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

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 02:10
          +1

          @xywolap: yeah, true, participation rates can be very poor in the case of Japan. It's unfortunately that people don't pay attention to politics or policies, even though these have profound influences on daily lives

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 02:11

          @xywolap: it's like Free Speech… you should have the right to talk… but also the right to remain silent. It goes both ways. @yannyrjl is right, in a free society you have the right to participate… but also the right not to participate.

        • sss333 on 25/08/2017 - 07:22
          +3

          @yannyrjl: You don't have to vote, just get your name marked of the class electoral roll.

        • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 10:13
          +1

          @xywolap: yeah, honestly there are bigger systemic issues than whether voting is compulsory or not. Like during brexit, there a lot of 80-90+yr olds voting "leave" when they won't even be around to deal with the process. Yet you've got 10yr olds who will be age 20-25 by the time it starts to really cause problems, and they werent allowed to vote. Craziness.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 11:04

          @bohdud: that is exactly right, young people who are impacted a lot more choose not to exercise their right, while this idea doesn't appeal to me, they are free thinking individual who can choose on the day what is more important to them (i presume no one was prevented to vote as there are no reports of such).

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 11:06

          @sss333: indeed abstaining is definitely a right, but you are still "forced" (through a fine) to participate in the process.

        • Cheeper on 25/08/2017 - 11:26
          +1

          @bohdud: Spot on there..!!
          This is when the elected politicians should earn their money and make informed decisions after carefully assessing any long term effects. I am an old codger (amost a fossil) but I will be the first to agree that the prime consideration in any policy changes should focus on how it will affect comming generations. Too often they focus on how any move will affect their support base.
          Thats politics.. :-(

    • Scab on 25/08/2017 - 07:09
      +1

      its a drive to get people to enrolee to vote in federal elections

      Why would the Coalition want to do that when most people that will enrol for this won't be their supporters?

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 02:01

    don't be to sure if you don't know the draconian liberal government of NSW passed laws to enrol people to vote without their signature or consent and then made out they are doing them a favour.

    as they slowly use any means possible to control and monitor us its like the frog in the cold water story one day we will wake up cooked, its not about voting its about my human rights and I am amazed that homosexuals want this draconian type state to accept them as loving each other and to come under more of their control..last time I looked marriage is a contract between 2 people and God, not sure how the state now thinks its God, I do not need a piece of paper from some office to say I am married in the eyes of God. are they God? they sure are starting to act like an old testament smiting God passing laws that take away my freedom without my consent, my only question is why do I need their approval???????

    but each to their own I guess.

    http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/enrol_to_vote/smartroll/Auto…

    • mubd1234 on 25/08/2017 - 02:29

      If I have been SmartRolled, am I enrolled for Federal elections as well?

      Unfortunately no.

  • Cheeper on 25/08/2017 - 02:09
    +3

    Op posted a deal for a free t shirt.. turned into a 8 page debate. LOL.
    Might be better as a forum discussion?

  • plentifoo on 25/08/2017 - 03:26
    +3

    think of the children! still i feel there are so many implications on the future generations should this get passed. Fighting for one's equality in society or one's religious believes are all subjectively noble for the individual at present, but both share one thing, it's pretty self-centred at its core.

    people should stop thinking only for themselves one moment and consider what destroying the concept of a nuclear family will mean for the kids that they choose to adopt or have through a surrogate. The former will never be given the opportunity to experience maternal love, the latter may risk not knowing who their biological mothers are.

    Sure we will allow the institution of marriage to be redefined by the times, and we gladly embrace what is now commonly accepted, but why must we enact change on the constitution to rethink what we humans are wired to do? I.e. copulate heterosexually and reproduce - at it's most visceral form.

    • swalloweda on 25/08/2017 - 07:22
      +12

      Since when did marriage become a requirement for reproduction?
      Since when did reproduction become a requirement for marriage?

      BTW, you might be shocked to hear that ladies like ladies too… not just men are gay.

      • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 08:31
        +3

        And some men like ladies who like ladies

    • ThithLord on 25/08/2017 - 08:52
      +3

      K - and what are your comments on the plethora of other countries that have Same-sex marriage? What have you to say on their prosperity, success, and lack of moral decline due to marriage equality?

    • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 10:21
      +2

      Which rock did you just crawl out from under? Gay couples have hd the right to raise children for a long time. Get over your nuclear family BS. most families are not nuclear. By your argument we should also ban adoption, sperm donation, and simply being a single parent. So you think its better to force kids to live with heterosexual parents who never wanted them and perpetrate domestic violance than allow them to be raised in a supportive family, all in the interest of retaining an obsolete description of what a family is?

      • Cheeper on 25/08/2017 - 11:32

        They live in defacto relationships now and also raise children.
        How has that affected anyone? Not at all!!

