don't care what he does with his life. I remember him asking me what my political views are, and his exact words were
>"Are you conservative or are you open-minded?"
Later on that day in the lunch-room we were watching the news, and there was a story about the then-new Pope Francis. This queer immediately starts bashing and insulting Christianity while I was in direct earshot of me. If I made fun of homos, even out of banter, I would be immediately sacked.
We've had two or three more homos come through work, and I had almost the exact same experience with them.
These people are sick in the head and act like spoilt children who were never told 'no'. I'm voting against homo marriage, because I know how bigoted and spiteful and selfish and hateful these people truly are. Not to mention the higher rates of drug abuse, pedophilia, domestic violence, STDs, suicide, etc.
A vote for 'no' is a vote for human decency.
I like the idea of voting no, to take a stand against the degeneracy in general. To say to these weird ppl, look no, you aren't normal and we aren't going to tolerate this weird shit like it is normal.
I like the way you think, user.
Vote No to faggotry
I'm voting no this is where we push back fuck faggots. The purge is coming soon.
I'm voting no because it's such a lazy solution to a nuanced problem.
Firstly, civil unions give gay couples the exact same rights as a married couple.
Secondly, to just say "Gays can marry now. It's a right." would force churches to do things that go against their value systems.
Thirdly, it doesn't actually make gays any happier/reduce suicide rates/etc.
Honestly though, if they just seperated church/state marriage systems, I would care a hell of a lot less. As in, the church doesn't have to acknowledge any marriages they choose not to, and can choose to not marry couples without repurcussion.. But no, that's too easy.
Gays spread degeneracy, they have been given plenty of freedom over the last few decades and all they have done is spread more degeneracy.
Marriage as an institution is on the decline, this is just another attack on this fundamental pillar of our community.
If they get gay marriage they aren't going to shut up, the next thing will be some shit like gays adopting kids so they can molest them or feed them hormone blockers.
If this vote gets a no, then fuckwit Shorten will think twice about ANOTHER expensive vote to make Australia a republic. If it's yes they might decide to waste our fucking tax dollars again instead of sorting shit out in parliament.
Gays have perfectly adequate options outside of marriage - youtube.com
Yes true, I'm not Christian but I think its terrible the way religious people are being bullied by the so called "tolerant left" in all the places where SSM is legal, persecution of religious people is never to far behind, like that Christian baker that got sued by a gay couple, that's why I'm voting no, I can't see how legalisation of SSM and freedom of religion can both exist, especially when we live in a post-18C Australia
Its not even legally binding, its just a way for the fed to swing their dicks wasting taxpayers money. Provided that it doesnt get cancelled, literally nothing will happen either way afterwards
I'm voting Yes because I believe that freedom and equality are the most important ideals of Western civilization.
What separates us from the tyrannies of the Middle East or Africa is our ability to be rational and empathetic. Our civilization is based on creating a world that is ultimately fair to everyone, while ensuring that personal liberty is never infringed upon. Right now homosexuals don't have the same liberties as you or I, despite being citizens of the same nation. And marriage is no longer a strictly religious custom, it is a legal act which infers benefits and rights to families, and currently gay people have no other legal partnership that is as strong.
A vote for Yes is a vote for freedom, and a vote for freedom is reaffirming that Western Civilization is still supreme.
im voting no just because this is the 4th thread in 2 days about this and i want to spite you faggots.
here is your write-up op. homosexuality is amoral and should not be condoned, celebrated, or accepted in any capacity. i dont care if you want to spread aids between the rest of you subhumans, but i dont want to your incessant need to be validated come at the cost of my freedoms, rights, or the will of others.
besides, what comes after gay marriage is legalized? bestiality? child marriages? fuck you, you are the initiators of a slippery slope that will drag us all down to a state of being even below yours. the solution of gay marriage solves what problem you idiots are facing? you want to get married, what for? why would you ever need to get married. you cant have children, and as such the sanctity and benefits of such a system should be denied to you, as the very purpose of marriage all the way back when the concept was invented was to officially recognize the advent of a new family, no just give 2 people the right to have sex and not have children.
and no, donating to a sperm bank doesnt count as starting a family you fucking mongoloid.
I'll be voting no.
In Australia homosexual couples are already seen as partners in a civil union. We already have equal rights. As a man, I have the right to marry a woman the same as any man has the right to marry a woman.
Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman under God to the exclusion of all else. Children need both a mother and father and its a very slippery slope to go down.
Already the left is using this slope to push the transgender narrative, lowering the age of consent, and even heading towards normalizing pedophilia. This is being done in places like Canada and the US, but also under our very noses here in Australia with programs like 'safe schools'.
