This was posted 6 years 8 months 2 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 (7451 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

        • KnownSystemError on 24/08/2017 - 22:07
          +40

          Please enlighten us to what those repercussions are.

        • idonotknowwhy on 24/08/2017 - 22:11
          +8

          You mention the "repercussions" and the fact that we don't realise what they are.
          Why not change that and tell us, what are they? lol

        • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:31

          @idonotknowwhy: I posted it on another comment below.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:18
          +9

          @Covfefe: Stronger support and "but we did that…"s on every new "progressive" vote.

          Pretty much we're enrolling into a subscription of shitty "follow the PC"/weird-neo-progressive phase… which of course comes directly from America, and they're a (profanity) shitstorm. I bet the next vote is for compulsory gender percentages in companies… or even worse, adding new gender roles that are legal.

        • idonotknowwhy on 24/08/2017 - 23:41

          @StoneSin: I don't think we're stupid enough to let that happen.

          Most of the comments I've read on hacker news and even posts from female engineers agree with the "google memo".

          Besides, voting "yes" will stimulate the economy. More demand for catering, photographers, DJ's, etc.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:45
          +2

          @idonotknowwhy: No, we definitely are. America was once smart too.

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 09:12
          +2

          @StoneSin:

          So you think voting for something that generally makes sense will lead to people voting for something else that is entirely stupid in the future?

          Care to elaborate how that makes sense?

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 09:15
          +2

          @MrTweek: Because they don't vote with sense. They vote with aggression and noise.

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 09:16
          +1

          @StoneSin:

          Who is they? Everyone can vote, not only the loud idiots.

      • idonotknowwhy on 24/08/2017 - 22:10

        You were on +3 votes. I clicked the + button, expecting it to go to +4, but instead it went to +1?? lol

        • airzone on 24/08/2017 - 23:02
          +1

          Got 3 negs in the time it took you to upvote?

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

          @airzone: Cool. I was beginning to doubt my maths…

      • GregFiona on 24/08/2017 - 22:11
        +7

        Spending 122mil on a "postal vote" that doesn't affect the 99% of the population (and most probably not even the other 1%) is not a smart move IMHO

        • idonotknowwhy on 24/08/2017 - 22:12

          Yeah, bring on blockchain-based voting

        • try2bhelpful on 24/08/2017 - 22:35
          +3

          @idonotknowwhy: Just get on with voting yes and go with what the polls consistently show Australian people want. It doesn't affect me if responsible adults decide to marry, I chose not to but I won't deny anyone else their rights.

        • idonotknowwhy on 24/08/2017 - 23:36
          +1

          @try2bhelpful: +1

        • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:46
          +1

          Spending 122mil on a "postal vote" that doesn't affect the 99% of the population

          Not 100 % of those 9X % are self-centred.

      • EightImmortals on 25/08/2017 - 08:18
        +1

        Ask the many hundreds of people being sued and otherwise persecuted through 'equality' legislation in places where SSM is already legal. Then try and convince me this is just about 'equality' or 'love' or 'acceptance'. This will be a major blow to free speech and freedom of religion. SMM is simply the trojan horse.

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 09:13
          +1

          Examples?
          What has free speech to do with that?

        • EightImmortals on 25/08/2017 - 10:08
          +1

          @MrTweek: Examples are aplenty and TBH I'm sick of posting them (on other websites)as they are either ignored or dismissed. So, no offence but I'll just post a couple of links and people can check them out or do some googling for themselves. For two local cases of how exactly this will occur you can check out the harassment last year against the Catholics in Tasmania (I believe it was eventually thrown out of court, but not everyone has the money to defend themselves). And then there's curious case of a serial litigant and a staunch Catholic which you can follow here: http://bernardgaynor.com.au/our-victory/

          Basically the catholic guy expressed his views of the Canadian gay mardi gra so the serial litigant lodged a case against him with the NSW ADB which has been persecuting the Catholic guy outside of their jurisdiction as the catholic lives in QLD. The Catholic (a private citizen BTW not part of the Church itself) is hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket while the litigator is funded by the taxpayer. It's even weirder than it sounds when you read the full details.

