This was posted 7 years 3 months 12 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

FREE T-Shirt to Those Enrolled to Vote from Gorman

29016
FREE T-Shirt to Those Enrolled to Vote from Gorman
Go to Deal
Cashback
kosh52 on 24/08/2017 - 21:48 gormanshop.com.au (7457 clicks)
Last edited 25/08/2017 - 14:48 by 3 other users

With less than 24 hours to go until the enrollment period for the postal vote on national marriage laws closes, Gorman is out to gather last-minute sign ups.

The label has just announced it’ll be giving away free ‘Love is Love’ T-shirts, in order to spread the word about marriage equality and help foster as many ‘yes’ votes as possible.

The T-shirt takes artwork from Gorman’s Spring collaboration with Monika Forsberg and is available in limited quantities at all of Gorman’s Australian stores.

If you’d like to score one, simply head into a Gorman store tomorrow (August 25) and present a screenshot of your verified enrollment details. There are 5000 tees in total up for grabs, so you’ll want to head down early.

To make sure you can have your say on whether our marriage laws should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, head to the AEC and update your details or enrol by midnight tonight.

http://aec.gov.au/enrol

Mod: Just a reminder. Discussion is fine but let's be respectful of others.

Fashion & Apparel T-Shirt

Related Stores

Gorman Online
Gorman Online

closed Comments

  • 87percent on 25/08/2017 - 09:35
    +1

    I got one at Chadstone for the wife.. rocked up at 830 and the line was about 50m long, but they were letting in 5 at a time so it was quick

  • Your Friend on 25/08/2017 - 09:35
    +2

    I just don't understand wanting to be married from the gay community. You don't actually gain anything other than being able to say you "are married", legally you already have all the same rights and opportunities as a married couple.

    The main point is that "marriage" is a christian tradition. Christians are more or less flat out against homosexuality so why would you as a gay person even want to be married.

    Furthermore does this mean that all religions must be forced to allow anyone to be "partnered" or "married" under their religion even if it goes against the religion's values? I don't see the gay community forcing themselves under the muslim marriage ceremony (whatever that is).

    This sets a bad precedent and I will be voting no.

    • Gehirn on 25/08/2017 - 09:40
      +5

      "legally you already have all the same rights and opportunities as a married couple."
      This has been shown to be untrue many times in this thread.

      "The main point is that "marriage" is a christian tradition." Plenty of people against christianity are married.

      "Furthermore does this mean that all religions must be forced to allow anyone to be "partnered" or "married" under their religion even if it goes against the religion's values?"
      Noone is forcing people to marry those that dont follow the religion of the church at the moment, why would it change.

  • cooni on 25/08/2017 - 09:35
    +1

    Worth a shot:

    My (pregnant sob) wife really wants one but we both work no where near a Gorman shop (in Sydney). Can anyone please help us out?

  • oldspice on 25/08/2017 - 09:39
    +1

    No more stock at Chadstone

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 09:40

    they didn't have a shirt in my size, feeling a bit left out here.

    • INFIDEL on 25/08/2017 - 09:51

      Saw the t-shirt design in store other day & not for me. Largest size was L, I like loose fitting sizes just a bit bigger.
      NO soup t-shirt for me😭

  • insular on 25/08/2017 - 09:42
    -5

    is anyone thinking of voting no out of spite? because in my experience gay people are often absolute pricks. especially lesbians. you can't even talk to them IRL, and when they do, they have some kind of underlying resentment in their voice. it's turned me off lesbian porn forever now.

    i'm also really sick of gay men popping their heads up from sand dunes when i go to the beach, and mysteriously disappearing for hours at a time, like 5 of them. i can't imagine what's so interesting over there.

    • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 10:55
      +3

      Maybe they don't want to talk to you because you're a mean person?

      • insular on 25/08/2017 - 11:00
        -3

        i'm actually not. i just don't have the tatts, manbun and piercings to signal that i'm alt left so therefore i must be a nazi and against everything they believe in.

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 11:22

          You really should stop generalising. It's not gonna make people like you.

        • insular on 25/08/2017 - 11:52

          @ajee123: and you should stop assuming i'm a mean person because i list my truthful experiences.

          you're probably a perfect example of what i'm talking about.

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 13:38

          @insular: you're literally assuming I fit your distorted perception of gay people.