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 03:38
    +4

    I gotta say I just lost a lot of respect for people I used think were only cynical before. The arguments were fragile and hopefully futile.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 04:37
    +7

    People will express themselves at the ballot box if you besiege the moral high ground and shame them rather than engaging them in constructive and civil debate. I understand that it can be frustrating when people don't share your ideals and hopes, but ease up on the "bigot" rhetoric - abusing people only makes them (more) hostile.

    • normanwall on 25/08/2017 - 09:47
      +5

      I can understand why gay people would be annoyed though… Imagine as an adult if you weren't allowed to get married to someone you love because of how you were born, and a bunch of people who were already married were debating in front of you whether you deserve equal rights

  • x853 on 25/08/2017 - 05:01
    +1

    Sonata long as I was enrolled to vote and my details are correct - I should good to go. right?

    • Gehirn on 25/08/2017 - 09:16

      Correct.

  • attfiecz2 on 25/08/2017 - 05:45
    +9

    1) I'm stunned by the comments here.
    2) I hope the votes on this deal are broadly representative of the desire for change in this country.

    • Godlike on 25/08/2017 - 07:35
      +2

      Hahah I'm regularly shocked by the comments on ozb whenever it's a politicallly sensitive deal/thread. But both sides of the political spectrum love a deal :) ozb! Bringing us together. It's good to see that for every 170 people voting yes 4 people will be voting no.

  • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 07:16
    +3

    As far as I'm concerned I'm happy for SSM to be legalised. They can already adopt kids so it's not like it'll change much there. It won't change how the church practices marriage ceremonies as they can still refuse to marry any couple they choose. Plus, this civil unions they have right now don't have the same rights as marriage especially when it comes to the federal level.

    Lime any campaign I think there's a lot of misinformation around. People believing that the church will be forced to carry out a gay marriage which is completely false as this is a state issue, not a religious issue. Comments of "but they'll ruin my family" which makes no sense. It's just another type of family.

    That said, I don't support harassment from either side. Calling people bigots for their opinion is just childish and counter productive. I also don't support the government spending a ridiculous amount of money on a non-binding vote. They did the same thing in the US. People voted No and they still went ahead with it so what's the point?

    • divineiniquity on 25/08/2017 - 09:52
      +2

      I can appreciate the idea that these things may seem like "myths" but there have been instances (overseas) where people's religious views have not only been rejected but also resulted in legal disputes (eg: the bakery incident, and the ring incident).

      And given the general hostility seen throughout the media (and social media) and even on this thread, I hope it can be understood why Christians are concerned for their freedom of speech, thought and also their freedom to respectfully decline participating in Same Sex Marriages.

      Comments of "but they'll ruin my family" which makes no sense. It's just another type of family.

      Correct! That comment alone doesn't make sense, but that isn't the entire argument.

      • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 10:06

        "I can appreciate the idea that these things may seem like "myths" but there have been instances (overseas) where people's religious views have not only been rejected but also resulted in legal disputes (eg: the bakery incident, and the ring incident)"

        True, but those things are things that are currently illegal or were illegal prior to same sex marriage being legalised. An example is the cake incident. That wasn't a new law. The person discriminated against other people based on their sexuality which was illegal long before SSM was legalised. It's usually a private entity being forced to follow the current laws.

        The only one I can recall of where it wasn't a private entity following discrimination laws was the county clerk incident which was an agent of the state refusing to do her job.

        • divineiniquity on 25/08/2017 - 10:17
          +1

          Thanks for replying.

          Genuine question here: how can you call that "discrimination" when it went against the baker's personal beliefs? The baker even suggested another place for the customer to go to get a cake for their wedding. But it turns out that baker did not have the right to refuse serving that customer. To me I would describe that situation as "not supporting" SSM, as opposed to "discriminating" against SSM.

          Just bringing up the ring incident again to contrast the above (rather than using it as a counter argument to you): the ringmakers made the rings, the customers accepted and used the rings, but when the customers learnt that the ringmakers did not support SSM they proceeded to sue the ringmakers despite being offered a refund. The customer's views were that the rings were "tainted". So even when the service/product was provided, that still wasn't enough.

          Again, extreme incidents above and I would hope such cases would never surface again here or in any other part of the world; but we can't deny that this is what has happened and it's a legitimate concern that it will happen again.

          But back to the point on "discrimination", what would prevent religious organisations (eg the church) from being legally slammed for discrimination?

          There is already public slander against Christian churches in many things that it participates in (eg: religious education in schools being labelled as "hate speech"). If anything, it is the refusal to allow the freedom of speech and belief of Christian churches which should be called "discrimination".

        • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 10:35

          @divineiniquity: "how can you call that "discrimination" when it went against the baker's personal beliefs?"

