AUS Sup Forums best arguments against same-sex marriage

Good evening Sup Forums,

Shorten has indicated that he won't support the plebiscite, but if there were a plebiscite on February 11 2017, what would be the best argument(s) to put forward against same-sex "marriage"?

The definition of marriage in Australia was originally inherited from common law, where under the Hyde vs Hyde ruling from 1866 it was stated that "[marriage is] defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others".

As such, the definition was not included directly in the constitution, but for clarification the Marriage Act 1961 was amended in 2004 to read:

>marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life

Note that there is no requirement that the man and woman both be heterosexual. The entire concept that homosexuals cannot marry is a fiction.

(continued)

inb4:
>Marriage shouldn't even be regulated by the state

Many would agree with you, especially given how governments have introduced laws surrounding marriage which are ultimately very damaging to children and families. For example, no-fault divorce and presumed maternal custody.

Originally though, marriage was regulated by the state to create incentives for potential mothers and fathers to commit to one another and to stay together so that their children would grow up in a stable home with both biological parents. This is actually a noble goal.

At some point Australia and other western countries need to start doing more to support families and raise the birth rate above replacement. Government handouts only create more social dysfunction, so natalist policies tied to marriage seem to be necessary.

>I don't care

You should care. Marriage between a man and a woman has been a key part of the family unit for millennia, it is all about providing stable homes for children.

Even if you don't plan to have children yourself, you should still respect the importance of the family in society.

>But fags can have children too

Two men or two women can't have children by themselves; there is no natural way for this to happen. Only through borrowing someone else's sperm, womb or baby can they even come close. In such a case the child still grows up without their biological father, biological mother, or both.

>Some opposite-sex marriages don't produce children

Not an argument. We still recognise these marriages as being fundamentally of the same type as marriages which do produce children.

inb4:
>but muh equal tax benefits

In Australia, same-sex couples are treated as de facto couples and already have every financial and legal benefit available to married couples.

And even if that weren't the case, why should unions incapable of producing natural children be given the same benefits as those which can?

>but muh equal love

Marriage is not about love and never has been.

There are dozens of people and things in your life which you might love; children, siblings, parents, friends, pets, etc. None of these relationships are somehow lesser when they aren't on a special government register.

>What two consenting adults do is their business

In that case, what about marriages between parent and adult child or between adult siblings?

Just look at the restrictions on marriage in Australia:
i) marriage with your ancestor or descendant is prohibited
ii) marriage with your sister or brother is prohibited

If it were as simple as "what two consenting adults do is their business" then why would pretty much every government in the world prohibit these marriages? Even though an adult brother and sister may love each other as much as any other couple?

The reason these marriages are prohibited is because marriage is not about love, but about protecting children. And children of close relatives have high risks of deformities, so governments find it in their interest to discriminate against such couples and not legitimise their unions.

I dont have any reasons. I'm gay and just want to watch the rest of the degenerate community suffer. Fuck em, marriage is just a piece of paper that lets you dodge taxes

I'd normally be for this sort of thing since everyone should have the right to be happy and all, but the amount of pushing the left is doing for it is pissing me the fuck off.

Either pass it, have a bit of a cheer and shut up, or fuck off. You cunts will be calling for loosened immigration laws and all of that bullshit next using the exact same technique you use for this shit.

Honestly, if the Liberals started modestly supporting same sex marriage today I wouldn't really mind. Maybe if Greens and Labor tried to not be cunts I'd change my mind.

As you said they already get tax benefits and all the other shit as de facto couples. The only reason they want to be able to get married instead of have civil ceremonies is because they're upset heteros get a toy they cant play with.

Fuck homos. They're already equal to married couples in the eyes of the law, why should they get anything else?

Marriage should not be regulated by the state however people earning over $100000 should get tax cuts for having kids and staying in a two parent household with them. This is the best eugenic program possible without having left-tards crack the shits.

>everyone should have the right to be happy

>thinking that you can't be happy without marriage

I would probably vote for fag marriage desu. I honestly don't give a fuck and want people to stfu about it.

It'll piss off lefties

Mate as long as people get a fair go and my family isn't at risk, I don't care. It has gotten to the point where my nephew was ganged up on at school because she disagreed with leftist bullshit, she got suspended and now is being straight up harassed every day. I get yelled at whenever I say anything left of the Greens, and Socialists straight up threaten me when I go outside to do the fucking clothes shopping.