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 13:39

          @insular: I've met heaps of terrible straight people. But it would be ridiculous for me to write off EVERY straight person. Kinda see how silly your argument is?

        • insular on 25/08/2017 - 13:59

          @ajee123:

          you're literally assuming I fit your distorted perception of gay people.

          i'm literally doing exactly what you did. see?

        • insular on 25/08/2017 - 14:01

          @ajee123:

          in my experience gay people are often absolute pricks

          often does not equal always

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 15:12

          @insular: I still don't see the point you're trying to make. That most gay people are pricks? Because I doubt you've met more than 50% of them. And people are pricks in general, one's sexuality doesn't decide how 'prickish' they are.

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 15:13

          @insular: And no, I wasn't doing what you were doing. The words you are writing give me an impression of who you are - I already know the type of person you are. You, however, are judging millions of people based on a few 'pricks' you may have met.

        • insular on 25/08/2017 - 18:53

          @ajee123: and i doubt you have either. i think you're also one of those that blindly supports a cause because they are in fact part of the cause, or demographic.

          i used the word 'pricks' because it was uncensored, i preferred to use 'd*ckheads', but it gave me the profanity filter.

          as for the words i'm writing, it was a truthful kind of troll actually. with a few valid points. you seem to take things a bit too seriously.

          but yes, i don't think one has to meet millions of people to make a decision about a demographic, because there's always good and bad people in every demographic regardless, i just find it's better to live life avoiding those that bother me the most. because life's too short bother with such people.

          if you take my advice you can get over it and stop replying ;)

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 19:31

          @insular: oh I'm over it, I couldn't give 2 shi*s what you think of me.

  • artfuldodger on 25/08/2017 - 09:49
    +6

    I'm a hardcore progressive but I'm voting no. I support equal rights for SS couples. But, I don't believe we need to cause disharmony in our society simply to satisfy the wish to call a SS union 'marriage'. That word clearly means a lot to people and it is understandable why it does. Traditions are more important to some than others.
    Every right enshrined in marriage can be enshrined in another terminology. Why not just call every sparkling wine 'champagne'? Even dairy producers are fighting to prevent almond milk/rice milk using the term 'milk'. Institutions are allowed to be protective of the terminology which is important to them. Why do we find it so objectionable if people feel the same about the term 'marriage'? It incorporates our history and our tradition. The word 'marriage' for all human history until now has undeniably referred to the union of a man and a woman.
    I respect that those voting yes are incredibly well intentioned but on the way home this arvo, why not pick up a bottle of Australian champagne.

    • normanwall on 25/08/2017 - 10:01

      "The word 'marriage' for all human history until now has undeniably referred to the union of a man and a woman."

      That's factually untrue
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage

      Also saying you support equal rights for SS couples but don't want them to have this equality is disingenuous

      • artfuldodger on 25/08/2017 - 10:22

        With respect, that wikipedia link is simply cherry-picking history. To argue that 'marriage' is not historically a term used to describe the union of man and woman is not scholarly. It is factually true that it "undeniably referred to the union of a man and a woman." Of course, it is the case. We can all find outlying examples to support any position but to argue that our Western tradition has considered it any thing other than man and woman is just not supported by research.

    • pinkfour on 25/08/2017 - 11:45
      +1

      Can you please explain what dishormony cause to our "society" if two people of same gender who love each other got married?

      • artfuldodger on 25/08/2017 - 12:14
        +1

        disharmony noun lack of harmony or agreement

        Here's a quote from down the page,"i just came here to get my free "love is love" t shirt, and all i see in comments is hate :(".

        Have you noticed the polarising debate occurring around you. This is page 10 for free t-shirt deal. I don't recall the free Kinchrome t-shirt deal being so contentious.

        Why not accept that forcing change upon a section of the community which holds the current definition of marriage as sacrosanct is problematic and have the empathy to understand why. Tradition matters to a lot of people.

  • normanwall on 25/08/2017 - 09:50
    +4

    I will be voting yes, thanks JV

  • lusicul on 25/08/2017 - 09:55
    +5

    I will vote YES

  • Batmamacquarie on 25/08/2017 - 10:04
    +1

    Went to shop at 0935 in Macquarie ..and told all sold out …shop opens at 0930…they said all other shops are also sold out …anyone had success ??

