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

        • jv on 25/08/2017 - 01:12

          @The Land of Smeg:

          Why do I need to give a reason for my opinion?

          There are almost 25 million people in Australia. Do you want everyone's reason for their vote? What if every reason was different?

          Why don't we just have a vote and let democracy decide what happens…

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 01:15
          +1

          @jv: You don't have to give a reason. I only ask you because you are the most vocal about these opinions on OzBargain, that's why I keep asking you, because you seem knowledgeable about that side and most eager to talk about it.

        • jv on 25/08/2017 - 01:16

          @The Land of Smeg:

          I've given my reason numerous times…

          "I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman."

          That is my reason for voting 'no' to change the law…

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 01:21
          +1

          @jv: It looks like you and I are getting somewhere jv.

          And I'm sorry to exploit your compulsion to reply to every little thing.

          But please tell me, is this reason in reference to legal marriage? to religious marriage? to personal feelings between two people?

          Or is it a combination of the above?

          Is it possible to separate the different forms of marriage?

          Which form marriage should take the most precedence? And how does that relate to the legal marriage if it is not of the legal sense?

          What would be the meaning, to you, of allowing same sex marriages - only from a law perspective?

        • jv on 25/08/2017 - 01:22

          @The Land of Smeg:

          But please tell me, is this reason in reference

          I've already stated the reason :

          "I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman."

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 01:23

          @jv: why should it then?

        • ripsnorter on 25/08/2017 - 01:26
          +1

          @jv:

          "I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman."

          Why? I'm not fussed how you vote. Why do you believe marriage should only be between a man and woman?

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 10:58
          +2

          @jv:

          not really, but keep getting notifications asking the same questions over and over and over again…

          Because you repeating your opinion over and over again, but refuse to ever give a proper reason.

          No, "I believe so" is not a proper reason. People don't believe things just randomly for no reason at all.

          You have your reasons, but you refuse to tell them. Yet you yell your opinion all over the place and then get annoyed when people want to discuss it with you.

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

          @MrTweek: his reason is he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, seems logical to me. If you want to influence people who think this way, you need to convince them on the premise that marriage isn't just between a man and a woman, not attack them for the conclusion.

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 11:47
          +2

          @yannyrjl:

          I understand what he believes and I'm fine with that, even though it does not seem logical to me.

          What I find very childish behaviour is repeatedly insisting on something but refusing to say why.
          I'm not attacking him for his conclusion. I'm explaining that a conclusion (or opinion) is always based on something, while he insists that his isn't.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 12:04
          +2

          @MrTweek: I see what you are saying, it may well be sub-conscious as well, instilled through observations, up-bringing, previous experiences etc. Thought diversities also needs to be embraced.

          People are emotional beings and value systems are also different. Otherwise, No one would be smoking, or eating junk food, because there are consequences. But hey that's what a free society is about, allowed to make your own decisions (although I disagree with society having to pay for the consequences of some decisions of individuals, but that's a separate conversation)

    • SydStrand on 24/08/2017 - 23:46
      +7

      Originally I was going to vote yes.

      So what you're really saying is that you're so thin-skinned and tractable, that a handful of meanies on the internet changed your vote in an important human right. Gee, I hope no one makes fun of you next time the baby eating vote comes around.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:51
        +1

        No. What I'm saying is that I saw a room of things, I knew what the things were doing and changed my stance on how I thought about said things actions.

        It's not rocket science buddy.

        • SydStrand on 25/08/2017 - 00:04
          +2

          Yes. You once brave ally of Australia's gay community, decided to vote against their rights because some internet comments upset your delicate sensibilities. Bullshit. If you're so fickle that something so trivial made you flip on marriage equality, you're a weather vane who's not voting on the issue that's actually on the ticket.

          Or… you're a liar and coward masquerading as an undecided voter, and hurtful internet comments were just an excuse for you to vote the way you always intended.