          Some further reading here: https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/03/we-demand-free-speech-o…

          And how is it working out for Canada?

          http://www.marriagealliance.com.au/canada_ssm_destroying_all…

          So just to clarify, this is not about whether you like or don't like 'religious' people or any particular person or their views, this is about EVERYONE being able to have their say without fear of persecution and litigation merely for having a different point of view. Obviously those things are not 'same sex marriage' hence my comment about the trojan horse. Hope that helps you to see the bigger picture in all of this. I probably wont get into a huge debate about it here as my main aim it posting was just to alert people to some of the things going on that they might not be aware of. If they agree with those things then there's not much point in arguing with them anyway. :)

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 10:40
          +1

          @EightImmortals:

          For two local cases of how exactly this will occur you can check out the harassment last year against the Catholics in Tasmania

          I didn't look these up, but if they were in the past, it sounds like it is about an existing problem and not something that is going to change throuhg this plebiscite?

          I believe it was eventually thrown out of court, but not everyone has the money to defend themselves

          But that's an issue of the legal system and has nothing to do with gay marriage. People have always misused the legal system and this is not going to change, no matter the result of the plebiscite.
          It's like saying rape shouldn't be illegal because false rape accusations can lead to lengthy and costly court cases.

          All I can read from this case is that we should try to make the legal system fairer and more accessible.

          And how is it working out for Canada?

          That article uses the words "free speech", but no concrete examples of how free speech is actually limited.
          Yeah, they come with this wedding cake example again.

          I'm sorry, but saying "I don't want to make cakes for gay people" is the same for me as saying "I don't want to make cakes for Asians".
          That is called discrimination and is already illegal. Changing this is not part of the plebiscite.

          No cake shop (or any other shop) is allowed to refuse to serve gay people. Wedding cake shops are in the special situation that since gay people can't marry, they usually don't order wedding cakes. That is the only thing that will change.
          They will simply be subject to the same law that every single business in Australia already is. And that seems terrifying for some.

          Free speech on the other hand means you are free to say things like "I don't like gay people" or "I don't like Asians".

          That is an entirely different thing and not part of this plebiscite.

          So just to clarify

          I perfectly get your points and understand your concerns. However, I think there is a misunderstanding of the scope of this plebiscite.

        • EightImmortals on 25/08/2017 - 11:03

          @MrTweek:

          "But that's an issue of the legal system and has nothing to do with gay marriage. People have always misused the legal system and this is not going to change, no matter the result of the plebiscite."

          Yes, it will become worse, as WE ARE ALREADY SEEING. Your speculation that it wont doesn't stand up in the light of what's happening elsewhere, since the introduction of SSM.

          "All I can read from this case is that we should try to make the legal system fairer and more accessible."

          You mean like we should try to do with given non-married couple equal legal rights without redefining marriage?

          "No cake shop (or any other shop) is allowed to refuse to serve gay people."

          And yet when a guy in Ireland wanted a gay cake maker to make him a cake celebrating traditional marriage he was refused service and had his claim thrown out of court. Why it not OK to refuse gay wedding cakes but it is OK to refuse others? Also, in the case you mentioned the gay person was actually a customer for years so he wasn't being refused service anyway (maybe it was the flower seller?).

          "They will simply be subject to the same law that every single business in Australia already is. And that seems terrifying for some."

          And that's probably a fair point, it's on the line though but I'll let you have it. What's really of concern is when Churches and lay people get coped with the same persecution. Especially when the couple can go to the Church down the road but choose to litigate instead.

          "Free speech on the other hand means you are free to say things like "I don't like gay people" or "I don't like Asians"."

