Auspol: Poofta Marriage Vote

>inb4 another fucking thread arguing about whether pooftaism is against God and all the shit....

Here's the salient points
>govt. announces [non-compulsory] postal vote for poofta marriage
>majority of the population don't give a fuck and their postal vote will be lucky to be put in the recycling let alone used, posted and lodged correctly.
>there are a lot more old funglies who hate poofs and will make sure they vote than there are mincing queers desperate for a marriage certificate who'll also make sure they vote
>therefore: the vote will be no.
>there's no obligation to do as the poll results say anyway.
Govt. could've saved a shitload of time, money and effort if they'd just had the balls to introduce a private members bill as a conscience vote.

>PwC modelling finds gay marriage plebiscite would result in $280m in lost productivity
>That cost comes on top of $158m for nationwide campaign
archive.is/4xsoZ

Also: Poofs have had the same defacto rights as the rest of us since fucken years ago
>A de facto relationship is defined in Section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975. The law requires that you and your former partner, who may be of the same or opposite sex, had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis.
familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/family-law-matters/separation-and-divorce/defacto-relationships/

Marriage is literally a certificate and this whole thing is more about a politically motivated bunch of poofs winning a semantic argument than anything else.
>t. married for 20 yrs.

Other urls found in this thread:

au.educationhq.com/news/41864/anti-gay-marriage-dress-claim-fake-school/
youtube.com/watch?v=qlgkDCZI1CQ
youtube.com/watch?v=eyVX3uJpqxc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>>there are a lot more old funglies who hate poofs and will make sure they vote NO than there are mincing queers desperate for a marriage certificate who'll also make sure they vote YES

The main point they have is that defacto relationships don't have the same rights as family members or spouses when it comes to death and hospitals.

Imo, they should just change defactos to be a little better, then nobody will complain.

It's not about any of that.
It's about finding any excuse to push a political agenda.

Guess /pol is too busy felching their boyfriends to take notice.

>ywn have a yummy mummy agonising over her kids being pillow-biters.

If you read a bit about it you'll find that legally they pretty much have the same rights you or I have if we're in a defacto hetro relationship. Maybe some stuff about DNR or whatnot but that can be taken care of legally within a will

I know it's similar, that's the only legitimate point they have cunt.

She made up a story about a science teacher telling her son that next year he could wear a dress or something and pulled him out of school.

au.educationhq.com/news/41864/anti-gay-marriage-dress-claim-fake-school/

>It's about finding any excuse to push a political agenda.
I don't even agree with that - pooftas have had the same rights (if not more protection) in the eyes of the law for many years. There's not much they aren't entitled to that straight people don't already have.
It's more about some politicians grinding an axe.

Something tells me homeschooling isn't going to benefit that kid...

>that's the only legitimate point they have cunt.
Actually it's a moot point and should be ignored as such.

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.

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 the 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.

>In South Australia a person in a de facto partnership cannot be listed on their partner's death certificate.
So SA has laws separate from Federal govt.?
>From 1 March 2009, parties to an eligible de facto relationship which has broken down can apply to the Family Court or the Federal Circuit Court to have financial matters determined in the same way as married couples.
From the link I posted earlier.
Everything else in your post can LEGALLY be dealt with as a couple in a will or Enduring Power of Attorney.

>- if a de facto partnership conferred on the members of the partnership all the rights and responsibilities and benefits of a marriage, why wouldn't you call it a marriage?
So you're literally reinforcing my point that it's about semantics.

The whole """debate""" has been one of semantics fampai.

Why should gay people be subject to extra legal steps to hold the same rights?

What do meets think of this chart I made?

...

I think you're confusing common sense (having a will) with some sort of "extra step" that you poor victimised pooftas need to take in order to be legally protected under the law.
>tfw my missus and I have had wills since before our first kid came along - essentially when we had something worth money and someone to leave it to.

>ausfag
>chart doesnt flow right
Someth8ng somethijg auzzie maps.

Why do gays have to hire a lawyer to get rights straights can get with marriage?

>get my paperwork for the vote in the mail
>open it up
>says my license number is not verified and have to fill out another fucking form and send it away

I gave up then this retarded government cant even get their paperwork right.

>it's about semantics.
>There's not much they aren't entitled to that straight people don't already have.
>Imo, they should just change defactos to be a little better, then nobody will complain.
>more about a politically motivated bunch of poofs winning a semantic argument than anything else.

You're damn right it's about semantics, it's about the simple FACT that you DON'T. HAVE. THE RIGHT. to tell somebody that they're less of a human with less of a relationship than you.

I don't care if there's not a single cent cost, second wasted or minor inconvenience associated with being in a 'civil partnership' as opposed to a marriage. This is about demanding that the government of my country treat me the god damn same as every other person in the country.

