Same Sex Marriage Survey :
Should Gay People have the right to get married.
Why would you vote YES ?
Why would you vote NO ?
Pic related: He's the gay godson of our former prime minister in Australia who got bashed by a NO campaigner. Yesterday our last prime minister got headbutted in the face by a YES campaigner.
Violence on both sides. What do?
bash every cunt
Kevin 07
>>745899766
Yes because then I could marry a trap
Free pain
>>745899766
I voted no becuase of how much fucking money the wasted into this shit, they should of done a online survey. Ontop of that the YES voters are being violent towards NO voters for "hate speech" yet they are abusing someone because of their opinion. Fucking hypocrites
>>745899875
But are traps not legaly female?
>>745899766
No, there should be no incentive for couples who can not naturally reproduce.
>>745899766
Send all the gay people to Canada, they love fags.
>>745899988
External traits don't determine shit, have them karyotyped if you want to know for sure.
>>745900046
But he did say "legally" female. The answer to that is yes. They can change their gender in the eyes of the government, which means that they can marry men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQJs0EmEDTk
Sydney Uni this week. What the actual FUCK?!
Pics and Video related.
>>745899766
To be fair I would love to headbutt Tones.
>>745899961
well done basing your vote on completely the wrong reasons.
Yes, gay people should. From a biological view, they are failures to the human race as they can't breed; a successful member of species is one that can breed. However, that does NOT mean we should dehumanize them.
Ben Shapiro believes that giving churches the ability to say no to gay marriage is fine, because there will be another church that will say yes. This is a way to give the people who hate gays, and those who like them free speech on the issue, as well as giving gays the right. It's a good system that does it's best to help everyone, and that's why I say Yes on gay marriage.
Voted NO because I'm sick of faggots ruining everything.
10 years ago before SJW bullshit I would have voted different.
Fucking fags.
>>745900299
So you hate Radical LGBT and SJWs. Not gays.
>>745899766
I don't think it really matters honestly. Fags can be days. I just don't want it shoved in my face every five min. And I don't want the whole "look at me I'm gay" I'm a big hard hero to the human race attitude. Just because you came out of the closet doesn't mean you are a hero.
Don't give a shit. If your not going to exterminate them you might as well let them have all the rights as the rest of us.
>>745900354
Yes. But gays and SJW aligned together and I can't tell the difference anymore.
If two guys want to fuck, there's nothing wrong with it. Same goes for getting married.
However, if the vote ends up being a YES, SJWs will think they have won. Sorry gay blokes, should have fucked those SJW cunts off.
>>745900182
To be fair who wouldn't?
>>745899766
Bullshit violence on both sides. Someone got fired simply for saying they'd vote no.
Let's not pretend this is equal, the Yes voters are much more violent and are attacking people who disagree.
I'm going to vote yes, but intimidating people who don't agree with you is retarded and they should be shot for it.
I heard Gays already have every other right now other than marriage by name. Under a defacto relationship they get EVERYTHING now.
>>745899766
>Should Gay People have the right to get married.
They have the right to get married, same as anyone else. The question you are asking is should marriage be re-defined.
Speaking as a guy in a 17 year defacto relationship with 2 kids, no. The whole purpose of marriage was to provide protection for the children derived from couples being together. Today, at least in Australia it provides no function other than the symbolism of being married, you have the same legal protections/responsibilities as a defacto couple.
It is quite simply a push for acceptance and normalisation of a specific lifestyle without any other function behind it and one that will likely be followed by further pushes for other interest groups/.
>>745900644
>Someone got fired simply for saying they'd vote no.
Funny you say that, a Mormon friend of mine is coming under review for a post he made on facebook about why he's against it and will vote no but given that he's a welder for Qantas he probably should have held his Mormon in.
>>745899766
How about that teacher in that post on /bant/ earlier? Tasmania
no to marriage, yes to civil partnerships with all the tax benefits of marriage. identical in all but name.
>>745899818
fair shake of the sauce bottle there mate
GETGETGETGET
>>745902763
So why not calling that a marriage, if it's identical?
(sorry for the english)
>>745903188
Ask Nagi from Hobart
>>745903188
religious traditionalists uphold that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and nothing else, calling gay marriage a civil partnership keeps both sides happy.
>basically wanting acknowledgement from the gubbment
>Because senpai will never notice you
Stay mad gay fags
>>745903245
Yes, but for a lot of person, "civil partnership" is more like a contract between two person, and there is not the "moral commitment" found in marriage.
i would vote yes, the only reasons anyone says no are homophobia and religion and religion harbours more homophobia.
>>745900155
/b/ likes to make out that all SJWs are gross fatties with blue hair and piercings but there are a tonne of very hot SJW women at good colleges and universities.
>>745903469
If that was the stance yes voters took then i'd argue that their issue is with their own perception of marriage rather than what marriage contractually is. Any non-religious or divorced individual will tell you there is no moral commitment just a financial one.
The government doesn't need any more control over our lives. Even faggots deserve autonomy
>>745903469
>>745903642
sorry that was for
>>745903408
Voted yes, if they want to be in a miserable marriage like others and don't try and put it in other peoples poopers by force, then why give a shit?