          Yes, hence the links in my initial reply. Pity you didn't read them. :)

          Anyway, I said I wasn't going to get into this argument so I'll leave you to it. :)

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 11:15

          @EightImmortals:

          You mean like we should try to do with given non-married couple equal legal rights without redefining marriage?

          That's an idea I could possible be comfortable with.
          As is, give de-facto couple all rights that married couples have and then let marriage be a purely symbolic thing that everyone can have with everyone they want.

          Problem I see is that this could let people marry children and things like that. So maybe we still need some legislation around this. Which means we need to keep arguing about how we want it to be.

          And yet when a guy in Ireland wanted a gay cake maker to make him a cake celebrating traditional marriage he was refused service and had his claim thrown out of court.

          I don't know much about Irish law, but that seems strange indeed. I don't think (or rather hope) in Australia this would be legal.

          Also, in the case you mentioned the gay person was actually a customer for years so he wasn't being refused service anyway

          I wasn't talking about a specific example. It was generally about some wedding cake makers insisting that they shouldn't be forced to make gay wedding cakes.

          What's really of concern is when Churches and lay people get coped with the same persecution. Especially when the couple can go to the Church down the road but choose to litigate instead.

          I agree that might be a problem. I don't really understand the churches point on that. I neither understand gay couples that insist on getting married by a clearly homophobic priest.
          Shouldn't be too relevant, I guess.

        • EightImmortals on 25/08/2017 - 11:23

          @MrTweek: Shouldn't be, but it is.

          The sad part is that the whole could end up being a win-win situation in that ssc's could have legal unions with full legal rights and other people would be free to act in accord with their beliefs and convictions without being persecuted but the agitators don't seem too interested in an amicable solution for some reason. I'm starting to see why the resistance to changing 18c was so strong.

    • pascher on 24/08/2017 - 22:07
      +7

      Well only 3% of these people really matter to us…

      And they got something they wanted too.

      Probably was too forward thinking of us as a nation to do it.

      http://www.aihw.gov.au/indigenous-observatory/reports/health…

      http://www.aec.gov.au/indigenous/history.htm

      I am happy for you to have your view, but this down vote is not as per community guideline.

      Please play by the rules…. other wise you may loose your ability to VOTE!

    • Sage on 24/08/2017 - 22:09

      We're not changing anything just yet, that's why there's a vote.

    • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:21

      It's amazing how many people have downvoted me all because I have quoted "facts"?

      • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:27
        +4

        What facts? Saying that 99% of the population is straight is just ridiculous.

      • altomic on 24/08/2017 - 22:39
        +34

        your "facts" are misinterpreted statistics and baseless statements that are used to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

        your "less than 1%* of Australian residents over the age of 18 consider themselves to be gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. Why are we changing everything for the minority? According to the ABS."

        is actually 1% of couples are same sex couples.

        that is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual people who actually live with their partner in a status that they themselves deem to be a "couple" to state it as such on the census.

        the downvotes have stopped for your later comments as people only have 5 neg votes a day and have already used them on your other "comments"

        I'm sure 40 years ago, if you had been mouthing breathing then, you would stated the same comment however same "sex couple" would have been replaced with "aboriginal"

      • Bluberry on 24/08/2017 - 22:56
        +1

        Alternate facts??

      • GimmeGimme on 25/08/2017 - 15:56
        +1

        People have downvoted you because you're a bigot. It gladdens me.

    • Ozbargain Lurker on 24/08/2017 - 23:22
      +11

      less than 1% of our population are killed, injured or directly affected by issues such as suicide and terrorist attacks yet why are we so aware of these issues?

      Changing 'everything' would be changing nothing for you. Gay marriage won't affect you in any way unless it ironically gives a friend or family member something to be happy about

    • Scrooge McDuck on 25/08/2017 - 01:52
      +4

      Why are we changing everything for the minority?

      Nobody is proposing changing "everything".

      And why not change something for a minority if it doesn't hurt the majority?

