Australia vote no !

Just had an argument about the yes/no vote for faggot marriage. I couldn't come up with a good enough reason why two faggots should be allowed to get married. It was me against 6 other people and I feel as if I've lost. Can you guys help me out .

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=amfEln-60Pw.
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because you know it to be so

If I ever get in a debate like that I just simply state that "it's my opinion that the definition of marriage should stay the same because of my political view, and your intolerance of my political view and right to express it makes you the bigot not me"

Autistic screeching ensues. There's not much you can do after that.

Thanks user

Just be vague about it, because no matter what you'll never convince some people.

It is just another method (((they))) will use to extort more money from the proletariats. Now, even faggots will be expected to cough up thousands to buy a ring and get "married" whilst jewish divorce lawyers get a raise because the gay divorce rate will be much higher than the straight. Fuck capitalism

Firstly, they are the ones trying to create change, so they should be the ones that should provide reasons for that change. Is marriage a government institution? a social institution? a religious institution? What should it be?
As a government institution its designed to (1) incentivize childbirth and (2) ensure that the next generation are raised in the most stable environment possible (mother & father household). So there is no claim for gays to be recognised since it is something they cannot provide.
As a religious institution its defined by religion e.g. Islamic & Christian doctrine state that gays can't marry.
As a social institution depends on the people. It therefore should be unregulated by legal institution. In this realm anyone can say they're married to anyone else on the basis of love or consent. This also devalues the traditional meaning of marriage. On the surface level the plebiscite aims to get a feel for the social meaning of marriage. However the campaigning on the yesvote side tries to be manipulative and distort this under the guise of rights & freedoms so that people vote thinking they're supporting someone else's point of view, rather than their own.
Marriage itself is not a human right, nor is it about equality. Considering you've posted the antipodean resistance I'm sure I don;t need to argue against the concept of equality for you. Marriage itself is neither discrimination. The creation of a definition of a word no way intends persecution of things to which the word does not apply.

Communism, Capitalism. All are shit. You're not redpilled till you figure that out.

Continuing on the issue of equality, I'd just like to highlight that the same 'logic' of equality can be applied to other people who naturally have other sexualiaties that are typically condemned by people (in 2017). It is accepted for the most part that polygamy, incest and paedophilia are harmful to society. People who support these things are considered crazy (just as gays were in the US before 1970 until psychologists ignored science due to protests). So what right do advocates for marriage "equality" have to restrict the nature of these other sexual deviations? Its hypocritical if they so no.
People who are pro gay marriage appeal to emotion and tend to ignore facts. For example on The Project a couple of weeks ago some fat chick gave a very emotionally appealing story on how a lesbian had to hear her partners screams from a separate room as she died from cancer. I'm sure nobody can honestly say this isn't sad. But (1) it is within hospitals rights to reject patients and have their own policies in a free market society, (2) It is not the governments responsibility to change the hospitals policy and (3) It is most certainly not the responsibility of the government to change the definition of marriage based on this in the same way that if hospitals rejected women it wouldn't be the governments job to redefine 'men' to mean 'women'.

> Love is Love
> Vague phrase
> 30 years down the line
> Pedosexual Rights Activist
> mfw the slippery slope really does exist

>fags get same sex marriage
>can now apply for government subsidized divorce
>now our taxes pay for promiscuous faggots to keep getting divorces.
>faggots will keep trying to rip each other off in family courts and we'll keep paying for their fucking divorces so they can get settlements

naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah mate

I've heard cunts try to point to failed marriages or immoral marriages such as a young woman marrying an old man just for money, or even just pointing to high divorce rates. If the institution of marriage is a failure, then a sane person wouldn't demand to be a part of that institution like these normies are saying. Also if marriage is increasingly moving away from its original meaning, why add to that deviation and make it worse? Unless you were of course, against marriage, which we know these people are.

Oh yeh, some people also reckon that because some married heterosexuals don't have children its irrelevant that faggots can't reproduce, but just because marriage doesn't universally result in offspring every single time doesn't nullify the right to breed and ensure the continuance of a couple's genetics.
We got other rights and restrictions for fucking as well like age of consent law to protect kids from making the wrong decisions. But adults make the same wrong decisions when it comes to fucking as well. Does that mean age of consent laws should be lowered? I'd argue not and I think most people would.
Some faggots even reckon that they should get other social benefits of marriage but then why does a single man not deserve these social benefits? or even non-married, cohabiting couples in sexual or non-sexual relationships?

AUSTRALIANS VOTE NO
VOTE NO, AUSTRALIANS AND SPREAD IT AROUND
SPREAD IT AROUND LIKE WILDFIRE

When will we hear the results of the vote, aussies? Do you believe you can pull off a "no"?

Next (((they))) will have feminists protesting for government subsided divorce.

Yet normies that vote yes will reckon that the ability to marry won't affect heterosexual marriage or family values, but just because something is assumed to not affect the majority doesn't mean it should change the definition. The slippery slope wont happen just because it's slippery, it will happen because there are Jews pushing for the destruction of the West, but of course we can't say that without thoughtcrime alarms being set off youtube.com/watch?v=amfEln-60Pw.

It will be our politicians that vote for us. The "vote" that we're having is just to inform parliament and the population what our opinions are. So far, its not looking too good, but as we've learned from brexit and Trump, we can't trust the media at all.

I would like that pedophile law passed. I love fucking little teenage girls. Especially the ones that start developing, those are so fucking hot! Mmm those tender little bodies and soft and willing and able..

Get the fuck out of Western countries then. You can fuck little girls in Saudi Arabia if you marry them first. They'll still be your slave when they're older to.

True because of the religion. Like in the Bible also, in today's doctrine one could marry a little girl as long as she has already had her period and her dad is ok with it, and in Christ. Sounds good to me, but the laws here suck.

>I couldn't come up with a good enough reason why two faggots should be allowed to get married
Well you're in good company because most gays can't find one either.

>that pic

*burns black church*

>no you're doing it wrong

Can't win with these people.

The thing is that lots of churches support fagmarriage while mosques have formed a union to oppose it. But no, they attack the church like a good multiracialist and turn around and support Islam.

faggots shouldnt be allowed to get "married"
faggots should be allowed to enter benefit contracts after death
faggots should not be allowed to adopt unless biological child...3 degrees of separation
faggots should be allowed to have children with beard wife
faggots should be allowed to ass fuck to their hearts content, but not in view of children

I think this is the most sensible position I've heard on the topic.

Why should they? Marriage is for the purpose of ensuring kids can have a secure and healthy upbringing, faggots can't have kids or raise them properly so what is the objective point of allowing them to marry in a religious place?

KYS in the name of opposing it and blame your death on them specifically. They'll be horrified, go to counseling and realize you were right.

I voted no because i ain't no fag enabler