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

        • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 14:51
          +1

          It hasn't. That article is entire misinformation by twisting words to provide fear. Things like organisations being fined for upholding their religion, which actually means an organisation was fined for breaching anti-discrimination laws. The organisation having no link to an actual religion, it's just that the owners of the organisation happened to be religious.

        • haru on 25/08/2017 - 17:13

          The organisation having no link to an actual religion

          If you're referring to the example in the article, the Knights of Columbus seem pretty religious to me.

    • Unherd on 25/08/2017 - 13:31
      +3

      This is confusing readers. Marriage in Canada and Australia has always been a secular law. That is - when a priest/pastor/prophet/etc marries someone - the bit of the ceremony that makes the marriage legal under either Canadian or Australian law - is when the priest etc says the legal declaration - in this case marriage is between two people. The legal declaration (marriage in Canada and Australia has always been by declaration) has always been defined by the law. So when Canada legalised marriage equality - it's obvious that they would have changed the declaration to be 'marriage is between two people'. If the priest wants to conduct a marriage that's legal - they need to say the declaration that's under the law. The last time I checked - a man and a woman are two people.

      Making this situation about religious freedoms is rediculously missing the point.

  • Iamspy on 25/08/2017 - 11:38
    -5

    Don't intervene natures law. Only men and women can marry so human race can prevail

    • luffyex2010 on 25/08/2017 - 11:39

      Agent Smith got something to say to you.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w

    • Cheeper on 25/08/2017 - 11:42
      +6

      People who are gay are not queers or whatever, they are not mutants, they are people who were born with that inclination. It could have been you or I, we would not have had any choice in the matter.
      That was natures choice for them.
      They have the right to be happy like the rest of us. More happy people means a happier world.

      • GregMonarch on 25/08/2017 - 14:42

        Rubbish. No one is 'born' gay. How do I know? Because I know several people who were homosexual (not bi-sexual), who later gave up homosexuality and married the opposite sex, and admitted their homosexual behaviour was a choice, just as much as walking away from it was a choice.

        • SBOB on 25/08/2017 - 14:51
          +4

          How do I know? Because I know several people

          your statistical sample size is overwhelming, and should be presented in scientific papers as fact

        • GregMonarch on 25/08/2017 - 16:33
          -1

          @SBOB: It doesn't need to be overwhelming. People either are, or are not, 'born gay' as is often claimed. If just one contradictory example exists the theory is proven false. The fact 'my sample is so small' actually proves its validity. If in my small circle of friends, I know several people that all said the same when they were practicing homosexuals: "I was born gay." Yet they now dispute that assertion and are living evidence the theory is bunkum. i.e. In my small part of the world I have mutltiple examples when I should have ONE at the most if people's sexuality is 'born set'.

        • Cheeper on 25/08/2017 - 16:52
          +1

          @GregMonarch:
          I doubt your friends are being totally honest. I do agree that some can be attracted to both genders (bi) and switch between the two as they fancy but the underlying physical attraction to the same sex is not something that is just switched on and off.

        • GregMonarch on 25/08/2017 - 18:58

          @xywolap: [Sigh] Ok.

        • pinkfour on 25/08/2017 - 22:26
          +1

          What a load of rubbish. You are wrong GregMonarch. Im gay and I have always been attracted to male then female. If it's a choice why would I choose being gay knowing people will ridicule or discriminate me? Have you asked these several people you know who become straight overnight whether they are happy and faithfull?

        • GregMonarch on 26/08/2017 - 15:47
          +1

          @pinkfour: It's a learned lust, not from-birth genetics.

        • pinkfour on 26/08/2017 - 16:18

          @GregMonarch: As a gay man, I can tell you I didn't learn to be gay. Always loved men. How can be so sure? You haven't even met me. If its learned lust can you become gay?

