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

        • KnownSystemError on 24/08/2017 - 23:17
          +1

          @jv: I stand corrected. You answered the question but with an answer not related to the question. What is the valid reason same sex couples should not marry? I am genuinely interested to hear these arguments. If it is because you don't like the idea, then why not? Religion? Homophobia? Even these personal views shouldn't stop others getting married. What is the detrimental impact on you?

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:19
          +4

          @Covfefe:

          What is the valid reason same sex couples should not marry?

          My reason is that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

        • KnownSystemError on 24/08/2017 - 23:21
          +2

          @jv: why do you believe that?

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:22
          +1

          @Covfefe:

          why do you believe that?

          because I do.

          Do I need another reason ??

        • Xeonelite on 24/08/2017 - 23:29
          +4

          @jv:

          WHY do you believe this should only be the case? Stating that in any professional environment would get you ridiculed. EVERYTHING has a reason behind it.

        • kale chips suck on 24/08/2017 - 23:49
          +2

          @Tuba: You might want to revisit your notes on the development of English law because, at best, your understanding is way off. At worst, you're just making shit up. Canon law is emphatically NOT the origin of English law. That's totally wrong.

          Source: studied law for years and also, as evidence, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law

        • Tuba on 25/08/2017 - 00:36

          @kale chips suck: Go on, tell me how the king (prior to Henry VIII), wasnt influenced by the Archbishop, and the Pope, and that the adjudications of Common Law were not grounded in Canon Law?

          Development of Comon Law is not evidence Canon Law was not the basis of legal opinions. Its why people were burned at the stake for blasphemy and heresy. Or witchcraft. The King ruled by divine right.

          Then consider why most laws, follow the basics of the ten commandments.

          Yeah, I studied law too. But that there above is history, not so much law.

        • kale chips suck on 25/08/2017 - 06:51

          @Tuba: I'll refer you, again, to the Wikipedia page.

        • Tuba on 25/08/2017 - 14:16

          @kale chips suck: What does it say about how am adjudicator made a decision prior to any precedent existing? Of do you think precedent always existed? What guided them do you think? Who were the early judges I wonder? I wonder if they were the clergy, yeah, they often were.

          Who is the Archbishop of Canterbutry? What was his role in English law and to the Monarch?

          Again, why were people burnt at the stake for heresy? RELIGION. Religious ideology was the foundation of the legal system in England. Do you know who the Normans were? Norsemen (Vikings) that had developed a zealous following of the Catholic faith in lands the King of Francia had given them (Normandy). These are the people (William the Conqueror) that brought those foundations your link refers to, to England after 1066. Now read your wiki, and see the development period (1189) you think youre seeing?

          Why do you think Henry VIII, had to remove Rome and change the CHURCH, so he could change the law and divorce his first wife, Katherine? iF the church had no role, why was that necessary?

          Ill read it AGAIN, when you learn how to read it the first time.

        • Xastros on 25/08/2017 - 14:38

          @jv: jv you have the right to believe that and you have the right to act in accordance with your beliefs and only marry a person of the opposite sex. No question here.

          The question is why do you want to deny someone else the right to marry in accordance with their beliefs if they are of the same sex? How does it hurt you if someone else marries a person of the same sex?

          Why do you get to impose your beliefs on others? That is the heart of the issue. Right now a group of people is having their views backed by legislation. People aren't trying to force you to marry a person of the same sex. They just want to do it themselves without interfering with your life. Don't interfere in theirs.

        • kale chips suck on 25/08/2017 - 17:37

          @Tuba: If says none of that because Canon law is not the basis of English law. Feel free to correct the page. GLWT.

        • Tuba on 25/08/2017 - 18:09

          @kale chips suck: Google, William of Drogheda. Ill give you a hint, he is an Oxford scholar, alive in the time period advising on how best to maximise chances of success in legal disputes. He advises having a representative in Rome to have the ear of the Pope when issuing writs. Because all writs will end there on appeal (strange why Rome I wonder), and where cases are between 2 or more diocese in England, the various Bishops can decide with bias for their own, and the Pope supercedes them all, so start there and have his ear.

          ^^ ENGLISH LAW.

          There is a reason you do not acknowledge this, and its got a lot do with the bias of England and rewritting history to blot out the things it finds… not of its preferred narrative. Much like Cook discovered Australia and countless other nonsenses.