>>745903982
Essentially for me it's because quickly following that recognition will be gay adoption/surrogacy and while I've got no problem with people being gay, I'm dead against them raising kids, single parent families are an unfortunate enough situation for kids.
I bet both got bashed by either a nigger or a sand nigger being paid to do so by a jewkike
>>745902672
fuck that pineapple pizza is good you mong
>>745904546
They have that already.
And honestly a couple that want a child and go out of their way to get one seems more dedicated than, i accidentally knocked up Shazza the other night and she says shes keeping it.
I don't care about marriage in the slightest, If Gays want to marry it affects me none at all.
Also the guy who headbutt Tony Abbot was a fucking Ledge, Tony's a cunt and will always be a cunt and it's got nothing to do with his opinion on the gays.
>>745899766
>Why would you vote YES ?
I have a lesbian friend and her happiness is more important to me than any other petty grievance
>Why would you vote NO ?
I think marriage on the whole is an antiquated sham and should recieve no legal recognition at all.
>>745900524
I know some gay people who hate the SJW/LGBT movements. Just keep fighting the good fight for freedom for every citizen of your country.
>>745899766
I'd vote Yes because I believe marriage is a bullshit thing in the first place and it's unfair faggots should be spared of it. I'm all for long-term commitments and what not, but to involve the state into my personal life is not worth any benefits with the bank, the hospital or anything else.
There's also lots of kids in orphanages who could use a loving family, even if it's fucked up a bit because of the gay situation. It's funny that the people who argue against this almost never think about adoption because they care more about that pseudo-special feeling of raising their own ejaculation instead of others', but they'll sure start to give a damn if faggots wanna do it because they're hypocritical cunts.
This would also simplify legal matters a lot instead of having to make exceptions every time there's a law or regulation which benefits families explicitly in order not to discriminate faggots.
On a social level, I believe that the more we normalize being gay the less faggots we'll have around. I believe a lot of teenagers who are naturally bisexual go full-blown gay and autistic in societies where it's still a taboo so they can feel like precious snowflakes. Same as with cigarettes, alcohol, pussy, cars, music and so forth - when it becomes legal and everyone's doing it, it's not longer cool and they move on to the next best thing.
It might be gross to see faggots acting out in the street and all, but between stepping on dog shit, smelling hobo piss, watching disgusting old fat women sun bathing in public parks and filthy gypsy women living in tents, I think I can stomach it.
>>745899766
No one is forcing anyone to marry anyone, so who gives a shit?
tbh all the arguments against fag marriage aren't based on any criticisms of fag marriage itself, but on worst case scenario hypotheticals following its legalisation. like i got this in the mail a couple of days ago; the first is wrong, the question doesn't ask anything about schools, in fact plenty of schools already teach about fags, the free speech point is also null, it's not what's being voted on, and at best is an ad hom against yes voters, and as for the final point, i support stripping religious insitutions of as many rights as possible, so even though this vote unfortunately won't do that, that could only be a positive in my mind.
>>745900524
it won't be any better though having a bunch of religious nuts running around claiming they won, stroking each other over how politically incorrect they are as though it's some deeply held virtue. they're both just as cringy as each other
YES OF COURSE!!
Straight people on the other hand are the cunts of the world & not have the rights to get married!
End of thread.
>>745899766
Let me answer with a bit of nuance.
Yes gay people should be allowed to married in a church, but preachers should also be allowed to say they don't want to be the one marrying them.
If a priest is unwilling himself, he should refer people to a priest who is willing.
I thew it out, couldnt decide
>>745906360
test
>>745900233
Homosexuals are not a failure at all, the current theory as it stands is that they benefited the tribe by contributing a fully grown males worth of work whilst not reproducing. Essentially a support for the tribe that would not strain resources while producing more.
>>745907675
I've also seen studies posit that gay people were a sort of natural adoption system for orphaned kids within the tribe.
>>745899766
No. They should have legal protections, and be allowed civil unions that afford the same legal protections, but marriage? No.
in fact, ALL marriage should be abolished and make them all civil unions, and then if a straight couple decides to get married, then it's recognised by the state.
This solves the problem from all sides. You're welcome.
>>745899766
Checked, also I'd say yes.
I don't give a fuck what folks do behind closed doors. I feel like if we just went past the debate people would shut the hell up about gay people in general. I'm just tired of both sides preaching to me.
>>745899766
marriage shouldn't be a government affair. if your religion or cult accepts gay marriage, then go for it, if not then don't. if you don't like it, change sects or church or religion.
>>745908010
Also, overpopulation is a thing. More gay people = less kids.
If they adopt, even better.
>>745899766
If some dudes want to marry and have gay sex that's ok, I don't feel like I have the right to keep them from doing that just because I wouldn't.
Sidenote: People deciding things based on whether or not it's supporters are violent are retarded scum and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
We live in a rational world where we can compare the advantages and disadvantages of ideas and then decide whether or not we should make them law, there is no reason to decide from emotional input.