          Oddly enough I don't entirely agree with the discrimination laws. I think if there's other viable options available then the baker should be able to refuse service. But my beliefs don't really matter as it's the law. And it's the current law and has nothing to do with same sex marriage. If SSM gets legalised or not, you're still not allowed to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality

          "the ringmakers made the rings, the customers accepted and used the rings, but when the customers learnt that the ringmakers did not support SSM they proceeded to sue the ringmakers despite being offered a refund."

          I think we must be thinking about two different incidents. I'm not sure which one you're referring to but if you could link it that would be most helpful. The one I'm aware of was a Lesbian couple (Renouf and White) who ordered rings to be made and gave a deposit. Later the shop started placing up anti-gay marriage signs. The couple weren't happy buying from someone who was against their beliefs so they requested a refund. The store gave them a refund and that was the end of it. They never received or used the ring and they never sued.

          "what would prevent religious organisations (eg the church) from being legally slammed for discrimination?"

          The Australian constitution provides protection for churches. Under the Australian constitution it states that the church may refuse to marry any couple. The same thing happened in the US when SSM was legalised. Churches are still allowed to refuse whoever they want. That's freedom of religion.

          "There is already public slander against Christian churches in many things that it participates in… it is the refusal to allow the freedom of speech.."

          Unfortunately there often is a lot of slander against Churches. This has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech though. Freedom of speech protects a person from being told by the government that they're not allowed to express their opinion.

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

          @GunnerMcDagget: Yeah may have got my facts wrong about the ring incident, I'll retract that statement and edit my above post.

          EDIT: seems I can't edit previous posts now

          Just on freedom of speech, and leaving churches aside, there have been councils trying to censor the "no" side of the debate, disallowing them from using public spaces to promote their message (whilst freely allowing the "yes" side of the debate to proceed with their activities): http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/law-expert-says-pla…

          It's a small example sure, but it would be nice to see the government have a firm stance in allowing both sides to freely express their opinions.

        • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 11:32

          @divineiniquity: That's not exactly what happened. They didn't censor the "no" side of the debate but they did try to do something they shouldn't. The motion they raised hasn't actually passed and if it does pass then it could result in mass sackings at the council as it's actually illegal. The fortunately thing is that our constitution sides against the council in this circumstance.

          The Darebin Council are already on shaky ground. They recently ditched Australia day and as such they have had their right to carry out citizenship ceremonies removed.

        • divineiniquity on 25/08/2017 - 11:57

          @GunnerMcDagget: Cool thanks for your feedback and helping shed light on the situation.

  • TheRealCher on 25/08/2017 - 07:28
    +3

    I skipped a lot of the discussion… Has anyone mentioned how bad this t-shirt is?

  • Godlike on 25/08/2017 - 07:32
    +2

    I'll be voting yes. Everyone should just vote how they want and we'll end up with a true representation of where the country stands. That being said it would be awful embarrassing if it's a no vote. It would be us and north Ireland vs the rest of the modern world. We'd look like total red necks.

  • hypie on 25/08/2017 - 07:43
    +4

    I'll be voting yes, because what gives me or you the right to decide whether two people who are in love should get married or not?

    I would suggest this is a pure form of depravation of liberty and freedom. People have the right to do almost anything (that does not cause harm to others). Let us add this to the list.

    Also I really hope Australia doesn't end up being one of the last western countries legalising same-sex marriage. I thought we were better than that.

    The word marriage is just that… a word. It will mean whatever we want it to mean. Not what someone hundreds/thousands of years ago decided in a book. We have evolved.

    P.s. on the note of depriving churches of their religous freedoms. I am athiest and my partner is catholic. We were significantly limited in finding a church willing to marry us. As we all know, they do whatever they want.

  • eltito on 25/08/2017 - 07:45
    +1

    So i got to page 5 and didn't read on. I was actually someone who wasn't going to vote, why? Purely because it's bringing out the worst in people from both sides - bullying etc - and to me it was a, out of sight, out of mind mentality. I always thought both sides had a valid point, until I read this deal.

    Can someone please confirm to me that gay people (essentially de-facto) do not have the same rights as people who are actually married when it comes to PBS safety nets, hospital issues and even for tax purposes? Could anyone enlighten me with any links that show the indifferences?

    If this is true, then that's so sad, they LEGALLY don't have the same rights as us. I'm portraying my ignorance here, but I always thought in my mind, what's the big deal with being able to be married? it's literally a word that carries a certificate, I didn't realize that benefits were attracted to it (pbs etc) and de-facto couples aren't allowed these benefits. That to me is the definition of inequality.

    And if this is the case, then I'll be voting yes, everyone deserves equal rights.

    • hypie on 25/08/2017 - 07:51
      +2

      Do you not feel like you should probably do the research yourself before making an under-educated vote?

      You are in a position of power, one we rarely see. One that will change the lives of various minority groups. It may not alter you in any way, but it is important none the less (sadly not legally binding, but hard to oppose)

      Also I would suggest stopping two individuals from having the freedom to marry (which causes no harm to yourself) is a case of bullying? Is it your affinity to the word marriage?