        • GregMonarch on 26/08/2017 - 18:49
          +1

          @pinkfour: Well, you had no problem doubting the people I mentioned: refused to believe and cast doubts their reality is possible. Yet you expect others to believe your belief sexual attraction is set a birth. I can only go from what I've learned from discussions with them, and from working with children on a daily basis. (Who despite what some claim, are not sexualised from birth - unless they were sexually abused at a young age, and even that isn't 'from birth' because how would they know? My youngest memory is from age 3 or 4.)

          Those several friends, both men and women who decided they didn't want to live that lifestyle any longer - have told me desiring the same sex, the overt hand flapping and effeminate voice many but not all of the men put on, etc. is a choice - is learned - chosen. All of them are in happy (opposing-sex) marriages, with multiple children except one who entered marriage past menopause. And they've all been that way for 15 years or greater.

          It only takes one contradiction to disprove the theory, and I know several. They're not all wrong. They are all faithful. (Some of the most faithful couples I've ever known, in fact.) And while they don't advertise the fact of what they once did, if it does come up, are openly grateful they chose to leave that lifestyle behind.

          No-one is 'gay at birth' anymore than someone is a truck driver, secretary, or prefers Ford or Holden cars from birth. It's their upbringing, life experience, other people they associate with, personal choices they make… They've shared the 'I'm made that way' claim was what they said, in order to be able to live with themselves - to excuse their choices as 'beyond my control'.

          Anyway, I'm done. I just stated a truth I've learned to correct a false statement/assumption that has become popular. This isn't really the place for all this.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:43
      +4

      The Marriage Act does not require any attempt at procreation, many couples are starting a family without marriage already.

    • unelectric on 25/08/2017 - 11:59
      +2

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

      What was that about nature?

      • insular on 25/08/2017 - 12:12
        +1

        animals are stupid tho. that's why we eat them.

        • luffyex2010 on 25/08/2017 - 12:30
          +1

          I don't think thats the main reason we eat them though….lol

          We eat them because we think its ok as they didn't say no in our language they just cry, make noises and bleed when human slaughter them.

          Well nuff said people will still eat them if they can say NO! that's our predator genes.

          " We love eating meat……. a little vege and a lot of liquor"

        • insular on 25/08/2017 - 12:31

          @luffyex2010: found the vegan

        • Cheeper on 25/08/2017 - 16:54

          @luffyex2010:
          Animals eat other animals without permission.

    • colblair on 25/08/2017 - 12:09
      +1

      prevail against who?
      we're not all gay… there's plenty of us procreating…

      • Devils Advocate on 25/08/2017 - 13:31
        +3

        Haha exactly. Plus, overpopulation is a bigger threat to the species than a lack of procreation.

    • SabreTooth23 on 25/08/2017 - 20:14

      Educate yourself.

  • jayzee on 25/08/2017 - 11:38

    Interesting to see where silent majority are in this country.

    I suppose we still not forget what press said about what chance Clinton got to be first Madame President.

    • luffyex2010 on 25/08/2017 - 11:40
      +1

      three words

      WORLD WAR 3

      • jayzee on 25/08/2017 - 11:43
        +6

        Only two words and a numeric.

        • luffyex2010 on 25/08/2017 - 11:43
          +1

          Crap laziness of putting THREE my bad

    • Cheeper on 25/08/2017 - 11:44

      LOL.. that whole show was a total farce and does not warrant reference .. from either side.

    • unelectric on 25/08/2017 - 12:00
      +1

      Unfortunately all the survey is testing is which demographic is most likely to partake in a postal vote.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:42
    +7

    I wholly support gay people having the right to go through the agony of divorce and enriching divorce lawyers. Wouldn't recommend it, though.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 11:44
      +3

      Equal is equal

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

      Been there, felt that pain. Would not wish it on my worst enemy though.. :-)

    • luffyex2010 on 25/08/2017 - 11:46

      I support you Chateau, you should be modelling ^O^

  • The Wololo Wombat on 25/08/2017 - 11:53
    +9

    I'm voting no.

    I think it's shortsighted to say that homosexual marriage won't affect me at all. Homosexual marriage will change Australia national consciousness and national conscience, further eroding the social foundation of family; the backbone of social progress. This will have significant long-term effects.