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

          @Strand0410: If it's that trivial, people wouldn't have been able to sway me. The concern and caution would have been too high.

          It's okay, you can believe what you want. Calling me a liar or "weather vane" is just adding fuel to the fire. Thank you for proving my point further.

        • Moderatorneil on 25/08/2017 - 00:12

          Please discuss without resorting to name calling or personal attacks.

        • SydStrand on 25/08/2017 - 00:14
          +4

          @StoneSin: So you're saying that you're not voting on the issue that's actually on the ticket, but because some people on the internet upset you. Moral cowardice at its finest.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 00:14
          +1

          @Strand0410: I am incapable of getting upset at what someone on the internet said at me.

        • SydStrand on 25/08/2017 - 00:17
          +2

          @StoneSin:

          Originally I was going to vote yes […] I'm now voting no. It's a shame that those who told, forced and threatened me to support it, are the ones who turned me away.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 09:11

          @Strand0410: Yes that's what I said.

        • King Tightarse on 27/08/2017 - 18:33

          @StoneSin:
          Are you sure? ;)

    • FatBlanket on 25/08/2017 - 00:26

      How about you just vote with your heart and do what you think is right instead of using your vote as a weapon?

    • pinkfour on 26/08/2017 - 16:26

      Try being deprived and discriminated minority one day you will understand our feeling.

  • googoogaga on 24/08/2017 - 23:34
    +11

    Honestly I don't understand whats up with all the "no" voters.
    When you see the countries that allow gay marriage , I really have to wonder why we aren't on that list. If CHINA allows gay marriage before us, I'd really be wondering what the f**k is wrong with us.

    • bugsucher on 24/08/2017 - 23:51

      you can dream about China allowing gay marriage any time soon, so lucky for you, you don't have to wonder what is wrong with you.

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

        I don't know about that. China is already investing in renewable energy. Australia says COAL IS GOOD and climate change is BS.

        • bugsucher on 25/08/2017 - 00:04
          +1

          That's very true. I don't have to wonder what's wrong with Australia. It's simply wrong. The polititians spent so much time in SSM, dual citizenship (which so many of them did not bother to carry out their due diligence in the first place, and now make up so many excuses to avoid the penalty). No wonder they don't have time to get energy or NBN right.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:05
          +1

          if Australia is to get serious about the environment, it need to stop mining it and selling it to India, the results is the same if we or they burn it.

          But it would just kill the industry and big chunk of economy. Hydro has huge impacts to the environment, wind kills massive amounts of birds and solar isn't reliable to capability of generating enough.

          We need the "Nuclear" solution for our power, we are one of the most suited region to use it, not prone to earth quakes, plenty of deserts for disposal.

        • WinstonWithAY on 25/08/2017 - 00:06

          China was the world's largest solar generator in 2016

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:20

          @WinstonWithAY: and it accounts for what % of their total usage?

        • WinstonWithAY on 25/08/2017 - 08:19

          @yannyrjl: Doesn't matter. It's just a good sign and indicates China's travelling in the right direction

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 10:56

          @WinstonWithAY: sorry I don't disagree that it's good progress.

          Simply you mentioned quantity by saying "China was the world's largest solar generator in 2016" given China has a massive population, I want to confirm on what % or per cap basis. Even China is generating say 5% of solar energy to their overall consumption, it may be much larger in terms of power output than Australia at 100% (I don't know the figures, merely point out the maths). But does it really mean they should be considered as the "world leader"?

        • WinstonWithAY on 25/08/2017 - 18:57

          @yannyrjl: No you're right. I was just mentioning it as an interesting fact at face value. Wasn't really trying to make a comment on China's amazing environment and environmental policy. I know China's atmosphere and environment is totally (profanity) but I'm quite happy that they're actively taking action against a serious problem

  • altomic on 24/08/2017 - 23:36
    +6

    I don't get it , pretty much everyone loves a gaytime according to this post

    but gay marriage!?, and everyone loses their mind.