      P.s. I am genuinely asking these questions, not attacking you.

      Also to answer your question. This might help.

      https://youtu.be/nHLDEcVJj1Q

      • eltito on 25/08/2017 - 08:00
        +2

        I probably should, but seeing as some people here seem very well informed, I figured they would be able to get links in a click of a button (some could have even researched it before making their comments thereby having it handy)

        EDIT: Thanks for the handy link.

        • hypie on 25/08/2017 - 08:05
          +1

          The video i linked is 4 minutes and very clear.

        • eltito on 25/08/2017 - 08:08
          +1

          @hypie: Yes yes I saw, thanks for that! Appreciate it.

      • tryagain on 25/08/2017 - 08:52
        +1

        Is it your affinity to the word marriage?

        Yes, the word, its meaning and the wider implications of the change. I fully support civil unions to deal with the issues raised in the video's and see it as the ideal middle ground on this issue. I won't rehash what I have already said in the forum's but if you want to see why me considered vote is not then you can read my comments and the responses here https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/4962718/redir and here https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/4964586/redir and https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/4966561/redir

        By the way, have watched that video before, it does a reasonable job of laying out the differences, it should also say that this isn't the case in other states who have been able to deal with the issues without having to legislate same sex marriage, and that question and answer at the end is woeful.

        • hypie on 25/08/2017 - 09:33
          +1

          I read everything you wrote and genuinely did not see a clear reason as to why you vote no (other than the… you need to prove me wrong first argument).

          Essentially you like the word marriage, you don't mind if they have the same rights but call it something else.

          The argument you put forward that homosexuals have the same rights to marriage as they can marry someone of the opposite sex is tedious and not relevent. I won't bother responding to that because it is a slippery slope to "homosexuality, it's a choice…"

          You say marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. Many things were also historically considered the norm, these things change as society progresses.

          Many things were socially acceptable in years past. I don't need to name them but we all accepted that if it causes harm to another person (physically or mentally) then it probably should not be the norm. This is where we stand. If you can make a point as to why a homosexual couple getting married will cause you/society harm, i would like to hear it? (leave out your personal affinity for the word and your religous beliefs here)

          Another commentator suggested that we are liberal up to a certain point, i agree we are. This issue is not about polygamists or incestual couples. It is about about loving adult same-sex couples being treated like the other human beings on this planet. In our country homosexuality is not illegal.

          That was an embarassing argument by him.

        • tryagain on 25/08/2017 - 18:31

          @hypie:

          I read everything you wrote and genuinely did not see a clear reason as to why you vote no (other than the… you need to prove me wrong first argument).

          I listed 3, 1 was I haven't seen a convincing argument for change, therefore the status quo is the preferable course of action, 2, The Orwellian nature of the laws and again here and 3, The attempted silencing of free and frank debate by proponents of SSM. Here is a clip of Brendan O'Neill on Q&A unpacking the last two a bit more and here is an article about Barronelle Stutzman who is a prime example of the points Brendan makes and evidence of the "it doesn't affect anyone else" fallacy.

          Essentially you like the word marriage, you don't mind if they have the same rights but call it something else.

          Correct, I don't equate differentation with with discrimination.

          The argument you put forward that homosexuals have the same rights to marriage as they can marry someone of the opposite sex is tedious and not relevent. I won't bother responding to that because it is a slippery slope to "homosexuality, it's a choice…"

          How is it tedious? or a slippery slope, Homosexuality isn't a choice but it is true that everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex as per the current definition in Australia.

          You say marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. Many things were also historically considered the norm, these things change as society progresses.
          Many things were socially acceptable in years past. I don't need to name them but we all accepted that if it causes harm to another person (physically or mentally) then it probably should not be the norm. This is where we stand. If you can make a point as to why a homosexual couple getting married will cause you/society harm, i would like to hear it? (leave out your personal affinity for the word and your religous beliefs here)

          As I said here

          you are conflating situations where there were sound arguments for change with one that you so far haven't offered any.

          Where do you propose the line should be drawn with "mental harm" what if it is something that is fair but someone doesn't like it and it, therefore, causes them anguish, is that "mental harm' and should therfore be changed? I think this is a far inferior reason for change in comparison to reason and logic, can you give me one example of these thing's that have changed in the past that there hasn't been sound reasoning for?
          There is the reason I provided at the beginning of the Orwellian nature that causes harm, there is also the "children" argument that isn't without merit but can be quite tedious and this point apparently causes the most "mental harm" I generally don't go there as I find the lack of sound arguments for, with the other arguments against sufficient.

          It is about loving adult same-sex couples being treated like the other human beings on this planet.

