This was posted 6 years 8 months 1 day 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

        • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:17
          +5

          Well, by looking at the votes tab and your comment(s), clearly on the "yes" side.

      • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:23
        +9

        Frustration =/= hate. This issue has been discussed far too long and it's time for it to happen. And it will.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 22:29
      +5

      For the first time I have run out of negative votes for the day

      Geez, seems like you really can't tolerate those people ay…

      Bigot

      A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

      • robbyjones on 24/08/2017 - 22:31
        +2

        And, finally someone gets it

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 22:36
          +4

          I thought my bold text outlined it, but I was pointing out the irony in your comment lol

          It's ironic calling others bigots after you've down voted people because you can't tolerate their opinion… :P

        • robbyjones on 24/08/2017 - 22:42

          @dyl: Ha ha, well I thought you got it, clearly not.

        • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:49
          +6

          @dyl: That's like saying it's intolerant for calling someone out for being racist/sexist/a bad person.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 22:58

          @robbyjones:

          Indeed do not get it.
          I support gay couples having the legal right to marry but I don't understand the shaming or hate towards those with differing opinions.
          I also believe a "yes" will simply be used as an excuse for toxic behavior towards churches / religious groups / etc who don't wish to provide wedding services to gay couples. Religious groups quite obviously have a differing opinion and I can respect that, I'm not sure how others can't.

        • robbyjones on 24/08/2017 - 23:01
          +1

          @dyl: Marriage and religion are two separate things. There are many variables in all religions that prevent marriage even if the marrying couple are of different genders.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:10

          @robbyjones:

          Can't say I've studied religion that much to be any kind of expert, I wouldn't doubt this though… But there's no vote that will potentially be used to force those religious groups to provide wedding services when they don't believe in marriage… If they don't provide wedding services at all (as they don't believe in it) it doesn't concern them.

          I'm worried for the churches that do offer weddings.

    • Aniseed Steed on 24/08/2017 - 22:54
      +3

      Same here… ran out of -ve votes.

    • ThithLord on 25/08/2017 - 07:49

      Me too, mate. Me too. It's ridiculous.

  • KnownSystemError on 24/08/2017 - 22:11
    +54

    If same sex marriage is going to have a real detrimental impact on you sure, vote no. Otherwise if it is just because you don't like others to be happy and have equal rights then I have real concerns for you as a human being.

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

      it is just because you don't like others to be happy

      nothing to do with that at all…

      I just believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. That's all…

      • KnownSystemError on 24/08/2017 - 22:16
        +65

        So don't enter into a same sex marriage then. Easy. But why stop others?

        • HentaiEnjoyer on 24/08/2017 - 22:21
          +21

          @joshuah:

          Again, please enlighten us to what those repercussions are.

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

          @joshuah: You've said this a couple of times in this thread. I'm curious what these repercussions are?

        • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:24
          +7

          @joshuah: How many times are you going to copy and paste this?

        • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:28

          @engineeringprof:

          Many things, such as loss of freedom of speech and also parents will NOT be able to oppose sending their children to "safe schools". Have you looked at the content of the safe school programs? It is shocking the content they are teaching their children. As OZB is a PG site I do not wish to copy and paste the content (even though the kids are/will be taught it).. I do not want children under the age of 10 being subjected to the rubbish they will be… safe schools encourages sexual acts on others and themselves, including male to male and female to female. Why teach a children that.

        • engineeringprof on 24/08/2017 - 22:30
          +3

          @joshuah: Hey thanks for your reply mate. I'm interested in how this will infringe our freedom of speech? And I am sure it will be ok if you paste the content of these Safe Schools programs you're concerned about if it's taught in schools as clearly that would be ok then on this site.

        • Krazyy on 24/08/2017 - 22:33
          +4

          @engineeringprof:

          Here is one example of safe schools: http://imgur.com/a/muuIv

        • engineeringprof on 24/08/2017 - 22:39
          +11

          @joshuah: Hey mate, Safe Schools does seem like fairly adult content for 8-11 years. At the same time, it seems like a seperate issue to this vote on marriage. Perhaps we should advocate separately towards better moderation of sexual education being taught to children without letting it influence our votes on marriage between adults?

        • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:39
          +3

          @joshuah: newsflash, sex ed has been present in schools for years

        • harkoliar on 24/08/2017 - 22:40
          +3

          @joshuah: ages 8-11…. Seriously??

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 23:02
          +12

          It's a case of protecting the rights of religious groups (to deny wedding services to gay couples) and allowing the tradition of marriage to be altered so gay couples are included.

          Personally I support gay couples being able to marry, but I'm voting no due to the toxicity and bullying already showing, I have no doubt a yes outcome would be used as an excuse to further this behavior. I also have no doubt the vote will be used in parliment to change the legislation in a way I don't support (ie denying religious rights).

        • dazweeja on 24/08/2017 - 23:05
          +10

          @joshuah:

          Can you tell me which resource this is from? I've had a look and that doesn't appear to be Safe Schools material. Safe Schools is not a sex education program, nor does it teach sexual practices.

        • SydStrand on 24/08/2017 - 23:09
          +5

          @joshuah:

          Allowing gay people to marry > ??? > loss of freedom of speech.

          That's some real Cartman logic there.

          Here is one example of safe schools: http://imgur.com/a/muuIv

          Apparently practical sex education is the first road to deviancy. Hate to break it to you, but your poor, repressed kid will be streaming ultra HD VR hardcore porn on their iPhone 10 before they hit their teens.

        • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 02:49
          +2

          @dyl: Your mental gymnastics is awesome.

          I've seen plenty of bile from the NO side so why vote against your OWN beliefs because you're chosen to only focus on the negative aspects one one side?

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 08:37
          +1

          @mooney:
          I'm focusing on what the vote actually means and will be used for - which is something I don't support.

          If we all focused on our own opinion (and were able to without bullying) I would have no problem voting yes on this vote, but when there's bullying and spitefulness already it's not something I support.

          Note the vote isn't even legally binding - it is seriously just to serve as a "haha I was right so f*** your opinion", which I don't support.

        • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 09:25
          +1

          @dyl: "haha I was right so f*** your opinion"- that is only true of a very small percentage of the population. I see Tony Abbott spreading spreading misinformation, I see the fact they've made it a postal vote as very strategic to swing to a NO vote. So I think its strange you are editing the feedback to swing your vote from Yes to No. At best your argument should see you not vote becuase both sides have slung filth.

        • ozbd on 25/08/2017 - 09:37
          +1

          @joshuah:

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla…

          If A, then B, then C, … then ultimately Z!

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 13:51
          +2

          @mooney:

          I don't believe it's a very small percentile. I've not seen one person here (beyond myself) that supports gay marriage while maintaining the belief that it's their opinion and there's no right or wrong opinions on the matter. Almost every "yes" comment has included some kind of abuse, shaming, guilt tripping, etc.

          Fair point though, a no-vote would probably make more sense.

        • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 14:03
          +2

          @dyl: In my experience internet forums aren't usually a place to find reasoned constructive debate, when I have discussed this topic at work I have had a much more constructive level of dialogue. As Ozbargain isnt wider Australia I am happy to accept the representatives on this board are a small percentage of the views of Australia.

          My own personal opinion is that I see a lot of YES voters shaming No voters, that's is true and not helpful. But I also see a lot of NO voters equating SSM as a gateway to legalising marriage between with kids, goats, polygamy and incest which is also unreasonable. I just think this topic is too divisive for rational conversation on an internet forum. I wouldn't let it sway my view in any direction.

          Anyway, you will make the call as you see it. Have a nice day.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2017 - 14:22
          +1

          @mooney:

          The gateway theory is due to proposed wording. The proposed wording is "between two persons" opposed the current "between a man and woman". The wording "man and woman" does impose an age requirement, while "persons" does not… This theory is purely BS though, elsewhere in the marriage act legal age requirements are outlined (18+ with some rare exceptions for 16-18), there's no reason to believe it would change…

      • tetra on 24/08/2017 - 22:25
        +4

        What's your reasoning behind that belief?

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:25
          -1

          What's your reasoning behind that belief?

          Why do I need a reason?

        • tetra on 24/08/2017 - 22:30
          +13

          @jv:

          So you're against a group of people doing something because it's against what you think is right, but you can't explain why you think it's right?

        • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:40
          +12

          @jv: you kinda need a reason if you're against giving me and other members of the community the same rights as you :)

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

          @ajee123:

          you kinda need a reason

          No I don't.

          I have the right to vote without stating why…

          he same rights as you

          You already have the same rights, if you are an Australian citizen. The law applies to everyone in this country.

        • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 22:51
          +15

          @jv: If you want to be a decent human being, you do. You can justify it to yourself as much as you want but if you were standing in front of me, telling me I shouldn't get married i would be pretty ashamed of you. Especially if you had no reason.
          And for your other point, ok, guess I'll go to a wedding chapel and get married tomorrow then. Oh wait!

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:55
          +10

          @ajee123:

          If you want to be a decent human being, you do.

          More name calling I see…
          You can't accept people can have different opinions to you…

        • ajee123 on 24/08/2017 - 23:03
          +6

          @jv: HAHAHA how is that name calling? Woooow. No, I can't accept it. Because you won't explain it to me.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:04
          +9

          @ajee123:

          how is that name calling?

          You're the one saying people that vote no are not decent people…

        • Xeonelite on 24/08/2017 - 23:23
          +10

          @jv:

          Let's pull this "name calling" card many times over because I can't rebut his argument. Holy crap.

      • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:00
        +3

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

        Why?

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:01
          +2

          Because that is what I believe.

          Can't you read?

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:02
          +9

          @jv:

          Because that is what I believe.

          Why?

          Can't you read?

          No need to be rude. I'm just trying to ask a question to get a better understanding of the reasoning supporting your viewpoint.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:03

          @ripsnorter:

          No need to be rude.

          I wasn't been rude. I was repeating my statement that you obviously didn't read

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:06
          +6

          @jv:

          You clearly were being rude. Obviously I can read and the use of bold type in your comment came across as rude.

          You still haven's answered my question - why do you believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman? What is your reasoning supporting that belief?

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:06

          @ripsnorter:

          You clearly were being rude.

          Nope…

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:08
          +6

          @jv:
          Fine, agree to disagree about whether you were rude or not.

          Are you going to continue to be evasive and not explain your reasoning for your belief? A belief must have reasoning otherwise it cannot be a belief.

        • iaijutsu on 24/08/2017 - 23:10
          +4

          @jv:

          Actually you were being rude.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:10
          +3

          @ripsnorter:

          Fine, agree to disagree about whether you were rude or not.

          OK

          explain your reasoning for your belief?

          good question…

          I just do… Similar to breathing…

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:13
          +6

          @jv:

          I just do… Similar to breathing…

          So you are against same sex marriage in the same way that you cannot control your very living? Does that mean you are by nature a homophobe?

          I'm surprised that someone who is so staunch in their belief is unable to articulate a reasoning explaining why they have come to a decision on a matter.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:14
          +4

          @ripsnorter:

          Does that mean you are by nature a homophobe?

          No, did you read my comments?

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:15
          +11

          @jv:

          No, did you read my comments?

          Yep, that's why I think you may be homophobic.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:15
          +5

          @ripsnorter:

          Yep, that's why I think you may be homophobic.

          Well then you are wrong…

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:16
          +7

          @jv:

          Well then you are wrong…

          Then please elighten us all with an alternative reason as to why you are against same sex marriage.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:18
          +2

          @ripsnorter:

          I've given my reason.

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:20
          +9

          @jv:

          I've given my reason.

          Your reason is that being anti same sex marriage is as natural to you as breathing. Seems to me to be just another way of describing yourself as a homophobe and that that is the justification for your belief.

        • jv on 24/08/2017 - 23:26
          +2

          @ripsnorter:

          Seems to me

          seems to you, but you are wrong.

        • ripsnorter on 24/08/2017 - 23:28
          +4

          @jv:

          seems to you, but you are wrong.

          Oh, gee, you got me there, jv.

          Seems to anyone reading this thread that you haven't given any reasoning for your belief. Other than it is natural for you to be against same sex marriage.