          But even in basic logic, you seem to think precedent was always in existence, found on cave walls I assume. Clearly by its very nature, it wasnt always in existence. It can not give birth to itself. And as the cases were heard by clergy, and they decided them, and they were only trained in Canon Law, its clear much of the Common Law precedent was born of Canon Law, among others. This isnt rocket science. The Catholic church and later the Church of England greatly influenced most laws. Deny it all you like, the lack of reasoning resembles faith.

        • kale chips suck on 26/08/2017 - 11:28

          @Tuba: I'm not denying anything other than your statement that English law is "based on" Canon.

          Again, I invite you correct the Wikipedia page on English law and see how far you get.

          Perhaps they'll agree, in which case I'll bow to your greater understanding, proffer my apologies and acknowledge that you are right and I mistaken.

        • Tuba on 26/08/2017 - 11:49

          @kale chips suck: I have little interest in getting the Brits to accept the history they write is not honest. Theres more than enough scholars who have have proved the connection. Its not denied outright, the distinction is a technical one, and flawed at that.

          The name Common Law, comes from Latin, and was in use in Canon Law… 'jus commune'. The people making this new 'Common Law' were trained in Canon Law and the decisions they make, may diverge in ways from Canon Law, are still rooted in Canon Law. Attraction and repulsion. The English monarchs have spent centuries via royal powers distancing themselves from Roman Civil Law, which walks as a mother and daughter with Canon Law. Theres Wessex Law, Danelaw and a heap of others that contribute.

          None of it changes the fact that at the time were are talking about, Religious Law was far more present in law. Usury, Heresy to name but 2. Upsetting a priest got people mercilessly hurt.

      • Quantico on 24/08/2017 - 23:09
        +11

        Adam is a gay man, and Dave his partner.

        Dave has a child, Jordan, now 12, from a previous marriage.

        Dave's wife dies of ovarian cancer when Jordan was 2, and Dave took full custody.

        Dave met Adam 2 years later when Jordan was almost 5, and they fell in love.

        Dave, Adam and Jordan have lived in a de facto relationship as partners, but this year Dave has been diagnosed with a form of leukemia.

        Adam and Dave are in the process of figuring out what will happen regarding Jordan's custody, if and when Dave succumbs to the disease. At the moment it is not know what will happen.

        With a legal marriage, this would not be an issue. Jordan's custody would be with Adam, as it has been for the past 7 and a half years, just like any other married couple.

        THIS IS WHAT MARRIAGE AFFORDS PEOPLE. It is NOT simply a religious right, or a tradition. It gives them legal rights, as well as dignity. It gives children security.

        Names changed, but this is all true as of right now for this family.

        Can anyone who wants to vote NO tell me: on what grounds could you say that marriage, in this circumstance, just one of many legal problems facing same sex couples, is a bad thing for them?

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:27
          +1

          I'm quite sure this simply goes to a family court as it would if they were married… It's a lengthy process either way. The only difference is there's no direct land mark cases, but there's no reason a judge should consider a de facto of 7 years different to a marriage.

        • Quantico on 24/08/2017 - 23:37
          +2

          @dyl:

          It is a race to prepare. We are approaching it as an adoption case, which appears legally viable, but takes time, and in this terrible scenario, time is really against us.

          It is not only time, it is extremely stressful and relatively expensive, and it's the last thing they want to be doing when they should be preparing to say goodbye, especially with a child who is almost a teenager.

          There is a definitive advantage when approaching this with a legal marriage status, so we have been told by solicitors.

          It is incredible how complex it becomes when you actually have to go through it, whereas it appears a much simpler outcome from the sidelines. "Of course he should have custody, he is basically his father." just doesn't cut it in front of a magistrate.

          I agree, something could be said about not having prepared this much earlier in the relationship, but such is life.

        • Maverick-au on 24/08/2017 - 23:41
          +4

          Can anyone who wants to vote NO tell me: on what grounds could you say that marriage, in this circumstance, just one of many legal problems facing same sex couples, is a bad thing for them?

          Maybe because people see Marriage as between Man and Woman, why can't you accept that others have a different view and are sick of having this rubbish forced down out throats and being called a bigot or homophobic because we have values and beliefs.

        • Quantico on 24/08/2017 - 23:49
          +3

          @Maverick-au:

          I don't think you are bigoted for that belief, and I certainly wouldn't call anyone bigoted without getting to the bottom of their values, and this forum is hardly the place to do that.

