Although some respondents declined to answer the follow-up question – ‘How did you vote/How will you vote – Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry?’ Yes/No – the overall result showed 61.5% of Australians voting ‘Yes’, 17.5% voting ‘No’ while a further 21% didn’t answer the question or have no intention of voting.
Although these results are slightly inconclusive on the exact margin of the final result, they do provide a degree of certainty that the plebiscite will be carried nationwide.
In addition, further analysis shows significant majorities voting ‘Yes’ in each State.
This special Roy Morgan Snap SMS Survey was conducted over last weekend of October 6-8, 2017 with a representative cross-section of 1,554 Australians aged 18+.
>81% of 18-24 yr voting yes >Only 12% of women voting No
I hope the next vote is for communism so that every country in the anglosphere burns to the fucking ground
Luke Collins
>This special Roy Morgan Snap SMS Survey
but no one asked me and i'm saying no
Dominic Roberts
another cherrypicked poll just wait for the result
Isaac Johnson
Despite the whole "Appeal to nature logical fallacy" meme: the inability for someone to procreate and spread their genetic information (the primary directive of all life, of all forms) constitutes that something is wrong, either due to mental or physical incapacity or disorder.
Homosexuality might not be a dangerous disorder in it's own right, but that doesn't stop it from being a disorder.
>Disorder in dictionary: a state of being disrupting the systematic function
Procreation is systematic of all life forms, hence it cannot be classified as anything but a disorder.
bisexuals seem to be another case entirely.
Aaron Torres
So life is not meaningful beyond reproduction? Seems awfully reductionist.
Jeremiah Scott
>So life is not meaningful beyond reproduction? Seems awfully reductionist.
>putting words into my mouth by attempting to break it down >"wow stop reducing everything"
Nice hypocricy.
But no, that's not what I was saying. People can assign whatever meaning to their life that they want. Most of the time it's just delusions, but if that allows them to procreate and preserve the existence of the species, then nobody cares.
But considering that we as sentient life forms are even able to conceptualize such matters means that we are capable of absorbing certain levels of disorder within our functioning group, without jeopardizing the existence of said group. But that doesn't mean anyone should be able to redifine basic natural concepts to fit their ideological agenda.
Nicholas Cook
So assigning meaning to life beyond reproductive capacity is delusional?
Sebastian Jones
Once again, putting words into my mouth.
I did not saying that procreation was meaningful, not in some metaphysical sense. People need to assign themselves meaningful delusions IN ORDER TO procreate, the procreation itself is just a base biological function.
Joseph Peterson
shy tory factor
Jayden Lewis
Is there any importance to the non-reproductive functions of our existence?
Connor Long
POOFTAHS FUCK OFF
Isaiah Gray
the only importance to any non reproductive functions of our existence involve bettering our reproductive functions of our existence.
Jacob Diaz
You seem to be probing me for weak points to exploit in an argument. That or you're genuinely curious as to my perspective, but considering that Sup Forums is almost entirely people with closed minds trying to out do one another, I don't think I'll give you the opportunity to shift the argument towards a checkmate.