          My position based on the evidence as I see it is that legally equivalent civil union would achieve this, I find it somewhat amusing that you call out the traditional marriage proponents affinity for the word marriage but not the pro-SSM as they could easily have a legally equivalent civil union if they wanted with minimal, if any resistance virtually straight away.

    • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 08:27
      +6

      That's the problem with this plebiscite. Many people don't understand what they issues are and what's involved. On the plus side it's leading to people learning the finer details. Here's some of the false things I've actually heard said on radio the past few weeks:

      • "A civil union is the same as marriage. They should stick with that"

      Of course that's not true at all. A civil union provides much more than defacto but doesn't provide the same rights as marriage. The things you mentioned are part of it. Another is federal recognition. Civil unions are only recognised by the state you carry out the union in. If you have a civil union in NSW then as far as Queensland is concerned, you never had that union.

      • "The bible says that marriage is between a man and woman and they're going to force our churches to break the sanctimony of marriage"

      This has nothing to do with religion. The debate is whether the state will issue marriage licenses. Churches, pastors, celebrants all still have the right to refuse to marry any couple they don't want to marry. And Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, everyone has been getting married for years. I don't hear people arguing against these heathens.

      • "This will lead to beastiality and incest" (yes they actually said that on the radio, and not just a caller, the radio host)

      There's no evidence of this and no one would ever support this. Without getting into the obvious implications of such as assertion, the Netherlands has had Same Sex Marriage for 17 years and there's no sign of that degrading into the suggestions. In fact, there's no sign of society collapsing as many seem to believe it will.

      • divineiniquity on 25/08/2017 - 10:04

        All good points, thanks for sharing!

        On your last point about beastiality and incest, yes those do seem extreme and quite illogical and unlikely to gain support in this day and age. But the same could have been said of same sex marriage centuries ago, where to the people living in that day and age it was an extreme idea. So what is there to suggest the world won't move down the path to accept beastiality and incestuous relationships in the future?

        Another extreme not mentioned is paedophilia - just flagging it as something that could also rise up in the future.

        But what about something comparatively more reasonable like polygamy? If we're removing the gender requirement for marriage, why not remove the number requirement and allow more than 2 people to be involved in a marriage - surely people can love more than one other person at a time, no?

        • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 10:17
          +2

          There's always the possibility but there's certain factors involved. Incest isn't allowed due to the genetic mutation it causes. Beastiality and paedophilia aren't allowed for the consent issues. Animals and children can't consent. While anything could happen in 100 years, or 200 years, or 1,000 years. There are morality issues involved with these that don't exist with gay marriage. The fortunate thing we have now days is that we're more scientifically literate.

          On your point on "But the same could have been said of same sex marriage centuries ago". That's true. That debate was often used when they were trying to stop interracial marriages from being legalised.

          In the end we don't know what the future will hold, but providing marriage to one group doesn't provide any additional rights to another group.

        • divineiniquity on 25/08/2017 - 10:23

          @GunnerMcDagget: Yes, but this is what brings the disussion back to the idea that some who do not support SSM believe there are additional ramifications to legalizing SSM.

          Some think it's just about the marriage component affecting only a small number of people; but others think it's much more than that.

          If it were possible to separate all the affected elements and treat them all separately then it would be much more clearer what voting "yes" and "no" means. At the moment it feels there are a number of things bundled together and there is tension/disagreement on what seems to be in-scope and out-of-scope for SSM.

        • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 10:38

          @divineiniquity: Definitely. Hence the public discussion. Nothing is ever that simple. But there were many opponents to interracial marriage with the same arguments and oddly enough, allowing interracial marriage didn't result in the end of society.

          But discussion should be had so people know the facts and find out all possible outcomes. Jumping to conclusions is never a good thing though.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 07:53

    its a magic trick the whole thing look at how a magician picks your pocket, that's right you just had your pocket picked and still your focused on the trick.

    must be the fluoride in the water http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/08/22/fluoride-affects-consc…

    • XeKToReX on 25/08/2017 - 08:23
      +1

      or the crack in the pipe.

  • iaijutsu on 25/08/2017 - 08:29
    +11

    There seems to be a distinct lack of moderation of negative votes for the deal. As I see it, not a single negative vote meets site guidelines.

    As a refresher, here are the negative deal voting guidelines:

    Appropriate uses of negative vote

    Cheaper price elsewhere
    Mention store or URL and price making sure to include shipping.
    Defective product
    The product has been recalled
    Major issue with product in that it doesn't work the way it should.
    Major issue with retailer
    Didn't receive previous purchase. Example
    Shipping time exceeding expected wait. Example

    Inappropriate uses of negative vote

    Any negative vote that falls into any of these reasons will be revoked by a moderator. Negative votes for any other reason will not be removed by a moderator.