          But if you were standing in the court, and Adam and Jordan were standing there facing you, and the magistrate turned to you and asked "Maverick-au, you are a representative of the Australian public, and a voting citizen. Your opinion may help this family stay together, or it may mean they are separated by the state and this child is put into foster care. What say you? What is your opinion on same sex marriage? And why?"

          Of course, your vote may not cause them to be separated, but it could well make it very difficult for them to stay together.

          Well, if your reason is because "marriage should only be between a man and a woman", I don't think that is reason enough to break up families, and cause misery to other Australian citizens.

          Do you?

        • Xastros on 25/08/2017 - 14:42
          -1

          @Maverick-au: We can accept that you have this view. We just don't want your view to be imposed on others.

          You are free to marry in a heterosexual relationship. No one is trying to prevent you from living out your life in accordance with your view.

          It is you that want to prevent others from living their lives in accordance with their views. Why are your views more important than theirs? The equivalent would be that you were not allowed to marry in a heterosexual relationship under law. And when you asked someone they said hey my view is that marriage is between two people of the same sex so I don't want to allow YOU to marry a person of the opposite sex. Would you think this is OK? Why are your views more important than that of others?

        • Maverick-au on 25/08/2017 - 17:15

          @Xastros:

          It is you that want to prevent others from living their lives in accordance with their views.

          No it's not, marriage has always been between Man and Woman. It's others that want to harm the institution of marriage.

          Why are your views more important than theirs?
          Why are your views more important than that of others?

          Why are their views more important then others like mine?

          Take your civil union and move on.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:13
        +3

        More importantly….Any bargains?

      • Graffin on 24/08/2017 - 23:24
        +1

        It has everything to do with progress and change.

        Other countries (like NZ) are more progressive and acknowledge that same-sex couples exist and deserve the same rights and opportunities as heterosexual couples.

        You're entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but how exactly would allowing same-sex couples to marry directly affect you? Would it impact on your quality of life at all? I highly doubt it. By casting a "NO" vote you're essentially taking away that right for same-sex couples to be happy and have the same rights/opportunities that are available to you and your family.

        Australia needs to be more progressive and accept that the world around us has changed, and is changing. We need to accept these changes, just as other countries have, otherwise issues like homophobia and racism will never decrease.

        I know my comments won't change anyone's minds, nor do I expect them to. I just wish we took more pride in becoming better as a nation. Allow same-sex marriage. Become a Republic. Have a proper NBN. Show more tolerance towards other cultures and minorities. Think of what's best for Australia as a whole, not just for yourselves.

        I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!

      • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:37
        +3

        Nothing to do with progress.

        Changing the law will help Australia catch up to the rest of the Western world.

        Nothing to do with change.

        We're discussing a literal change to the law of Australia.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 22:43
    +9

    So if gay marriage is voted down, will the homosexual community leave it at that? I think not.

    • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:45
      +9

      Well, it's not just 'the homosexual community'. But to answer your question, f*** no.

      • insular on 24/08/2017 - 22:55
        +2

        yeah its so much more, there's an acronym for it.

        LBGTOMGWTFBBQ

        • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:56

          Nope, it's LGBT+ and most of the population :)

        • insular on 24/08/2017 - 22:57
          +3

          @ajee123: BYOBBBQ

          whats the extra B for?

          that's a typo.

        • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:59
          +1

          @insular: eh, your mocking sense of humour alludes me.

        • altomic on 24/08/2017 - 23:07
          +1

          @ajee123: simpsons reference

        • Suspect420 on 24/08/2017 - 23:16
          +1

          @altomic:so gay

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:09

          @ajee123: don't reduce the QQIAAP community to just a + sign, that's so offensive, I'm so triggered right now !!!

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 07:01

          @yannyrjl: yeah nice one!

    • Herbse on 24/08/2017 - 22:54
      +1

      Nah. They vote in a government that will do it's job and make the decisions. Not create money wasting delay tactics

      • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:57
        +1

        Yeah, Labor for next government is basically a shoe in at this point.

    • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 10:04

      Of course not. That's why they didn't want a plebiscite.

      Minority rights is generally something where democracy has it's weaknesses.
      Some examples?

      • Switzerland has a long history of direct democracy. Historically, only men were allowed to vote. To change this, they needed a referendum in which of course only men were entitled to vote. Consequently it took them centuries to get this through. Switzerland was one of the last western countries to legalize voting rights for women in 1971.
      • Aboriginal rights are the same. Somewhat big groups of Aboriginal people in NT and WA demand some rights. Some white people in Canberra go like "Nah, I don't think we need that".

