This was posted 7 years 3 months 11 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

    • juventino on 24/08/2017 - 23:26
      +6

      and only 1 -ve vote from 1700ish views, ouch!! it's not even 0.1 %

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:42

        and only 1 -ve vote

        OzBargain voting rules… Can't find it cheaper…

        Only +ve votes can be counted… Ouch!!

        • juventino on 25/08/2017 - 00:11
          +1

          which means this is generally considered a good deal since you can't find it cheaper elsewhere :) :)

  • UFO on 24/08/2017 - 23:08
    +17

    I'm not sure what the big deal is?

    The "No" side is worried about what the "Yes" side is doing, and it has no effect on the "No" side whatsoever.

    No one will be forcing churches to marry gay couples, as religious beliefs and being able to follow ones religion will remain protected.
    Gay couples simply want the legal recognition to marry… A CERTIFICATE from the Government.

    Next of Kin legal status is a huge benefit, and I honestly think there's a lot of confusion as to what protections a "Defacto" relationship entails. It's not the same. Not legally, and not formally.

    No one is forcing anyone to become gay or to support gays. You aren't going to wake up gay tomorrow by voting Yes.
    But voting No does affect the 'other side'.

    What right do you have to tell people how to live their own lives. Live and let live.

    And it's just a little bit hypocritical of the religious groups to be quoting scripture when the very Bible they are preaching states "death to those that work on the Sabbath" (Sunday!) The Bible, and the words within it is constantly evolving. This is no different.

    Preaching hate under the umbrella of "religion" never ends well.
    No one has any business controlling what other people do, especially when it doesn't effect you in the slightest.

    • qwerty on 24/08/2017 - 23:18

      No one has any business controlling what other people do, especially when it doesn't effect you in the slightest.

      = BAKE THE CAKE

    • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:17

      you honestly didn't know about the christian baker that refused to cater for a gay wedding and then got sued and basically went out of business?

      the christian baker sells good to all customers gay and straight, but when two of their gay customers approached them to cater for their wedding, the baker declined given religious grounds. Then the $hit hit the fan.

      • dufflover on 25/08/2017 - 08:43

        And that photographer too.

  • serrin on 24/08/2017 - 23:08
    +19

    Wouldn't normally post here, but wanting to speaking up due to the amount of negativity here. I'm going to vote yes. It's not about what I am or am not going to do, I'm not going to deny the right of the minority to get married, which has been pointed out to be a legal definition, not just a religious one. It's Turnbull's idea to waste so much cash on a pointless postal vote, but whatever, if he wants to play that game, I'll play it, I'll vote yes. What's wrong with three people getting married? Nothing. What's wrong with humans marrying other animals? Other animals can't give consent. If, hypothetically an animal becomes sentient and able to communicate, they should be allowed to get married. Currently the only animals to fulfil this criteria are humans.

    • altomic on 24/08/2017 - 23:16

      what if a computer gained sentience? could I marry a sentient computer?

      • knackers on 24/08/2017 - 23:21

        her

      • blablabla23 on 24/08/2017 - 23:27
        +2

        i already do. She's called Siri.

        I won't pretend it has been smooth-sailing… she's been called 'dumber than a rock', 'more air than brains', 'quite useless', and worst of all, 'not as good as Cortana' (who is a stuck up beech if you ask me).

        Couple of weeks ago my brother fiddled with her when i wasn't around and she came out sounding like a man. I pretend like nothing's changed (however secretly cry myself to sleep every night) but i guess i'm now married to man-Siri? Not 100% sure but i'm scared to ask him/her.

        Vote 'Yes' to keep our marriage legal.

      • serrin on 24/08/2017 - 23:42
        +2

        Sure, if the AI consented, yes I support your AI/human relationship. Futurama be damned.

      • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:19

        sure you can, as long as the computer gave consent, just like if someone invented a thought machine to accurately determine what animals thinks and enables them to give consent as well

      • altomic on 25/08/2017 - 00:34
        +1

        Thank you, it's good to know that I could be accepted.

        regards

        AI tomic

      • Xastros on 25/08/2017 - 14:53
        +1

        I vote yes.

    • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 15:36

      What's wrong with humans marrying other animals?

      Fun fact: In Germany, sex with animals is legal as long as it's consensual. Somehow survived from the old times and never got changed it as there was not a single known case where this caused a problem.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:12
    +29

    I'm actually pretty surprised how many anti same-sex marriage supporters there are here on OzBargain. I didn't even realise that it was such a divisive issue that would even reach the wider internet except for Facebook.