I just want people to shut the fuck up and piss off, but the attitude towards gay marriage is making me very damn salty about it. I'd vote a Hitler re-enactor into government before I'd support this bullshit.

>my nephew was ganged up on at school because she disagreed with leftist bullshit

your nephew is a girl?
I had no idea things had gotten so bad here

Yeah yeah cunt, my niece. It's hard as hell to tell who's what anymore.

Best argument is:
- it makes my butthurt because it's not traditional and makes me think too much about sexual things that I don't think people should do (because secretly I think too much about doing them myself). This can also be couched in religion to give it a veneer or legitimacy, though only if presented with false claims about eternal, unchanging traditions over millennia.

bait harder cunt

the plebiscite question is "should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry"

what are these jackasses going to do when intersex and genderqueer couples start screaming discrimination

...

don't forget these guys

>one of these couples is not like the others

yeah. one of these couples isnt a hell bent abomination. whats the point?

>Marriage shouldn't even be regulated by the state
Remove all tax benefits. The end.
/thread

only one of the couples can have natural biological children

I speak for myself and all americans in saying no one here thinks you dont have culture.

Why the flying fuck do you cucks already give them tax handouts? That's the least justifiable element of government recognition of gay marriage, as the government has no legitimate interest in family formation outside of the rearing of the children that naturally result from real marriages, intended or not.

The birth rate in Puerto Rico is 1.64; far below replacement. Maybe you should push for more tax benefits for families, not fewer.

One can naturally reproduce.

>Why the flying fuck do you cucks already give them tax handouts?

Because anyone in a de facto couple gets them and de facto couples were never stated to only be between a man and a woman, hence gay de facto couples.

we have a wiener

There's more culture at the bottom of KFC bucket and empty 40 in your average niggers than in the descendents of ex-cons. Daged and reported.

Basically this. De facto couples had tax benefits for quite a long time, and then gays were added to this in a vain hope that they might shut the hell up. It didn't work.

Emigration is the problem of the natives of PR. Not birth rates. Use the two brain cells you have and think. If the people leaving are those young and able-bodied seeking work what's left, the old.

I just live here for lower tax rate so their issues don't affect me.

Emigration only makes it worse then. The 1.64 birth rate doesn't take into account that the few who are born then leave to go somewhere which isn't a shithole.

Brilliant troll. Worthy of a Canadian.

...

>I'm gay
BRISBANE

Fagilade cunt

I'm sorry for your loss

They're not going to shut up. Next they're going to want to have "intersex" or "agender" legally classified as a sex. It doesn't end if you don't push back

I fucking love how Labor and the usual suspects are against the Plebiscite, solely because they want it to be them who does the historic thing. Like a feather in their cap, they don't actually care, they just want the approval and the approval ratings.

Virtue Signalling little hypocrites.

...

I want a cute Sup Forums bf.

only ugoos on here, tits or GTFO

I want a cute Sup Forums gf, we don't all get what we want though do we

I'm not that much of a shameless whore. But you can have my third nipple and half a normal one.

by far the best argument against the same-sex marriage is asking the question why does the state recognize marriage anyway? why do the married couples get tax privileges? And the answer is simple: because there are far more children born in wedlock then outside of it. And thats the only reason the state even cares about marriage, so same-sex couples obc can fuck off because there are no children being born there

>marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life
>for life
There's no divorce in Australia?

>australia legalises gay marriage
>norn iron becomes last bastion of morality in the anglosphere
no surrender desu

I have this same discussion with friends of mine that should indeed know better. Here's how it happens:

>Marriage is a religious institution, whereas the definition is determined by religious canon.
>Religious institutions were infiltrated (over time) by Cultural Marxists to incorporate gay deacons/priests/bishops.
>Said gay degenerate "church" leaders then made gay marriage a thing, changing the canonical definition of the word.
>Now you know how progressivism works.

How do you prevent it? How do you fix it?

fat

there is, the rate is pretty high too unfortunately

too bad you're in the eastern states

That's skinny-fat to you, slut.

>still living in Puerto Rico despite all that goes on

A-a-at least you're not a dirty nuyorican, right