Here in Australia the government couldn't make a decision, so we're having a plebicite (costs the tax payers an extra 122mil).
Everyone seems to be on board with gays marrying each other.
Are there any negatives to having it?
Does your country have it?
Should I vote no?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
DIVORCE COSTS PUBLIC FUNDS. FUCK GAYS THEY'LL JUST DIVORCE WE ALL KNOW IT
...
you should vote no, just because it'd be funny if the majority ended up voting no.
It will start you down the road to suppression of legitimate religious dissent, transgenderizing kids, polygamy, pedophilia, and zoophilia. We're experiencing the first two stages of that descent in Burgerland, and expect the others to start any day now.
It will not measurably impact the rate of promiscuity and STIs among the LGB community. They will continue having chemsex parties, bugchasing, and pozzing neg holes.
Marriage is an institution that evolved over thousands of years to have a specific form. It has always been the union of a man and a woman. The manner of contracting marriages sometimes changes, and some societies allow men of status to take multiple wives, but it has always been a man and a woman. There is no evidence that changing it to man and man, or woman and woman, will have any benefit. There is evidence that changing it will cause widespread and catastrophic changes in sexual mores. Choose wisely.
Does anyone have a link to the actual bill being passed?
Slippery slope. Look at Canada. Refuse to call some mentally ill person Xer and you'll be prosecuted.
People who disagree will be persecuted - we'll have gay activists travelling the country to find businesses and organisations who don't want to pander to their degeneracy because of religious or moral beliefs, and they'll be taken to court.
It's just the start.
Vote no, if no wins it would be one of the greatest shitposts of all time
1/2
It's not a bill (yet).
Our government (nominally conservative) went to the last election promising they'd hold a non-binding plebiscite to decide if they'd allow a vote in parliament on gay marriage. They won the election - not on this issue alone, however.
Their leader at the time (based Tones) kept putting his foot in his mouth, and while he stopped the boats and did all sorts of other stuff to piss off the left, his approval ratings were dropping in the polls because all the lefties were constantly screeching every day.
Enter backstabbing kike, Malcolm Turnball. He undermined based Tones, organised a coup in the party room and won a vote to replace Tones.
Turncoat is a weak cunt, and couldn't keep his party room under control. The plebiscite was pretty much off the radar while Turncoat show boated around.
2/2
A small group of "progressives" from within the government were busted boasting at private functions how they were about to introduce a private members bill into the parliament to force the issue on gay marriage. The government only holds a 1 seat majority in the lower house, so it would only take 2 of them to cross the floor to get it to pass.
The Senate is full of commies and leftists, so if it passed the lower house, it would be signed into law.
Based Tones rallied the faithful, and another coup was boiling - this time for Turncoat silently supporting the private members bill. He was presented with the numbers and realised he'd lose a vote in the party room, so was forced to revive the plebiscite idea. This is where we are now.
>Everyone seems on board with gays marrying each other
Firstly, don't believe the media. Everyone was on board with the UK remaining and Hillary winning as well.
Secondly, you only need to look at who was fighting against it (Labor and Greens) to understand the true story. Have you ever known the left in this country to care about the cost to the Tax payer? Rudd handed out his stimulus package to everyone who asked for it at great cost for zero gain. The only reason why they'd be against it is because they know it's not going to go in their favour. Everything else like the bullshit explanation of "Gays might kill themselves" is just a smokescreen.
Finally, this country has 52% of people still identifying as Christian, who will vote on religious grounds. Which is decent enough proof that it's going to fail, add in the muslims who are even more outspoken against the gays. Then there's the people like myself who aren't even religious but understand that when rights are conflicting; you won't be able to please everyone so the best you can do is make sure you please the most you can. Which means respecting the rights of freedom of religion trump the rights for homosexuals to get married.
Taking in all those factors, it's clear the gay marriage will get BTFO in the postal vote, despite how much the media is saying otherwise.
If you actually care about the rights of Homosexuals to get "married" advocate for the full recognition of Civil Unions here in Australia. Which completely removes the conflict, allowing Homosexuals to get the full benefits which marriage provides yet is legally distinct from marriage in so much that Churches and Mosques do not have to perform them and force the states hand in restricting their religious freedoms.
With everyone voting for it, you might as well vote no just to see what it's like if they can't marry in one country.
Could be an interesting social experiment.
I don't mind fags marrying, but why do they want to? Not even straight people want to marry that much.
And why do they want kids? I guess adopting is good, but fucking why? Didn't they learn in biology that 2 men can't generatean offspring?