The issue is not one of physical inequality (though that objectively and unequivocally exists too), it's of the patronising, superior abuse of power of a government to tell a group of people who happen to be in the minority that because they're different to the ones in power that they don't get to be treated the same. It's the mere assumption that whether or not I'm married is any of their business, or that they have the right to tell people whether or not my relationship is worth as much as somebody else's.

Sitting at the back of the bus is still a bus ride, nigger, why are you complaining? You've got a perfectly good separate water fountain right next to OUR one.

Double income, no children. They can afford it.

What is surrogacy?

What is adoption?

What is kids from previous heterosexual relationships?

You have the same right to get married as any other Australian. If you don't want to, then don't get one. It's that simple Clarence.

God i'm looking forward to when all the moral decay you faggots have thrown upon society causes it to collapse and we can then purge knowing what damage you do to it. It's literally gunna be Rome 2.0

What is idiocy?

>Why do whiney millennial cunts whinge about have to hire a lawyer to get a will or Power of Attorney when the rest of the world rolls up their sleeves and just fucking gets on with it?

Transfer of Property etc. is not automatically inferred just by marriage. If it was there wouldn't be divorce courts.

Also, if they're gay why do they have kids from when they were straight? I thought they were born gay, so why did they get married in the first place?

>fags watch TBBT
this image is confirmed NOT fake

They have kids from before they accepted being gay?

Lel. You lot are constantly telling us whites how we're lesser humans.

Vote NO!

Does that mean gays are the true homophones?

America here to ruin another thread

what up my fellow kangaroos

So which one of you legends has started a mass triggering at Macquarie University?

I'm white.
You get water too, nigger. You get a bus ride too, nigger. You just have to do it MY WAY because you're different and I'm in charge.
Dude, I'm just as disgusted by Safe Schools and all that Greens/Labour trash as you are. I just don't want the gubmint telling me who I can and can't marry. Not their business- not their right to say I'm worth less than another Australian.

AYO HOLD UP!
I'MMA LET YOU FINISH IN A MINUTE BUT THIS HERE NIGGA HAS THE BEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIME!!!
youtube.com/watch?v=qlgkDCZI1CQ

>pooftas eternally assblasted by a nigger

Eyyy burger. You waist deep in water yet?

>I don't care if there's not a single cent cost, second wasted or minor inconvenience associated with being in a 'civil partnership' as opposed to a marriage. This is about demanding that the government of my country treat me the god damn same as every other person in the country.
Found the tumblrite.
You're right, you are a special snowflake and you do deserve to get treated like everyone else.
Why isn't there a beige flag I can use to post as "Straight"?

Fuck off cunt.

>Why should gay people be subject to extra legal steps to hold the same rights?
Because they're not the same as normal people. End of discussion.

Define normal.

White heteros dummy.

Anyway, a lot of shitskins like gooks and your Muslim lover boys will be voting no. Talk about an own goal.

>I wanna be a mechanic
>I don't want to work in a shop on cars and other motor vehicles, I just want to be called a mechanic.
>(You)

Good, faggot

Straight

You don't get it do you? Tolerance is the bare minimum any society that wants to sustain itself can afford, you cannot be accepted. Let me break it down for you

>evolution>race>religion>morality>civilization

civilization relies on morality which relies on religion which relies on race which relies on evolution. Homosexuality is anti evolution, an evolutionary dead end, a curse upon a species. This hurts the race, which the religion was based upon which hurts the religion which hurts the morality and which hurts the civilization. Too much of a deviation from this chain and you're society will collapse. Just as Rome did.

Who watched Q&A? I was autistically screeching at that abo cunt the whole time and his shit song

Macquarie uni is chinked so bad. Why bother.

You'd be better off sticking them up in normal streets.

False flag by the same poofs that put up the socialism posters

fuck!

>full

I'm really conflicted goys, on one hand I don't give a fuck about fags and what they do but on the other hand, we've already undermined almost every traditional institution, and it never seems to benefit society at large.

Redpill me on NO cunts

see

>I just don't want the gubmint telling me who I can and can't marry.
While they may have in the past they sure as fuck don't any longer. If you want to "marry" your chihuahua you probably can find someone somewhere who'll do it. As long as you don't try to consummate it you're probably right.

I actually didn't mind Dan Sultan before that. Still I never knew the Lambie was a boong either, so there you go.

>we've already undermined almost every traditional institution, and it never seems to benefit society at large.
You already redpilled yourself

They will push and push, so you should fight for every inch
Nothing is too far for them

I'm not pro fag but there's obviously a reason for homosexuality since it's apparently prevelant in many mammalian species. I would just say it's a way for males to dominate each other in terms of heirachy. Just like prison sex, though that also has sexual frustration elements so probably not a good comparison. Either way, it's there in evolution but it's not as simple as what the leftists believe i,e. Some people just love the opposite sex

Do it just to stir those faggots up.