    • tighty on 25/08/2017 - 11:03

      Thanks, saved me a trip to Macquarie. Kinda weird they'd sell out in 5 minutes

  • Moderatorneil on 25/08/2017 - 10:11

    Just a reminder. Discussion is fine but let's be respectful of others.

    Commenting Guidelines

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 10:12
    +1

    its not a vote its a scam so if you think its a vote you are wrong its called a political deflection to keep you from looking at the real issues confronting us as a nation, like single low income people living in poverty unable to afford rent on the east cost of Australia.

    no money for dental care for poor homosexuals so they spend millions on worrying about if people with no home or teeth can get married.

    I call bullshit so axe this liberal fun party that's your next vote..

    • artfuldodger on 25/08/2017 - 10:39

      hear hear

      I'll be happy to fight for the LGBT community's access to better equal rights, welfare and social services. But, I'm not interested in fighting for the wants of rightwing same sex couples (or other) who have little compassion and actively harm the economic wellbeing of those doing it tough.

  • eleman on 25/08/2017 - 10:13
    +5

    I'm voting no because
    I am scared that voting yes will mean changes that will affect my children in a negative way
    eg:
    1. being taught gender fluidity at school
    2. being bullied for religious beliefs
    3. the concept of marriage being open to further change - more unstable changes that I am not open to

    Mainly the first point, I have no proof of it being made compulsory or not; but the idea scares me enough to vote no.
    Hope this helps

    • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 10:28
      +7

      If you allowed your children to be taught things that can be proven (gender fluidity concepts) and stop teaching them things which cannot be proven (religion), you might also stop using logical fallacies (point 3, slippery slope fallacy) and thus all your problems would be solved!

      • eleman on 25/08/2017 - 10:29
        +1

        No thanks, these "proven" concepts scare me enough.

        • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 10:36
          +1

          They shouldn't scare you if you are willing to learn more about them before writing them off (i'm not trying to be a smartass here). Please look into it a little further if you can. The main idea is that each of us is born with a certain level of fluidity (for most of us, almost zero). Hopefully it will ease your mind that having high gender fluidity is super rare and cannot be learned. Teaching the concepts just helps the rest of us be more accepting. You can still hold strong personal beliefs and also be open-minded and empathetic :)

        • eleman on 25/08/2017 - 10:42
          +4

          Seriously, I'm not okay with this idea ahah. My child does not need the idea they could be any sex they like, at a young age.
          And I admit, at this point, I am not open-minded - doesn't bother me. I'm not going to shoot someone for having different thoughts, I'm just mindful/protective of my children.

        • Munki on 25/08/2017 - 10:55

          @eleman: *Oppressive.

        • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 11:12
          +2

          @eleman: you can be open-minded but skeptical if you wish. Its cool, you'll find that you either develop stronger arguments for your own views, or you make small changes to your beliefs over time. It's great to be able to tell someone why you believe something in depth, not "just because".

        • unelectric on 25/08/2017 - 11:18
          +2

          @eleman: The earliest your children would potentially learn about being transgender is when they are 11 or 12. Knowing kids they would probably already know about that sort of things anyway, they tend to be pretty plugged in. When I was in primary school we all knew about gay people. That doesn't mean that everyone became gay.

        • eleman on 25/08/2017 - 11:20

          learning from the playground is different from learning from your school teacher

        • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 16:18
          +1

          @eleman: haha yeah - kids pay far less mind to their teachers than their peers, so it's even less of an issue :)

      • divineiniquity on 25/08/2017 - 10:48

        things which cannot be proven (religion)

        Have you read about the historicity of Jesus Christ?

        • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 11:09

          Just because there are tiny elements of historically likely content doesnt mean it's all legit. Things that can't be proven: god's, miracles, angels, satan, all that other stuff that was developed thousands of years ago as a way to control the uneducated masses who didn't fear death or enjoy life because living standards were so bad.

        • Omitsukasa on 25/08/2017 - 14:56

          @bohdud:
          Please stop belittling the religious folks. You're not helping your case.

          Their belief is referred to as "faith" because it doesn't rely on proving everything with evidence.

          You need evidence before you believe in something, good for you. Just respect not everyone is/wants to be like that.

        • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 16:10
          +1

          @Omitsuki: our entire society and the advancement of humanity is based on evidence. You and i can only debate this topic on here, drive cars and fly in planes because of evidence-based research. Faith is simply a belief held that lacks any evidence, and that is fine as long as it doesn't negatively affect others (including your own kids). That said, I believe spirituality has its place, but it has no place in societal decision-making or any other concern which may negatively affect others' lives. Separation of church and state is a very important thing, because it reduces one group's ability to force their baseless beliefs on others.

        • Findo on 25/08/2017 - 19:15

          @bohdud: how do you know for sure your wife doesn't cheat on you? Do you have faith she is faithful?

        • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 21:37
          +1

          @niggard: What you describe is trust, not faith. I don't have a wife however. A little off-topic, but one could say I need faith to believe humans won't destroy each other and the planet, because history suggests we are intent on doing so. I would like to believe we as a species can be better than that, but i'm not so sure.

    • adamm12 on 25/08/2017 - 10:59
      +10

      I'm in the same boat, I'm all about equal rights and everyone deserves their fair share but the way the LGBT communities are bullying anyone that disagrees with them is disgusting. I was originally going to vote Yes but will now vote No and will ensure my direct family of 9 does the same.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:53
        +5

        Voter coercion… Nice. Luckily for you it's not a real vote so no electoral offenses apply.

        • adamm12 on 25/08/2017 - 13:40
          +4

          Call it whatever you like, it will be resounding NO :)

      • Devils Advocate on 25/08/2017 - 13:59
        +4

        You were never going to vote yes. You're saying that to try and hurt the yes side.

        • adamm12 on 25/08/2017 - 14:01
          +4

          I seriously was but i saw the impact the LGBT had on our kids and the way they sneaked in this 'safe school program' teaching kids how to masterbate at 10 and all sorts of gruesome info that a kid at that age doesnt need.

        • Fake News on 25/08/2017 - 15:10
          +2

          @radem12:
          Wow… really?! I guess someone needed to be taught media literacy in schools.

          The safe schools program does not teach anything about masturbation. FACT.
          The safe schools website used to have a link to an organisation called Minus 18, which offers support to homosexual and trans teenagers. If a teenager chooses to go onto the safe schools website, and seek further support/information by accessing that website in their own homes then that is their decision. And, let's be honest, it's information about sex that any young person could easily find online…

          Safe schools is a program that is an anti-bullying initiative, which is designed to encourage acceptance so that all schools feel safe and included at school.

          Don't believe the crazies who are using the media and creating website to spread their hate and vitriol.

        • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 16:13
          +2

          Exactly. Obvious troll is obvious.

        • adamm12 on 26/08/2017 - 00:01
          +1

          http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w…
          I''ll just leave this here, vote NO and stop the bullies, thanks :)

        • SBOB on 26/08/2017 - 09:17
          +1

          @radem12:

          ill vote the opposite to anything Senator Bernadi is supporting.
          He is a prime example of backwards thinking and intolerance

    • pinkfour on 25/08/2017 - 11:48
      +3

      It will teach your children to be a better person who respects other individuals and treat them equal no matter their religion,gender or sexuality.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 12:06
      +2

      Thanks for being one of the only No voters to share actual reasons why. You are honest and I respect that.

      Rebuttal:
      1. I think it's important that kids are made aware of LGBTI concepts, but not made to be part of it.
      2. I could see a shift from being bullied about being gay to be bullied about not accepting gay as likely. Ironic, because we are trying to stop all bullying, but I could see it happening
      3. 1, 2 & 3 is just law, it doesn't change anything else, marriage between a man and woman continues as is in the real world with no change to religion or societal views or education

      • eleman on 26/08/2017 - 11:51
        +1

        Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it

        My rebuttal in response
        1. I don't think these concepts ought to be taught at their age, and if anything they ought to be taught how to be kind.. not these concepts. This is my personal opinion, driving greatly by fear. And it offends me that it would be taught against my will and without my consent at school, they are under my care after all. If anyone wants to teach them these ideas, I'd personally believe this ought to be by personal choice, at home.
        2. The irony hey
        3. One law.. opens the door for many other laws and common law interpretation that I am not fond of… it triggers innate fear in me for my kids

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2017 - 19:11
          +1

          Well they should be taught that these concepts exist, not necessarily to actually follow them, but they need to be aware that there are people who are like that and what they believe in, without having to teach them to accept it or feel the same. All from a neutral viewpoint

          This is important to be prepared for the outside world. Let's say you keep them in their shell and they find out about gay people in their own… Or that they even are gay without knowing that's even a thing… Well they are in for a shock.