        • WinstonWithAY on 24/08/2017 - 23:56
          +11

          @jv: You have the logic of a child. You can't back up your claim with reasons and evidence and just trying to deflect legitimate questions. If you can't give reasons why you're voting a particular way, you shouldn't be allowed to vote

        • GourmetFoodie on 25/08/2017 - 00:05
          +8

          @jv:

          I'd respect you more if you just admitted you hate gay people rather than try to pretend you don't.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 01:16
          +4

          @ripsnorter: people can be against SSM without being a homophobe, just like people who don't support immigration isn't all racist, or people who don't support letting kids smoke aren't all ageist, people who don't support women entering the armed forces fighting on the frontline aren't all sexist, ….

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 01:18

          @WinstonWithAY: what you are saying is against democracy. You people who do not follow politics shouldn't vote because they don't really know the policies?

        • ripsnorter on 25/08/2017 - 01:20
          +1

          @yannyrjl:

          people can be against SSM without being a homophobe

          This argument is why I was trying to ask jv what their reasons are.

        • ajee123 on 25/08/2017 - 09:13
          +3

          @GourmetFoodie: I've basically lost all respect for him at this point. It's pretty clear that his only reason for voting no is 'eww gay people'. He's not even bothering to hide behind the bible/God to justify his PoV

        • MrTweek on 25/08/2017 - 09:36
          +6

          @jv:

          I believe that Broccoli tastes terrible, but that doesn't mean I want it to be illegal for everyone else.

          You are basically putting your personal believe over the personal freedom of a lot of other people.

          • It's perfectly fine to believe that.
          • Believing it without any good reason doesn't exactly make you look smart
          • Voting against someone else rights for no factual reason other than "I don't like it" seems pretty selfish
          • If I don't like something, but don't have good reasons against it, I will simply stay away from arguments about it and not vote at all.
        • shaiguy on 25/08/2017 - 14:48
          +2

          @yannyrjl:

          Would not letting women vote be sexist?

          Would not letting a black man to marry a white woman be racist?

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 15:15
          +1

          @shaiguy: Rather than changing the definition of marriage, why isn't introducing civil union into current laws not an option?

          People have different reasons, a huge driver being cultural and religious beliefs. For example I can see all three major abrahamic religions align on this issue which is fairly extraordinary in itself. So if Islam clergy promote "No" against SSM does it make them homophobic? And if so does it make the "Yes" side Islamophobic?

          You see how problems can't really be solved by simple labels, it is a complex social challenge, with additional baggage attached to it and we are not allowing normal pace of social change to take place. When ideas collide, name calling does not persuade the other side.

        • jhsun74 on 25/08/2017 - 15:20

          @yannyrjl:

          spot on!

        • jhsun74 on 25/08/2017 - 15:28
          -1

          @ripsnorter:

          I am tired YES camp go over and over and over again.. let's make it straight, there are three or four groups of people against SSM:

          1. Religious believers.. (no need to argue with this group)

          2. Parents afraid of Safe School program will be rolled out to all public school once SSM is passed (if u still do not know why this group of ppls are worrying, go back to google it, you should able to find plenty)

          3. Ppls simply believe same sex couples can do whatever they want in their life, definition of "Marriage" should be leave alone for b/w a man and a woman. Maybe same sex couple can be "Xarriaged"?

          4. ppls just dont like YES camp keep abusing and name calling anyone held different view than theirs.. regardless whether their belief is for or against.. they will vote NO to give YES camp a lesson. (keep in mind, SSM will be passed one day, when YES camp are not push something over these people throats, force them to accept it).

          got it?

        • shaiguy on 25/08/2017 - 17:01
          +2

          @yannyrjl:

          There are a number of issues with civil unions: http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/12-civil-unio…

          In terms of people having certain cultural or religious beliefs that is fine. In saying that if you are referring to the Abrahamic religions then would you not say that the definition of marriage has been challenged and evolved over time? previously men were allowed to have multiple wives, young girls as wives, etc. are these still right and acceptable?

          I have read quite a few arguments for and against from senior Christian ministers and one argument that was raised was that we do live in a secular society. Marriage and society as a whole has been defined and evolved through cultural change and (non-acceptance). Even Martin Luther viewed marriage as a "worldly thing" which reflected the changed role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passing to the state.