      I really don't see why non-gay people think they are entitled to decide on the rights of gay people. It doesn't affect them, so it's none of their business (and none of mine either).

      If you really need a plebiscite on that, only gay people should be allowed to vote (yes, I realize that's an impossible demand).

      • Xastros on 25/08/2017 - 14:46

        I agree with your sentiment but have an OT question. What rights do aboriginal people not have right now that white people have?

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 15:17

          It doesn't necessarily have to be about rights that white people don't have, although historically there were many examples.

          Many rights were granted after long and hard struggle (citizenship, voting rights, the right to not have their children getting abducted, the right to not have their land sold off to mining companies) and some are still being argued about (i.e. official status for their native languages).
          None of these were things that aboriginal people were able to decide on. They always had to convince enough white politicians to stand up for aboriginal rights.

          A more current example is this:
          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-26/constitutional-recogni…
          Which was immediately brushed down by some (white) politicians.

          I'm not saying that white people can't have an opinion on this. But it is a good example of the rights of a minority being at the mercy of an unrelated majority.

        • Maverick-au on 25/08/2017 - 18:08
          +1

          I agree with your sentiment but have an OT question. What rights do aboriginal people not have right now that white people have?

          It's more the other way where they get a lot more including 25% discounts on sentencing in court, many concessions etc.

      • Maverick-au on 25/08/2017 - 17:19

        I really don't see why non-gay people think they are entitled to decide on the rights of gay people. It doesn't affect them, so it's none of their business (and none of mine either).
        If you really need a plebiscite on that, only gay people should be allowed to vote (yes, I realize that's an impossible demand).

        OK so if Muslims decided to push a law change would you take the same stance and only allow Muslims to vote on setting up a Caliphate that they promise won't affect us?

        Minority rights is generally something where democracy has it's weaknesses.

        Maybe because those rights are over the top and stupid and people don't support them.

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 17:39
          -2

          OK so if Muslims decided to push a law change would you take the same stance and only allow Muslims to vote on setting up a Caliphate that they promise won't affect us?

          If that caliphate doesn't affect me and doesn't have a negative impact on anyone's rights and freedoms, then I don't see why I should care.

          Maybe because those rights are over the top and stupid and people don't support them.

          So, when Aboriginal people were denied citizenship, that was because it was over the top and stupid and people didn't support it?

          When black people in South Africa were not allowed to sit on the same benches as white people, that was because allowing this would have been over the top and stupid and people didn't support it?

          When women demanded voting rights in Switzerland, they were denied them for centuries because it was over the top and stupid and people didn't support it?

          I don't know mate, I have a somewhat different opinion on that.

        • Maverick-au on 25/08/2017 - 18:07
          +1

          @MrTweek:

          If that caliphate doesn't affect me and doesn't have a negative impact on anyone's rights and freedoms, then I don't see why I should care.

          That says it all really, you are happy to allow society to destroy itself and stand by watching.

          So, when Aboriginal people were denied citizenship, that was because it was over the top and stupid and people didn't support it?

          No, those were the feelings of the people at the time and we shouldn't judge them now as they were doing what they thought was right at the time.

          When black people in South Africa were not allowed to sit on the same benches as white people, that was because allowing this would have been over the top and stupid and people didn't support it?

          Have you seen the problems there now like many other similar countries in Africa? Of course not you choose to ignore the issues and take a simplistic view on things.

          When women demanded voting rights in Switzerland, they were denied them for centuries because it was over the top and stupid and people didn't support it?

          Again what does it matter, they have the right to vote now and who are we to judge them.

          I don't know mate, I have a somewhat different opinion on that.

          Clearly, it's people like you that has led us down the path to self destruction like in Western Europe. Learn from history instead of deciding that you can do better.

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 18:27
          -1

          @Maverick-au:

          Uhm…

          If [it] doesn't have a negative impact
          you are happy to allow society to destroy itself

          That's a pretty wild interpretation of my words. Destroying society IS a negative impact and enough reason for me to be against it.
          Be more precise and you'll get a more precise answer. I don't know what a caliphate implies for you and I'm not going to wildly guess.

          those were the feeling of the people at the time and we shouldn't judge them now as they were doing what they thought was right at the time

          Yeah, but you said

          those rights are over the top and stupid

          I don't think demanding citizenship and basic citizens rights is over the top or stupid. I understand that this is how society changed and that it needed time for it, but I still think it was a very important change that had to happen rather earlier than later.

