Same Sex Marriage Debate (1 Viewer)

[enoilgam]

if no ends up winning it will be due to turn out suppression due to laziness/indifference but given polling and the degree to which so many young people seem to be fucking obsessed with this shit it doesnt seem as likely to me

Beyond that, I think a no victory really will only delay things by a couple of years. SSM to me is inevitable.

 

[Jaxxnuts]

If u think about it, a majority of Australians will vote "yes" for same sex marriage as Australia is very supportive of same sex couples. We're not like the past where people would hate gays, discriminate them, etc and tbh back then homophobia was extreme in that sense. Compare it to now

I think even ads like these aren't strong enough to encourage people to vote no to SSM

I think that being homosexual isn't defined by choice but rather something scientific in which something 'unusual' occurred in birth

 

[Zoinked]

yes, but I'm voting no

Im not going to have these gay cunts bully me into voting yes

LMao

 

[Squar3root]

taking SSM bets

 

[cosmo 2]

will legit throw in $10 for yes winning

can paypal

 

[RishBonjour99]

I think the vast majority of people, including me, expect Yes tp prevail. Australia is extremely open. I just think the yes campaign has been incredibly stupid and that will make the margin smaller than it otherwise would have been. They have been nothing but aggressive. It is an ISSUE that is up for debate by a lot of people's standards. You can't say "This is how it is and anyone who even has a slightly different opinion is a bigot *triggered*"

They could have done a better job. Also things like asking for the GP who did the No campaign tp be struck out. wtf?

 

[sida1049]

If yes happens because of "rights" then people will soon be arguing that 70 year old men loving 5 year old girls should be a "right" too

It's valid to argue that two consenting adults have rights to a romantic relationship and hence a legally binding relationship such as marriage. The 70 year-old men with 5 year-old girls analogy breaks because the 5 year-old can't consent to the relationship (legally or rationally).

 

[enoilgam]

You can't say "This is how it is and anyone who even has a slightly different opinion is a bigot *triggered*"

They could have done a better job. Also things like asking for the GP who did the No campaign tp be struck out. wtf?

It really has been a terrible campaign - the narrative needs to be more focused and positive.

 

[RenegadeMx]

its sad when the unis send an email to defend the yes but wont do the same for no

 

[Trebla]

Something that hasn't been mentioned...if 'No' wins then I reckon it will be over for Turnbull's political career because he's already pissed off so many people LGBTI people and their associated supporters already by doing this through a plebiscite - so a 'Yes' victory will be somewhat of a consolation.

However, if 'No' wins then he will be embarrassed, likely to get rolled by the conservatives and all those LGBTI supporters will switch to Labor (who are pledging to do a Parliamentary vote). Not to mention he will be remembered in history as the PM who fucked up bringing in same sex marriage.

 

[cosmo 2]

i have decided to make my voice heard

 

[BLIT2014]

Marriage equality will come to Australia eventually.

Still, think both 'yes' and the 'no' sides really need to work on their advertising as the majority is not persuasive at all!

 

[Squar3root]

i have decided to make my voice heard

Can u circle the box for the lols

 

[Squar3root]

selling 1x same sex marriage vote

 

[spaghettii]

I think Freedom of Speech IS being able to say whatever and whenever.
Freedoms either apply to all or to none, if neither then ironically enough freedoms become discriminatory.

Australia does not have any laws explicitly giving citizens the right to free speech. Whilst the constitution does contain implied political free speech, this only goes to the extent that the government cannot arrest you for stating a political opinion. This does not mean that Australians can simply say what they want without fear of punishment or censorship, whether it be by law enforcement or the public. This is why we have legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act - it protects certain groups from defamation. As summarised by this:

"However, this is the extent to which the implied freedom of political speech provides protection. It does not protect from an acquaintance shutting you down in conversation, a forum administrator deleting your comments, or an event organiser denying you a platform to speak due to your subject matter. Even if your statements concerned political matters, you are not being rejected due to a law restricting your speech, so your implied right of political speech is inapplicable. You can say what you want, but others are under no obligation to listen or give you a platform.

The Australian government cannot legislate to restrict your freedom of political speech, but you cannot use "freedom of political speech" as a defence." (Source: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/09/australia-does-not-have-freedom-of-speech/)

That being said, arguments by the No campaign involving a "restriction of free speech" as a result of SSM are redundant

 

[Vankyrie Ludenberg]

its sad when the unis send an email to defend the yes but wont do the same for no

going to uni next year probs, are there lots of these sorts of biased political campaigns? :S

Feel like yes will win, but I hope that the slippery slope argument is just a fallacy.

 

[cosmo 2]

selling 1x same sex marriage vote

i sold mine to both yes and no supporters so i doubled my money

 

[Microsoft Word]

I would vote no if i was eligible.

Society is evolving and social taboos of the past are slowly fading. 30 odd years ago, homosexuality, pedophilia (Islam?), beastiality, gender dysphoria would have been considered crimes against nature and mental illnesses (which they are). Today however, these are perfectly acceptable with even young children being indoctrinated in the education system, rather than being taught to read and write.

My greatest fear is that in time, like how homosexuals and transexuals have been welcomed as healthy members of society today, the other taboos i have previously listed will be part of the social standard tomorrow. A man should be allowed to marry a horse or a child, because at the end of the day "it's just love between two individuals that doesn't affect me in anyway, so i shouldn't care too much".

 

[Squar3root]

I would vote no if i was eligible.

Society is evolving and social taboos of the past are slowly fading. 30 odd years ago, homosexuality, pedophilia (Islam?), beastiality, gender dysphoria would have been considered crimes against nature and mental illnesses (which they are). Today however, these are perfectly acceptable with even young children being indoctrinated in the education system, rather than being taught to read and write.

My greatest fear is that in time, like how homosexuals and transexuals have been welcomed as healthy members of society today, the other taboos i have previously listed will be part of the social standard tomorrow. A man should be allowed to marry a horse or a child, because at the end of the day "it's just love between two individuals that doesn't affect me in anyway, so i shouldn't care too much".

that is a good point there but like for 2 "things" to get married they need to provide consent and the horse/child can't do that?

 

[cosmo 2]

genetically modified fast-evolved sapient animal ppl