  • belongsinforums on 24/08/2017 - 23:42

    will go well with my MAGA hat. cheers OP!

  • altomic on 24/08/2017 - 23:42
    +1

    I blame the heterosexuals.

    • yannyrjl on 24/08/2017 - 23:45

      yes always the sis white male's fault

      • altomic on 24/08/2017 - 23:47

        well, they are the ones who breed and their offspring become GBL,etc

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

          I suppose we need to let them fix what they've done eh?

  • Aniseed Steed on 24/08/2017 - 23:45
    +6

    My best friends are gay and I'm proud to be a fag hag. Equal rights for everyone!

  • cosmos on 24/08/2017 - 23:46
    +10

    I don't want the t-shirt, but my vote is YES

    I don't have any problems with anyone getting married. If someone wants to marry someone else, why not.

    In cosmos, nothing's too big to worry about ;-)

    • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:56

      If someone wants to marry someone else, why not.

      You're entitled to your opinion, but that includes adult incestuous relationships and polygamy as pointed out by someone above.

      • XeKToReX on 24/08/2017 - 23:58
        +14

        This vote doesn't though, so don't spread bullshit old man.

        • bugsucher on 25/08/2017 - 00:07
          +2

          They may come later. It's called 'progressive', as we are now asked to embrace.

        • meatgasm on 25/08/2017 - 00:25
          +3

          @bugsucher:

          You just fell for the slippery slope fallacy.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:40

          come on language please, just debate with reasons not insults

      • Quantico on 25/08/2017 - 00:06

        https://fromlocaltolingo.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/themes-of-…

        I'm just going to leave this here for you to read. I really do like his writing, it's a shame your namesake had such an alternative set of values to you.

      • WinstonWithAY on 25/08/2017 - 00:07
        +4

        Except there are serious repercussions for incestuous relationships and having kids in those relationships.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 11:30

          would you support it if they choose not to have children, or the children will not draw any funding from the government?

        • WinstonWithAY on 25/08/2017 - 18:56

          @yannyrjl: So long as it's between two consenting adults I have no issue with it. If it's a parent having sex with a child that parent deserves the death penalty

      • SydStrand on 25/08/2017 - 00:24

        As long as they don't bring a child into a potentially dysfunction relationship and burden it with avoidable congenital disease, why should the actions of consenting adults bother you? If no one is being coerced or groomed, why should polygamy? It's not your bedroom and no one's forcing you to be a polygamist.

      • meatgasm on 25/08/2017 - 00:24

        If they all involve consenting adults, and the incestuous ones dont involve procreation, then whats the issue?

        • jv on 25/08/2017 - 00:25
          +1

          and the incestuous ones dont involve procreation

          why should that matter?

          would that include gay couples too?

          what about gay incestuous couples ?

          or polygamous gay incestuous couples ?

          why should any of it matter ?

        • meatgasm on 25/08/2017 - 00:29

          @jv:

          Depends on the probability of their progeny to have genetic issues. Seeing as MOST gay couples probably wont be able to reproduce, that isnt an issue for them.

          Why incestuous couples and procreation? I dont want the tax payer to be burdened by having to pay for the health costs of them (knowingly) popping out people with genetic issues.

        • jv on 25/08/2017 - 00:30
          +2

          @meatgasm:

          Depends on the probability of their progeny to have genetic issues

          Other people with genetic defects are allowed to procreate. Why discriminate?

        • meatgasm on 25/08/2017 - 00:31

          @jv:

          The same reason that you're allowed to put salt in your food but not arsenic.

          Both are risky and detrimental to your health, but both are different levels of risky, one is WAY riskier than the other.

        • jv on 25/08/2017 - 00:32
          +1

          @meatgasm:

          one is WAY riskier than the other.

          people with genetic problems are WAY riskier that people that are related.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:39

          @meatgasm: so are you saying diabetics and heart disease suffers should not be allowed to have kids? Both hereditary diseases placing a huge burden on society

        • meatgasm on 25/08/2017 - 00:40

          @jv:

          Not all genetic issues have the same transmission risks.