    Marriage, is, by definition, an exclusive union. Even if marriage equality legislation is passed, marriage will (rightfully) still exclude some members of the Australian public. Polygamous marriage, hebepehillic marriage, incestuous marriage and adolescent marriage will be excluded.

    Ultimately, the homosexual marriage debate is merely a symptom of a greater social conflict on the nature of morality. Secular society generally accepts the postmodernist view that morality is subjective to individual experiences and culture. I disagree and and I find any argument for moral relativism logically inconsistent; If you claim truth is relative, you're making an absolute claim. If you say there is no such thing as absolute truth, you're making an absolute claim. Ultimately everyone believes in absolute truth, they just believe in differing sources of that truth.

    The question is, where/what is the source of Truth?

    • unelectric on 25/08/2017 - 12:10
      +9

      Despite your discussion of moral relativism vs objectivity I can't quite make out your reason for voting no.

      • The Wololo Wombat on 25/08/2017 - 12:19
        +1

        I am a Christian. I believe in that morality is absolute and effective to God's and his unchanging words as recorded in the Bible. He is the source of Truth; Truth exists in the mind of God. Biblical marriage is between one man and one women and is at the exclusion of all others. This is for a good reason.

        I trust in God's design/plan for marriage and family. If he is God, he is an omniscient being; his design is perfect - who are we to (as flawed humanity) to think we believe we can create a better design? This applies to so much more than just marriage; it applies to sex, relationships, work ethics, compassion, love…I could go on.

        Pride (choosing our own way, outside of God's design), is the source of so much suffering in this world.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 12:35
          +4

          I'm going to ignore all your preachy beliefs about God and just accept that is your moral grounding which is unchangeable. Fine, just don't force it onto me.

          Why bring the law into religion? Does Christianity need Australian Law to stand up on it's own feet? Can't you keep your morality without the Marriage Act? Surely if it's God's will it is powerful enough to stand up on it's own. How does changing the law change society, and if it did, it would be society who don't subscribe to Christian morality.

          Are you trying to use the government to force the Church onto non believers?

        • The Wololo Wombat on 25/08/2017 - 12:40
          +4

          @The Land of Smeg: I didn't bring up my faith until directly pressed about it; I'm not being preachy. I'm expressing my views as an individual in a democratic society, that is all. Just because my worldview (which informs my moral and social views) has its foundation in my Christian faith does not make it illegitimate.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 12:48
          +2

          @The Wololo Wombat: ok I get it, I only meant preachy in sense that voting on or changing a law on the basis of a religious viwe is preachy.

          You could happily vote Yes in the survey (if you wanted to) without any conflict with your religious views because the two forms of marriage are totally different, they only share a name.

          That's exactly what I'm doing. I consider myself religious but I accept other's freedoms as I would want them to accept mine, so I will vote Yes as long as my religion doesn't get changed.

        • The Wololo Wombat on 25/08/2017 - 12:57

          @The Land of Smeg: Yea, I totally get what you are saying - while I can't bring myself to the same conclusion, I respect and understand how you have gotten there. It does seem a lot more compassionate.

        • SBOB on 25/08/2017 - 13:20
          +4

          I am a Christian. I believe in that morality is absolute and effective to God's and his unchanging words as recorded in the Bible.

          but you cherry pick those words that suit right?

          There is zero chance you follow every word of 'God' and what is recorded in the bible, just the ones that happen to suit the current society, your personal beliefs and whats still 'acceptable'.

          You don't cast out or murder people who work on Sunday
          You don't think twice about mixing types of cloth
          You likely have eaten shellfish
          You likely think its wrong to be able to buy slaves
          You likely don't think handicapped people are lesser, and shouldn't be allowed to pray in your church

          But, hey…That morality is absolute and everyone should abide by the selected rules your faith currently follows

        • The Wololo Wombat on 25/08/2017 - 13:36
          +2

          @SBOB: While I believe truth is absolute (in the mind of God), I experience truth as individually subjective as I have to interpret what the will of God is (as a flawed human being!).