          Have you seen the problems there now like many other similar countries in Africa? Of course not you choose to ignore the issues and take a simplistic view on things.

          Yes, I am aware that many countries in Africa have various problems. What does that have to do with abolishing Apartheid? I'd say that fixed at least one of their problems.

          Again what does it matter, they have the right to vote now and who are we to judge them.

          Lol, it was you who started judging ("stupid and over the top"). I gave you examples where that judgement isn't too great.

          self destruction like in Western Europe

          What exactly is being destroyed in Australia or Western Europe by people like me?
          Western Europe is a lot more peaceful than it has ever been during the last 500 years and I kinda like that. Seems like the times where we constantly killed each other are mostly over.

          Learn from history instead of deciding that you can do better.

          And what exactly do you think I didn't learn correctly?
          That same sex marriage eventually leads to destruction of society? I must have missed that class.

        • Maverick-au on 25/08/2017 - 19:55
          +1

          @MrTweek:

          That's a pretty wild interpretation of my words. Destroying society IS a negative impact and enough reason for me to be against it.
          Be more precise and you'll get a more precise answer. I don't know what a caliphate implies for you and I'm not going to wildly guess.

          It only means one thing.

          "A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة khilāfa) is an area containing an Islamic steward known as a caliph (Arabic: خَليفة khalīfah pronunciation (info. • help))—a person considered a religious successor to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad (Muhammad ibn ʿAbdullāh), and a leader of the entire Muslim community."

          Yes, I am aware that many countries in Africa have various problems. What does that have to do with abolishing Apartheid? I'd say that fixed at least one of their problems.

          I would say that the manner of the abolishion of Apartheid has created the mess they are in now. You might want to see what is happened to white farmers as well and what is coming for them next. I would hardly call the total collapse of law and society a problem either for most of the African countries.

          Western Europe is a lot more peaceful than it has ever been during the last 500 years and I kinda like that. Seems like the times where we constantly killed each other are mostly over.

          If you think that Western Europe is getting more peaceful you might want to go and visit it.

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 22:04
          -1

          @Maverick-au:

          It only means one thing. […]

          Sorry, I'm not too familiar with muslim faith and don't really understand what it means. "Leader" can mean a crazy fanatic (which I don't want) or a friendly spokesperson for muslims (which I couldn't care less about).
          I stand by my point. If it has no effect on my rights, or anyone elses' right against their will, I don't have a problem with it.
          If it forces believes or standards on me or anyone who doesn't want them, I'll fight it.

          I would say that the manner of the abolishion of Apartheid has created the mess they are in now.

          You know you have a massive social problem if racism seems to be a practical solution.
          I still don't buy that Apartheid, which is nothing but institutionalized racism would solve any of their problems.

          If you think that Western Europe is getting more peaceful you might want to go and visit it.

          I spent 27 years of my life there and still visit regularly. I'd be highly impressed if you understand Western European culture and history better than I do.
          I learnt in school how one single racist bigot managed to cause massive trouble leading to more than 50 million fatalities at a time my grandparents went to school.
          I grew up in a time where nuclear weapons were stationed around me and we had tensions that almost lead to a world war 3 right were I lived. My city was at a serious risk of getting turned into a pile of rubble when I was in primary school.

          Yes, terrorist attacks are terrible, but they are nothing compared to our bloody history.

          And I've seen police shoot a crazy guy who killed some 10 people by driving through Bourke Street in Melbourne. So technically there is a lot more crazy peoples' violence here than there is in my home town.

        • Maverick-au on 25/08/2017 - 23:18
          +3

          @MrTweek:

          You know you have a massive social problem if racism seems to be a practical solution.

          Read again what I said but it was the manner in which they went about the abolishment.

          I learnt in school how one single racist bigot managed to cause massive trouble leading to more than 50 million fatalities at a time my grandparents went to school.

          Hitler was voted in by the people, he was not one man but a product of the times and the people. There were other issues going on at the time including a fear that Russia was going to invade Europe. It's not as clear cut as you think.

          Yes, terrorist attacks are terrible, but they are nothing compared to our bloody history.