          Your advocating for parents to teach them this, well not all parents are going to do it, do a good job, or do it in a reasonable way which doesn't come with a hate lesson.

          When all the kids are not on the same level, this could cause problems later when they did become aware. Sex ed is essential at the age of puberty, it is a very confusing time and how to handle it in a healthy way, and this is part of the package. Your snowflakes will grow up and you can't stop it.

          I doubt this law will lead to change of other laws. What other law is there which is anything like this? you think they would make a law making being gay mandatory? It will never happen

          Triggered you say? ;-)

        • eleman on 26/08/2017 - 22:06

          @The Land of Smeg:

          lol u get an upvote for your clever triggered remark

          Dunno, I'm new to all this so I'm sure I'll find a way to prepare my kids without the local school teaching them how to be gay, how to do it when they're gay etc :/

        • eleman on 26/08/2017 - 22:40

          @eleman:

          I know this is a public forum, but your kind words have helped reassure me a little haha
          I live in a neighbourhood where there are rainbow flags on every second house and I get a little paranoid I'm gonna get shot by someone if they find out I'm voting no D: (I'm semi not serious but serious..)

  • bernsy on 25/08/2017 - 10:16

    i hope everyone will participate in the postal vote… YES or NO, so pointless to argue in forums like this.
    The media portray that majority of society and public in general agree with SSM, POLLS and opinions doesn't count, this VOTE will give the government a big message.
    And yet I have spoken to so many people, who just can not be bothered to participate in this postal vote, most common excuse, its going to be a waste of time.

    Please guys, please vote if you are entitled to. YES or NO just let the government know, its our right to vote, pretty much the only time our voice matters when it comes to policies like this.

    • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 10:30
      +3

      I agree with your point, but sadly this is a non-binding load of crap and a huge waste of the tax we pay. Switzerland is one example of a country with a pretty good system of direct democracy :)

    • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 10:45
      +1

      I agree. There's many that won't vote because of it being pointless. And it is somewhat pointless. But there's another side of it. If everyone votes yes and the government ignores it then it'll hit the government hard in the polls. If everyone votes no and the government supports that then then it's not going to hit the government hard and people who didn't vote will feel pretty silly.

    • artfuldodger on 25/08/2017 - 10:48
      -1

      Its just a waste of money for political purposes. If you were ever going to not 'vote', then this is the time. A very low survey return would be the strongest statement to this pathetic LNP (Lizards Not People) government.

  • LPV569 on 25/08/2017 - 10:18

    The struggle for equal rights be it black civil rights, women being allowed to vote and now marriage equality have unfortunately been long hard battles fought by brave people who saw what was right, and having to pay dearly, some with their own lives.
    Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population.[1][2][3][4][5][6] LGBT teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of suicide attempts.[7][8] According to some groups, this is linked to heterocentric cultures and institutionalised homophobia in some cases, including the use of rights and protections for LGBT people as a political wedge issue like in the contemporary efforts to halt legalising same-sex marriages.[9][10][11] Depression and drug use among LGBT people have both been shown to increase significantly after new laws that discriminate against gay people are passed.[12]
    Or as in the case of countries that continue to withhold rights of equality.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 10:34

      that would show that there are underling problems of abuse with sexual addictions and for the most part why people turn to sex addictions as they would a drug or alcohol as suicide rates are higher in those groups too.

      the truth is sex addiction is a cry for help the same as drinking or drug use so allowing marriage isn't going to fix the pain , might for a minute like a drink does but when it wares off what's next?

      these people need some healing and understanding not a piece of paper.

      • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 10:47
        +5

        I can't quite figure out why you have equated sex addiction with homosexuality. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a form of sexual addiction.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:05
          -2

          maybe 1% of people who are homosexual have a genome out of place the rest have a been abused and most sexually and so they are dealing with that pain sexually …some of my best friends over the years have been homosexual and have shared their stories with me.

          so yes i do believe if one was to take a survey of people who say they are homosexual and they are being 100% honest will tell you they have been abused and most sexually and that's why i say its a sexual addiction, in other words they have no choice that's the nature of addiction, so therefore the addict could actuate that to them choosing a same sex partner.

          don't get me wrong i am not saying they are bad people i am saying they are wounded and doing their best to make it through life.

          so i don't care about the marriage debate that's just another cry for help and so my thoughts are not judgement rather based on experience of where sexual abuse as a kid can lead people.

          really the vote for want of a better word we should be having is how do we fix this problem of child abuse sexual and otherwise in this country now that's a real issue to get passionate about.

        • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 11:10
          +1

          @Maximum Dag Unrule: There's a fair amount of research on the subject and the general consensus from the research is that homosexuality is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. I'm not sure where you're getting your data from.

          There's still a lot more research that needs to be done on the topic but I haven't seen any research that suggests that 99% of homosexuals are homosexual due to being sexually abused.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:20
          +1

          @GunnerMcDagget: only thing i can add is we need understanding of what's really happening, its a societal issue we are all having to "deal" with in some form or another.

          so for me adding marriage in to a issue for want of a much better word is not helping anyone including the people who think they want it, to me we are all equals we are human, so while on the outside it may seem like a yes or no question, we need to look much harder at why we have the question in the 1st place.

        • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 11:26

          @Maximum Dag Unrule: That then comes down to acceptance. We either accept them or we call it a mental issue. As of 1987 it was no longer classified as a mental disorder so it just comes down to acceptance now. There are those that still won't accept it though.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:47

          @GunnerMcDagget: oh its real..just wish those of us who have been abused and are not homosexual had as much pull as to get what we need, maybe i need to jump the fence LOL<

    • artfuldodger on 25/08/2017 - 11:01

      "black civil rights, women being allowed to vote and now marriage equality"

      To group SSM with black civil rights and women's right to vote is wrong. The gay rights movement would be a more correct comparison. They already overwhelmingly have their rights protected. Do gay men have to worry about a glass ceiling?

    • ozhunter on 26/08/2017 - 20:53
      +1

      If people are committing suicide because there are others that don't like their lifestyle, they should seek help immediately.

  • markpjones on 25/08/2017 - 10:18
    +1

    In Sydney CBD: QVB has run out of t-shirts but Galeries still has some left but there's a huge line!
    Good luck!

  • insular on 25/08/2017 - 10:20
    +1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KiNWJ8FiYg

    this thread

    • unelectric on 25/08/2017 - 11:20
      +1

      The fact that The_Donald subreddit really likes this video tells me everything I need to know

      • insular on 25/08/2017 - 11:53
        -1

        maybe you should watch the video and make up your own mind.

  • samlor on 25/08/2017 - 10:43

    Both Sydney CBD stores "sold" out.

  • theoneandonly on 25/08/2017 - 10:49
    +7

    i just came here to get my free "love is love" t shirt, and all i see in comments is hate :(

  • luffyex2010 on 25/08/2017 - 10:51

    Firstly…. 122 million for this survey vote is indeed a waste of money, they should have consult ozbargain community for an alternative voting solutions.

    I don't see the problem with this at all, not sure why the vote is needed and the law not implemented.. as long there is love and not war.

    This has been a human issues for eons and I don't see the why not issue as in a good way to reduce population growth anyway. Maybe mankind is headed towards a punctuated equilibrium where we will evolve and could be 2 sexes at the same time one day.

    In the pool there could be a small +ve or -ve multiplier of

    2 less competition or 2 non competition
    2 less attraction or 2 non attraction
    less babies (male)
    more babies (female)

    this is not 100% accurate until some genius manage to invent a product
    Eureka! 2 in 1 solution"Ovary egg for man" ~"Now you can experience child bearing the same way as women!"
    Warning: Pain level will not be the same for everyone. Consult your mum or female friend who has given birth for near life experience advice.
    Special note: Product doesn't include normal child birth for man unless you have a built in Mangina, consult your nearest doctor for a cesarean surgery.

    sigh….in the meantime there are more other pressing matters in the world like disease, death, war, species extinction, deforestation, depleting natural resources at an alarming rate, global warming, terrorist attack (whoever is behind it) wants to make world war 3 a reality. Bet the aliens are thinking hmmmm lets come back another millennium, let them evolve again before we establish human contact.