          So truth, in a practical sense, is relative, due to our lack clarity/knowledge, rather than the nature of truth itself.

          Can I first concede that so much harm and hurt has come from those that claim to know 'God's truth' and get it wrong, or use it to manipulate others. Maybe even this is an example of that and I have misunderstood God's will? That's why I think it's important not to be overly dogmatic and to be open to skepticism and debate.

          But in response you your comment about personal 'cherry picking' - how can I begin to explain two Millenia of Theology and Christian thought? How can begin to explain the hours of thought, study and experiences of God that have gone into forming my beliefs? I can't. Not here!

          Also, do I claim to always live out what I believe? No. I get it wrong all the time.

        • SBOB on 25/08/2017 - 13:57
          +3

          @The Wololo Wombat:

          while I believe truth is absolute (in the mind of God), I experience truth as individually subjective as I have to interpret what the will of God is (as a flawed human being!).

          which is great, and thankfully our society with its freedoms and freedom of religion allows you to do this..

          Though, why your interpretation should have any bearing on how others in society with either different subjective interpretations or beliefs, and the laws created which they live by, is my problem with this whole debate.

          Religion allows you to have your religions marriage, and call it a holy matrimony. This law doesn't change that.
          Many are married without any reference or bearing to a religion, and our marriage laws make no reference to religion, so why should the discussion about making them more inclusive and equal take religious beliefs as a deciding factor.

        • The Wololo Wombat on 25/08/2017 - 14:39
          +3

          @SBOB: I hear what your saying and I get it. Why should my personal disapproval (one based on religious belief) dictate the rights of others? Marriage is not a religious institution under Australian law so religious moral arguments should have no bearing on the decision. It seems selfish to impose my view.

          However, can I express this argument is only relevent if homosexual marriage had no negative effect on me personally. I've tried to express (earlier) how I believe that it will.

          So that's why I think a plebiscite is important. In a democratic society, when there are two opposing views, we must accept the view of the majority. If the majority of Australians want homosexual marriage, so be it.

          PS. I'm tapping out of future comments. I've expressed my view and defended it against criticism. I don't think any further discussion will be helpful. I hope I've shown my position is not irrational, regressive or bigoted; it's disappointing to see the venom and hate towards those who share my view, but can't articulate it as well as I can.

        • SBOB on 25/08/2017 - 14:49
          +3

          @The Wololo Wombat:

          I'm tapping out of future comments.

          While your views dont align with mine, I will give you +ve for presenting your side of the argument in the manner you did

        • The Wololo Wombat on 25/08/2017 - 14:50
          +1

          @SBOB: Thanks very much. I appreciate the way you've expressed your's too - I think we need more of this!

        • SBOB on 25/08/2017 - 14:52
          +1

          @The Wololo Wombat:

          I think we need more of this!

          nah, would never catch on…
          Wouldn't sell newspapers or provide catchy sound-grabs for news reports

        • shaiguy on 25/08/2017 - 18:53
          +2

          See that's the thing I do not understand in relation to this argument. In the bible there has been evolution of marriage (even as commented by senior ministers). Would you have voted against polygamous marriage or underage marriage? A quote from Martin Luther who was against homosexuality but his views on marriage was that they are secular: "Know therefore that marriage is an outward, bodily thing, like any other worldly undertaking. Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid it. You will find plenty of Christians, and indeed the greater part of them, who are worse in their secret unbelief than any Jew, heathen, Turk, or heretic. A heathen is just as much a man or a woman-God's good creation-as St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Lucy, not to speak of a slack and spurious Christian." Pay particular attention to the first bit that it is a "worldly undertaking" yet so many Christians say it is religious . So if the main reformist of the Christian church viewed marriage as secular then why don't you (perhaps for Roman Catholics I can understand but not for Protestant Christian)?

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 12:24
      +3

      Like it or not, the social foundation of family built on marriage law has already collapsed. The law is already very lenient on the obligations within a marriage, there is no formula given for how to be a successful family unit, for a marriage to succeed it is up to the individuals in the marriage to make it happen. Using religion as a guideline to get the formula right is common.