          Why don't you read about the crusades and the Muslim invasions of Europe but now we are inviting them in and Western Europe is being destroyed at a rapid rate. These attacks are just the start and the worst part of them is that the leaders of the countries have sold them out. It's not just the terrorist attacks but the huge changes throughout Western Europe to personal freedom, the rapes, the assaults, the increase in housing and food costs and the list is never ending. Between 2014 and 2015 alone we saw a huge difference in Germany.

          And I've seen police shoot a crazy guy who killed some 10 people by driving through Bourke Street in Melbourne. So technically there is a lot more crazy peoples' violence here than there is in my home town.

          Another Muslim.

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 23:43
          -3

          @Maverick-au:

          Hitler […] was not one man

          Mate, now it's getting ridiculous. He was still one person and this wouldn't have happened without him.

          There were other issues going on at the time including a fear that Russia was going to invade Europe. It's not as clear cut as you think.

          I know that this is not clear cut or simple. Doesn't change the fact that Europe is A LOT more peaceful than it used to be. And that white people caused a lot more havoc in Europe than muslims will ever be able to.

          Why don't you read about the crusades […]

          Because I don't care about that religion?

          huge changes throughout Western Europe to personal freedom

          You mean governments slowly introducing mass surveillance? Yes, that sucks.

          the rapes, the assaults

          Yeah, obviously only refugees commit rape or assault. So many that they don't even have an impact on the criminal statistics at all.

          the increase in housing costs

          lol. Housing prices are completely out of control here in Australia. A LOT more than in Europe.
          If that is a concern for you, there's a lot more people you should get mad at. Start with your government.

          Another Muslim.

          Yeah, he claims to be a muslim, christian and talked gibberish about aboriginal laws.
          He totally did that because he was a muslim and that has nothing to do with him being a batshit insance ice junky.

  • rompastompa on 24/08/2017 - 22:43
    +25

    Wow, I didn't expect so many people saying No..

    I wasn't going to both to vote, but now I think I might vote yes just to counter all the no's.

    • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:46

      Wow… that's the spirit…

    • Cyb3rGlitch on 24/08/2017 - 22:52
      +11

      Nobody thought Trump would win either. Always make good use of your democratic rights.

    • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:11

      that's what democracy is all about, it's not about what you vote for but rather you vote. People actually died for this privilege.

  • robbyjones on 24/08/2017 - 22:45
    +9

    Love is love

  • scepticpsych on 24/08/2017 - 22:47
    +10

    Guys can we all please focus on what's actually important? Free T-shirt!

  • trielement on 24/08/2017 - 22:50
    +1

    No all day long…

  • jelko on 24/08/2017 - 22:54

    So, does anybody know what the question on the ballot paper is likely to be?

    • Ventak on 24/08/2017 - 23:00
      +2

      Something along the lines of "Do you believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry?"

      • Suspect420 on 24/08/2017 - 23:11
        +1

        Are you in favour of the proposal of the Commonwealth Government of Australia allowing homosexual men and women, be united in same-sex relationships and accepted as a married couple?

  • drillvoice on 24/08/2017 - 22:58
    +17

    I will be voting yes because I support equality and ending marriage discrimination.

    • normanwall on 25/08/2017 - 09:30
      +4

      I will be voting yes because I want gay people to be allowed to be as unhappy as straight people

  • BurningSeason on 24/08/2017 - 22:59
    +6

    I'm voting no because I don't believe blacks and whites should intermarry. It would be changing the definition of marriage.

    • drillvoice on 24/08/2017 - 22:59
      +1

      Are you kidding me? What does that even have to do with same-sex marriage?

      • BurningSeason on 24/08/2017 - 23:00
        +2

        The only form of marriage is between a man and woman of the same race and religion. It's in the bible. Children need role models to look up to of both genders

        • drillvoice on 24/08/2017 - 23:02
          +1

          Actually you've made a very compelling argument. Would you support "changing the definition of marriage" so that it matches up with your terms? What about divorce? What about single parents? What about IVF? Like, sure have your ideas about how families should be, but do you really need to single out same-sex couples for extra-special discrimination?

        • WinstonWithAY on 25/08/2017 - 00:02
          +3

          Except Australia is a secular state, and religion should have ZERO influence over political decision-making regardless of how much of the population is religious

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:13

          @WinstonWithAY: yep, they shall remain separate until a church refuses to marry a gay couple and gets sued for discrimination based on sexual preference

      • ThithLord on 25/08/2017 - 08:03

        I believe they are being facetious.

    • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 23:00
      +4

      I'm voting no because women should be seen and not heard!

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:05
        +1

        You must be the one putting up the fake posters pretending to be for the no vote…

        typical comment from you…

        • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 23:10
          +1

          those aren't fake but nice try

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:11

          @ajee123:

          those aren't fake

          oh yes they were…

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:40

          @jv:

          oh yes they were…

          Source?

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 07:03
          +1

          @jv: OK let me get this straight, you think the pro campaign, the same people who believe in equality and advocate for the mental health of lgtb youth, would go out of their way to create a smear campaign that would potentially hurt thousands of LGBT youth? Take that tinfoil hat off, you sound ridiculous, and you know it.

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 07:04
          +1

          @jv: btw, do you don't need to quote EVERY SINGLE COMMENT. The previous comment is literally right there. I can see it.

        • ripsnorter on 25/08/2017 - 23:25
          -1

          You must be the one putting up the fake posters pretending to be for the no vote…

          When asked to give a source for this false allegation, of course jv just disappears and ignores the question.

          The allegation that the posters were fake is a complete fabrication by jv. Cowardly comments.

        • ripsnorter on 26/08/2017 - 01:36

          @jv:

          oh yes they were…

          Have you found that source for your allegation yet, jv? Or is your head still stuck in the sand?

  • insular on 24/08/2017 - 23:00
    +1

    i'm just going to leave this here.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LazrAzBP_0I

  • Suspect420 on 24/08/2017 - 23:01
    +4

    This discussion is so gay and turned to shit… someone put it in the wrong hole again

  • Ventak on 24/08/2017 - 23:02
    +6

    I don't know what I expected clicking on this deal and reading the comments…

  • altomic on 24/08/2017 - 23:05
    +7

    Gay people being able to marry makes me feel uncomfortable. that's why I'm voting "No" /s

    • KnownSystemError on 24/08/2017 - 23:08
      -1

      Why does it make you feel uncomfortable?

      • altomic on 24/08/2017 - 23:10
        +4

        I don't know. it just does. it's not right. it will affect the children. why aren't people protecting the children?. (there was a /s - sarcasm tag on my first comment there)

      • Quantico on 24/08/2017 - 23:11
        +3

        OP has the /s meaning he is not being serious.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:07
    +4

    Local school doesn't want to offend lesbian couples and single parents. Therefore will not acknowledge the upcoming fathers Day. Clearly there are ramifications in formally acknowledging homosexual marriages. Homosexuals will see nothing wrong with this. Heterosexuals will. Majority used to rule once upon a time.

    • Herbse on 24/08/2017 - 23:19
      +2

      Which local school?..

      • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:27
        +2

        Do you doubt this? Local councils are doing worse.

        • Herbse on 24/08/2017 - 23:37
          +2

          What have they been doing?..

      • iaijutsu on 24/08/2017 - 23:47
        +2

        I second this. The school is in the wrong so please do tell us which local school.

        I suspect there is none.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 00:06
          +5

          A client told me today about what is happening at his child's school this week. Why do you really doubt this? If it's confirmed as true, will you change your opinion on gay marriage? I'll confirm the school name if it will change your opinion. Homosexual males will inevitably feel offended with Mother's Day soon enough. It will become another "Voldemort day" that cannot be named. Christmas is almost another Voldemort day already.

          Local councils want to ban Australia Day. This minority madness will never stop.

        • ThithLord on 25/08/2017 - 08:09

          Probably saw it in the Herald Sun. About as trustworthy as your local drug dealer.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 11:11

          @ThithLord: but it is definitely true yarra council want to change Australia Day on the back of a 300 people survey

  • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:07
    +3

    All I want to know is can you claim cash back rewards?

    • altomic on 24/08/2017 - 23:10
      +1

      with OW price beat.

  • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:08
    +3

    80 +ve votes from 1700 views… That's about 4.7% yes vote… Sounds about right.

    • KnownSystemError on 24/08/2017 - 23:11
      +11

      Wow. That logic.

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:13

        That logic.

        Boolean.

    • Gehirn on 24/08/2017 - 23:14
      +8

      Come on jv youve been here long enough to know views always outweigh votes. Stop twisting things.

    • mccaj09 on 24/08/2017 - 23:17
      +7

      Last time i checked this was a post about a deal for a free shirt from Gorman, and not a survey on marriage equality on the ozbargain deal page

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:20
        +1

        Down to 4.5% now…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join