Same sex marriage vote in Australia.

I voted no. I just think we are putting to much focus on gender issues.

Our kids are falling behind in maths and science because people are concerned with genitals and ethnicity. It's ridiculous.

Why is our nation promoting same sex marriage when we have declining birth rates??

If you want to be gay, then be gay, I couldn't give a rats ass. but ffs, why do we need to promote it? It's the last thing we should be doing..
lmao @ this post having 10+ likes
 
Marriage is a religious construct and as such in a Christian based society is definitely based on a male and female union.

Saying that I'm not religious and see no reason why a guy in a fancy dress that's more likely to bugger children can tell me who I spend my life with.... Why do gay people?

There are plenty of clubs with a selective membership. Why is marrying different? It's a 99% religious based movement that states to be part of the ideal you need to be male female to join.

Personally I'd start my own exclusive club if I felt that way inclined. Is there an organised movement of straight people forcing gays to stop the Mardi Gras and taking it to a referendum
And yet every culture has a form of marriage making your entire post moot
 
Canada did the same thing about 15 years ago and absolutely nothing changed except gay people can get married. Things did not get worse and things did not get better because gay marriage was legalized. It is what it is.
This
The sky did not fall despite the predictions of money on the right
 
It's not a religious construct at all. You have no argument.

What these people ignore is that language itself, you know, how we are communicating with each other right now, is also a social construct.
 
All over the place with this one


Pedophilia and bestiality do not involve consent. Incest in most cases involves child abuse, where the underage person is not able to give legal consent and there are public health implications for any offspring of such relationship. We have already gone over this, and your attempt to connect same sex marriage with moral equivalency to pedophilia, incest and bestiality is becoming pathetic and illogically emotional. Polygamy, if practiced between consenting adults, pose no issue with me.

Consent is a social construct which is used to makes laws n discriminate against certain groups. Similar to marriage.

Marriage As a social construct is an institution n union between a man n a woman. Not a man with another man or man n animal.

When it comes to incest...

You’re arguing that adults should be allowed to do whatever they want. If 2 adults brother/sister wants to get married, what’s your reason to prevent them? Their offspring might have issues? In that case all the ppl with medical condition should be barred from marrying n having kids?


Common sense is that an adult can engage in any kind of relationship with another adult as long as both parties agree. There are plenty of homosexuality in other animals, so your biology argument is factually moot. Cohabitation and sexual relationships do not have to produce offspring. There are plenty of straight couples who have no plan to do so. No one is promoting any lifestyle here except you. People should be free to form any relationship they like and be recognized for it. You on the other hand, seem insistent on telling others how they should live their lives.

Adults can engage in any kind of relationship? So you’re k with adult brother n sister getting married?

But why stop with adults?

What if a man n a child want to engage in “any kind of relationship”?

Their relationship doesn’t concern you directly? So why would you care then?

Or a man n an animal?

Surely their relationship doesn’t affect you. You wouldn’t be forced to have sex with your pet, just cause you’re next door neighbor is allowed to marry his goodfish

Live n let live, right?


Being forced to marry only opposite sex when they are not attracted to them is not only in violation of their equality rights, but morally wrong. If marriage as a institution is officially recognized by the state, then so should same sex marriage.

So should incest, marriage between man n animals, man n children...

Following your logic opposing to these is also violation of their equality rights n morally wrong


More emotional nonsense from you that has little to do with gay marriage. Pushing your twisted morality on others and denying equal rights because of people's sexual orientation is by its nature, oppressive. Most civilized societies have tossed aside that kind of barbarity.

Funny you talk about “pushing twisted morality”, but you’re the one talking about what’s “morally wrong”

Who made you the authority on morality again?

Also if you want emotional nonsense all you gotta do is read your posts. There’s no logical argument, just you emotional ones
 
huge surge in post-vote hate crimes, shocking footage here of a hulking aborigine assaulting a local homosexual with a traditional implement

tenor.gif


despicable behaviour if i'm being honest
 
I agree representation for complex issues is a better (at times) option. But, governing a base, country or state is pretty complex -- so why do we let people vote on that, but not ssm, which is a simpler concept?