      At the same time, many couples (straight and gay) are having fully committed lives together with a solid family unit without marriage at all.

      At this point, marriage shouldn't even be part of the law, because it has already lost all meaning of what the pubic think it should be about, on both sides.

      TLDR: changing marriage law will have zero effect on changing societal views on marriage, it has already happened

      • The Wololo Wombat on 25/08/2017 - 12:30
        +4

        I agree with you. Society is secular and very far from (what the Bible expresses as) God's perfect design.

        That's why I'm not very vocal with my view on the issue anymore; it's unlikely to convince anyone outside the Christian worldview. It's also likely to hurt others who don't understand the nuances of my view, like my homosexual sister, for example.

        Irregardless, there is still an ideal that exists. I don't want I see any legislation enacted that moves away from that ideal. If, as a democratic society, we decide to move away from this ideal (collectively), I will accept this and move on. But for now, I am so thankful to have a say (in the postal vote), thankful that I have the chance to express my view.

    • cooni on 25/08/2017 - 13:25
      +2

      Before you know it we'll allow interracial marriage!

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 12:03
    +3

    Reading through a lot of these comments I can say that I've lost a lot of respect for people I used to think highly of and I've also gained a lot of respect for people I used to think poorly of on this forum.

    • Findo on 25/08/2017 - 12:18
      +8

      my respect for JV increases with each inflammatory post

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 13:13

      you've been here for just over a year and yet you talk like a seasoned veteran

      lol.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 13:32
        +1

        A year is a long time to form an opinion of a forum's most active users.

        • UFO on 25/08/2017 - 15:45

          But nurries, you haven't made it clear which group has earned your respect?

          Are you a Nay or a Yay?

          Purely for idol judgement purposes from my computer desk :).

      • Cheeper on 25/08/2017 - 17:03

        Does not matter how long he has been a member… Bargain Hunters are born that way LOL

  • Yankyviking on 25/08/2017 - 12:05
    +14

    A YES from me! Live & let live (happily of course.)

  • artfuldodger on 25/08/2017 - 12:34
    +1

    Give me a penny for every time I've heard 'if two people love each other, they should be able to marry." Its just another form of insulting political spin with no basis. As Tina Turner says, what's love got to do with it. Are we to say that if they are not in love they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Hetero couples don't have to be in love. Maybe we should change the Constitution to include the phrase "who love each other".

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 12:40
      +1

      It's law but not the constitution, but other than that you're right on love not being part of the law

    • JeCCo on 25/08/2017 - 15:35

      Hi Alex

  • berto on 25/08/2017 - 13:39
    +5

    It's a no from me.

  • inasero on 25/08/2017 - 13:56
    +3

    I am against legislation which discriminates against people due to their sexual orientation and every one should have equal rights
    However I am against moves which attempt to redefine what I, personally, believe should be between a man and a woman (again this is my personal view)
    Isn't there a way to ensure equal rights for all without necessarily redefining marriage? E.g. ensure people in civil unions get equal rights to those who are in marriages? Does the debate have to be an "all or nothing" matter with no nuance or civilized debate allowed?

    • artfuldodger on 25/08/2017 - 17:39

      bingo. Its being defined as Us against Them, love vs hate, etc. Most people agree with equal rights but don't others have a right to the tradition that has been at the centre of their civilisation for millenniums. Its an important issue for many people but its not as if we are voting on the abolition of slavery or the right of women to vote.Just call it something else.

    • shaiguy on 25/08/2017 - 18:56
      +4

      Brought up this before - there are many issues with civil unions:
      http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/12-civil-unio…

      • inasero on 25/08/2017 - 19:43
        +1

        Thanks for the article. It quotes "However, civil unions do not offer the same legal benefits as marriage, even when the law says they should. This is because they are not as widely understood or respected. Several recent reports into the operation of civil schemes in Europe and North America confirm that civil unions are not always recognised by hospitals, schools, insurers and even government officials"

        To me, it seems the answer to this should be increased public awareness and education regarding homophobia. To label a same-sex union as "marriage" is not likely to magically address culturally entrenched discrimination, as the article seems to he suggesting.