    No explanation of the vote
    “Not a bargain.”
    “Agree”
    “SPAM”
    “I don't like this deal”
    “I don't think it's a good deal”
    “Ditto”
    “lol”
    “No deal”
    “No Thanks”
    “Not much of a bargain, a mere promotion.”
    “This is marketing” or “Marketing”
    “Weird looking website” (Nothing to do with the deal)
    +1
    “What's good about this”
    “This is an awful deal”
    Incorrect or missing information in title or description
    Requesting price in title.
    Requesting shipping cost.
    Mentioning RRP.
    SPAMMY sounding title.
    Misspelling or grammar issue.
    Incorrect URL.
    Listed as freebie.
    An issue with the poster.
    Disliking their avatar.
    Disliking their comments or description.
    Disliking their username.
    Expired/Out of Stock.
    Should have been posted in forums.
    Pointing out that the product is a grey import.
    Requiring Facebook/Twitter/G+ to access deal

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

      This.

      Negative votes for any other reason will not be removed by a moderator.

      Further discussion should be made on the site discussion forum.

  • chatman on 25/08/2017 - 08:33
    +3

    Wow, the comment sections a clusterfook!

    • j4ck on 25/08/2017 - 08:55

      Logged in to say the same thing! Beat me to it :)

      • chatman on 25/08/2017 - 09:36

        Like how the Jay from The Wire said it!

  • Unherd on 25/08/2017 - 08:37
    +7

    Wow - so many uninformed, uneducated and downright ignorant comments here. You people should really learn about the laws of the country you live in, the political system we have and add a bit of history to boot.

    Despite the churches' propaganda - marriage is a secular (not religious) construct under Australian law. It has been since Federation. No church in Australia has ever been forced to marry anyone against their religious beliefs - ie a Catholic Church has never had to marry a divorcee. Marriage equality isn't going to change that.

    A survey is un-democratic - because only a bunch of Liberal Party executives decided that an unnecessary survey/plebescite should be a policy to take to an election. The majority of voters had no say as to whether such a waste of money should even be a policy. Think about this. A few dozen party executives decided that $100-200million of public money is a good idea to spend on a useless opinion poll. This survey can't change the law. Only a vote in parliament can change the law. That vote can be done now without a survey and cost $0. I would prefer a share of that $100m + to go to my kids' school!

    There have been enough civil rights movements in our shared western history to know that equality WAS ALWAYS the end result - abolition of slavery, women's emancipation, black segregation, Aboriginal citizenship, equal pay for women, women's maternity protections, marriage equality in ALL OTHER Anglo western nations - you think it's ok to ask the same boring question yet again? - should we all be equal under the law? As though all that history didn't exist?

    By voting - I'm saying that's I have a right to tell another person whether they are able to marry their partner? I don't have that right.

    Wake up, get informed. We're all being taken for a $100m + ride.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 08:46
    -1

    It's a no from me

    (Insert Simon Cowell meme)

  • MrDixit on 25/08/2017 - 08:48
    +2

    There seems to be a high correlation between being people wanting to save money and people not caring about the rights of other people. Shock horror.

    Do same sex relationships entitle you to the same rights as legal marriage? Click here to find out!
    https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-same-en…

    Apart from these specific differences, a de facto relationship is not the same as marriage. Main difference is a marriage certificate. You can establish your legal relationship very easily with a marriage - whether you are legally in a de facto relationship requires an analysis of your personal relationship, and is always open to challenge. A marriage is legally valid immediately having never lived with or spent time with a person, while the point in time at which you become a de facto can be unclear, and difficult to prove. And there are any number of administrative processes that are simpler, everything from accessing a deceased person's bank account (and no, when amounts are low banks don't require a will or grant of probate) to the legal names you are permitted to use after marriage.

    • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 08:50

      Personally I think there's a high correlation between wanting to save money and people.

      • MrDixit on 25/08/2017 - 08:59

        Wanting to save people?

        • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 09:04

          Nah, just people in general and wanting to save money. Who doesn't want to save money.

          I'd say there's a good chance it's the opposite with wanting to save money and wanting to save people. It's probably not cost effective to save people. Unless it's really cheap in which case there would be a post about it on OzB.

        • MrDixit on 25/08/2017 - 19:39

          @GunnerMcDagget: trudat

  • zhuntai on 25/08/2017 - 08:52

    I come here for bargains. Please stay on topic.