          In terms of your example, in the current society and context I would say the text is homophobic rather than the person. Similarly, in the bible it says that wives should submit and obey their husband which many would consider sexist in current society. In the first case it is written by a heterosexual person and in the second example it is written by a man - so I would also suggest that there is bias there. What is acceptable and not acceptable has evolved throughout time both in religion and the greater society.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 17:14

          @shaiguy: I agree with you that the notion has been challenged in the past, but the difference is over a much longer period of time. Social change is a slow process and ideas need time to be pitted against other ideas, and usually being demonstrated as beneficial to society.

          In terms of Abrahamic religions, polygamy obviously is still accepted in parts. I suppose the idea is (with some merit), some women would rather co-share a good man, than be exclusive with a bad one. You hear the saying "where are all the good men gone" right? This notion aside, I believe polygamy works the other way as well, rare but there were still cases historically surrounding powerful women.

          Personally I think the government should get out of the business of marriage all together. How people group together and arrange their relationships shouldn't require external forces or influences.

      • ThithLord on 25/08/2017 - 07:50
        +5

        Christ, JV - at least people who agree with marriage equality can defend and refute their position.

      • pinkfour on 25/08/2017 - 22:16
        +1

        Can you please explain why people marriage have to between only male and female @jv?

    • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2017 - 22:48
      +10

      Can I honestly ask, do you really believe shaming people works? I wouldn't doubt that many are voting no when they would be fine with gay couples marrying simply because they don't support the bullying or how people are demanding the right to change a tradition.

      Simply shaming someone just makes this worse and makes me believe a yes vote will bring upon more bullying for those who have differing opinions. Feels like I'm almost voting to support bigotry in all honesty.

      To back this further, the yes vote has no real world power beyond acting as a survey. In other words, my yes vote would be used for nothing more than a "f*** you" to those against gay marriage in parliment. They have a differing opinion, they don't deserve a f*** you.

      • mooney on 25/08/2017 - 02:58
        +5

        Or it demonstrates just how important this topic is to many people. Try reading the comments through a lens of passion/ desperation and you'll soon realise some of it is driven by fear that this vote is going to continue to exclude an element of our population of equal rights.

        If you're ambivalent then just voting yes will make some peoples lives better. And zero people's worse.

    • GourmetFoodie on 25/08/2017 - 00:04
      +7

      Well said. The amount of closeted homophobia out there has truly shocked me. Love is love. Why are some people so intent on putting negativity and hate into the worlds' of ordinary Australians just trying to have access to equal rights? Do not get why some people are so bothered by the idea of two people who love each other being married!

      • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 01:20
        +2

        or 3 or 4 or siblings, quite astonishing indeed.

  • Tuba on 24/08/2017 - 22:12
    +5

    Ill never understand why anyone wants to get MARRIED. Its a religious contract, of ownership. Ive been in the same m/f relationship for 29 years, never married.

    I reckon all people should start to want something different to marriage. Dont confuse relationship, commitment, with marriage. The union known as 'marriage" has its roots about the 1300's, the origins of the words revolve around motherhood, or the state of motherhood and its a religious arrangement.

    • KnownSystemError on 24/08/2017 - 22:15
      +33

      Marriage is no longer just a religious act. I am not religious but am married. Why shouldn't all couples be allowed this opportunity.

      • Tuba on 24/08/2017 - 22:22
        +2

        Psst, where did I say youre not entitled? And if you read, youll see youre already entitled to my view of and respect for marriage anyway.

        Regardless of what you say marriage is now, it isnt. Its what the state now says it is, and that is something people are trying to change.

        Marriage is what I just told you it is. You can argue as many will until the cows come home, and youll be wrong. Prior to the 1300s, there was no such thing as marriage. The church created it, its a religious activity. And the religion that created it in an English sense says homosexuality is not kosher. Again, do not confuse relationship or some form of wedlock, with marriage. Marriage is a 14th century religious construct.

        Im stating facts, I personally do not value marriage. So I dont care what the outcome is.

    • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:16
      +1

      Its a religious contract

      not all marriages are religious… ask Greg Evans…

      • Tuba on 24/08/2017 - 22:30
        +2

        You need to look at the law, its currently a union of a man and a woman, as the the bible says it should be. The fact it can be performed outside a church does not change the fact.

        otherwise, why is there even a question?