    • terrys on 25/08/2017 - 07:46
      +4

      It is a change back. John Howard changed the law by adding one line resting marriage after a court case in the U.K. found the restriction to heterosexual unions was discriminatory.
      He didn't need for, or ask for a plebiscite, survey or public poll. That may have opened the topic to discussion, and even he had the judgement to know he was enough on the nose already not to publicly waste millions on an opinion poll to suit the needs of his own political party.

    • BeefBiryani on 25/08/2017 - 10:24
      -2

      I want to marry my cat…

    • GimmeGimme on 25/08/2017 - 15:54
      +3

      They're not changing 'everything'. They're just bringing laws into line so everyone is treated equally. Seems pretty important to me. Vote 'YES' everyone!

  • Iwantthatbargain on 24/08/2017 - 21:54
    +3

    I'll pass

    Iwantthatbargain on 24/08/2017 - 21:54 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
  • Robin2012 on 24/08/2017 - 22:02
    +6

    I'm voting No

    • Tacooo on 24/08/2017 - 22:05
      +14

      Congratu-(profanity)-lations. Want a medal?

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:18
        +18

        Want a medal?

        A vote will be fine, but thanks for the offer.

    • adonbilivit on 24/08/2017 - 22:17
      +28

      And is that a valid reason to neg? My guess is "No".

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:20
        +15

        And is that a valid reason to neg?

        Yes, it's in the voting rules. You can -ve vote if you have a major issue with the deal…

        • adonbilivit on 24/08/2017 - 22:22
          +8

          Never stated their major issue though?

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:23
          +1

          @adonbilivit:

          It was in their 'tone'

        • try2bhelpful on 24/08/2017 - 22:37
          +4

          @jv: didums, your feelings are hurt because someone is calling you out for trying to block equality for other people. I wonder why?

        • twocsies on 24/08/2017 - 22:40
          +13

          @try2bhelpful: His feelings weren't hurt at all. He is drumming his message out to promote the sentiment of his herd. They did the exact same thing for Brexit and Trump.

        • Maverick-au on 24/08/2017 - 22:43
          +3

          @twocsies:

          They did the exact same thing for Brexit and Trump.

          It's really pathetic that some people are unable to accept the majority vote and have to pay the victim and claim they are hard done by. We have a democracy but it only works if this small vocal group gets what they want.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:46
          +2

          @Maverick-au:

          It's really pathetic that some people are unable to accept the majority vote

          Exactly the reason they didn't want a plebiscite. They know they're a minority and it would stop their cause for another decade.

        • try2bhelpful on 24/08/2017 - 22:48
          +4

          @Maverick-au:Neither of these was a majority vote as not all people went out and voted; particularly as neither result was expected. You really think the majority of the British people want Brexit, now they understand what it means and Trump's approval ratings are in the low 30s, which means they aren't happy with what they have either. This is why I like compulsory voting, you get off your backside and vote you are less likely to get a stupid outcomes. Then again we did vote in Abbott so it doesn't always work.

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 22:53
          +8

          @jv:

          Exactly the reason they didn't want a plebiscite. They know they're a minority and it would stop their cause for another decade.

          Nothing to do with the fact it is a waste of millions of dollars and authorises people being subjected to hate speech? Nothing to do with the fact the government isn't doing what they're elected to do and make laws representing the people? Nothing to do with this debacle making Australia an international embarrassment?

          I hope you are able to accept the majority vote when the plebiscite returns a YES vote.

          P.S. it's not just homosexual people who didn't want a plebiscite.

        • Maverick-au on 24/08/2017 - 23:16

          @try2bhelpful:

          Neither of these was a majority vote as not all people went out and voted; particularly as neither result was expected. You really think the majority of the British people want Brexit, now they understand what it means and Trump's approval ratings are in the low 30s, which means they aren't happy with what they have either.

          Oh boohoo.