          I dont like the idea of the taxpayer paying for children of couples who had a child knowing they were at high risk of passing a debilitating disorder to them, whether the couple was incestuous or predisposed/carrier of those conditions.

          Regardless, I dont really care if they get married one way or the other. I dont believe that marriage is an exclusively judeo-christian construct, and living in a (so called) secular nation, that shouldnt be the mechanism to define "marriage".

        • meatgasm on 25/08/2017 - 00:42

          @yannyrjl:

          Those can be managed, and with good healthcare practises, manifest themselves towards the tail end of a persons life. Not the case with genetic disorders associated with inbreeding, (such as mitochondrial DNA problems) that manifest themselves before the person is even born.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:43

          @meatgasm: If your concern is around tax payers, then you should advocate for a smaller government and reduce the welfare state. people can then choose to live their own life and bear the consequences of their actions

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 00:45

          @meatgasm: I agree with you, I don't actually advocate incest, but I'm just saying the topic is still complex, because if you follow the argument of the "yes" side, it can be applied to these instances.

        • meatgasm on 25/08/2017 - 00:54

          @yannyrjl: I dont have any real issues with consenting adults wishing to (legally) call themselves "married". Regardless, I agree with you, passing it does carry some baggage, which will need to be sorted through.

        • meatgasm on 25/08/2017 - 00:58

          @yannyrjl:

          My main concern is the health of the general population. Healthcare expenditure is one way to quantify that. I don't know enough about government and welfare distribution and all that.

        • cosmos on 25/08/2017 - 09:28

          @yannyrjl:
          Why would voting yes could be applied to other relationships? "Yes" vote is for consenting same sex marriage, nothing else. Why do we have to bring everything else under this specific question?

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

          @cosmos: I'm simply pointing out the same logic applies to both sets, consenting adults / love is love. What's your argument against one but not the other?

        • cosmos on 25/08/2017 - 11:41

          @yannyrjl:
          Good question :-)
          My argument against incest is this: for me these relationships cannot be sexual (and that's my opinion) they are already in a relationship that I cannot view from sexual side.
          I don't have any opinion yet on polygamy, but don't see a problem though.

      • cosmos on 25/08/2017 - 09:12

        What's the above relationships got to do with same sex marriage?
        These relationships will still be there irrespective of vote result.

  • Savas on 25/08/2017 - 00:00
    +8

    I am not sure why people are negging the deal, it is for a free t-shirt.

    • jelko on 25/08/2017 - 00:03
      +4

      What if the free shirt read "F-Off we're full" or "No <insert religion here> welcome". Would that still be okay to + vote?

      • Savas on 25/08/2017 - 00:08
        +1

        Yes, will wear t-shirt regardless.

        • altomic on 25/08/2017 - 00:37
          +1

          and FREE

  • Kamsi on 25/08/2017 - 00:01
    +4

    I hate the idea Ozbargain is used as political tool. That's not what I join for.

    And that's why I give it a neg.

    • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 01:24
      +5

      But now you're being a political tool ;)

    • robbyjones on 25/08/2017 - 10:42
      +1

      That's the most ridiculous reason for a neg I have ever seen and totally unfair to the OP.

  • PresidentClinton on 25/08/2017 - 00:02
    +12

    Im gay and voting no because repression makes things so much hotter ;)

    • Wally on 25/08/2017 - 00:44
      +1

      Sqeeeee!