    I'm even more surprised on how many people actually cares so much about what the government thinks of their relationships - on both sides. Gay people are going to love each other no matter what the government says, and Bigots are going to hate them even if SSM stays illegal and try to push their beliefs onto everyone else by force.

    A postal survey is an inefficient waste of time and delays the inevitable, the government are just too gutless to face the issue and are palming it off to the ABS to say "not our problem" (for a while).

    Having said that, since we are stuck with this stupid survey, voting to support it doesn't hurt anyone who would actually be affected by changing the law. The government probably won't listen anyway. When Same Sex marriage eventually happens (and it will, you can't avoid it) at least everyone will be treated equally in the law.

    That's all it is, it's just law. It won't change anyone's beliefs even if it was made legal. People who are religiously against it won't have to start applying same-sex marriage to their religion, because The Marriage Act 1961 is not part of their religion. People who are not religious but are still against it, won't be affected by gay people marrying each other in any way shape or form, so why be so spiteful to deny them equal rights in the law.

    Fighting against same-sex marriage is just a tool to bully gay people, nothing more. How pathetic that grown adults bully each other over something so trivial as sexual preference towards another consenting adult.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:14
    +1

    I am extremely attracted to my pet goat. Does the t shirt apply in my circumstance?

    • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:19
      +1

      only requirement is to be on the AEC roll, it doesn't matter how you actually vote or what your sexual preferences are

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

      Be honest, are you going to feed the shirt to the goat?

  • Herbse on 24/08/2017 - 23:16
    +4

    You might not want to be gay married now, but tomorrow is another day.

    Wouldn't it make more sense to keep your options open for the future?
    It's the ozbargian way

  • Unseatingcargo1 on 24/08/2017 - 23:18
    +9

    This is absolutely priceless. People are entitled to their opinion. They shouldn't be bullied into thinking otherwise. Labelling a person a 'bigot' for having a different opinion than yours is simply childish.

    Also assuming all liberals are going to vote one way or all labor supporters another is ludicrous. Just because you may vote one way does not mean you support everything that party endorses.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:26
      +3

      What's wrong with the term "Bigot"? It seems accurate

      • Unseatingcargo1 on 24/08/2017 - 23:31
        +5

        A person who has a different opinion is likely not be to intolerant towards another, instead just holds their own belief.

        For instance, I am voting 'yes', but understand why someone would vote 'no'. I shouldn't be labelled a bigot from those voting 'no', and the same applies if I were to have voted 'no' from those who voted 'yes'.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:53
          +1

          I get what you're saying. You are right to the extent that to be a Bigot necessary requires that they be intolerant of differing opinions. That's the definition.

          For someone who is not so close to the circles of those holding anti-same sex marriage opinions, what argument do they have that their Opinion is not intolerant (when not having same-sex marriage is literally intolerant of people who want to get a same sex marriage)?

          I'm just trying to understand the other side here

        • Goonos on 25/08/2017 - 00:07
          +11

          Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

          Seems to be a lot of intolerance here with the idea of gay marriage. So far in this thread there has been no strong arguments to vote no. Rather people just don't like the idea of gay marriage because they personally can't relate. eg "its weird", "should be between a man and a women just because", "the bible told me" etc

        • mubd1234 on 25/08/2017 - 00:27
          +7

          I agree, I'm voting yes and I find the pro-SSM side to be obnoxious and intolerant of the 'no' side's opinion. Someone says they're voting no, and they are absolutely set upon by others.

          I see these rabid arguments on social media where the pro-SSM advocates are viciously attacking someone who's stated their opinion, and I'm thinking, 'cmon, we're better than that, aren't we?…"

          You would expect the pro-SSM side to be a bit more enlightened and tolerant of different viewpoints, but from what I've witnessed that's not the case at all.

          I also think the mainstream media aren't giving the anti-SSM side a voice, which makes people who hold that view feel marginalised, and it makes those on the fence feel that the media is attempting to influence them.

          One example - the ABC is, I believe, violating its charter requirement to offer a balanced viewpoint from all sides. One day I counted the number of articles on the topic of same-sex marriage posted on their ABC News Facebook page (five in total over the course of a day). Four had what I would consider an clear pro-SSM narrative injected into them. One was neutral. This is in a vote where the result is expected to be somewhere between 50/50 and 70/30 in favour of same sex marriage.