For these reasons I will be voting NO
>marriage is no longer a strictly religious custom
Keyword is "strictly". You can't simply give homosexuals the right to marriage without also infringing on religious freedoms.
>gay people have no other legal partnership that is as strong
Civil unions. Alternatively, just make a new system separate to marriage that churches don't have to take part in that gays and straight people can use if you don't like that answer for no real reason.
>actively and knowingly taking part in the cultural and moral degradation of your society
Fucking traitorous behaviour.
The Australian gay marriage bill will have explicit religious exemptions. No priest or Church ANYWHERE has EVER been made to conduct a gay wedding.
face-book.com
The tolerant left strikes again...
Will it? Have you seen the exact legislature which will be passed should a "yes" vote come back?
No one has. We're voting blind. None of us have any idea what the fuck a yes vote will actually result in, or other than directly pander to a fucked cultural decline.
Firstly, no it doesn't. If a church is to recognize one marriage, it has to recognize them all. This goes directly against most major religions. Secondly, How about civilians with businesses not wanting to take part it them either?
Tolerance is literally a dying virtue of society you fucking dunce.
Well, no but there is no proposed version that doesn't contain religious exemptions and nobody has suggested doing so. Even then even without explicit religious exemptions no church or priest anywhere has ever been forced to marry a gay couple.
>How about civilians with businesses not wanting to take part it them either?
Too bad. Making a cake is not endorsing gay marriage.
Got a choice of going to Queensland or Victoria
Fuck off we're full
Unless you want to murder some fags
Also discriminating against gay people is already explicitly illegal in Australia:
aph.gov.au
I'm here on UN business, watch your mouth or ill get you deported
>Too bad. Making a cake is not endorsing gay marriage.
It is if it's for a gay wedding, yes.
Every business owner has the right to deny service to anyone they choose. Apparently, unless the business owner is religious and the person being denied is a homosexual.
Being dismissive isn't helping your argument.
Don't. Slippery slope is very real. If you call it marriage equality and say only requirement is "2 consenting adults" and that "it's about love" the next natural step is incest. From there, you can justify just about anything.
After gay marriage was legalized, there was a surge of shit about legalizing incest (and even pedophilia) from leftwing outlets. It is very much a slippery slope. Feels do not justify the consequences.
No but bakeries have been sued for refusing to bake cakes.
Voting yes is legit retarded.
Coming into Australia Victoria soon to celebrate the passing of gay marriage xx.
Good on you Australia being a beacon of progressive hope, cant wait to move there and start a gay rights club
Kill yourself. Go to either and spout that nonsense off and you'll have your head caved in hopefully.
Easy there Sanjeev! I was already deported here for stealing a loaf of bread
Well that is already illegal in Australia apart from gay marriage:
humanrights.gov.au
From 1 August 2013 it will be unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status under federal law. Same-sex couples are now also protected from discrimination under the definition of ‘marital or relationship status’. These new protections will particularly apply to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, gender diverse and intersex people.
The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Act 2013 (Cth) (SDA Amendment Act) inserts these new grounds into the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA).
People will be able to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission if they believe they have been discriminated against on the basis of these new grounds.
Most states and territories have some form of protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; however, the SDA Amendment Act introduces more inclusive definitions and addresses gaps such as a lack of coverage for acts or practices of the federal government. It also includes the new ground of intersex status.
KYS please.
Are there exemptions to unlawful discrimination?
Yes. The SDA includes provisions that provide that in certain circumstances the discrimination will not be unlawful. These are called either ‘exceptions’ or ‘exemptions’. Some of the existing provisions in the SDA will now also apply to the new grounds as well as introducing new exemptions specifically for sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. These include for conduct in compliance with the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), for conduct in compliance with prescribed Commonwealth, State or Territory laws, and for requests for information and record keeping in relation to sex and/or gender.
The SDA Amendment Act also qualifies the exemptions for religious organisations to the effect that it does not apply to conduct connected with the provision of Commonwealth-funded aged care services.
women vote for this shit because when the see someone being retarded, they would rather enable them to prevent a confrontation. men will confront the problem to solve it, of course.
Passport came into today anyways xx coming back to my homeland
Spread the word, lets shut down these antifa thugs on tumblr. Raid is next Friday (18th). Spam all the pepes and swastikas to all left wing and antifa pages
Ugh I hate laymen using abstracts to try prove points. This is why the media and their "science" stories need to fuck right off. That article talks about the "gay gene" and then freely admits it's a meme and doesn't even exist. Therefore every OTHER source you've linked that mentions gay genetics is entirely bunk. Don't try and source arguements with sources you haven't read. To whit;
>It has no biochemical makeup. It cannot be tested or experimented on. The original hypothesis by Hamer, Magnuson, and Pattatucci (1993 Hamer , D. , Magnuson , H. , & Pattatucci , A. ( 1993 ). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation . Science , 261 , 321 – 327 .