I love dick myself and wanna see gays get married, but voted NO because I don't want to see the left continue to push the LGBT diversity agenda. Seriously fuck this cultural Marxism shit
>>745908136
But it also means higher % of kids born are muslim shits
>>745900644
Agree a quadrillion times.
In a country of free speech noone should be afraid to differ in opinion.
>>745899766
No. Because I'm a gaylord and glad gays can't marry. I don't need a certificate for a spiritual connection with someone.
>>745900888
>look at them trips
>>745905232
>I think marriness is useless so it shouldn't be allowed
I disagree, making something illegal just because it has no effect on one's life is basically just taking away freedom for no reason.
>>745907848
>gays want to marry
>I don't want that for literally no reason
>I also hate marriage for no reason
>marriage in itself shouldn't be allowed anymore, for no reason
good arguing
>>745899766
Ya know people talk shit on Murica but atleast we already put this issue to rest. Let fags get married for cryin out loud
>>745899766
I think marriage should be the sole province of religion. Civil unions should be the sole province of government.
Meaning, marriage gives you none of the govt. benefits, and govt. cannot marry anybody.
Civil unions should be strictly a legal contract - and no such thing as divorce. It's a simple breech of contract or contractual dissolution. Only the religious entity that married you can divorce you.
Completely separate institutions. That way, no government can say who can get married, while any number of consenting parties can enter into a civil union - and get the secular benefits thereof.
Marriage provides no secular benefits, while a civil union has no religious significance whatsoever.
>>745899766
Vote Yes : Because I don't care what happens in other people's beds, if they're happy that way then fine.
Vote No : Because they tend to shove it in your face and overstep their prerogatives. Gays being gays is fine, gays showing off and lecturing people about how great gays are is shit.
Conclusion : vote yes for civilized gays.
I'll start by saying that I'm not some SJW fruitcake with Utopia fantasies. I'm more of a Libertarian I guess. Looking at the whole gay marriage issue from a logical point of view, I don't see why it shouldn't be legal. Even if it remains illegal, gay people are still going to live together in common-law relationships anyways. Legalizing it literally harms nothing, and it's one less perpetual whine we have to listen to. As for the religious people who are against it: that's fine. I don't expect them to agree with it. But I do think that church and state should forever be separated; personal morals and values should not be legislated.
I'm in Canada by the way. We legalized gay marriage in July 2005. In that 12 years, it hasn't had a negative impact on our society.
voted no. Dont like the mentality of it all. Its yes/no, its either absolute victory or defeat. We aren't even trying for a compromise and are fixed on the word marriage moreso than peoples rights. I'm all for gay people having rights, but if we are fighting for it to be called marriage, and we can't just change the rights of civil unions, then we are really fixated on some dumb shit
>>745899766
>Same Sex Marriage Survey :
>Should Gay People have the right to get married.
Yes.
They should be able to be as miserable as straight people.
>>745908319
Not all Muslims are terrorists dude.
Even in your mind, if they're all terrorists, dope. Depopulation galore.
i don't have any problem with same sex mariage, I just hate SJW and pervert.
People in love should have the right to be happy and egal.
>>745908961
>not all muslims are terrorists dude
Do you really think this will work down here? You're trying to enlighten a brick wall.
>>745899766
Why would you vote no? Who gives a fuck? What they do in their own lives is no concern of mine. State marriage is fucking stupid anyway. Reeeeee
>>745899766
Should they be able to? Yes. Do I think it would be for the best? No. since it's been legal all that we have heard about these groups is sueing people who don't want to be involved in what they have going on. Because they have taken this freedom and ran it through the dirt, all other groups of any kind feel like if they cry about something long enough that they could profit from it...and they were right.
Yes cause it keeps peeps happy and encourages more commercial and financial opportunities.
Gay marriage is a lucrative business.
>>745900155
For reasons such as this example I voted 'No'.
I otherwise have no particular objection to gay folk entering into lifelong partnership, 'marriage' or however termed.
vote yes, this world is overpopulated.
>>745909513
Thanks im voting no after seeing this
I thought gays were nice but theyre just voilent fascists after all
>>745909717
Sauce?
>>745909717
it wont be overpopulated when all you queer fag lesbian shit lickers kys and the normies cqn go back to pillaging
>>745900155
These people have no idea how authoritarian they are. It's ironic that they've become the very monster that they were originally battling.
>>745899766
Vote YES
Why? Because nobody gives a damn if homosexuals get married, BUT~! NO religious institution should be FORCED to marry the couple AND no private religious business should be FORCED to cater to them.
>>745909717
yeah, by niggers and similar sub-humans
>>745899766
All "marriages" as we call them in our society should be renamed to civil unions. That includes gay or straight marriages. Then leave the term marriage to Christ fags so they will fuck off.
With that being said to anyone who is against gay marriage, just remember, just because the state says its legal that doesn't mean God is going to let them into heaven. So you can relax and enjoy your faggot free afterlife while reading your book of fables.