    • MrB on 26/08/2017 - 21:12

      Isn't there a way to ensure equal rights for all without necessarily redefining marriage?

      Of course there is, but it doesn't give gay couples what they actually want.

  • Kingston on 25/08/2017 - 14:00

    Ok am i missing the point of this site, we are here to look for bargain. I don't really care if you vote yes or no. But if a bargain causes grief in term of their value system to people maybe the bargain should not be here in the first place.

  • Paulinehanson on 25/08/2017 - 14:04
    +7

    This shirt isn't free , your actually selling your soul to the devil, vote Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 14:06
      +6

      expected nothing less from you pauline

    • Dhandoftime on 25/08/2017 - 14:11
      -1

      Adam and his boyfriend and Eve and her girlfriend. Vote for group s*x? No way!

    • Scab on 25/08/2017 - 16:04
      +3

      Please explain?

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

        We need OzBargain Gold

  • Dhandoftime on 25/08/2017 - 14:05
    -1

    Hello Mr/Mrs shemale. I am too shy to make a greeting. I do not know what to explain to my kids when they know I support this. Probably encourage them go to naked bar more often huh?

    • sauce on 27/08/2017 - 09:13

      :S

  • kosh52 on 25/08/2017 - 14:18
    +6

    Regardless of the debate, this is a great looking t-shirt. Unfortunately it seems I've missed out, called the Chadstone store and they ran out within 30 minutes. Shattered

  • Kingston on 25/08/2017 - 14:26

    If anyone want to attack someone else belief system then you should expect the same. it works both ways.

    The issue I have here is till today they are no proof that two male or two female can have kids on their own without external help. that is how human beings are designed to be only a man and a woman could have babies.

    I also noticed in a same sex union(I know quite a number of gays couple), one of them will play the role of a man and the other a women. I could be wrong, but if that is the case it is pointing to a man and a woman in a relationship.

    I think it is not ok to say whatever it is fine it is not affecting me but it does define how you will explain to the next generation about relationship. Will this get out of hand and change to more than same sex to interspecies love. love is love really?

    • SBOB on 25/08/2017 - 14:31
      +10

      Where in the marriage act is the bit about making babies?

      And we all know, nobody out of marriage makes babies…

      Won't someone think of the children!

      • MrB on 26/08/2017 - 20:58
        -1

        Where in the marriage is it preventing homosexuals to marry?

        Won't someone think of the children!

        Although you don't care, there are those who do.

    • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 14:59
      +9

      I heard a woman in the middle east had a baby without a man being involved a long time ago

      • Kingston on 29/08/2017 - 16:06

        so you know a bit of the bible, did you miss the part about God?

        • GunnerMcDagget on 29/08/2017 - 16:13
          +2

          Pretty sure God isn't a man.

        • Kingston on 29/08/2017 - 16:16

          read the Gospel, you will find your answer.

        • SBOB on 29/08/2017 - 16:48
          +1

          @Kingston:

          read the Gospel, you will find your answer

          no, he may find 'your' answer.
          Someone who has faith and believes the bible may find 'answers' there.
          Someone who does not, is an atheist or agnostic is likely to find something that is far far from being an 'answer'.

    • seanyong on 25/08/2017 - 15:19
      +2

      So vote yes.

      Let people who want to get married get married. They believe they can so just respect them and give them the right.
      Now it does NOT work both ways. You can vote to whether or not to give them the right. But they are not doing anything that can affect YOU.
      It is NOT equal!

      Moreover, gay behaviour is quite normal amongst all creatures especially primate. All creatures are designed this way okay?!

      LOVE IS LOVE. PERIOD.

      • artfuldodger on 25/08/2017 - 17:49
        +4

        You're not voting for love, you're voting for same sex marriage. That's just the political spin to manipulate emotion which is the oldest trick in the marketing handbook. Just like hetero's love is optional. There will be loveless marriages and gold-diggers so lets not get too carried away with the warm and fuzzy spin.

