Vote  NO  for Australia

Submit no and tell em to find their own form of union.
Marrage is between man and woman.

Consiquently if the safe schools sh1t starts up the wife and I have discussed home schooling our kids because I'm stuffed if I'm going to have these idiots teaching my kids that gay is normal. It doesn't happen in nature at all so it's the opposite end of normal.

I don't mind if people choose to be gay. Doesn't bother me in the slightest but don't start saying it's normal, rather, it's accepted would be better.

Being a HOMO is abnormal

Doesn't matter what you vote.
It's a bloody sham. They'll still put through what they want to put through. This was just a way of getting everyone worked up so they can pass other things while we look at the canary.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 15^th, 2017 at 10:18pm:



I'll try my best to do that.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 15^th, 2017 at 10:18pm:


My vote is sitting on my desk... I'm waiting for a compelling argument to say YES.....

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 12:15am:



The 'informed' know that such protections are already in place

Any church in Australia can refuse to marry any couple they so desire
Eg: Catholics and divorcees
No Australian business is compelled by law to trade with any customer they'd rather not
No school toilets are going 'uni-sex' and no boys will be made to wear dresses
No one will be allowed to marry their budgie

There goes the entire 'NO' case

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 15^th, 2017 at 9:58pm:


What result would Islam want?

Define "no benefit"

bogarde73 wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 6:54am:


Murder lf all poofs......tgats islamic policy

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 15^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:


And what of the equality and human rights of the children of same sex couples?

Seems this more about the desires of adults only.

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 10:11am:



Touche..............totally agree.

The first NO advert on tv zoomed straight into the plight of the children and rightly so, I cant see how any parent could vote yes to a minority of people who would not put this issue first and foremost.
Its all about them.
The inner Sydney café latte sipping ballet going.....
I had better pull back, I don't have $12,600 to spare.

hatman92 wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 10:48am:



Yeee-usssh - but beware of government under the influence of special interest groups dictating the opposite of what you say is dictating to you.  Whether it affects you or not remains to be seen.... unfortunately this SSM thing is a beach-head for the agenda of the Alphabet community - watch what happens once this one gets through.

Then you'll see some government dictating to you.

Let the people decide the issue in a binding vote.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 10:30am:


No it's not a distraction ... it's a inconvenient truth.

The case put forward by the LGBITQ community & supporters should be able to be countered by those arguing against it.

Children of these relationships have rights and a right to be heard as well.

All aspects of the outcomes from legalised homosexual marriage are open for discussion & presentation despite the survey.

The survey is a waste of money when Politicians will decide at the end of the day.

Voting No is not denying them human rights.

And a link from the ABC?  And we know the leanings there.

They did say when homosexuality was decriminalised that one day you will have to not only tolerate it but also to like it.
That day is now here.
Soon it will be compulsory.

Frank wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 11:48am:







'The writing is on the wall'.......

It will be unlawful,        to openly, to publicly, say that you 'do not like' homosexuality.


e.g.
some in the ssm crowd are already calling to.....

Remove Kids From Parents Who Reject Transgender
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1505520921/0#0

Yadda wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 12:03pm:



There is absolutely no evidence to support this ludicrous claim, either here - or any other part of the world where Marriage Equality has entered into law

Johnnie wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 10:40am:


You do understand that the vote impacts on single sex parenting in no way ?

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 11:32am:


Same sex couples already have the right to have children. This has nothing to do with this vote. This is not changed in any way by either a yes or no vote, it makes no difference. This argument is irrelevant to this topic.

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:


And if they get it, the next thing will be to make homosexuality a compolsory subject.
How to pump poo.
Best positions for givers and takers
What to do if your Ss partner wont shave

Its a complete joke, only no one seems to get it.

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Two poo punchers having equal rights to adopt children as a normal couple goes against common cense.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:


Valkie wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 3:53pm:


No, thats just another lie from the no camp.

Most politicians are actually more reliable and trustworthy than Vialkie.

Valkie wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 3:53pm:

It's a complete joke: as a Labor voter I am disgusted Shorten actually pushes this yes crap!

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 11:37am:

EXACTLY!

Dnarever wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 7:53am:

You haven't listened to anything in this debate: it's about the institution called marriage and the fact that the subject of ssm never was an institution for very real reasons.

Johnnie wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 5:29pm:

I don't know... I am just too disgusted to think about it!

Dnarever wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 6:38pm:

Good grief...
Quote:


Who is discriminating against whom?  Who is trying to appropriate a term and change its meaning, something billions have been part of for thousands of years?

Johnnie wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 5:29pm:

They do have equal right in this regard already. In every regard.
They just have a different word for it - accessorising.

Grendel wrote on Sep 16^th, 2017 at 6:42pm:


There is a range of areas where the law and other arrangements currently discriminates against couples who are not married. From next of kin access in hospitals or inheritance and parenting status in some states.

This Vote is a crock of the first order

Our Parliamentarians are put there to Govern the Country and take care of issues such as this

It is clear to me a conscience vote on all sides of Parliament should have been the way to go

red baron wrote on Sep 17^th, 2017 at 9:06am:


Their refusal to do their job leaves us with only the will of the people expressed in a binding vote.  If the politicians had simply gone ahead and made a vote on this issue one way or the other, it would never go away.  The same can be said of a popular binding vote, but the reality is that a popular binding vote has far more weight than the parliamentary vote of a a few sycophantic, vote-seeking party people.