No. And here's why:
Married couples get small tax breaks. The government realized that people from broken homes are more likely to be criminals and it's far cheaper to give a family a slight incentive to stay together than it is to incarcerate someone. Faggots don't have kids, so they don't deserve the tax break.
Also, marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman before God to love and support each other and raise children. Faggots don't have kids and calling their relationship a "marriage" is a mockery of the institution.
>>745909751
Nice tribalism anon, it's like you haven't considered the difference between authoritarian and libertarian.
The authoritarian version of any group will use violence and shame tactics.
The libertarian groups just want people to have the same rights.
I voted NO yesterday
I WILL NOT ALLOW FUCKING FAGGOTS TO TAKE OVER MY BELOVED COUNTRY
IT'S OKAY TO SAY NO
I FUCKING DESPISE FAGGOTS, I HATE LIVING IN CUCKBOURNE
FUCK
>>745910102
Always find it funny the ones who hate faggots the most end up getting caught sucking some dick in a dirty motel
>>745910158
sounds like a personal experience
>>745910294
It does, doesn't it? Please tell us how it was, did you finally feel okay now that it was out and you could truly stop hiding it?
>>745910158
lol isn't there some kind of psychological link there? I remember reading something about that once. The people who oppose homosexuality the most actually have some latent, repressed homoerotic tendencies, and it's like a defense mechanism because all their life they were told it's a sin. Basically what psychologists would call cognitive dissonance. They hate it so much because it's a subconscious desire they know they can't control. I'm too lazy to google right now.
>>745910438
>>745910158
I've never read a more gay post on this board than these
If I hate blacks does that make me a nigger?
>>745899766
I would vote NO just because of experience. The more rights those fucks get, more they stuff it in your face everywhere. Plus they act like fucks all the time, not speaking of the closet types i like those ones. Keep it in your bed rooms you fucking perverted ass fucks.
No i think theyre taking over normal wholesome society as it is
pic related is youre average gays flaunting it in your face trying to turn society gay
>>745910747
People can't be "turned gay," anon. People are either born straight or gay. That's like saying that an author can wake up one morning and have his talent changed and become a surgeon.
It's funny that it would be a definite yes vote of the gays weren't such self obsessed, degenerate, aids-ridden, fairy-like, lispy queens that flaunt their love for cock to impressionable children. If they acted like normal, productive humans, people wouldn't be so hesitant to vote yes. The reality is that even if gays acted normal, it would still be biologically and morally wrong. Most people are too weak minded to see that it's a violation against nature though.
No, because I hate fags, simple as that.
>>745910918
You stupid fuck.
>>745910601
No, but it means that if you ever breed and have a daughter (not likely since this is 4chan), there is no doubt she is getting fucked by a nigger.
>>745910544
There usually is, its also that when you find someone hates fags so much and they themselves get caught being one, its also talked about more and hilarious, so it becomes news, especially when its a republican politician.
>>745911011
lol the gays ive met have all been normal and productive people
one of them offered me a gay blowjob but i said no
>>745899766
Sure, because I don't give a shit.
>>745911133
That's a very good counter-argument there, sir. The utilization of ad hominem attacks are by far the best indicator of a low IQ.
>>745899766
Gay people already have the right to get married.
Getting money for it is a completely different story.
>>745911290
then why vote
>>745911011
>it would still be biologically and morally wrong
>Most people are too weak minded to see that it's a violation against nature though.
If you want to go the "appeal to nature" route (which is actually a logical fallacy by the way) you could also say that hospitals and disease research need to be eradicated completely, right? If we are actively treating illnesses and artificially strengthening people's chances of survival, that goes against survival of the fittest and pushes evolution backwards, doesn't it?
>>745899766
Yes and no.
I don't care about what people do in their bedrooms, and I don't care about kissing / hand-holding same-sex couples in public.
If they want to engage in life-long partnerships, with full tax-privileges, etc, I'm fine with that, too, regardless if it's termed "marriage" or otherwise.
However:
No church can be forced to execute their wedding under its roof.
No bakery can be forced to sell them their marriage cake.
No wedding planner can be forced to execute their wedding.
If private citizens deny their service - for any valid or invalid reason, be it religion, hatred or intolerance - they have all rights to do so.
The government has no business in forcing people to conduct or refrain from certain practices, unless they pose a risk of direct physical harm (to others or one-self) as a consequence.
Intriducing laws that break with this concept, is a slippery slope that leads to behavioral policies, enforced by law, and therefore oppression.
Deal with it.
>>745911011
Who's morality? Religious morality, I'll give you that. Society morality..not really. See if the society you live in acknowledges that Gays should have the right to be married and collectively votes on it and agrees to it, then society has just said that its okay and NOT immoral. And that you would be the immoral one for denying the agreement that your society has agreed on.
Back to religious morality, again you would be right, God sure hates faggots. But seeing as he doesn't exist and the Bible is written by men (the ultimate in unreliable sources) who is to say what religion actually means.
>>745911645
>arguing with yourself so you can get an "appeal to nature" fallacy against being gay
kek. no one says being gay is biologically wrong.
everyone knows the argument is the other way around. animals are gay so it must be natural.