  • hm on 25/08/2017 - 00:07
    +3

    This is the gayest deal ever

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 00:08
    +1

    im a bit late to the party
    i guess ill be saying bi bi bi

    • Savas on 25/08/2017 - 00:13
      +1

      Same, would be good if someone could also summarise 6 pages of comments so i can go to bed.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 00:14
        +3

        here we go
        "6 pages of gibberish on OzB"

        good bi bi

        • Savas on 25/08/2017 - 00:16
          +1

          Excellent, good night xx

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 00:16
          +2

          @Savas:

          xoxoxo

  • J316 on 25/08/2017 - 00:13
    -2

    I'm voting no, because it goes against God who is Love, the first and last, creator of all and he gives all the choice to do good or evil, I encourage you all to vote no, I'm a bit off topic but this is bigger than a free t-shirt, thanks

    • Gehirn on 25/08/2017 - 00:17

      What if your god is another of the samesex? God is love then.

      • J316 on 25/08/2017 - 00:27

        Yes, God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he is the Trinity( 3 in 1), he made us in his image, and he is perfect Love, my belief is in the Bible check it out if interested

    • unelectric on 25/08/2017 - 00:37
      +1

      God is love
      Same sex marriage is love
      We are created in God's image
      Jesus says to love one another

      But SSM goes against God?

      Can someone help me out? Without referring to Leviticus?
      Bonus points for not referring to Romans. Did you know that the author of 8 books of the Bible (including Romans) never met Jesus Christ in person?

      • J316 on 25/08/2017 - 01:12

        I'm not exactly sure what's in those books mentioned but there are different types of love like agape love etc, Jesus says love your neighbor but doesn't say lust after them and have sex, we can't always get what we desire, obedience is important, and who you obey will ultimately change your life forever, I'm not sure about those Bible stats, maybe you're right but faith is the things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen

      • theevilcarot on 25/08/2017 - 07:23
        +1

        Romans is actually quite credible- Paul the author used to go around raising mobs of people to stone followers of Jesus to death. Then Jesus appeared to him and blinded him and he Followed Jesus. He was also acknowledged as a brother in Christ by Peter- (2 Peter 3:14-16) a disciple who was with Jesus most of his ministry.

        Romans 1:26-28 says ' Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.'

        Timothy 1:8-11 says ' We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine'

        Hence the penalty for sin is death in hell for putting our desires first and God last. In the same way that adultery is a sin and the penalty is also death. Jesus for those who trust and follow him takes the punishment of death from us.

        Stating God is love is like summarising a Shakespearean work into a three word answer. It leaves out all detail. God has great love for us yet is a righteous God and cannot tolerate sin which he must punish. Thus Jesus is a shield for Christians who took upon himself the righteous punishment that we deserve.

        • J316 on 25/08/2017 - 23:29

          Amen brother/sister, yeah I was just trying to summarise to keep it short but left a lot of detail out, next time I won't, thanks for the response, God bless

    • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 01:28
      +3

      Lol, blind faith must be such ignorant bliss.

      • J316 on 25/08/2017 - 01:49
        +1

        When I meet God one day, and say I don't believe and he asks why didn't you believe in me, I am 100% sure he's not gonna look kindly on me if I shrug my shoulders when I was given the opportunity to believe prior,anyway God bless

        • carwashhair on 25/08/2017 - 07:30
          +5

          When I meet God

          That seems a bit presumptuous…

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

          hasa diga eebowai

        • eggboi on 25/08/2017 - 10:06
          +1

          I guess it'll be kinda awkward if it turns out to be Allah, or Buddha, or Zeus, or Shiva, or Hades. That would suck to have put all your eggs in one basket!

        • J316 on 25/08/2017 - 22:36
          +1

          @carwashhair:
          On judgement day we all will

        • J316 on 25/08/2017 - 23:04
          +1

          @bohdud:
          But you can't compare apples with oranges ;)

  • Moderatorneil on 25/08/2017 - 00:14

    Please discuss without resorting to name calling or personal attacks.

    • Herbse on 25/08/2017 - 00:15
      +11

      You've got your work cut out for you tonight..

  • Savas on 25/08/2017 - 00:19

    Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognised union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family through marriage).

    Yep i have no problem with gay people doing that though not sure why you'd want to be gay in the first place.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join