All the argument and name-calling and bullying doing the rounds has actually created a far greater issue of this than it should have been, and - dare I say it - the YES lobby's bullying has turned many formerly sympathetic people away.  Still - I suppose it's a good thing that the issues surrounding this single issue have had an airing.... and have alerted the thinking public to the very real dangers of certain forms of government and governance.

Poor Canada..... 

Oh - Red - be careful of wanting or expecting an elected parliament to 'govern' the country exclusively without reference to the people.... I wouldn't trust this Parliament with anything larger then a schedule of events at a school sports carnival.  I find it bizarre that such an esteemed colleague as your good self will oppose The Jackal and privatised insanity etc, which is Captain Hooknose 'governing' for you, despite you and on top of you - but then you are happy to surrender your democratic rights in areas such as this.....

It is the form of our government that is wrong at this time in history..... and their style of governance so akin to the Great Leaders of the past and present exercising some kind of 'divine right' (read Divine Right Of Elected Government) ..... we say - you do.... but then I've always been a rebel.

Grendel wrote on Sep 17^th, 2017 at 10:40am:


That won't happen. Surveys show that there is around 55% support for ssm with about 20% undecided.

Does this mean that the government postal survey will yeild the same result?
No it doesn't.

Whilst the "yes" camp have to present a case for why you should vote yes. All the "No" camp have to do is convince you not to vote yes. Convincing someone not to vote yes is a much easier thing to do as our track record of failed referendums have shown.

So now we see the "no" camp bringing up various red herrings and distrations. Claiming the victim status, claiming they are being bullied, the absurd claim that ssm will result in the end of civilisation. There are also many people sympathetic to the ssm cause who are already sick and tired of the media debate.

Tony Abbott knew all this when he proposed the plebisite and he knew it was the best way to derail the whole campaign.

My prediction is that the "no" camp will win.
I will be boycotting the survey

Grendel wrote on Sep 17^th, 2017 at 11:32am:


It's not binding
The people arn't deciding anything
Its a postal SURVEY

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 17^th, 2017 at 11:34am:

Not good at reading are you.
I could type it again slower if you like.

Frank wrote on Sep 17^th, 2017 at 1:30pm:


And the same sex community would have got 10 X the abuse they are getting now.

This is a very bad idea.

Grendel wrote on Sep 17^th, 2017 at 10:02pm:




billions of heterosexual couples based on the fact that marriage for thousands of years has been the union of a man and a woman

Here you use a history of oppression and marginalization to argue for further oppression and marginalization ? Probably not the best way to go.

The Ozzie and Harriet (1950's - John Howard) view of marriage which is in itself relatively recent historically and going back to it is unlikely or would you like to go back further to  marrying to secure political alliances or ending inter-tribal warfare ?

Did you know that Nero was married to a male ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/conservatives-say-ma...

Things have changed the last few decades this article is saying it has been the progress women have made.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 15^th, 2017 at 9:58pm:


I agree, Sprint. Vote no to everything.

No?

Dnarever wrote on Sep 17^th, 2017 at 7:19pm:


How so?  In a binding vote of the people, they could happily say 'thank you for your votes' and retire to their closets again... no questions asked...

Once again - in light of another poster - WHERE EXACTLY is this abuse the same sex community are getting now?

Right here, right now - post the facts and figures.

Thus far it seems that the majority of the abuse is coming FROM the same sex community - which is starting to look like the Muslims ratbags that wave signs around about killing infidels, and then wonder why they get a negative response....

Once again - I voted NO - primarily because I will not tolerate bullying and stand-over as the means of discussion, and I have NO respect for anyone who uses those tools. 

How lesbians can fuuuck each other when they don't have a dick.

I am waiting for the YES people to persuade me to vote YES...... a good solid reason  all this love crap.. kind of hasnt been tested....lets wait until we see a gay couple in a public divorce   just to see where did the love go??..

lust doesnt make a marriage....in fact it soon wears out and what have you got left.. usually not a thing in common.... 

maybe there isnt any lust in a gay relationship..


its all love till death us do part......

does anyone believe that???

cods wrote on Sep 18^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:


I am waiting for the YES people to persuade me to vote YES


after about 200 posts supporting a no vote you are now undecided, well I guess a woman's prerogative ????

Grendel wrote on Sep 18^th, 2017 at 8:27pm:

Women 

Dnarever wrote on Sep 18^th, 2017 at 8:30pm:



oh alright  I have voted too late   but shouldnt they be telling us why they are voting yes   

love is such a weak silly excuse......and I dont believe most give a stuff about it to be honest....that piece of paper and mark in the register   doesnt have a thing to do with love .......and if it did and was perfect why is the divorce register just as full.

I have received 2 texts on my mobile today from Queensland Unions

asking me if I had received my survey in the mail

and if I was going to vote "Yes".

This has p1ssed me off greatly.

What would they say if I answered NO?

It's  none of their feckin business.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 19^th, 2017 at 9:01pm:


And you neatly side step the real topic, seems it is about everything and anything else but voting on merit.

NO!!!
No No No
NO!!!


Now get back in ya box you bloody poofters.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 19^th, 2017 at 9:01pm:

Sports bet currently has,
For ssm $1.35
Against ssm $3.00

Get on folks, it will be an easy way to triple your money.
I'm on and I am going to be rich.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 19^th, 2017 at 11:51pm:

Hell yeah!

Jasin wrote on Sep 19^th, 2017 at 11:54pm:

They didn't have the odds on that but my bet would be most normal people want a say on this and NO will bolt in.