>>745911925
Does this extend to skin color or gender? Are you okay with stores putting up a sign that says "no colored" allowed? What about stores that say no white CIS men? You won't complain about those either, right? I mean if denying a service based on something arbitrary is okay for one reason, why not another?
What if i'm offended by amputees or mental handicaps? Is it okay to put "no 'tards, must have all limbs" at my store entrance? Where exactly is the line drawn?
>>745912027
I'm not samefagging or staging arguments. I'm legitimately replying to the guy who posted above me. People that intellectually inferior really do exist, if you've never noticed.
>>745912027
this is a false equivalence.
just because animals can be gay, gay practices do not lead to natural procreation, therefore their intercourse is a biologically futile practice.
People who discriminate gays on the basis of this argument should ask themselves if its a "duty" to procreate in our society.
Gays who call their practizes natural should ask themselves why no man ever got pregnant from a dick in his arse.
Bigotry and retarded arguments exists on both sides of this fence.
>>745912027
Animals kill and rape, does that mean we should also kill and rape?
>>745912133
Conservatives will argue that a business has a right to refuse service if it contradicts their personal religious beliefs.
Ironically, these are the same conservatives who are against Sharia law, which is basically the same kind of thing. Conservatives and Muslims alike only espouse the "right to muh religious beliefs" mindset when it suits their own agenda. Hypocrisy is human nature lol.
>>745912148
What arts degree do you possess, comrade?
>>745899766
The violence is just a distraction. Vote on the issue as you would have, not because of some outside influence. Why don't people get this? The violence isn't central to the issue.
>>745912133
Why would I care about any of those
I'd just go to another one that caters to my needs
>>745912349
>putting your peepee in a poopoo is like murder
So dramatic.
>>745912133
>Are you okay with stores putting up a sign that says "no colored" allowed?
Yes.
>What about stores that say no white CIS men?
Fine with me.
>You won't complain about those either, right?
Incorrect.
>What if i'm offended by amputees or mental handicaps? Is it okay to put "no 'tards, must have all limbs" at my store entrance?
Yes.
>Where exactly is the line drawn?
Right in your pocket.
If such despicable signs are put up there - don't buy there.
Either they have to close since their customers laugh and go to the next shop down the street, or you live in an area where enough people share this opinion, in which case you are entirely free to ignore this sign, or move away, or write a letter to the guy who put the sign up there to complain about it. Who knows, maybe you will have a chat and solve his prejudices in a civil manner.
However, governments intervening in such situations leads to nothing other but oppression.
One symptom of how broken a situation can be after government internvention:
Criticizing Christianity by atheists is fine.
Critizising Islam by atheists is somehow racism (even tho Muslims are not a race), "Islamophobia" (somehow a mental illness), and forbidden by law under threat of fines and even jail.
>>745912548
Transferring your AIDS to another male could be construed as murder
>>745912349
exactly. which is why the appeal to nature fallacy is used in favor of being gay
Some dumb bitch: "my dog is gay so it must be natural to be gay"
>>745912409
If you cant see the difference between Sharia law and Western law you are an idiot.
>>745912409
I am not a conservative.
I just argue for less government intervention in civil matters.
see
>>745912644
>>745912659
Oh the things you'll construe!
>>745912410
None. I don't want to spend the rest of my life mopping up spilt milk in a supermarket.
I'm not sure exactly how you ascertain from my post that I'm some hipster/SJW/arts student autist.
>>745912726
I know that there's a big difference. My point is that self-serving religious lunkheads will be self-serving religious lunkheads no matter what the religion is. And it's ironic when a Christian conservative refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple, citing his right to religious beliefs as the reason, but when somebody from another religion does something similar, that Christian conservative will verbally flay him to death just because it's an opposing religion.
Well I'm catholic so I voted no.
>>745912245
Who cares if bigotry exists on the side against being gay?
The point is that the democrats want to make money off this meme of gays being the most discriminated people in the world
Against being gay:
>we don't want to pay for your shit
Gay supporters:
>we want you to pay marriage taxes for gays
>we want to flip your company upside for gays
>we want to change what you like because gays
>everyone has to help gays
its fucking ridiculous
>>745912960
where can i buy these amazing watches friend?
>>745913058
surprise: religions are bigoted.
Still they have a right to be IF their practices don't end in physical harm for others.
>>745913121
heartless heathen, youre burning i hell i can assure you
>>745912245
I've never understood the "it's not natural because it doesn't conceive children" argument. By that logic, a straight male-female couple shouldn't be allowed to get married if they decide not to have children because it's unnatural not to have children?
>>745913234
Exactly, hence I stated that this argument is dumb in this regard.
This doesn't change the fact that there are dumb arguments in this specific debate on the other side, too.
>>745913058
Christians dont think people should be gay. A few of them go off and kill gays
Muslims don't think people should be gay. 1000s line up and watch gays be thrown from the roof tops.
>cant you see they are exactly the same.
>>745913234
>>745913341
also, just because something is unnatural, it isn't necessarily bad.