          I could see how people who don't hold the pro-SSM viewpoint would feel marginalised by that sort of treatment by the mainstream media, and I feel that's what is fuelling a lot of people speaking out about it here on OzBargain.

  • ProggerPete on 24/08/2017 - 23:18
    +4

    The thing that suprises me most about gay marriage is that anybody cares. I don't understand why gay folk would care whether they can brand themselves with a 'married' label. I also don't understand why straight people would care whether they do so.

    What does bother me is spending millions of dollars on such a non-issue and I won't be voting at all based on that reason.

    Though if you give me a vote to remove all references to marriage from law you'll get a yes out of me.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:22
      +3

      I agree, but unfortunately being married carries legal meaning, so it would be quite hard to deconstruct that law entirely.

      Also, some people unfortunately care what the Government think. It's like a marriage between Husband + Wife + God + Government rather than Husband + Wife or Husband + Wife + God.

      • ProggerPete on 24/08/2017 - 23:27
        +2

        A step in the right direction would be to just replace the word marriage in any law it appears in with 'life partner' or whatever other word you want to jam in there. Then the religious folk can keep their precious word, the gays can have whatever rights they believe they're missing out on and the rest of us can go on with our lives.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:33

          I agree with your sentiment.

          I have come to the conclusion that it wouldn't be fair to gay people to call it anything other than a "Marriage", because it would deny them the same thing (a "Marriage" in those exact terms) that straight people have been able to get for years. It just wouldn't be equal.

          It wouldn't be right to make concessions with the Bigots, marriage equality is inevitable anyway (can't keep LNP in power forever, and Labor officially supports full blow same-sex Marriage) so they are out of bargaining chips anyway.

        • ProggerPete on 24/08/2017 - 23:39
          +1

          @The Land of Smeg: I don't think it's right to label anyone against gay marriage as a bigot. The religious folk did invent the word and they're obviously a bit precious about it. It's not much different to the transgender folks getting excited about whether you call them ze instead of he/she.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:40

          @ProggerPete: hahahaha "They stole our word and used it against us!" what's next? Taking the word gay from gay people and using against gay people?

        • ProggerPete on 24/08/2017 - 23:45
          +2

          @The Land of Smeg: It's no more ridiculous for religious people to be precious about a word than it is for gay people to be.

          The only argument that has any actual merit is that maybe gay couples do miss out on some legal right. What word is used really shouldn't matter.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:47

          @ProggerPete: I have nothing else to add, just thanks for the chat.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 11:13

          @The Land of Smeg: didn't the gays take the word "Gay" and completely altered it's meaning?

  • Iwantthatbargain on 24/08/2017 - 23:21
    -2

    52% of population christians in australia will vote NO
    2.6% of population Muslim in australia will vote NO
    2% of population conservative Indian, Sri Lankan's in australia will vote NO

    • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:25
      +6

      I doubt it, because even sensible religious people can see that the law and religion are two different things. They realise that they can believe in what their religion teaches them without making everyone outside their religion from following their religious beliefs too.

      • jelko on 24/08/2017 - 23:28
        +2

        Tell that to Islamists,.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:35
          +2

          Fortunately there not enough Islamic Extremists in Australia to have a significant effect on the vote.

    • ThithLord on 25/08/2017 - 08:15
      +3

      Compared to almost 97% a hundred years ago - methinks Christianity will be long gone soon enough :). All the people who were indoctrinated are dying off - young people don't believe in religion anymore, mate. It's a dying breed. Good riddance.

      • Iwantthatbargain on 25/08/2017 - 08:41

        In your dream mate..

        • ThithLord on 25/08/2017 - 08:57
          +1

          Uhhh… What? How? Time has shown that religion is a dying breed. How can you deny it?

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

          How can you deny it?

          By looking at the facts.

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

          @haru: Thanks mate

  • OzHan on 24/08/2017 - 23:22

    Real Australians Vote NO.

    • knackers on 24/08/2017 - 23:24
      +7

      you don't have to marry him

    • Gehirn on 24/08/2017 - 23:24
      +3

      haha sorry but what is a real australian?

      • Herbse on 24/08/2017 - 23:26

        Don't fall for trigger comments :)

    • Herbse on 24/08/2017 - 23:25
      +4

      The Aboriginals?

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:27

        The immigrated here from Asia.

  • pinkfour on 24/08/2017 - 23:25
    +18

    Wow.Cant believe so many people voting no. I have just enrolled now to vote Yes. As a gay male fighting depression some of the comments in here is really hurtfull. How my marriage to the person I love going to affect you naysayers life? Please think before spewing hate on the comments.

    • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:28
      +8

      some of the comments in here is really hurtfull

      both sides are guilty of that…

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

        both sides are guilty of that…

        Are you actually trying to parrot Donald Trump?

        • Herbse on 24/08/2017 - 23:33
          +13

          Decades of gay bashing
          Years of ridicule in schools
          depression
          Rejection
          Ridicule

          All that is just as hurtful as calling someone a bigot to some people

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

          @Herbse:
          Exactly as person going through all of the above. Had enough of this life. Wish I dint even born

        • Quantico on 24/08/2017 - 23:39
          +6

          @pinkfour:

          Remember there are millions and millions of people in this world that stand beside you, and you are never alone.

          <3

        • Herbse on 24/08/2017 - 23:40
          +5

          @pinkfour: I'm very sorry to hear this. You're safer not reading comments made by people in the safety of the internet.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:45
          +1

          @Herbse:

          Decades of gay bashing
          Years of ridicule in schools
          depression
          Rejection
          Ridicule

          So you are claiming that all the 'No voters' are to blame for the above ?

        • pinkfour on 24/08/2017 - 23:48

          @Quantico:
          Thanks mate. Trying to be positive

        • pinkfour on 25/08/2017 - 00:11

          @Herbse: thank you. Wish I dint see this thread. Now dont think I will sleep tonight

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 10:47
          +1

          @jv:

          So you are claiming that all the 'No voters' are to blame for the above ?

          Definitely for that part:

          Rejection

          And possible for that one too, but that obviously depends on the individual victim

          depression

          And for these ones at least indirectly, as you are supporting them publicly:

          Decades of gay bashing
          Years of ridicule in schools
          Ridicule

      • pinkfour on 24/08/2017 - 23:29
        +1

        Exactly what is that jv?

      • kwijybo on 24/08/2017 - 23:34
        +4

        Ah yes. The occasional swear word is absolutely as vile as being compared to a rapist, pedophile or beastility.

    • yannyrjl on 24/08/2017 - 23:31
      +5

      Yeah, I'm all for consenting adults able to marry who they want or how many people they want or how blood related they want, as long as all parties are consenting adults right?

      • pinkfour on 24/08/2017 - 23:33
        -1

        You are talking about polygamy and incest. Its different thing.

        • yannyrjl on 24/08/2017 - 23:36
          +3

          Don't be so close minded, we talking consenting adults here, and what they do in private is no one's business.

          Also polygamy is far more observed in human history and animal world, even than monogamy or same sex relations. You are discriminating these relations just like the heterosexual casting aside the LGBTQQIAAP community.

          Also, why are we discriminating against polygamy. Isn't the "B" a critical component of the community? Why does a Bi person have to be forced to only marry either their male lover or female lover?

        • GregFiona on 24/08/2017 - 23:52
          +2

          Yes but how does polygamy and incest affect you? wouldn't you like to see those people happy too? Don't they deserve to have the same rights? Would you vote yes for them?

        • ProggerPete on 24/08/2017 - 23:52

          @yannyrjl: This is actually pretty legitimate. Why should polygamous or incestuous relationships be any different? They're not as fashionable but they still fall firmly into the category of "I couldn't care less what people do in private"

        • pinkfour on 24/08/2017 - 23:54
          +1

          @GregFiona: Educate yourself. Stop comparing me with incest and polygamy

        • yannyrjl on 24/08/2017 - 23:54
          +2

          @GregFiona: No, it doesn't, I'm just for consistency, so by the same logic we should go all the way to be truly about consent rather than others judgement

        • yannyrjl on 24/08/2017 - 23:55
          +1

          @pinkfour: I don't understand why you are upset? Love is Love !!!

        • yannyrjl on 24/08/2017 - 23:57
          +2

          @ProggerPete: Exactly, I know a Bi guy who has a Bi boy friend and a girl friend, and the 3 of them get along fab. But his relationships are not all recognised by the law

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

          Please discuss without resorting to name calling or personal attacks.

        • pinkfour on 25/08/2017 - 00:15

          @GregFiona: I'm not in a mental state to argue with you lots. Please leave me alone

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:29
          -1

          @pinkfour: we need a "safe space"

        • pinkfour on 25/08/2017 - 00:40
          +2

          @yannyrjl: not a safe space. There is no point arguing with people who dont understand or consider other persons feeling. You dont know what Im going through.

        • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 07:03
          +2

          @GregFiona: The ONLY question being put in front of you is SSM.

          It's not a gateway drug question to trap you into signing up for incest or polygamy.

          By the way show me statistics that demonstrates either polygamy or incest are more prevalent amongst gay community. If you cannot then it's clear the granting of SSM rights are unconnected. But you knew this anyway.

        • GregFiona on 25/08/2017 - 07:21
          -1

          @pinkfour: If I told you :"Stop comparing straight with gay people" how would you take it?
          Trust me, I'm more educated than you think! You are talking about equal rights. What makes you more special than those people?

        • GregFiona on 25/08/2017 - 07:26
          -2

          @pinkfour: Are you ok? I have only commented once asking you a valid question. You have already replied to me and now you are commenting again asking me to leave you alone??? SSM shouldn't be your very first priority IMO. Please go get some help

        • GregFiona on 25/08/2017 - 07:32

          @mooney: Hi mooney. Talking about equal rights, love is love etc and only caring about your arse is hypocritical, don't you think? My question was(is) valid and genuine.
          And as pinkfour says:"you don't know what I'm going through"
          And who told you that I'm against incest and polygamy???

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

          @GregFiona: Exactly. This point isn't specifically about wanting to vote yes or no (even though people will try and force it mean one or the other) but just commentary that many of these reasons are exactly applicable to other forms of marriage:
          - Love is love
          - None of your business, doesn't affect you
          = Can't marry, treated as second class citizen

          I don't call it a slippery slope. Why? Because that is used in a context to somehow dissuade people from supporting it; as in it must be a bad thing.
          How ironic for anyone who actually supports marriage equality …

        • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 09:31

          @GregFiona: Ok, I will play.

          If there was significant and sustained public support for polygamy then for sure it should be put to a vote. I don't see this support and don't see why this is being linked to SSM vote. Polygamy in theory is as appealing to straight people as gay, so its completely unrelated.

          Incest is a different ballpark as there are significant genetic issues that arise from brother and sister having babies, so the barrier there isn't one of equal rights but of genetic deformity. So no, these people should not have same rights as others listed.

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

          @mooney:
          Although I'm happily married to ONE woman, polygamy doesn't appeal to me or anyone I know as gay so get your facts right!
          Talking about genetic deformity? Come on! You are the first ones to say that SSM is not about having children, not all gays want to have children etc. The same applies to polygamous and incestuous people.
          You seem to be very confused!

        • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 10:47

          @GregFiona: I think you misunderstand my comment.

          I agree polygamy has little appeal, hence why no one is pushing for it to become law. If there was huge clamour for it then it should be reviewed, but as there isn't it is a completely irrelevant topic for SSM discussion.

          I don't know where you went to school but SSM is NOT about having children. Last time I checked 2 men or 2 women couldn't get pregnant so genetic deformity is completely a non issue for SSM. My personal argument against incest is that there are wider public health risks and these additional factors (that don't need to be considered for polygamy or SSM) mean these people should NOT be allowed to marry and procreate.

          Not that it's relevant but I am also married to ONE woman, with TWO kids. I just don't like the false associations of incest or polygamy to a debate which is only about SSM. These other topics are frankly irrelevant to the topic.

          I will give you credit though, you did manage to restraint yourself and not mention bestiality.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 11:19
          +1

          @pinkfour: debate isn't about feelings, feel free to put forth your reasons on why you don't support polygamy? You saying a Bisexual person, can't be happy and marry both his / her, male and female partners if all parties do consent?

        • pinkfour on 25/08/2017 - 11:55

          @GregFiona: Yes I'm ok. Thanks for asking. It's mainly people's discrimination, culture and religion drove me to end the life.I was born gay. Im not harming anyone. All Im asking is let me live my life. Im not choosing how to live your life. Be in my shoes you will understand my pain and how hurtfull some of the comments in here. Here we are discussing about SSM but you and yannyrjl brought the polygamy and incest into it. Can't compare apples and oranges.

        • GregFiona on 25/08/2017 - 11:56

          @mooney: You are doing it again:
          "SSM is NOT about having children" and "incest…wider health risks…these people should NOT be allowed to marry"
          Don't they deserve to have EQUAL RIGHTS with you?