[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
), that there is a correlation between the X chromosome genetic marker—Xq28—and gay male sexuality, has never been replicated. However, it has a kind of life and it exists as an idea, a repetition, a discursive pattern, an emotional effect, a label, and a hypothesis. It appears in scientific journals, newspaper articles, popular science writings, databases, and Web sites.
IE it doesn't exist. It's entirely hypothetical. There is NO scientific basis for a "gay gene" and it only exists as a meme.
t.medstudent
Already illegal in Australia to discriminate against gays since 2013.
>Well that is already illegal in Australia
It sure as hell shouldn't be. Australia is a "progressive" shithole though.
Im gona vote no, then gona write something about the jews on the ballot paper, take a pic of it then post it here.
Noice.
I never said there is one gene proven to be it, I said there is evidence that it is genetic and that there are concordances in the genetics of identical twins at particular regions of Chromosomes 8 and X, as well as epigenetic tags that correspond to sexual orientation near 70% of the time.
I'll be voting no.
Firstly, In Australia homosexual couples are already seen as partners in a civil union, which give gay couples the exact same rights as a married couple.
We already have equal rights. As a man, I have the right to marry a woman the same as any man has the right to marry a woman.
Secondly, to just say "Gays can marry now. It's a right." would force churches to do things that go against their value systems.
Thirdly, it doesn't actually make gays any happier/reduce suicide rates/etc. Not to mention the higher rates of drug abuse, pedophilia, domestic violence, STDs, suicide, etc.
Fourthly, Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman under God to the exclusion of all else. Children need both a mother and father and its a very slippery slope to go down.
Already the left is using this slope to push the transgender narrative, lowering the age of consent, and even heading towards normalizing pedophilia. This is being done in places like Canada and the US, but also under our very noses here in Australia with programs like 'safe schools'.
For these reasons I will be voting NO
My gf wants to vote 'yes' because "it's the nice thing to do"
literally been waiting for this thread all day/
is this quite possibly /ourminister/?
Honestly lads, i'm going to be voting yes.
Gays made up and intergral part of our society, they are our friends, doctors, co workers. We shouldent shun - but embrace our differences
ayy, that's some spicy banter
Even more reason to vote no. Thanks.
You do realize it's genetic propensity for example instincts right? Instincts =/= behaviour.
I'd say homosexual behaviour is entirely preventable. Clearly the fa end of the spectrum carries some negative baggage. Prevention and all that of negative behaviour isn't a crazy idea.
Your girlfriend is a moron.
I know, legit thinking of dumping her 2bh
ill have her
>australians
>people
Take her m8, you can deal with her shit
I don't want to discriminate when they have a chance of happiness.
90's kids have a warped view of marriage
paternal security
and material resource security
marriage is a structure that sustains a cohesive society, positive family units that invest into their linage the future of their family and a fair competition between others.
They have re-framed marriage as a emotional expression, hence no fault divorce is common, since if marriage is about emotion of two people why can't a change in that emotion make the union null and void. This is leads up the moral "slippery slope" the the conservatives have warned us about. if you want to have a union with any 2 (or more) consenting people why not, we can only go down from here.
I will vote no, I disagree with the re-framing of marriage by Hollywood, and with take a stand along these lines. Marriage is for maintaining civilization, happy individuals, and raising children, love is a behavioral adaption to this mechanism which makes these actions worth while
Good then we should use crispr to cure your illness. The hundreds of millions put into the plebiscite and tolerance programs can be used to advance science. You're not against science are you?
Record doing it for a laugh and upload her reaction please.
>Voting Yes.
>the British
>bongalong a ding dong crummy wumpy bang shangers
If it were voluntary and CRISPR could do that, sure.
>marriage automatically makes you happy
I've got some bad news for you mate.
>t paedophile rapist potato spawn
Our military is till filled with warcrime on the regular lmao, fuck off nerd.
SpecFor for life nigga.
Years ago I was ok with gay marriage. "Gays should be able to get married. They're not hurting anyone, but why not?" I thought.
Today I would vote no without hesitating for this reason:
youtube.com
The slippery slope argument conservatives made some time ago has already proven itself true. Coming from someone who used to be all about liberalism and shit, I'm undeniably against gay rights now.