Plebiscite defeated

...

Other urls found in this thread:

news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/free-love-in-the-21st-century-why-polyamory-is-taking-off/news-story/4190a2d5514d078a210b335446b5fe49
bbc.com/future/story/20160623-polyamorous-relationships-may-be-the-future-of-love
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

bump - stop watching QandA and post in my bloody thread

Sounds good to me

I just want to be able to marry my bf desu

I have an actual honest question for gay people out there.
Why are you so obsessed with the right being legally married?
Marriage is all about kids and inheritance. You need it in order to make sure your spouse can properly take care of your children. There is no other practical application for this arrangement.

Since gay couples are rarely adopting children, why even bother?

What a great week for democracy - referendum ignored in the UK, plebiscite stopped in Aus, corrupt criminal candidate pulls string to stop investigation of her in US.

As long as Islam, Judaism, Asian and African immigration are banned. I don't give a shit about homos and nonces

Fuck socialists

Legitimizing. Inclusion. Legal rights/benefits on par with straight folk. I personally don't see the point as I'd never want to get married but I don't see any harm in granting homos the same legal and financial rights as a married couple if they have a relationship of the same caliber.

the word plebiscite is so fucking stupid

why not just use the word referendum?

>Legal rights/benefits on par with straight folk
This already exists in most countries where homo marriage is banned.

Marriage is typically a religious affair, the only reason homo marriage is pushed so hard is to attack Christians, usually coming from cultural marxists. At least that was the primary motivation here.

>the only reason homo marriage is pushed so hard is to attack Christians,
good stuff m8

your spin

> Legitimizing
As far as i know, same-sex relationship were legitimized by law and media decades ago.
What are you talking about, specifically?
> Inclusion
Care to elaborate on this?
> Legal rights/benefits on par with straight folk.
I think i've heard about that. What benefits are being denied to gay couples that straight ones have?

maybe because it sounds like vegimite and you subhumans love that

>faggotry is the most important issue in australia right now

>caliber
Says it all really

FUCK OFF HOMOS

>American education

A referendum refers to Constitutional matters.

because we're plebs

post yfw parliament votes against gay marriage

>Australian government

you have to create another word because you don't have a based piece of legislature like ours

>Legitimizing
>Caliber
really makes you think

Financial benefits are given to married couples to encourage family creation, not just because of the marriage. You're not entitled to benefits you can't use just like I'm not entitled to benefits I can't use.

>wasting millions of dollars on a non-legally binding vote when the politicians that we elect to make laws could just do the fucking voting for us

good

fag here, I couldn't care less. I just want people to shut up about it so we can move on

No two fag sickos can ever, ever, in any way have a relationship of the same caliber as a man and a woman. What they do is a farce, a pretence, a sickness, a disease, a failure.

>based legislature
>2nd amendment
Attack helicopters are not okay but AKs are.
makes sense.

Gay people tend to see these marriage equivalent options as a symbolic segregation, which is otherwise arbitrary. "Here you drink from that other fountain, it's basically the same as this one, but you can't have this one".

Because they're two different things.

The biggest problem Australia has are fucking asians and jews. Meds and mudlsimes are nothing comparing to that

I say just let them get married. Then in a couple of years we can laugh and tell them to fuck off when 90% are getting divorced because a long term gay relationship is about as common as an honest jew

It's how it was, especially when this issue first became popular in the west. The sentiment in the 70s-90s was very different from today.

That is only natural as it is a different type of relationship. As I said, marriage is largely a religious affair, and in almost every religion homosexuality is banned. Forced inclusion form the top down especially when it involves people's faith is a disgusting move on par with tyranny.

If they want marriage so badly why don't they create their own version of the marriage ceremony, and ask for that to be given official status? Forcing yourself upon the customs of large amounts of people that believe your lifestyle to be morally abhorrent isn't going to make those people accept you.

>Legal rights/benefits on par with straight folk

There's zero benefit to being married in Australia, it's all just to further the societal collapse. We just have to pander to another mentally fucked minority, then it will be on to even more degenerate things next time.

This

Have some fairy bread lads

>hating on the very amendment other countries fail to implement or upkeep because of cultural negligence

here we might have Lil Timmy shoot up a school here and there but the second amendment runs deep in this country m8 and defines a lot of people mainly in the redneck category

also
>emu war

How's a referendum any more wasteful or divisive than a parliamentary vote?

>plebiscite defeated
Yay, now we get to foist it upon the population via judicial fiat.

I fucking hate these marxist cunts

Legitimizing in the sense that making marriage or an equivalent illegal for gays effectively denounces the legitimacy of gay relationships, intrinsically it puts that relationship at a lesser value than that of an equivalent heterosexual one. Gay marriage only became a viable legal option in some states in America a couple years ago, certainly not decades of acceptance. My father's generation is entrenched in homophobia and he's not that old, it might be a spoken approval but not necessarily backed up by legislation.
In terms of inclusion, a bit of a reiteration - of affording the same sociocultural events/traditions to homosexs as to heterosexs in order to facilitate belonging to the wider community, closing the proverbial pariah gap that labels gays as deviant/taboo.
Legal rights/benefits change depending on the country/state, but often it is harder to collude resources/finances if you're not married, you receive tax benefits, estate planning, exemption from estate and gift tax, medical conservator rights, receiving social security/disability on behalf of spouses, employment benefits, insurance benefits, legal, family etc etc.