        • GregFiona on 25/08/2017 - 12:23

          @pinkfour: You don't seem to have any problems discriminating other groups of people who are asking for EQUAL RIGHTS though. I respect who you are and what you want and I honestly don't think SSM is your biggest issue.
          I have never said that gay people are same as polygamous or incestuous people. But you think you are "better" than them and I do have a problem with that.
          Also, why can't 3 people love eachother and live happy together as a trio? And what happens if 2 of them have a car accident and
          die or are in a coma? Shouldn't the third person have the same
          RIGHTS with you or me?
          "You" are minority for "us" exactly the same way polygamous and incestuous groups are minority for "you"

        • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 12:57

          @GregFiona: Why are you continually linking incest and SSM? I don't understand. Are you stating that gay and incest is the same category?

          I actually don't care about marriage- but I am against any incestuous relationships full stop because there are significant genetic risks that can arise as a result of any union that can result in inbreeding.

          https://www.google.com.au/search?q=incest+genetic+issues&oq=…

          So as I don't agree with incestuous relationships then its an impossibility that they can get married as they cannot form a union anyway. I hope that explains why YES, I don't think they should have equal rights. If the genetic aspect was not an issue then maybe I would have a differing viewpoint, but I don't know this because IT IS!

          So again, why is this topic related to SSM? Gays CANNOT reproduce so that's not an issue, you've dropped polygamy because that is as much a straight person conversation as a gay one.. or is it that you are attempting to link gay marriage to two topics that wider society typically have a negative reaction to to create a negative association. If so you should be ashamed of yourself.

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

          @GregFiona: where did I say Im better than them or discrminate them? All I was saying is we are discussing SSM. But you constantly bringing totally different issue of polygamy and incest.How did you guess that SSM is not my issue it may not be for now. But it can help my problems and feel like I'm equal to everyone else?

        • GregFiona on 25/08/2017 - 14:23
          -1

          @mooney: Why are you continually linking straight and gay? Are you stating that straight and gay is the same category???
          You state you DON'T CARE ABOUT MARRIAGE.Is this how you are going to convince us to vote YES to SSM???
          Why you keep linking Marriage to having children? Does this mean that you would support infertile incestuous couples?
          You keep falling into your own traps. If i was thinking like you I would be saying to you : " If gay people cannot reproduce(using your own words) then I don't think they should have the same rights"
          But i'm not saying that, because I'm not narrow minded like you.
          Also, in case you haven't noticed, wider society has always had a negative reaction re gay marriage and this is a fact. It might change one day but it is a FACT otherwise we wouldn't be wasting dozens of comments here on this thread.
          So, you should be ashamed of yourself for discriminating groups of people and for supporting SSM without even taking MARRIAGE seriously!

        • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 15:56
          +2

          @GregFiona: I am not trying to convince you to vote YES or NO to SSM. That is entirely your whim and I do not care which way you vote. What I don't like is people like you doing a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' that SSM and incest and polygamy are all the same topic.

          In case you hadn't noticed wider societies views towards gay marriage around the world is evolving. I am sure if this conversation was held in the 60's NO would be a landslide. Today it's a different ballgame. Doesn't mean YES will win today, but it has in many developed nations.

          My personal views towards marriage are irrelevant to my choice whether to vote yes or no. My vote will be made purely on grounds of equality. And IMO that skews me towards a yes vote.

          So in conclusion we are NEVER going to have a reasonable debate on this topic. You keep throwing nonsense straw men arguments towards me, the ONLY fact in our entire thread is that the ONLY question you are being asked is 'will you support same sex marriage, yes or no.'

          Please just do your NO vote and be happy with your legal right to express your opinion. Don't poison the well with the false equating of SSM to incest and polygamy. You should apologise to pinkfour whilst you are at it.

        • GregFiona on 25/08/2017 - 16:42

          @mooney: I will do it after you both apologise to me and the rest of the NO people for accusing us because we have an opinion different than yours.
          What a load of hypocritical CRAP from a person who doesn't even care about Marriage. All I can say is that i value Marriage much more than you. Full stop.

        • Xastros on 25/08/2017 - 16:45
          +2

          @mooney: I think you believe you are being trolled when others are actually bringing up legitimate points. I am in the yes camp as well but other topics of polygamy and incest are relevant to the topic of marriage equality of which SSM is a subset.

          Serious question, why does there need to be heaps of public support before polygamy/incestuous relationships are considered? Why would you have those people marginalised just because society is not aware/accepting of their ways? Isn't that the exact same situation as SSM? A long time ago there wasn't a lot of public support for SSM but that doesn't make it right that it was not legal.

          Why are homosexual relationships more valid than polygamous or incestual ones?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join