      • MrB on 26/08/2017 - 21:07
        +1

        Water is water.

        Fire is fire.

        Air is air.

        PERIOD

        • Kingston on 29/08/2017 - 16:04
          -1

          right is right
          wrong is wrong
          1 is 1
          2 is 2
          period is period

    • Kingston on 25/08/2017 - 15:41
      +4

      My vote would be no then, you cannot talk sense to people who want to abuse your view.

    • shaiguy on 25/08/2017 - 19:05
      +4

      But LGBTI and even single people can already adopt and have surrogacy in Australia.

      Do you need to be married to have children? I see the topic of LGBTI having children as a separate issue as they can already do this. I mean if you are basing marriage on being able to mate and have kids on their own should we then ban infertile people from being married? Should we then break marriage once people are infertile? It does not make sense to me at all. Additionally, also any heterosexual people also have children out of wedlock so really why should they be the same issue? And for all the children of LGBTI couples should we prevent their parents being married - is this fair?

      • Kingston on 29/08/2017 - 16:03

        if free speech and religious freedom is not impacted like what happened in Canada, else the only winner would be the lawyer. I am not saying LGBTI cannot be good parents but who is going to be the female or male role model for the kids when there are growing up. you cannot use a small percentage of wedlock and bad heterosexual parent to say that it is not the best arrangement to have a dad and a mum in a child's life.

        • SBOB on 29/08/2017 - 16:50
          +1

          the best arrangement to have a dad and a mum in a child's life.

          which has zero, i repeat ZERO, to do with the current request for people to vote on whether the existing marriage act should be extended to allow same sex couples the same legal rights and freedoms it currently offers heterosexual couples

          ZERO to do with children, surrogacy, mums/dads/child's life….ZERO!

        • MrB on 29/08/2017 - 17:15

          @SBOB:

          ZERO to do with children, surrogacy, mums/dads/child's life….ZERO!

          Of course it does. How many children were born outside of marriage one/two decades ago? Legally or biologically, marriage has not been needed to have children. I think we figured that out a long time a go.

          Penny Wong stated a few years ago, "‘‘On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect”

        • Kingston on 29/08/2017 - 21:19
          +1

          @SBOB: Well SBOB, everything is linked, one lead to the other. if you do not have a mother and a father in your life. I pity you.

        • SBOB on 29/08/2017 - 21:29
          -1

          @Kingston:

          if you do not have a mother and a father in your life. I pity you.

          I do, but thanks for asking….

          Based on your lack of understanding of this very simple change to the marriage act in this country and understanding of basic equality, you can have the pity.

        • shaiguy on 30/08/2017 - 10:32

          @MrB:

          Many politicians (on both sides of parliament) have changed their views and have detailed reasons including why they have changed.

        • shaiguy on 30/08/2017 - 10:47
          +2

          Thanks for your reply Kingston and happy to listen to your views. I am not familiar with the example on free speech and religious freedom being impacted in Canada - could you please explain?

          Re your second part, to be honest I had a similar view to that of yours until about 10 years ago after watching a show (I think Extreme Parenting or something of the like) and it was about a gay couple who had fostered/adopted a number of children and they took into their house a couple of delinquent/difficult children from hetero & single parent families who did not know how to deal with them. It was a wake up call for me as it was evident how much emotional support, care, connections, structure, etc. that they could provide which was much more I would even say than most heterosexual couples. The impact that they made on these teenagers in such a short period of time was astounding and the children that they had raised had developed into really strong children/young adults themselves. This started or triggered more understanding and knowing of same sex couples who are parents and arguably what I have comes across is that they are just as good (if not better) than many parents that come from heterosexual families that I know. Accordingly, rather than just look at it from the outside, I would encourage you to actually connect with same sex couples who do have children.

          Notwithstanding the above, the vote is not on same sex couples having children which they can already do but rather on same sex marriage. If you are thinking of the children and the impact on them of your vote then you can also think of it in terms of you preventing their parents being married which discriminates against their love/rights vs others.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join