Also it's the quintessentially Australian thing to do:
youtube.com/watch?v=eyVX3uJpqxc

But not "homosexual marriage"

It has no more reason then down syndrome has, it is a genetic defect, or in times on great lust a substitute for women. It has no reason, just like any other genetic defect has none.

Voting NO will cause the most asshurt and if it passes a few poofs are bound to kill themselves meaning you have participated in removing faggot filth from the world and cannot be charged for it.

I just laughed when he kept going on about changing Australia Day when Lambe was talking about sexual abuse in Abo communities. He just kept going back to that stupid point and basically ignoring it. Lamb dog was on point pretty much, she doesn't afraid of anything

Poofs getting married aren't a problem in themselves, its a symptom of a much more serious rot. Don't get too caught up on it.

Let us dissect the delusional phrase, “homosexuality is not a choice.”First, we must establish some axioms and definitions.
– One is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessary activity or desire.
– Biologically necessary activities or desires are those without which a species cannot perpetuate itself through generations: e.g., procurement and consumption of resources, expurgation of waste, survival to sexual maturity, sexual reproduction, and education of the young.
– Desires are either biological or psychological in character: they are distinguished according to whether the desire leads toward a biologically necessary or biologically non-necessary activity.
– Desires are either innate or habitual. Habitual desires are acquired desires. Consider an example: A person who has never had alcohol cannot desire to drink alcohol for alcohol’s sake, but only for some other sake, e.g., acceptance in a peer group. Further, a person who has not acquired a refined taste for scotch through frequent consumption thereof cannot desire to drink Oban for Oban’s sake, but only for the sake of scotch in general, for curiosity, or for something else. Therefore, habitual desires are the result of certain activities. Innate desires, however, are not.
– Homosexual desires are by the former definitions not biological desires.
– The meaning of other terms are taken from their accepted use in ordinary discourse.
– One is a homosexual if and only if one either 1): engages in homosexual activity, 2): has homosexual desires, or 3): has homosexual desires and engages in homosexual activity.

With these laid down, what follows is all possible propositions.
If (1): One engages in homosexual activity either A): voluntarily or B): involuntarily,
(1.A): One chooses to be a homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(1.B): One is compelled to engage either i): psychologically or ii): physically, by another, and homosexuality is not a choice.
(1.B.i): One is mentally ill, by the definition of mental illness.
If (2): One desires homosexuality either A): innately or B): habitually,
(2.A): One is either i): able to refrain from satisfying these innate homosexual desires or ii): unable to refrain.
(2.A.i): One chooses to be a homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(2.A.ii): One is mentally ill, by the definition of mental illness.
(2.B): One has acquired homosexual desires through homosexual activity. If one acquires these involuntarily through involuntary engagement in homosexual activity, one is either coerced by another or one is mentally ill. Otherwise homosexuality is a choice.
If (3): One either chooses to be homosexual or homosexuality is a mental illness.

Therefore, homosexuals are mentally ill if and only if they do not choose to be homosexual and are not physically compelled by another to engage in homosexual activities. However, that is not the end of the discussion. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviors, is inherently self-destructive and causes self-harm. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviors, is statistically one of the most self-harmful. Willful pursuit or practice of a behavior–or group of behaviors–that is inherently self-harmful is a mental illness.

>What is surrogacy
Abhorrent
>What is adoption?
Symptom of the destruction of the family unit and cultural drug abuse
>What is kids from previous heterosexual relationships?
Symptom of divorce normalisation

I disagree completely
This is one of many chances to fight back

nuffin wrong with a big fat shlong going up ya fart box. Australian YES!

It will piss them off, sure, but thats about it. Theyre already far more accepted than they ought to be whether they legally can tie the knot or not.

Then do it to piss them off

If the vote went NO do you think the issue would just magically disappear? Labor is already polling well ahead of the liberal party in AU and what makes you think a no vote wouldn't galvanize them further leading to a win in future elections?

You'll have to do better than that

The most interesting thing that has happened to me today is just seeing turnbulls phone ring on ACA

>They will push and push, so you should fight for every inch
>Nothing is too far for them
I want to fight against this shit, but I also want the fuckheads to be forced to call me 'married' too.
>your Muslim lover boys
I hate muslims

>>I don't want to work in a shop on cars and other motor vehicles, I just want to be called a mechanic.
That's a shit argument. I know being gay is different. I'm saying if you're a mechanic and I'm a programmer, we should both be called 'employed'.
>This is one of many chances to fight back
The question on the ballot isn't "would you like to let Achmed and his friends piss in the streets" or "yes or very yes: more tax dollars for subhuman abos?".
I'd ask you to consider the subtlety of the issue and the actual, precise topic being discussed, but it's clearly beyond the capacity of anyone posting here.