Gay sex is unnatural.
So is modern technology.
Neither should be criminalized "just" because they are unnatural.
>>745911925
>However:
>No church can be forced to execute their wedding under its roof.
Presently the churches enjoy exemption but this may change. Why else was the new legislation drawn up but not shown to the public?
>No bakery can be forced to sell them their marriage cake.
Under current laws that is already illegal and any baker discriminating against a person due to sexual preferences faces serious fines and potential loss of business license.
>No wedding planner can be forced to execute their wedding.
Again, that's actually false. They can face charges of discrimination that would cripple and destroy any small business. It's against the law for them to refuse service based on the gender, sex or sexuality of the client.
>>745913210
I dont mind gays just not marriage or at least on the bible a civil union should do. Even if i wasn't the shit that the yes voters are doing is just ridiculous.
>>745913364
The only true religion is Jehovah Witnesses all the rest are just Satan tricking you join today or burn burn BURN!
If a male who identifys themselves a female and wants to marry a male does that count as gay marriage or a normal straight marriage?
>>745913503
I know that my principles- liberal principles - are not 100% fulfilled in our society. Hence I vote conservative, even tho I'm a liberal, because the pendulum has swung too far towards progressives.
>>745899766
Why marry at all? Why do you need some legal paper where it says you have to be together? If you love that other person you don't need marriage, you will actively work on making your partner happy
>>745911925
you're right, but the main concern is that this is just a foothold to push through a lot more laws that will eventually deny religious rights and business rights based on discrimination.
>>745913674
taxes, inheritance laws, title of "related" by law. Without these, medical as well as financial decisions can be come quite complicated between life-partners, compared to a married couple.
>>745913778
hence I vote conservative.
see
>>745913664
>>745912133
suck it up cunt. If I walked into a store that asked me to leave I might be put off a bit, sure, but I would just go elsewhere and if there personal choices tank their business then so be it. Who am I to say what someones private business can and cannot do.
>>745899766
Which Prime minister was he the godson of? Whoever is his god father will determine whether he deserved it
Why do gays demand to get married in a church anyways? Why would they WANT to be married by an institution that tormented them for centuries, and still looks down on them today? If I were gay I'd be aiming for a secular marriage.
Yes because who the fuck cares about other peoples lives you don't even know
>>745903408
Check out>>745903642
>>745899988
Those digits...
I guess traps aren't gay after all
>>745914050
because individual gays can be bigoted, too.
Most gay couple actually don't care about the church-question. Only a vocal minority within gay movements calls for this.
>>745913846
Not in australia
The rights of a civil union are identical to a married couple
>>745914235
Then other factors would decide if I vote conservative or liberal in australia.
>>745914318
This is about gay marriage you tard
>>745914360
and in australia this question seems to be resolved already, is it not?
>>745899766
Yes they should allow to get married on paper but I wouldn't want them get married at a church.
it's just disrespectful of the catholic religion. :)
>>745899766
Yes
>Why would you vote YES ?
Because why the fuck not. Gays are usually cool and most are not faggot snowflakes. When they are happy together, i don't see a reason why they should not marry.
Also: At some point gays will step on our side against muslims.
>>745899766
build a super dome and who ever wins has their issues addressed
>>745899766
Yes. If gays want to sign up for the social trap that is marriage, they should be allowed to make the same mistake as straight people.
>>745914405
>Also: At some point gays will step on our side against muslims.
That's a good point. Same reason I keep on good terms with the Jews.
>>745914391
No, for the moment marriage is just heterosexual
Recently there's a form you can fill out which if the majority of people vote yes then the parliament will vote on legalising it or not
In Australia though there's no legal reason to do that since civil unions include homosexual couples and that's where all the rights are at
>>745914405
>i don't see a reason why they should not marry.
Me neither.
but this law already covers a rat-tail of other questions.
see (and chain of replies)
>>745911925
In its current form, "No" seems the most justified answer for me. Ofc this can change to a "yes" at any time, and certainly it will as soon as the civil oppression, caused by this issue, ends.
>>745899766
Yes they should be allowed to get married. They're two people in love and are both adults. Let them get married and have that be the end of it. What does sit honestly matter to you? How does them being married effect you?
All civilized and advanced countries allow gay marriage. Even 'Murica. To fail to do so is to be stuck in the past and failing to keep up.
>>745914580
Give me 1 good reason why gay marriage should be legal in Australia and let's see if you're informed or not
>>745914554
then I would vote "No" in this regard, and wait for a proposal that just renames civil unions to "marriage".
If all necessary rights are granted, not further changes to society by law are necessary to achieve equality. Every change beyond that just achieves inequality again.
>>745914700
What would be the point in changing the name of a civil union
>>745910918
It's true most are born that way and can't help it but some do indeed "turn". Women are most capable of this. Chirlane Mccray, the wife of the mayor of NYC is a perfect example. 70's lesbian feminist is now married with 2 kids
>>745899766
Yes, because it has no impact on my life and even homophobic people. It's just good for the concerned one
>>745914802
because it would take away the religious monopoly of conducting marriages, and shut those up who scream "oppression" at a name-difference of a legal status that is the same already...