And first and foremost, a representative should vote for the will of his / her constituency -- not for what they personally view as right or wrong.

In terms of legalized pot, ssm, and other societal aspects, people should vote on the society they want to live in with a majority rule and not let appointed entities decide for them.

If people can be entrusted to elect representatives, they should also be entrusted to vote on certain issues directly. Doesn't take a vanguard to have an opinion on gay marriage
Issues like same-sex marriage are a bit different because they involve basic rights but I agree with you on things like pot

Switzerland decides a lot of issues by referendum, I know a guy who emigrated to Alberta because he " always lost " the referendums lol
 
Issues like same-sex marriage are a bit different because they involve basic rights but I agree with you on things like pot

Switzerland decides a lot of issues by referendum, I know a guy who emigrated to Alberta because he " always lost " the referendums lol

In Canada we had a referendum on whether or not a province could leave -- that seems like one of the most complex issues you could deal with.

I was thinking about the merits of a public vote on issues like gay marriage v pot. I think pot is the more complex in terms of impact because of the incarceration aspects. Gay marriage doesn't have as harsh of the ramifications if it didn't pass (because they just couldn't marry -- they wouldn't go to jail for trying)

Also interesting to note is that if they did put it to a vote -- it could've passed roughly 3-4 years before the supreme court ruling.

I think there's a lot of merits. Also note that Australia doesn't have a charter of rights -- interesting that it took this long for the public vote to pass. Thought they would be more progressive from a public support lens (they may be but just took a really long time to set up the vote)
 
What are you bitching about?

You made no arguments just weak ass insults cause somebody on the Internet doesn’t share your views on ssm.

You’re a bum, get lost

Weak ass insults? Says the inbred who kept repeating "gay guy" over and over.

Your argument:

"Marriage is between a man and a woman, because it is".

There is no physical law defining marriage since its not a biological phenomenon. The ability to reproduce is also not a pre-requisite for marriage, since infertile couples can get married.

And since the bible is a load of horse shit in printed form, nothing it says about it should ever been taken seriously, especially in a secular country like Australia.

Now get lost cuntface
 
All over the place with this one




Consent is a social construct which is used to makes laws n discriminate against certain groups. Similar to marriage.

Marriage As a social construct is an institution n union between a man n a woman. Not a man with another man or man n animal.

When it comes to incest...

You’re arguing that adults should be allowed to do whatever they want. If 2 adults brother/sister wants to get married, what’s your reason to prevent them? Their offspring might have issues? In that case all the ppl with medical condition should be barred from marrying n having kids?




Adults can engage in any kind of relationship? So you’re k with adult brother n sister getting married?

But why stop with adults?

What if a man n a child want to engage in “any kind of relationship”?

Their relationship doesn’t concern you directly? So why would you care then?

Or a man n an animal?

Surely their relationship doesn’t affect you. You wouldn’t be forced to have sex with your pet, just cause you’re next door neighbor is allowed to marry his goodfish

Live n let live, right?




So should incest, marriage between man n animals, man n children...

Following your logic opposing to these is also violation of their equality rights n morally wrong




Funny you talk about “pushing twisted morality”, but you’re the one talking about what’s “morally wrong”

Who made you the authority on morality again?

Also if you want emotional nonsense all you gotta do is read your posts. There’s no logical argument, just you emotional ones

wtf is this rant about?

Defining consent as a social construct doesn't in any way intelligently argue two adults with human brains that society and medicine have deemed mature enough to make the decision to marry and have sex with other human adults is in any way, shape, or form, the same as a child or animal having similar brains structures and cognitive functions that allow them to make the same informed decision.

Are you saying children and animals have developed the same brains as adults? Hint, they don't. What the fuck do they have to do with a discussion about adult relationships?

The medical and scientific community believe the effects of incest on the genetic make up of offspring is consistently negative enough to recommend it be discouraged and society agreeing. Again, fuck all to do with SSM. If you want to make a thread on whether or not people who carry genetic markers for diseases should be able to procreate go study the likelihood of passing those on, compare it to that of incest, and make a thread. It has nothing to do with SSM.

