Australian marriage plebiscite

Hi aus Sup Forums so what do you guys think about the same sex marriage plebiscite do you think it will pass or won't pass

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DiqtFAKQHlk
douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/the-wild-ideas-of-social-conservatives/
medium.com/@freddiedeboer/conservatives-are-wrong-about-everything-except-predicting-their-own-place-in-the-culture-e5c036fdcdc5
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

What's a plebiscite?

what are you talking about

Pretty sure it already has


I hope you are vote no OP.

*will

I am tired

Convince me to vote "no" (or "yes" if you want), Anons.

My gut feeling is that it will pass given the state of mind of your average Australian. The problem with Australia is that we never had the same foundation of religious zealotry like you have in America. We are too secular.

vote no because faggots are disgusting degenerates who will lead the country down the gurgler of confusion and right-wing oppression.

>love is love
These "people" are the sickest, vilest.. the most exceedingly spiteful and malignant creatures that have ever walked the face of the Earth. Snakes, imps, demons -- they know nothing of "love", every action they take is out of spite.

>disgusting degenerates who will lead the country down the gurgler of confusion
Please elaborate.

>right-wing oppression
I think "suppression" would be a better word. That said, oppression is possible in the long-term but there are too many variables to know for sure.

I mean, your average Australian Boomer, is a total Leftist, way more leftwing than his gen-Z grandchildren because all he does is follow what he's been told on television and by the major social media companies, and so he's too zombified to think about the issue beyond trite liberal boilerplate like "well, who am I to tell them who they can love?"

To call what homosexuals do with their private parts "love" is hate.

Vote no for immense televised butthurt, and the abc and other dumb leftists publicly calling Australians homophones

You still haven't presented an argument against it.

As humourous as that would be, I don't consider it a reason good enough to base my vote on.

vote NO you fag enablers

>Confusion
Accepting people who are attracted to their own gender/think they are another gender think there are multiple genders. All these things are mental illnesses, similar (but arguably worse) than eating disorders. Accepting these people is encouraging their degenerate and destructive behaviour. Encouraging this confusion is just fucking disgusting.

Hey guys I just got back from the post office and it doesn't look good for straight marriage...

Everyone at the post box was wearing their pride hats and t-shirts and I even witnessed two anti-gay voters standing in line trash talk transgendered and gay people within the span about 5 minutes. Luckily a gang of about 10 of us overheard it so we beat the shit out of them before they could vote against No and they high tailed it out of there.

We have assigned a couple of big guys to stand around and make sure they don't come back but overall everything looks good for the gay marriage referendum.

I can easily see transgenderism being harmful (even if you don't account for gender "reassignment" surgery), but I do not understand how homosexuality is harmful. (I also do not fully understand how transgenderism is related to this issue).

Could you please provide evidence of homosexuality being harmful? Specifically, something intrinsic to homosexuality itself (so not people that can be excused as "isolated cases" like that guy who tried to grind on that kid lol).

That's why I'm voting no.

And if you want equality:
Straight man can marry straight woman
Gay man can marry straight woman
Gay woman can marry straight man
Gay woman can marry gay man.

Marriage equality exists. The fact that they want to be marry the same sex doesn't mean that inequality exists.

>in b4 HURR DURR They can't marry who they love

Other groups can't marry who they love either. I can't marry my sister or mother. I can't marry a child. I can't marry an animal. I can't marry my golf clubs either, and I can tell you that I am more attached to those things than some gay people are to each other.

Equality exists. Everyone is treated the same way by the law. That is equality.

I am voting no because there is already equality, and there needs to be a line where we stop the constant erosion of our traditions and customs. These traditions and customs have served us for thousands of years and have brought us to an age where I can take a picture of my penis and post it on a chinese basket weaving forum for other mongoloids to inspect. I like this age.

I don't want to give it up to retards and idiots because they have hurt fee fees.

Homosexuals are a major vector for STI's and STD's especially when bisexuals from an overlap with the straight population

A fair point, but this can easily be negated by people using protection.

that and most people (even gays) will not utilize said legislation, essentially it is a waste of taxpayers money for it to be spoken in in parliament in any serious manner

sorry but.. gays don't use protection

Seriously though can we just fuck off with these threads? Just fucking vote no and Australia might not be as degenerate. Although I doubt it.

Are we going to call gay marriage, Australian marriage from here on?

I think 'OP marriage' has a better ring to it.

youtube.com/watch?v=DiqtFAKQHlk

>le slippery slope fallacy

You literally just described yourself in that post.
The irony.

Don't fuck gay people then
Seems like a pretty easy way to avoid that whole conundrum.

It would make marriage and families weaker, by sending to society the message that marriage and procreation are not necessarily linked.
When you make marriage solely about feelings, you make it weaker, as well. Since when the feelings of romantic love (that lasts about one year) vanish, people consider the marriages worthless, which leads to divorces and kids being raised without the presence of their two biological parents.

Homosexual sex acts are completely hedonistic in nature. By normalizing hedonism even further, you make society worse.

Social Conservatives were pretty much correct in every slippery slope argument of the last 50 years.

Look at the fucking state of this moral alarmist panic rehetoric
Get a fucking grip you hysterical shrieking woman.
>Social Conservatives were pretty much correct in every slippery slope argument of the last 50 years.
Proof. Now.

douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/the-wild-ideas-of-social-conservatives/

medium.com/@freddiedeboer/conservatives-are-wrong-about-everything-except-predicting-their-own-place-in-the-culture-e5c036fdcdc5

it's not a plebiscite, it's just a mail-in poll.

Most Australian men go through a poofter phase so it'll probably pass.

>Pair of opinion pieces written by a couple of literally whos, with no links to external sources or hard statistical evidence to back up their view.
I sure hope biased nebulous shit like this is not what you base your beliefs upon.
Show me empirical indisputable evidence. Facts, numbers, actual proof.
Not a pair of nobody hacks spewing their own personal opinions like facts. Neither of these people even have any academic qualifications in the field they are writing about. They're just run of the mill news reporters with an agenda and an opinion that's probably based in the same narrow minded conservative scope of the world you have. This is just echo chamber bullshit with no substantive hard evidence to back it up.

Mr Douthat had links for every claim he made. But you probably didn't read his entire text

>They're just run of the mill news reporters with an agenda and an opinion that's probably based in the same narrow minded conservative scope of the world you have.

The first phrase in the text by Freddie deBoer was:

>Social conservatism (that is, the conservative attitudes regarding the family, romance and sex, and adherence to conformity with the community) is wrong on just about everything, from my perspective.

So, you didn't even bother to read the first part of the text.

This is not official?