Better idea:
no plebiscite
no vote in parliament
no sodomite desecration of marriage
death penalty for homosexuality

Common Filth is right desu.

Ignore sodomite orders.

Marriage is a completely secular affair in Australia, and besides that, historically no one culture or religion has sole claim to the idea anyway.

Certainly if an atheist can be married without any controversy, or needing the blessing of religious authorities then there's no logical reason why gays can't be extended the same freedom either.

So according to muh Bible, Jehovah says the penalty for Man on Man degeneracy is death. But the lesbians get off on a technicality. I'm OK with this.
FRAG ALL FAGS

>or needing the blessing of religious authorities
That's the next thing they'll be hounding for

why the fuck cant i buy an attack chopper? THIS IS AMERICA!
also
>no free speech and all of the rest have been fucked on as well

>legitimisation
The marginal must be marginalised, not legitimised. That homosexual "marriage" will "legitimise" homosexuality is all the more reason to oppose it.
>inclusion
The socially pathological must be excluded, not included. That homosexual "marriage" will "include" homosexuals is all the more reason to oppose it.
>rights/benefits
Homosexuals deserve neither of these things.
>on par
Equality is false and absurd.

Good job Labor! Ensuring gay marriage doesnt come in for at least 3 more years!

3 more years!

Also, I don't know that we'll be forcing religious authorities to marry them, I haven't heard anything about it at least.

Marxists want to destroy the nuclear family to introduce their new world order.

Next step is polygamy
Then it is a toss up between beasitiality or pedophilia

--------->

Slippery slope fallacy

tanya plibersek is fucking pure

This guy gets it

A plebiscite is for the plebeians. I am a patrician and cannot vote in a plebiscite. By contrast, if a patriscite were held, the plebeians would be unable to vote.

As for referenda, the distinction is that the outcome of a referendum is binding upon the government. A plebiscite is not binding. It is for this reason that the measure is considered pointless and wasteful.

Moreover, in Australia, referenda are typically used in the context of constitutional change. Holding a referendum on homosexual "marriage" carries the implication that homosexual "marriage" is at the moment unconstitutional, which in my view is a sound position, but proponents of legalised homosexual "marriage" do not accept the unconstitutionality of their policy proposal.

They are pushing polyamory
news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/free-love-in-the-21st-century-why-polyamory-is-taking-off/news-story/4190a2d5514d078a210b335446b5fe49

bbc.com/future/story/20160623-polyamorous-relationships-may-be-the-future-of-love

It's not a fallacy if it's already happened in every other country that lets gays get married.

It's proven itself right time and time again so suck on my fallacy

slippery slope. Progressives use it as a way to incrementally normalize degeneracy. Once you legitimize one form of degeneracy the progressives start working on the next worst thing. People laughed and mocked us about the slippery slope but now that gay marriage is legal here they're trying to normalize pedos.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

>polygamy
>implying it's a bad thing.

Perhaps we could take your dismissal of the concern seriously if the concern had not already been vindicated in the several jurisdictions where homosexual "marriage" has already been legalised. Senator Bernardi has already made this observation.

>I just want people to shut up about it so we can move on
it's too good of a distraction. (((they)))'ll be milking this for a while yet.

Thats what germans thought in the 30s

The thing is, I know here in Finland that so-called 'registered partnerships', i.e. non-religious marriages, have all the same rights as religious marriages. Despite this they pushed through a gay marriage law. I opposed it because I thought it should be a matter for the Church, not the state. Separation of the two and all that.

Why dont they campaign to change the definition of heterosexual to be more inclusive

you mean the dumb skank who cried that someone was mainsplaining to her?

Humored you against my better judgment and decided to do a bit of googling, specifically looking at Ireland at the moment. I'm not finding anything, are you pulling my leg mate?

In fact, I'm seeing anecdotes from people saying priests can refuse to marry someone arbitrarily for no reason at all, even.

Polygamy, but specifically only polygamy of the type in which one man may have multiple wives, is a harmful custom in modern circumstances. Men may have multiple wives when there is a surplus of women, which is a condition that is satisfied in societies wherein large numbers of men who would otherwise take those surplus women as their wives, die at young ages, for instance in war. If you have no way to deal with large numbers of unmarried men who will never be able to create families of their own, they will cause social turmoil.

As for polygamy of the type were there is more than one man involved, it simply makes no sense. Whereas a man can impregnate many women in a short period, a woman can only be impregnated by one man at a time. There is no sense in a woman having multiple husbands.

Perfect

...

