Australian gay marriage postal vote

What are your opinions on: (1) gay marriage generally; (2) the attempts to legalise or prohibit gay marriage in Australia; (3) it's a postal plebiscite not a 'real' one - does this make a difference to you; (4) not compulsory - still gonna vote? Pic-related in Ireland the vote succeeded and their culture seems just conservative as Australia if not more, so I don't get why gay people were scared of a proper vote. Now they'll probably lose a non-binding one, seems like they painted themselves into a corner, bad.

Other urls found in this thread:

austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hrca1994297/s4.html
washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/
faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-marriage-christians-communicating-to-secular-friends
pastebin.com/aiTLKLJc
youtube.com/watch?v=-E-P_g75ciM
youtube.com/watch?v=fi-q0ALVzPg
youtube.com/watch?v=n6fgPX3NjyA
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

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?

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)))

mail*

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

Based chinks

This is why transexuals should fuck off from gays

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.

>(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

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

Vote against it lads.

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.

No you are literally Bilal or Waleed

>that pic

CRIKEY

I'll be voting no because I enjoy the butthurt

>tfw no rude kangaroo-punching 'strayan gf

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.

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.
>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.

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.

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.

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.

>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?

Vote no faggot

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

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

Here a pastebin on problem of homosexuality

pastebin.com/aiTLKLJc

Fuck you

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

Obligatory they have a perfectly viable option outside gay marriage
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.

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
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

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.

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?

>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.

Mail. Postal vote.

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).

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

Fuck off

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

This

Hilarious

>(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.

>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.

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

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.

>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"

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!

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.

Typical that a poofta like you has a pink id.

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

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.

'tis a reminder gents. Don't make the same mistake we did.

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

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

That was in Brazil.

>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.

LGBT

Let God Burn Them

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

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

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

This should be the collective response

youtube.com/watch?v=n6fgPX3NjyA

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

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

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?

>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.

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.

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

>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.

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, user.

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.

>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).

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

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?
What was the point of this post?
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?

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?

>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...

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

>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

>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.

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

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.
Most people think this, actually, not just me.
I've done lots of research and I think you're full of shit.

>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.