    I'm more interested if anyone has got any of these free shirts or is it clusterf like the free lipstick was? IRL ozbargained

  • LPV569 on 25/08/2017 - 08:53

    Australian Marriage Equality
    HOME

    TAKE ACTION

    GET INFORMED
    Australian Marriage Equality

    SUPPORTERS

    RESOURCES

    ♥ CHIP IN

    Marriage equality around the world

    Here is a list of countries which allow same-sex couples to marry, together with the dates on which same-sex marriages were first performed.
    The Australian Government does not recognise same-sex marriages entered into overseas, nor allow same-sex marriages to be performed within Australia.
    Places that allow same-sex marriages and the date on which they were first performed
    Netherlands 2001
    Belgium 2003
    Canada 2003–05 (provincially in 2003, nationally in 2005)
    Massachusetts (US) 2004
    Spain 2005
    South Africa 2006
    California (US) 2013
    Norway 2009
    Sweden 2009
    Connecticut (US) 2009
    Iowa (US) 2009
    Vermont (US) 2009
    Washington DC (US) 2009
    Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon) 2009
    Mexico City (Mex) 2010
    Portugal 2010
    Iceland 2010
    Argentina 2010
    New Hampshire (US) 2010
    New York state (US) 2011
    Quintana Roo (Mexico) 2011
    Suquamish Indian Tribe (Washington) 2011
    Maine 2012
    Maryland 2013
    Uruguay 2013
    New Zealand 2013
    Delaware 2013
    Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (Michigan) 2013
    Rhode Island 2013
    Minnesota 2013
    France 2013
    Brazil 2013
    Hawaii 2013
    New Jersey 2013
    New Mexico 2013
    England 2014
    Wales 2014
    Scotland 2014
    Alaska 2014
    Arizona 2014
    Colorado 2014
    Idaho 2014
    Illinois 2014
    Montana 2014
    Nevada 2014
    North Carolina 2014
    Oklahoma 2014
    Oregon 2014
    Pennsylvania 2014
    South Carolina 2014
    Utah 2014
    Virginia 2014
    West Virginia 2014
    Wisconsin 2014
    Wyoming 2014
    Luxembourg 2015
    Guam 2015
    Pitcairn Islands 2015
    Chihuahua 2015
    United States 2015
    Greenland 2015
    Guerrero 2015
    Ireland 2015

    How does giving one group equal rights take from those who already have that right?

    • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 08:59

      what's your point?

      Also, since when was California and other Murican states listed as countries?

      • MrDixit on 25/08/2017 - 09:00
        +2

        They can't legislate this at a federal level.

      • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 09:07
        +1

        I must have missed some secessions

        • Iamspy on 25/08/2017 - 11:39
          -1

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

        • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 11:46
          +2

          @Iamspy: Human race is already doing pretty well

      • LPV569 on 25/08/2017 - 09:23

        Places that allow same-sex marriages and the date on which they were first performed

    • LPV569 on 25/08/2017 - 09:19

      Also
      Germany 2017
      Columbia 2016
      Malta 2017

  • MrDixit on 25/08/2017 - 08:59
    +6

    And for those arguing we have other problems to fix in this country - inaction on one injustice doesn't justify inaction on another. Particularly when solving this injustice could cost nothing, and doesn't detract from our ability to act on other problems. Logic just doesn't hold.

    • ProggerPete on 25/08/2017 - 09:01
      +2

      This poll is costing substantially more than nothing and on it's own will accomplish nothing. This whole debate will cost many more millions before it's done while achieving nothing of worth regardless of the final outcome.

      • GunnerMcDagget on 25/08/2017 - 09:09
        +5

        That's true. Which is why this poll should never have happened. If it was raised in the Senate and passed then we wouldn't be wasting money on a pointless vote that holds no sway.

      • iaijutsu on 25/08/2017 - 09:23
        +4

        Absolutely correct. What a waste of money by the government, who could have saved $122mil by simply asking our elected representatives in parliament to vote on it.

      • Devils Advocate on 25/08/2017 - 13:47

        Yes but MrDixit's point is that the plebiscite is already happening now, so the money has already been spent. So a vote for yes now does cost nothing (the same as a vote for no costs nothing).

        • ProggerPete on 25/08/2017 - 14:39

          It's not a plebiscite, it's a poll. Not voting is an indication to the government that I just don't care. If enough people don't vote that would be a strong indication that the government should focus their attention elsewhere.

        • Devils Advocate on 25/08/2017 - 18:07
          +2

          @ProggerPete: A lot of people (myself included) do care though.

          If the Yes vote is successful this will be done forever and the politicians will focus their attention elsewhere. I don't really see your rationale there.

        • ProggerPete on 25/08/2017 - 18:20

          @Devils Advocate: You are dreaming if you think that. I think it's relatively likely the yes vote will carry the day. This is purely a poll though, so the most likely outcome of a yes vote is spending more money later doing something that has an actual legal result. The same outcome is likely if the No's carry the day.

        • Devils Advocate on 25/08/2017 - 19:00

          @ProggerPete: Ok I see your point now. You could be right, but I don't think it will turn out like that if Yes is successful.

          If no is successful I think it will just become a campaign issue in the next election (which would be tiresome).

  • TheDukeOfNukem on 25/08/2017 - 08:59

    I don't have the time to hit show on every comment anymore.

  • FOX on 25/08/2017 - 09:07
    +2

    With a post like this, I feel obliged to leave a comment to show I was here.