    PS: don't forget to tune in Connor vs Mayweather this sunday! ^_^ Bruce Lee crying in the heavens
    Its about time m!@$^@@D&(()@#

    • insular on 25/08/2017 - 11:02
      +4

      yes ozbargain for alternative voting solution:

      1) jv makes a comment
      2) everyone up or down votes.
      3) law decided

      • luffyex2010 on 25/08/2017 - 11:33

        I like that!

        See it doesn't cost 122 million ^_^ and everyone can have FREE ice creams and watch Hayao Miyazaki 25 anniversary screening nation wide to celebrate

  • goodbuy on 25/08/2017 - 10:58
    +7

    We should stop encouraging business to politicise everything in search of a quick buck and spend more time ripping them off

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:45
      +2

      Quick buck with a free shirt?

    • Japius on 25/08/2017 - 13:30
      +2

      Agreed, the jumping on the PC bandwagon to appease the social media SJ warriors is all these things are. I dont believe this should be promoted on here, at best it should be in the forums for discussion so both sides can just argue with each other with no prospect of changing the others mind. Now if the shirt said something like enroll to vote because voting is compulsory then maybe it could be a public service but this is purely pushing an agenda on an issue we shouldnt even be bothering with. We are all equal any of us can marry someone of the opposite sex, love or attraction is not mandatory theres plenty of young blonde girls marrying 80yo men to prove this.

      • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 13:41
        -1

        You're the one turning a post about a free t-shirt into a political thing…

  • Bluberry on 25/08/2017 - 11:14
    +7

    Thanks OP. I am voting YES. Who am I to judge people? Who am I to deny others of their happiness?

    Plus i get a free shirt now. Sold!!

  • BargainBenno on 25/08/2017 - 11:16
    +1

    For me the real issue is Religious Freedom. I think people need to do some research on what has happened in Canada with allowing same sex marriage. It is law there now. It is now a chargeable offence to make any comments or express any views that are anti same sex marriage. Churches in Canada are not allows to say that a marriage is between a man and a woman but is between 2 people. The church is not allowed freedom to preach what they believe. We live in a free country up till now in Australia let's keep it that way. If this gets passed then protesting against same sex marriage (which people have the right to do!) will be seen in the same way as being racist , and will be a chargeable offence in the future. If the government approved same sex marriage BUT allowed people to continue to have the freedom to express their views on it (which is fair!) then I am OK with the vote being yes. I just don't want my freedom to express my views to be stopped, just as same sex couples want their freedom to be married. I mean at the end of the day we don't make anti-marriage campaigners forbidden to express their views so why restrict anti same sex unions. All this talk of having a friend who is same sex etc. is great but lets look at the bigger picture here.

    • unelectric on 25/08/2017 - 11:26

      Free speech exists in Australia only up until a certain point.

      • luffyex2010 on 25/08/2017 - 11:35

        Your Free Speech just expired
        Please pay the licence to have another month of Free SPeech
        Approved by the Australian Government

      • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:35
        +1

        Unfortunately we don't have a bill of rights!

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:41
      +4

      I agree with this opinion, but neither liberal or labor is proposing that religious clergy be forced to accept SSM in their religion or perform marriages in law they don't want to. If Canada has forced that onto religion (and I haven't fact checked) that's very stupid and intolerant of religious beliefs. I would No if it was a religious freedom issue, but this is a law issue so I will vote Yes.

      • unelectric on 25/08/2017 - 11:58
        +3

        Also - why would a gay couple want to get married in a church that hates them?

      • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 12:03
        +4

        "If Canada has forced that onto religion"

        They don't. What the OP is saying is that the Canadian government restrict religions from saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not really even that simple. In Canada churches are still allowed to refuse to marry any couple they wish. The issue many have is with the free speech in Canada. Canada's free speech laws are more restrictive than Australia's and anything that's deemed discriminatory could result in heavy fines. Similar to Australia but more restrictive.

        This of course has nothing at all to do with same sex marriage and these restrictions have been around long before same sex marriage was legalised so it's pointless anyway.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 12:10
          +1

          Asking them to change wording in their religion… Not cool. Making them give the legal definition instead of the religious one when doing a religious ceremony, also not cool. I draw the line at FORCING opinion onto others

      • haru on 25/08/2017 - 13:44

        If Canada has forced that onto religion

        It has.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join