          The facts are that 51.89% percent of votes were to leave the European Union and that Trump won. The USA system works on a fair system but you are now claiming that the Electoral College is unfair because you don't agree with the result. Approval ratings mean nothing.

          This is why I like compulsory voting, you get off your backside and vote you are less likely to get a stupid outcomes.

          Compulsory voting is stupid, if someone doesn't care enough to vote why force them?

          Once again it's the same people who are sore losers.

        • try2bhelpful on 24/08/2017 - 23:28
          +1

          @Maverick-au: We are all sore losers with Trump being in office, the man is an absolute disgrace and the American people are a laughing stock. I wouldn't mind if it was just his idiot followers who were suffering because of him, but there are many innocent people who are suffering as well. BTW - Trump won the electoral colleges but Hillary won the popular vote.

          Compulsory voting is a gift because it normalises a voting system across the population. There are many things we are forced to do in life we don't want to; this is just one of them but the outcome is too important.

          We don't have another planet to go if Trump goes nuts and starts sending nukes around the world or globing warming hits a tipping point and we can no longer live on the planet. The only positive that has come out of Brexit and Trump is that the rest of Europe took one look and backed away from the Right wing nut jobs in a "bigly" fashion.

        • Maverick-au on 24/08/2017 - 23:35
          +7

          @try2bhelpful:

          We are all sore losers with Trump being in office, the man is an absolute disgrace and the American people are a laughing stock. I wouldn't mind if it was just his idiot followers who were suffering because of him, but there are many innocent people who are suffering as well.

          Who is suffering? He was voted in and is doing his job.

          BTW - Trump won the electoral colleges but Hillary won the popular vote.

          Do you have any idea at all why they have the electoral colleges? Clearly not. To prevent larger states from being able to nullify the votes of smaller states. Did you know that Obama had the justice department take the states to court that required valid ID to vote and he left this until just before the election so those states did not have time to appeal and that in some areas where these extra votes came from there are over 1 million fraudulent registrations. Of course not because you cannot accept that the people spoke and wanted something different to you.

          Compulsory voting is a gift because it normalises a voting system across the population.

          No it doesn't, all it does is force people that have no interest to go the polling station and vote for whoever they remember from the gate.

          We don't have another planet to go if Trump goes nuts and starts sending nukes around the world or globing warming hits a tipping point and we can no longer live on the planet. The only positive that has come out of Brexit and Trump is that the rest of Europe took one look and backed away from the Right wing nut jobs in a "bigly" fashion.

          The "right wing nut jobs" who don't want to continue to allow their countries to be destroyed. Once again you've shown complete disregard for everyone who doesn't have your own view and you can't accept that the people voted. The hate can be seen in all your comments and the way you attack anyone with a different opinion to yours.

        • try2bhelpful on 24/08/2017 - 23:55
          +1

          @Maverick-au: What is Trump actually achieving?

          America is meant to be the country of one man one vote, why should someone in a bigger state get less of a vote because of that. If you are going to have a popularly elected leader, then let it be on the basis of popularity not a rigged system. The only documented fraudulent cases were people voting for Trump. Some of the people voted, he certainly wasn't voted in by the majority of Americans - anymore than Brexit was voted in by the majority of the United Kingdom. In a complusory voting situation I doubt either of those outcomes would've occured - particularly based on the current poll figures for both.

          We will need to disagree about compulsory voting, but there are a large number of the experts who agree with me, for the reasons I have raised. For compulsory voting you don't have to post a valid vote, but given the large number of valid votes we get with compulsory voting, obviously, people are not that upset about it.

          History is not going to be kind to Trump, nor his followers, so you might as well bask in his orange glow whilst you still can.

        • Maverick-au on 25/08/2017 - 00:13
          +2

          @try2bhelpful:

          America is meant to be the country of one man one vote, why should someone in a bigger state get less of a vote because of that. If you are going to have a popularly elected leader, then let it be on the basis of popularity not a rigged system.