  • heal on 25/08/2017 - 09:15

    There are major issues with this retailer, they got the message wrong. You can't say love is love and be a bully at the same time.

    • Gehirn on 25/08/2017 - 09:24
      +3

      How is the retailer bullying? They have not criticised anyone on their page about this free shirt.

      • heal on 25/08/2017 - 13:36
        +1

        I should have said that you can't say love is love when you are for SSM, when that side of the debate resorts to bullying. So I still have major issues with the retailer because even if the retailer is not bullying, the retailer is taking the side of the bully.

        Being a SSM advocate and saying love is love = oxymoron.

        • Devils Advocate on 25/08/2017 - 13:54
          +2

          That is top 5 in the 'most stupid things I've ever read' list.

          • Can you please explain how the pro SSM side is resorting to bullying (and how the no side isn't)?
          • Even if they are bullying the retailer taking the same side in the argument doesn't mean they agree with every person on the same side and their actions. For example I probably agree with Hitler on some issues, does that make me guilty of his crimes?
        • heal on 25/08/2017 - 20:50
          +1

          @Devils Advocate:

          That is top 5 in the 'most stupid things I've ever read' list

          So it doesn't matter how clear I make it for you, but I'll give it a go as you are obviously having some trouble here.

          Can you please explain how the pro SSM side is resorting to bullying

          Have you been living under a rock? Protesters at a recent Australian Christian Lobby meeting about marriage assaulted and intimidated those attending. Disagree with SSM - get shouted down and called a bigot (oh the irony). I could go on all day with examples. It's actually hurting your side. I've spoken to many who have changed their mind thanks to the bullying they have witnessed and will now vote no. Must be a figment of their imagination.

          (and how the no side isn't)?

          So you want me to give examples of bully that isn't happening from traditional marriage supporters? That is top 5 in the ….

          doesn't mean they agree with every person on the same side and their actions

          Doesn't mean they disagree, and based on the bullying so far from the SSM supporters and the lack of SSM supporters condemning the actions of their own side, it indicates they have no problems with it.

    • Your Friend on 25/08/2017 - 09:36
      +3

      "love is love" unless you disagree with my view, then you can (profanity) off

      • iaijutsu on 25/08/2017 - 09:43
        +5

        The part of your comment within quotes is made by the retailer.

        The part after the quotes appears to be your viewpoint.

        • heal on 25/08/2017 - 13:37

          Am I not allowed to express my viewpoint?

    • INFIDEL on 25/08/2017 - 10:03
      +5

      Not a valid neg vote by OzBargain guidelines. Assumed opinions are not a major issue.

      Promotion encourages people to enrol & express their own opinion, yes or no.

      It's a free t-shirt!

  • INFIDEL on 25/08/2017 - 09:19
    +1

    So many comments - most off topic for a free t-shirt deal. Ozbargainers don't want free stuff??

    If you like the t-shirt & can show you are enrolled - grab one, even despite your personal views (you could personalise the message).

    Most will know the t-shirt's meaning of "Love is Love" now, & certainly not after after the debate & opinion poll is over. Who interprets what is written on t-shirts?

    So like with other deals, get in early even if you don't know if you really want it ;-)

    👕 As for the t-shirt design 👕
    Saw the sign at local store other day, saw free t-shirt design & kept walking…

    Now if I was a young female, I might love the design. (I once designed t-shirts)

    This free promotion for this company is not for me, irrespective of my views on marriage equality or the postal opinion poll.

  • Findo on 25/08/2017 - 09:21
    +2

    The yes camp are going about it the wrong way. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a bigot. Therefore no deal, Gorman should be ashamed of themselves.

    • Gehirn on 25/08/2017 - 09:26
      +2

      Gorman has not said that at all. If anything they are supportive of everyone. Quote "making sure every opinion is counted".

      • GregFiona on 25/08/2017 - 12:03
        +1

        Have you thought what would happen if a company posted a deal here like:
        5000 Free" Marriage is Marriage" T-Shirts, our company is against SSM but everyone is eligible to get the T-Shirt.
        Would you have a problem with that?

    • INFIDEL on 25/08/2017 - 09:28
      +2

      Not a valid neg of deal according to OzBargain voting guidelines.

      It is a free t-shirt no matter what your views.

      Most will not even understand the t-shirt's meaning. It is about Love.

      The deal encourages people to be enrolled to voice their opinion - Yes or No.

      Nothing stopping "No" supporters changing wording to reflect their views. It's not subverting this free promotion, as it wants people to be involved & express their view.

      But, it's primarily a promotion of this business.

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

      Please do point out to us where Gorman demonizes everyone who doesn't agree with them.

  • samlor on 25/08/2017 - 09:26
    +3

    The Galleries store in the Sydney CBD hasn't opened yet & the queue is long 50+ metres around the corner :-(

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join