        • ONEMariachi on 24/08/2017 - 23:55
          +8

          The bible also says I should stone you for wearing two different cloths. I don't think it is the best place for us to be getting our instructions from.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 01:28

          @ONEMariachi: yes, but do you realise in the bible the part forbiding same sex relations also forbids incest and beastiality. Leviticus 18

          And I can argue incest is between two consenting adults who clearly love each other, given there are blood relations which is another form of bond.

        • ThithLord on 25/08/2017 - 07:52
          +3

          What the? Do you even have any idea of what you are talking about? Marriage as a cotnract has been around long before the Church's used it to indoctrinate people.

        • yannyrjl on 25/08/2017 - 15:19

          @ThithLord: and polygamy has being commonly accepted for even longer, what's your point?

        • ThithLord on 25/08/2017 - 15:22

          @yannyrjl: My point was in the comment you replied to - replying to:

          its currently a union of a man and a woman, as the the bible says it should be

        • Tuba on 25/08/2017 - 20:43
          -1

          @ThithLord: Yeah, my parents were married. Do you really think Im unaware of the idea of weddings? But youre wrong anyway as you missed the point. Weddings might have existed, but MARRIAGE is a religious construct that was never heard said before the 14th century. Wiki the history of MARRIAGE and you will see, the word first appears around the 14th century when the Catholic Church decided that to be truly wed, one must be MARRIED, not just wed. To be married, the event must take place in a sacred place, with an ordained priest, to be performed in gods presence. They invented the word, and the way said thing is to be performed. That is MARRIAGE. We misuse the word in ordinary language to assume its interchangeable with wedding. But its not, and its rightful owners are claiming it back. And yes, that means technically, all those park weddings, registry weddings, those non religious celebrant performed weddings, are not marriages either. This was a sore point when these types of weddings became popular too, many families understood the lack of proper marriage, meant the children would be bastards.

          Weddings are one thing. MARRIAGE is a sacrament or covenant with Christian religion.

          @ONEMariachi: Nothing I said has anything to do with belief in biblical teachings. Im not religious, I dont believe in god, I dont care about religion. Im simply telling you that MARRIAGE, was created by the church. They own it, and can dictate who qualifies and who does not. If youre not lazy, I should not need to explain WHY the church owns the construct of MARRIAGE again.

          As we are a somewhat religious society, in the past, we continued that which the absolute monarchs had accepted into the lives of their subjects. Its called history.

    • rukia on 24/08/2017 - 22:19
      +14

      It's no longer owned by religion, a majority of marriages in Australia are civil marriages. That's what the upcoming postal survey is about. If a church wishes to perform a religious marriage they can but they are not forced to.

      The way i see it, is if you vote no in the upcoming survey then you are spitting in the face of any gay friends/family members you have. You are saying that the relationship between them and their same sex partner is lesser than that of a different sex couple.

      • Tuba on 24/08/2017 - 22:24
        +2

        Read mate. Youre stuck in the mantra, and forgetting to read. I DO NOT VALUE 'MARRIAGE' AT ALL.

  • Moderatorneil on 24/08/2017 - 22:14

    Just a reminder. Discussion is fine but let's be respectful of others.

    Commenting Guidelines

  • Forenti on 24/08/2017 - 22:19
    +29

    You don't have to agree with same-sex marriage, but that is no valid reason to neg the deal. Call it 'targeted' if you want but at the end of the day it's 5,000 free t-shirts to do with as you please.

  • qwerty on 24/08/2017 - 22:21

    What is drawn on the shirt ?

    Cupcakes? Dragon fruit ?

  • Quantico on 24/08/2017 - 22:24
    +44

    A small amount of power, such as this vote, really pulls the worms out of the woodwork.

    You can tell the people who have no control over their own lives; just like conspiracy theories, they latch onto whatever gives them a small piece of power to make others miserable, and clutch it like an opiate.

    It's fine to have an opinion, but OzBargain is not the place to vent your closeted frustrations. Allow this company to express their marketing strategy, and don't show your forked tongue so easily.

    Kind of had respect for people like JV, but regardless of opinion one way or the other, the vocalise it like spitting poison, it's really quite weak of you.

    • jv on 24/08/2017 - 22:27
      +5

      the vocalise it like spitting poison, it's really quite weak of you.

      what are you on about ???

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join