          The same system work many places in the world including Australia. How fair would it be in Tas and the NT to have no to little representation because most people live in Sydney and Melbourne? Why are people only whinging about it now? Because they lost and they can't stand it.

          Some of the people voted, he certainly wasn't voted in by the majority of Americans - anymore than Brexit was voted in by the majority of the United Kingdom. In a complusory voting situation I doubt either of those outcomes would've occured - particularly based on the current poll figures for both.

          But he was voted in by the majority, it was only two areas that swayed the irrelevant populist vote in the election so why would the results be changed because two areas have such a large population? Why don't you look at all the double voting and voting by illegals?

    • SydStrand on 24/08/2017 - 22:44
      +5

      If you want to be a pedant, the qualifications for this deal are a registration to vote, not an actual yes vote. You can register, get your free shirt (which I hope you never wear), and still vote no. Not a valid reason for neg.

    • iaijutsu on 24/08/2017 - 22:48
      +8

      Reported an invalid downvote as per site guidelines. As per above poster, the shirt is free for registering regardless of whether you vote yes or no.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:17

        I'm not even going to bother reporting the invalid negative vote, let it serve as a permanent record of all the bigots who upvoted the post.

      • Moderatorneil on 25/08/2017 - 01:20

        Are you associated with Gorman?

        • iaijutsu on 25/08/2017 - 08:06

          Nope. Sorry did I accidentally tick that?

        • iaijutsu on 25/08/2017 - 08:07

          Fixed!

    • otter-raptor on 25/08/2017 - 00:34
      +2

      Why?? Don't you want our gay brethren to go through the perils of marriage??

      How can they alone be happy in life, let them share the misery

  • cruelsinger on 24/08/2017 - 22:04
    +6

    This will be a completely civil and reasonable discussion….I hope

  • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:04
    +45

    You can see from all the downvoting of comments, the type of people that support same sex marriage. They are full of hate and can't accept that not everyone shares the same opinion as them.

    • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:06
      +14

      jv, you're on fire mate.. spot on.

      • try2bhelpful on 24/08/2017 - 22:38
        +8

        If you have a look the vast majority of people getting the up votes are the bigots who don't believe in equality, but please continue to complain about your hurt feeling.

    • Tacooo on 24/08/2017 - 22:06
      +77

      You can see from all the posting of comments about how they're voting no that they are full of hate and can't just let others be happy.

      I can bold random words too.

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:07
        +8

        voting no that they are full of hate

        which of my comments are you referring too, or once again, making stuff up???

        • Tacooo on 24/08/2017 - 22:08
          +1

          I never said anything about your comments.

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 22:36
          +15

          making stuff up???

          How about try:

          They already have the same rights as everybody else…

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:07
        +14

        I can bold random words too.

        you just proved my point.

        • Tacooo on 24/08/2017 - 22:09
          +19

          Oh you had a point? Must have missed that part.

      • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:10
        +8

        Others be happy? Why can't they be happy without "marriage"?

        Can you please tell me what the word "marriage" is?

        • twocsies on 24/08/2017 - 22:34
          +18

          Marriage is a legal term in Australia. Due to its legal meaning, it is the right to make emergency financial and medical decisions. The right to tax breaks only afforded to married partners. The right to the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets, because they are only granted to 'spouse' and not de facto couples.

        • try2bhelpful on 24/08/2017 - 22:51
          +10

          Let't ban marriage between all people. Why do heterosexuals need marriage either. Personally I've never bothered and my man and I have been together for 37 years. However, I will not deny it to consenting adults who want it.

        • SydStrand on 24/08/2017 - 22:58
          +8

          Why can't straight people be happy without marriage then? If it's such a trivial construct than do away with it entirely. What you're suggesting is having rights that selectively advantage certain people. And don't you dare bring up the 'sanctity' of marriage, when we live in a society with ever increasing divorce rates, Tinder, and Farmer Wants a Wife. There are other, non-sentimental reasons two people might want to be married.