>full recognition of Civil Unions
According the arcticle, de-facto unions under the Family Law Act 1975 are available to both same sex and opposite sex couples.
To quote the article "Couples who are living together are generally recognised as a de facto union and thus able to claim many of the rights and benefits of a married couple, even if they have not registered or officially documented their relationship"
Differences between a de facto relationship and marriages:
Since 1 March 2009, few legal differences remain with respect to treatment of couples in a de facto relationship and heterosexual couples in a marriage. A few small differences exist between the rights of a de facto couple and a married couple in relation to family law matters, including property settlements and entitlements to spousal maintenance. A de facto relationship must have ended for the Court to make an order for property settlement or spousal maintenance, though this requirement does not exist for married couples. For a de facto partner to seek an order for property settlement, the Court must be satisfied of at least one of the following:
The period of the de facto relationship was for at least two years; or
There is a child in the de facto relationship; or
The relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory; or
That failure to make an order would result in serious injustice due to the significant contributions made by one party.
By way of comparison, for a married couple, it is enough merely to have been married to attract the jurisdiction of the Court for property and spousal maintenance.
1/2
2/2
In 2004, amendments to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act to allow tax free payment of superannuation benefits to be made to the surviving partner on an interdependent relationships, included same sex couples, or a relationship where one person was financially dependent on another person. Prior to 2008, same-sex couples were only recognised by the Federal Government in very limited circumstances. For example, since the 1990s, same-sex foreign partners of Australian citizens have been able to receive residency permits in Australia known as "interdependency visas". Following a national inquiry into financial and work-related discrimination against same-sex relationships, on 21 June 2007, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) released its Same-Sex: Same Entitlements report. The Commission identified 58 Commonwealth law statutes and provisions that explicitly discriminate against same-gender couples by using the term 'member of the opposite sex'.
The previous conservative Howard Government banned its departments from making submissions to the HREOC inquiry regarding financial discrimination experienced by same-sex couples.
The report found that 100 statutes and provisions under federal law discriminated against same-sex couples by using the term 'member of the opposite sex', from Aged Care, Superannuation, Childcare, Medicare (including the PBS) through to Pensions. "All the basics that opposite-gender couples are legally entitled to and take for granted" were things same-sex couples were effectively barred from utilising under the former system.
So it would seem that since 2009, de facto relationships, whether a registered relationship under a Civil Union or similar state scheme attract all the rights that a married couple have when it comes to distribution of assets, childcare, superannuation, etc.
Source: en.wikipedia.org
I don't see a problem
>negatives to it
marriage itself should not be in the hands of the state to begin with but regardless, same sex "marriage" just takes away the meaning of marriage as an institution.
A marriage between a man and a woman is a symbol of their fidelity between one another, a symbol of their love for one another. A love so great that it can produce new life.
fag marriage is completely unproductive in this regard, the bond is purely sensual and material. they cannot produce new life, and when they can they adopt. when they adopt, theres a high chance that they will abuse their child.
>does your country have it?
yes and now they're pushing hard for tranny propaganda and turning young boys into dick ladies
this
when do results come in?
To be fair I don't know enough about Civil unions as I've never had the inclination to look into them at any great depth. It's just the common rebuttal I've always gotten when I bring up the fact that civil unions exist is that they are still supposedly lacking recognition in certain areas in Australia, I did get specifics from one homosexual I was debating but It was years ago now so I can't remember.
bump
It's homo propoganda.
Civil unions recognise them legally. They are free to marry - it's non-discriminatory. They just can't marry someone of the same sex.
Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they aren't human.
Vote no for the great aussie tradition of shitposting.
This
The fags just want more rights for themselves
Selfish cunts
>marriage is religious practice
>religion doesn't recognise gays
>it's a civil rights issue for priests and cake makers who want nothing to do with faggots but will be forced to do something against their will (enslaving priest and bakers!)
>gays don't even want to get married - where gays have been allowed to marry only 1 in every 9001 gay couples actually do it
>they have wasted everyones time with this gay crap in the media
>they wasted everyones money with this voting bullshit
>burgerland proves muh slippery slope is indeed slippery
>next thing we'll have 4yro trannies in the military
>real reason they want this is to further erode your patriotism so you don't care about your country enough to stop them letting in niggers
It's a non-issue, vote no for wasting our tax dollars
I'm gonna vote no to spite the gay people I dislike and cuz it'll be funny
This. I don't think any civil libertarian in the country can argue the religious liberties haven't been violated as a direct consequence of gay marriage being legalized and sexual orientation becoming protected under the civil rights act. You also see pedophilia slowly being pushed into the public by these same types who pushed for gay marriage.