>>745914817
I've heard that women are more likely to "turn", but they aren't really true gays. This is usually a psychological defense mechanism after a rape or molestation at a prepubescent age. I've actually met several girls who were molested by male family members prior to the age of 14, and sure enough, they turned out to be fake gays.
>>745914950
In aus we have religious marriage, church decides this
We have marriage given by the state, heterosexual
We have civil unions, hetero and homosexual
Legally there's no difference between marriage and civil union, except I think it's easier to obtain a civil union than marriage
Gays bitching in this country have no reason to, we have a good system
>>745899766
Yes. Cause why should I care? It affects me none.
>>745900005
I support gay marriage and I hope everybody turns to gay so they wont reproduce anymore and finally extinguish the most cancerous being ever made
>>745914655
Because there are gay people that live in Australia and they wish to be we'd for legal and cultural reasons which lead them to believe it is the ideal climax of a loving relationship.
I'm perfectly well informed and my answer is iron clad.
Air Trolls !!!
You were wrong to oppose women having the right to vote
You were wrong to oppose the abolition of slavery
You were wrong to oppose African Americans from voting
You were wrong to oppose the desegregation of schools.
You were wrong to oppose child labor laws.
This just in...
You're wrong to oppose same sex marriage.
>>745915102
That's stupid, and you're stupid for believing it.
Words have power. Someone being in a 'civil union' are not married. They have a civil union. The fact that they are not allowed to be married, which you yourself said was legally no different, is a very stupid and silly argument of semantics. The word married has meaning. Let them use it.
>>745915650
Well done, sir!
>>745915650
This just in...
Half of all Trump voters still oppose all of these things.
>>745899988
I'm mtf trans and I am legally female, had to go to court and everything but they issued me a new fucking birth certificate saying I'm a female. Social security, college degrees, drivers license, etc.... I'm fully legally a girl now.
>>745915431
>because some people want it
I was expecting a moral or legal argument but I guess this is how politics works nowadays
>>745915936
It's precisely because of that reason they shouldn't be married
It's between a man and a woman, why would you break that tradition for no reason other than just wanting to break it
>>745915650
10 years from now: you were wrong for not letting old men go to the same change rooms as your daughter
the problem here is that "marriage" is basically the most worthless thing to non gay people.
just let them do it, it doesn't matter at all.
they can act gay in public
they can raise children
they can live togheter
fuck, these are the important things you should care and try to stop if you don't like gays.
but marriage is worthless, who cares.
>>745899961
well done idiot all youve done is delay it and made more money get spent
>>745911429
I care about things, but who fucks who isn't one of them. I'm not in high school, either.
>>745916122
OK, so what legal argument is there for a cultural practice? It is not a legal issue. It is an issue of culture. The culture dictates that marriage is the ultimate form of relationship. Therefore, all citizens should be allowed to achieve that formula if they are in a relationship.
That's it. There's nothing else to it. If you want to be pretty and start saying certain people can't engage in their own culture just because of who they fuck, then you have no legal argument either. It's opinion. It should be illegal because somebody doesn't want it to be legal. You're being hypocritical.
And it isn't being broken just to break it. It is being altered to accomadate your population. When's the last time you saw a woman pay a dowry? That was a marriage tradition that was altered to suit the times. So is this one. Grow the fuck up.
>>745915650
I would take back all those things if I could.
>it's cruel to let a child help their dad on a construction site
>it's normal and good to put them so deep in debt for an education that might be worthless, and coddle them for 2-8 years in a setting that insulates them from the problems of adult life
Maybe 10% of the population is suited to vote, and most of them are white, land owning males. Because I'm a liberal, I'd let some minorities and married women vote
>>745916462
Marriage is a tradition between a man and a woman.
I'm opposed to changing a tradition like marriage without a proper reason. Most changes to marriage in the past had a legal or financial reason to it, this one is about changing the entire concept for a minority, which is wrong.
>>745916088
>that horse is actually a deer
>the emperor told me so
>>745899766
The guy who headbutt Abbot said it had nothing to do with the gay marriage thing, but a long list of Abbott as a shitcunt of a human & politician.
& I'm voting yes because voting no is just cruel imo
>>745916819
So what? I pass irl as a chick so it's all good lol.
>>745917321
Are you honest with the people you date or do you have to lie
>>745906044
>progressive doesn't want to sound like a cuck
>sprinkle derogatory language for the subtle edge
>>745916794
I've got news for ya fella: traditions have been changed all throughout history. Traditions don't last forever. Nothing man-made lasts forever.
Blue is for boys and pink is for girls is a very old tradition, right? Wrong. Today’s colour dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s, as a result of Americans’ preferences as interpreted by manufacturers and retailers.
You have to realize that this is a hard-wired instinct too anon. Scientists have proven that there are structural brain differences in left-leaning and right-leaning people. Left-leaning people are inclined to favour science and social progress; right-leaning people are wired to favour conscientiousness, tradition, societal uniformity. Conservatives are basically the half of the human population that has a less evolved brain and prefers safety/tribalism over progress.