        • Almost Banned on 25/08/2017 - 12:04
          -1

          @twocsies: I would love to hear more about these 'tax breaks' you refer to.
          I am not aware of any so, with tax season upon us, I would like to take advantage of them.

    • Cyb3rGlitch on 24/08/2017 - 22:08
      +3

      You could argue the same for those who downvoted this deal not because it isn't a bargain, but because of politics.

      Is this OZB or not?

      • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:09
        +4

        You could argue the same for those who downvoted this deal

        Downvoting the deal is about the deal, not about the person making a comment.

        • Gehirn on 24/08/2017 - 22:23
          +7

          The deal is a free shirt for being enrolled. How is there any negative to the deal?

        • SydStrand on 24/08/2017 - 23:05

          It's not. Read the damn comment.

      • Lets Make Sandwiches on 25/08/2017 - 08:34

        I don't support companies making political statements. This behaviour typically evolves into those same companies putting pressure on its employees to adopt similar views, or otherwise suffer unofficial consequences such as lack of career progression. The laws against taking adverse action against an employee for holding a particular political view are difficult to enforce.

    • HentaiEnjoyer on 24/08/2017 - 22:18

      Or it just means that there is an imbalance of supporters and non-supporters of same sex marriage, both sides of which are downvoting each other.

      Supporters obviously outnumber non-supporters then.

      I personally don't know enough about the matter so don't really have a strong opinion.

      • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:21
        +8

        That's because there are more supporters :). Thank god

    • airzone on 24/08/2017 - 23:29

      Hate is a pre-requisite for a lot of SJW types..

    • Devils Advocate on 25/08/2017 - 09:24
      +2

      Disagreeing with and opinion or comment doesn't mean someone is full of hate. I would say not allowing someone the same legal right as yourself based on something they are born with and can't change (their sexuality) would be a better definition of the word 'hate'.

  • djmm on 24/08/2017 - 22:04
    +5

    Can I get MAGA tshirt instead? If so I'll vote.

  • robbyjones on 24/08/2017 - 22:08
    +51

    For the first time ever I have run out of negative votes for the day. I am staggered at the number of bigots here.

    • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:11
      +23

      the number of bigots here.

      more proof of my point…

      they hate people just because they have a different opinion…

      name calling…
      putting people down…
      posting fake posters around town…

      you are just digging a deeper hole.

      There is a large majority of decent people who will vote no

      Comments like yours will entice people sitting on the fence on the issue to also vote no…

      I have friends and relatives who are gay, but will still vote no

      • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 22:58
        +31

        I have friends and relatives who are gay, but will still vote no

        Ahhhh, the classic "I'm not a homophobe because I have a gay friend" defence.

      • SydStrand on 24/08/2017 - 23:25
        +5

        How about you just admit that gay people kissing makes you queasy.

      • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:58
        +1

        posting fake posters around town…

        Do you have a confirmed source for this allegation? Or is this just #fakenewsbroughttoyoubyjv ?

      • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 02:42
        +3

        Wait. Didn't you neg the whole deal? Yet others who neg because they're offended by your point of view are filled with hate?

      • ripsnorter on 27/08/2017 - 04:33

        posting fake posters around town…

        any proof yet, jv, or is it confirmed that you are talking shit and telling lies????

      • [Deactivated] on 26/09/2017 - 05:07
        +1

        I have friends and relatives who are gay, but will still vote no

        I don't have any friends or relatives that are gay, but will still vote yes.**
        So my vote will cancel your vote.

        Jesus, how did i miss all this?
        I'm late my an entire month!

        **OK, i don't actually have any friends, or relatives for that matter having killed them all during a bender.

    • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:12
      +13

      "bigot"? how so… you are just proving how 'hateful' your group really is. What is wrong with having another opinion?

      • robbyjones on 24/08/2017 - 22:14
        +1

        And what group of mine is that, exactly?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join