>Why isn't there a beige flag I can use to post as "Straight"?
Dude, I'd be just as happy for you to have a special Straight flag. I'm not asking for anything special. I am only using the fag rainbow so y'all know you're speaking with the enemy (despite me being allied on virtually all other issues here) on common ground.

I hope you actually took in what i said, it isn't just applicable to homosexuality, but all Law, Morale and Religious questions.

Not feeling particularly charitable towards a group who if they weren't too busy sucking up and begging us to "do the right thing" they'd be telling us about our evil hetero privilege and celebrating impending white minority status with the rest of the commies.

Vote against it and encourage others to do so

>still acting as if the institution of marriage has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim

Still waiting for you to come up with a good counter argument faggot.

Maybe they'd come back with a more subdued, respectful case for it rather than current year hysteria.

So how would a respectful case for gay marriage look?

That's the joke, it doesn't exist.

...?
I never debated that marriage has come from heterosexual, natural, existing relationships.

I don't have a counter argument. I agree.

I'm saying I want in. Politicians don't have the right to tell me my relationship isn't worth as much as yours.

A blank sheet of paper

>Politicians don't have the right to tell me my relationship isn't worth as much as yours.
it isn't

and they do, both figuratively (through policy) and literally (through speech)

>it isn't
>and they do, both figuratively (through policy) and literally (through speech)


There we go. It's the "technically, we DO have the right to tell you you're worth less" and it's backed up with "because we think you're worth less".

That's not a justification- it's a demonstration of power. If your sole reasoning is "it's icky, I don't like it, and I'm in the majority in this democracy", then you're about to get a rude awakening on the use of power in a few more weeks.

If the only reason you have for your argument winning is the exercise of power, expect it to fall apart as soon as the power shifts.

>A
You already have poofter unions with the same rights cunt, get fucked
>B
Calling your poofta relationship a marriage is redefining what marriage is, address this or fuck off.

>technically
What do you mean technically?


It is not only within their right, but is their duty to enforce policies that discriminate against homosexuals, and to speak out against homosexuals.

Why should marriage not be defined to include people of the same sex? Do they not pay taxes? Do they not have jobs? Do they not contribute to your society?

Why should homosexual not be defined to include the addendum "danger to society"

>Govt. could've saved a shitload of time, money and effort if they'd just had the balls to introduce a private members bill as a conscience vote.
But that would have passed you stupid degenerate fucking boomer. And we don't it to pass because fags are destroying our society and the white race.
>PwC modelling finds gay marriage plebiscite would result in $280m in lost productivity
>That cost comes on top of $158m for nationwide campaign
The government wastes money on endless amounts of stupid shit. They have pointless boong and republic referendums planned which will be more costly and won't even enrage the queers. Money well spent in my opinion. Remember to sage.

>Dude, I'd be just as happy for you to have a special Straight flag.
But isn't it a true dichotomy if not hypocrisy that you have a universal symbol denoting where you like to stick you dick but if I just want to stick it in a vagoo like any sane normal bloke I don't have a symbol?
>I'm not asking for anything special
But you (and by inclusion anyone who shares your sexuality) is asking for something special.
You want the govt. to spend hundreds of millions of our tax money posting stuff out so you can try to guilt them (govt.) into legislating a change to some wording on a law.

Put it this way:
>abos want a special snowflake clause in the constitution to make them feel muh inclusive
About the same ratio of abos and poofs in the population.
Are they asking for something special?

Why the FUCK do they wanna get married anyway marriage is a fucking stupid and flawed idea

Where procreation is impossible, marriage is irrelevant since the only reason marriage has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate from a social point of view the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.
So when you start playing games in this way you're actually acting as though the institution has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim.

>still getting btfo by a nigger

Civil marriage is a legal contract between two people. There are no rules about needing to make kids involved.

Well then why are you not content with civil unions then?

Are you married to your boss?
Are you married to everything you've ever clicked "agree" on?

>Australia
>de facto relationships

Holy FUCK Australia fucks men even when they DON'T marry the woman. If you even have a RELATIONSHIP with her you can have your assets apportioned in the same way as if you were married. What a fucking cuck country.

Actually fuck that, your disregarding the principle:
Just because some individuals who get married chose not to have kids doesn't mean that the principle behind marriage is for the regulation of childbearing.

Why can't I call the person I love my husband in official documents?

yeah lol defacto relationships can fuck people without even knowing it

Don't waste your breath with that lot.