I demand the right to be married in a Muslimist temple

>Next step is polygamy

Good

Lay the goon sack down and go to bed, m8

Why? It'll be self entitled whores who believe that one man isn't enough for them and they'll have the moral support of the media and all their peers.

Yay goon-of-fortune

Its biologically of lesser value - cannot make kids

nigga have you read brave new world?

Hurray, now we get to hear about this faggotry for many more years, what could be better.

>if they have a relationship of the same caliber.
They don't.
Homosexuals can't have children.
They're worthless to the state.

Historically, Australia is a Christian nation (predominantly Church of England and Roman Catholic, though with some others like Presbyterians and Lutherans, too). The various Christian sects have sole religious claim to marriage in Australia. Likewise Australia is a nation with a culture of its own, and the culture of the Australian nation has the sole cultural claim to marriage in Australia.

Marriage between atheists, without religious officiation, is not really legitimate marriage in the traditional sense, but even this pseudo-marriage serves a purpose with respect to providing family stability and creating an environment appropriate for child-rearing. There is an enormous logical distinction between a healthy couple of man and woman, and a sick homosexual mockery, because, of course, a homosexual pairing cannot create children or a family

>multiple-husband marriage

That's very rare throughout history, especially because men show fewer bisexual tendencies than women do.

it is the church of faggotry and equal rights to indulge in evil. Government is no longer secular

Homosexuality is a mental illness.kys

>he thinks marriage throughout history was primarily about sex

Get a load of this god fearing faggot

Secularism is insane. The only true state is an absolute monarchy ruled by divine right in accordance with the will of God.

Fuck up maggot

Having harems sure as hell was

The only real concern Labor had about having a plebiscite was that Liberals would get the props for bringing it up and Labors been positioning itself to be the party of social justice. I just disappointed that it didn't go ahead, I feel that almost all the mass immigration from "Conservative country's" would have sunk it easily and we would have had the lol's of seeing the left eat itself.

Concubines aren't wives.

Also brexit effect - their "everyone supports it" bullshit will get blown out of the water by all of the mudslimes they keep importing

>bisexual tendencies
Mate have you seen the state of western manliness? Europe is sucking cock right now and letting Mohammedans rape their loved ones to simply prove they aren't racist.

If I were a chick, I'd make a living talking into a webcam while playing an xbox, cause facebook told me my pussy is made of gold and the legion of beta orbiter fans confirm this.

Real gay couples don't give a shit about marriage. My mum's best friend from when I was six was a fag, great guy. Ended up in a relationship later on and he's been with the guy for nearly 15 years.

They don't give a shit about what some whiny faggots want.

>We don't think the Australia people will democratically vote in what we want
>So.. lets make parliament vote.

Greaaaat.
Fuck. This. Gay. Earth.

First and foremost Australia is Anglo-Celtic Nation. I don't consider anyone that's not English, Scottish, Dutch, German or French to be an American or Canadian. Nor do I consider anyone that's not Anglo-Celt to be Australian or New Zealander.
They have an American passport and that's about it. I have the freedom to decide who I think is Australian, American or European. I'm allowed to be as bigoted and as racist as I fucking want to be about the issue. This is how we decided who was a member of our tribe thousands of years ago. This is our biological hardwiring.
So if you're not English, Scottish, Dutch or German, I don't think you can be American.
I don't care for any shitty replies on how discriminatory this sounds.
Also sage goes in all fields, this thread is cancer.

>Marriage is all about kids
Barely.
>You need it in order to make sure your spouse can properly take care of your children
Do you?
>There is no other practical application for this arrangement
What?

It's just about equality of opportunity and equality under the law. I don't think anyone but outrage-shoppers really give a fuck about whether or not they can marry in a hardline church or not.

Live and let live, basically. I find the idea of adults telling other adults what they can't do repugnant. Maybe the culture is different in that regard in Russia, where you're all Leftist lepers.

Fuck m8 6?

Your butthole must have no tread left.

What's it like to be able to consistently fart in absolute silence?

I think you misread his post.

> Also sage goes in all fields

I don't think anyone will get this, aside from few rus/ua anons out there, but nice touch, man. Nostalgia is real.

It's such a non issue and is literally inevitable in the long run, barring some end of civilisation type event (based Trump.) Why spend millions on stopping it? I phrase it like that because the only reason the Liberals want a plebiscite is to get one more roll of the dice that might go their way and stop it.

Secondly many politicians have actively said they will ignore the yes vote anyway.

Plus angry Christcucks are heaps more entertaining than whiny fags.

are you retarded?

This, now we need to be "tolerant" for the achmeds, rajeshs and chnags flooding our society. All the faggots get to push their agenda behind closed doors.

they are really slipping lately and making it obvious that Western "democracy" is just a sham that gives people the illusion of choice to distract from the fact that it's just some mix of oligarchy and aristocracy

because if the people were truly aware of it they would have already killed them, since they wouldn't be under the delusion anymore that the next election will totally fix everything