>>745917402
I'm engaged lol. I didn't tell him when we first started dating and he auto assumed I was a real girl, he didn't take it well after he tried to undress me a few weeks into the relationship and was greeted with a penis instead of a vag. Crazy thing is now he doesn't want me to get the snip
I'd argue wedding gifts are a vestige of the dowry/brideprice tradition.
>>745917321
I'm afraid that says more about the quality of modern women than it does about you.
>>745917603
>I'm afraid that says more about the quality of modern women than it does about you.
What do u mean? Is it the fact if one looks pretty and is a vapid bimbo then society sees them automatically as a girl? I am a major smooth brained cockslut
>>745917558
>Scientists have proven that there are structural brain differences in left-leaning and right-leaning people
Do people actually believe this?
>>745917777
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121337.htm
>Individuals who call themselves liberal tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, while those who call themselves conservative have larger amygdalas. Based on what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat, the researchers say.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/
>Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions.
>>745917558
>anecdote about the color of baby clothes means biology and human nature can be changed with the stroke of a pen
>functional folkways and social structures have to be destroyed to suit a tiny minority
>Conservatives are basically the half of the human population that has a less evolved brain and prefers safety/tribalism over progress.
That sounds an awful lot like an argument based in tribal animus
>the people in the next village over don't sing the same songs as us
>don't they know our songs are best? They must be subhuman idiots
>>745917941
>three sources, one of which isn't even psychology let alone science
so this is what people call science nowadays?
>>745917941
>clear answers even to complicated questions.
Sounds like every vocal liberal I've ever met
>well see, we've done things this way for a long time, and while I have no ill will for people who choose a different way of life, I'm afraid that if we tear up all the--
>SHUT UP BIGOT
>LOVE TRUMPS HATE
>SCIENCE JOURNALIST SAY MY BRAIN BE BIG YOURS BE SMALL
>>745917941
less risk taking behavior is not equal to "less evolved"
Your argument is invalid.
If anything, it explains why the pendulum of society keeps swinging
>>745899766
No, it's another step on the Semitic stairs of Satan; leads to acceptance of more degeneracy, social problems and it's not natural. Those with certain problems should seek help to regain their natural hormone balance, porn addiction and unnatural fetishes. If problems remain, pray the gay away
>>745918120
Nah nig. There's a difference between a moderate left-leaning democrat and an authoritarian social justice warrior. I'm a moderate leftist who is fine with gays, but I think social justice warriors should be force-fed broken glass, as should Muslims.
Not a SJW by any means, but people these days seem to think every single left-leaning person is a hardcore "fash-bashing" SJW autist.
>>745900233
Hahaha, dummy. Ben Shapiro is a (Jew) libertarian, who would vote AGAINST ANY influence of government on marriage, so he would vote no
>>745899766
STOP TALKING ABOUT GAY PEOPLE ALREADY
Average incomes have not risen since being a gay became okay. Bring back the closet! Make america straight again!
>>745899766
I'd vote yes because I don't give a fuck what anyone else does with their lives enough to block their wish to be married.
More fool anyone who needs to spend thousands to prove a point of loving their partner
>>745899766
Yes because I'm not a fascist monster.
>>745919223
This attitude is why trump won
>hurr if you disagree ur literally hitler
>>745909751
>>745919223
I don't think you guys know what a "fascist" is. It has nothing to do with accepting or hating a sexuality.
>>745899766
marriage only if the church allows it, a church cannot be compelled
there should be an additional class of secular union that provides the same protections and rights for couples as marriage does as civil unions do not
the only right answer is to gas the marxists and their jewish masters. save your country.
>>745918446
That's the problem. When we ratchet left, those who don't go along with the new program become bigots.
In 2000, most people (including many gays!) hadn't even considered the idea of gays marrying. It was not even a concept that you could like or dislike. It was a category error.
Today, it's official dogma, and if you don't at least nod along, you will be disemployed and socially ostracized in most major cities.
I wonder what they'll come up with next? There's always holiness points in finding new "injustices", and getting useful idiots to form a lynch mob.
I've noticed a few thinkpieces on NPR about furries and how they're just normal people who shouldn't be discriminated against.
>>745919827
Well, people always worry about things going too far. But things can only go so far before it just gets so ridiculous that the majority WILL put their foot down. Take pedophile rights groups for example, who want to legalize sexual contact with "consenting" children. It's such an over-the-top and profoundly absurd concept that nobody in their right mind would go along with it.
Violence against women should be legalized, all women's rights should be repealed
>>745899766
Yes, because who the fuck cares? If my neighbor wants to marry his foot fungus, it really won't affect me.
>>745920101
Something we can all agree on.
>>745919989
Leftist signalling spirals have been around for a very long time, and they can go very far.
Eventually, cooler heads prevailed and realized Robespierre and Trotsky had to go... but that still only froze things in the fucked up state they were in. It can take decades to come down from that, and much will be lost.
being gay is gay