You're next level triggered and ranting about all sorts obscure shit.
 
And yet every culture has a form of marriage making your entire post moot

TBH I'm less than impressed with myself in this thread and didn't delete some of my amazingly witty remarks as a reminder to drink less but for this point I stand by it.

The simple answer to your point is to get married somewhere that openly supports gay marriage (now Australia). What I hate is the people shouting down people like the ts who are entitled to their own opinions and aren't destructive about it. A doctor volunteered for the against ads and the loud mouth little Hitler's tried to have her practicing certificate torn up like she shouldn't be allowed her own opinion. The ts has a very good point about the aggressiveness of the for side and it showed in this thread.

Australia is a Christian cultured country with a Christian based view on ethics(for the most part). Our marriages were done with the blessings of a church (until relatively recently) and if it's a church based foundation don't be surprised if you're rejected because you don't meet the standards required.

I say this as a non religious person and personally I feel I shouldn't be allowed to get married in a religious based manner because I don't meet the religious criteria.

If I had voted I would have voted no but I didn't because I didn't care enough about it. Im starting to think I should have though as like a lot of the alternative lifestyle choices it's a slippery slope.
 
What makes a marriage is determined by the community & if that includes gays so be it. I have no problem with it, so long as churches remain protected. Our attitudes re: gays 75 years ago were probably wrong- but the state coercing people to celebrate & bless something they personally find deeply immoral is wrong too imo.
 
Issues like same-sex marriage are a bit different because they involve basic rights but I agree with you on things like pot

Switzerland decides a lot of issues by referendum, I know a guy who emigrated to Alberta because he " always lost " the referendums lol

How is gaaysex marriage a more legitimate “human right” than polygamous marriage?
 
wtf is this rant about?

Defining consent as a social construct doesn't in any way intelligently argue two adults with human brains that society and medicine have deemed mature enough to make the decision to marry and have sex with other human adults is in any way, shape, or form, the same as a child or animal having similar brains structures and cognitive functions that allow them to make the same informed decision.

Well there lays the problem. We have to assume they made a “right” decision even though biology doesn’t support it.

Gay men are not different than straight men. They have same sexual organs as straight men n produce reproductive cells the same way straight men do.

Therefore the difference is in their head n they’re clearly confused or have some type of disorder.

Just cause medical community caved in n gave in into homosexual demands n “deem” them “normal” it simply doesn’t make it so. Men are suppose to be attracted by women, no other men. If that’s the case than it’s no different than being attracted by pre pub kids or animals (looking at it more biological pov)

Are you saying children and animals have developed the same brains as adults? Hint, they don't. What the fuck do they have to do with a discussion about adult relationships?

If you’re attracted to something you’re not supposed to be attracted to, The question becomes how functional is really a brain of a that person?



The medical and scientific community believe the effects of incest on the genetic make up of offspring is consistently negative enough to recommend it be discouraged and society agreeing. Again, fuck all to do with SSM. If you want to make a thread on whether or not people who carry genetic markers for diseases should be able to procreate go study the likelihood of passing those on, compare it to that of incest, and make a thread. It has nothing to do with SSM.

You're next level triggered and ranting about all sorts obscure shit.

So? The same type of argument is being used by ssm supporters when they’re comparing ss couples to straight couples that can’t have kids

Also the big part of ssm advocates narrative is this notion that it’s all about “consenting adults”

The government/society shouldn’t step in n prevent consenting adults in forming their relationships, otherwise it’s “human rights violation”

Well following that logic adult brother n sister shouldn’t be prevented by anybody to get together n marry.
 
Well there lays the problem. We have to assume they made a “right” decision even though biology doesn’t support it.

Gay men are not different than straight men. They have same sexual organs as straight men n produce reproductive cells the same way straight men do.

Therefore the difference is in their head n they’re clearly confused or have some type of disorder.

Just cause medical community caved in n gave in into homosexual demands n “deem” them “normal” it simply doesn’t make it so. Men are suppose to be attracted by women, no other men. If that’s the case than it’s no different than being attracted by pre pub kids or animals (looking at it more biological pov)



If you’re attracted to something you’re not supposed to be attracted to, The question becomes how functional is really a brain of a that person?





So? The same type of argument is being used by ssm supporters when they’re comparing ss couples to straight couples that can’t have kids

Also the big part of ssm advocates narrative is this notion that it’s all about “consenting adults”

The government/society shouldn’t step in n prevent consenting adults in forming their relationships, otherwise it’s “human rights violation”

Well following that logic adult brother n sister shouldn’t be prevented by anybody to get together n marry.

Procreating and marriage are completely separate things. Married couples don't have to have kids, non-married couples can have kids. There's zero reason to bring it up. We don't make it a stipulation for hetro couples getting married so it's a waste of time for you to imply it is one with SSM.

Let this sink in. A marriage is legally binding contract two adults enter, nothing else you are trying to lump on top of it means anything as far as the government is concerned, it only means something in your conservative SJW opinion. You seem to not have a clue what a legal marriage actually is.

The courts don't care what you want marriage to mean, they aren't here to legislate your feels. They enforce the contract. Kids can't enter this contract, nor animals. The contract says nothing about procreating. I don't know why conservative snowflakes need their personal beliefs in what marriage should entail beyond this contract to be supported by government and followed by everyone else. If you want your marriage to be about procreation cool, why do you need big government to echo that? It's like you need the whole country to be a safe space for your beliefs. Get thicker skin. Banning SSM isn't going to convince gays to marry the other sex and have kids. Your point here has zero context in reality.

I already said incest is banned because of the effects on offspring and as history has shown insectual couples don't abstain from procreating. Procreating in the same gene pool is an impossible and banned thing for gay couples to do so your obsession with it has fuck all to do with this topic. It's like arguing about dogs getting drivers license means cats would need them too...wtf? Who cares they can't drive. You can start a thread arguing against or for incestual marriage but it has zero to do with the reality of SSM.
 
I was in Australia when this vote went down. Sydney actually. Beautiful city.

Carry on.
 
Procreating and marriage are completely separate things. Married couples don't have to have kids, non-married couples can have kids. There's zero reason to bring it up. We don't make it a stipulation for hetro couples getting married so it's a waste of time for you to imply it is one with SSM.

Let this sink in. A marriage is legally binding contract two adults enter, nothing else you are trying to lump on top of it means anything as far as the government is concerned, it only means something in your conservative SJW opinion. You seem to not have a clue what a legal marriage actually is.

The courts don't care what you want marriage to mean, they aren't here to legislate your feels. They enforce the contract. Kids can't enter this contract, nor animals. The contract says nothing about procreating. I don't know why conservative snowflakes need their personal beliefs in what marriage should entail beyond this contract to be supported by government and followed by everyone else. If you want your marriage to be about procreation cool, why do you need big government to echo that? It's like you need the whole country to be a safe space for your beliefs. Get thicker skin. Banning SSM isn't going to convince gays to marry the other sex and have kids. Your point here has zero context in reality.

I already said incest is banned because of the effects on offspring and as history has shown insectual couples don't abstain from procreating. Procreating in the same gene pool is an impossible and banned thing for gay couples to do so your obsession with it has fuck all to do with this topic. It's like arguing about dogs getting drivers license means cats would need them too...wtf? Who cares they can't drive. You can start a thread arguing against or for incestual marriage but it has zero to do with the reality of SSM.

You’re simply changing the definition of marriage

Marriage is between a man n a woman

You wanna change that to 2 adults?

However why does it have to stop there then?

You can start including more than 2 ppl, animals, kids, brother n sister...

For that last part they meet your criteria of “consenting adults”

Preventing them from marrying is then also violation of their “rights”

Courts/government shouldn’t be concerned with medical issues their kids might have cause they don’t do it to regular couples with medical conditions
 
Last edited:
There's a thread for off topic discussion stickied in the WR.
...or you could just go to the OT.
Continuing to derail this thread with off topic bickering isn't an option.
 
Back
Top