• expired

FREE T-Shirt to Those Enrolled to Vote from Gorman

29016

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.

Related Stores

Gorman Online
Gorman Online

closed Comments

      • +34

        I am saying you pounced on this topic with devout veracity. You appear to be extremely invested in this.

        If it's a soapbox you want, then wait for the vote, or debate this face to face with people who want to debate it, such as in the forums.

        Antagonising people here, which is what you are doing, is petty and small.

        This is not me telling you this, this is the universe shining a bright light on a very typical and loud example of soap-boxing, filled with all the colours of the fallacy rainbow.

        There's no justification for any of the rhetoric and noise you're making here for this topic. None.

        • +9

          I am saying you pounced on this topic with devout veracity.

          That's just your opinion.

          I'm just stating mine… Also, I did not start the conversation thread.

        • +12

          @jv:

          No, it is not just my opinion.

          At the time of writing this you had 14% of all comments in this thread.

          That is what I would call being committed to the cause.

        • +8

          @Quantico:

          At the time of writing this you had 14% of all comments in this thread.

          Is there a quota?

        • +18

          @jv:

          There is a moral quota, and a human decency quota, and you appear to have exceeded both.

          edit: At the risk of teaching you how to sound credible, please read up on your logical and argumentative fallacies

          It's not about not using them, it's about concealing them.

    • +16

      There's nothing quite like staring inevitable change in the eye and screeching "no!!!"

    • +3

      Make people miserable because they cant marry? Seriously, you have bigger problems if not being able to marry makes you miserable.

      If its any consolation, I highly doubt the survey will result in a 'no'.

    • In your first sentence you describe people that you disagree with as worms.

      You've been fooled by the mainstream media.
      The gay marriage vote in Australia will go the same way as brexit and trump.

      You won't understand because you've been brainwashed.

  • +2

    Vote for Pedro

  • i felt like checking the votes of most comments on here, and its like a hilarious tug of war, i feel like the 'no' voters are winning slightly.

    • +16

      This won't be reflected in the survey results! R.I.P. jv's last shred of dignity..

      • This is part of what I dislike about the vote… It's being used as a "f*** you, my opinions right!!" when in reality opinions on both sides are perfectly valid… It's literally, by definition, bigotry.

        You're finding pride in taking someone's dignity by corrupting their tradition and shaming them for a differing view, that's really toxic.

      • +1

        Huh? What dignity?

    • +13

      Feels like they're the only ones who have the time to care about it.

      This is why the plebiscite survey was designed. So it can fail.
      A nationwide decision that affects 2% of the population. And a larger part that believes the end result will be people marrying animals.

      There's no rules around what the government will accept as a win, it's not a simple 51% for a win. If there's even 70% in support,they can still say that's not enough.
      And if the magical number that they accept shows up, they take an in house vote and can still turn it down depending on that.

      Complete farse that further divides people, as we can see from the comments in here.

      • +1

        @ $140 million or whatever it is…

      • +4

        It's clearly been made a postal vote to skew towards a no vote. Older generations more likely to postal vote vs younger and more likely to vote No. if this was an online vote it'd be a landslide.

        I fear for the outcome because the dice are loaded.

        • +1

          If a young person can't break out of their comfort zone to post their vote they clearly don't care all that much about the issue.

        • results will be further split into gender, age groups and electoral zones.. will be very interesting to see whether you are correct..

        • +3

          @Xastros: On the face of your comment is true.

          However it is a worldwide phenomenon that young people are least active in voting and older generations the most reliable voters. That means any non mandatory vote on this topic is likely to be skewed towards our older population.

          Then the fact they have made it a postal vote, a out of date communication method for the under 30's, will likely exacerbate the unreliability of the youth vote.

          Finally, there is stacks of evidence that as people get older they become more conservative. So more inclined to vote No.

          All of these factors make me think NO will win this vote. I hope I am wrong but I expect results very similar to Brexit voting where 70% of under 35's voted to remain, but with a low turnout percentage. 60% of over 65's voted to exit and turned out in droves.

        • +1

          @jhsun74: I agree. I do hope for a yes vote personally but I am expecting a comfortable no. Let's see if I look like a (profanity) when the results come in! :)

        • @Xastros: that's so true

        • +1

          @mooney: True. These young people need to get off their lazy behinds and vote haha. Let's hope they surprise us.

  • +116

    I believe in the traditional biblical marriage: one man and his rib (Genesis 2:22-24); one man and his niece (Genesis 11:29); one man and his cousin (Genesis 24:15); one man and his aunt (Exodus 6:20); one man and only a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:13-21); one man and his dead wife's sister (Leviticus 18:18); one man and his dead brother's wife (Deuteronomy 25:5); one man and a woman received as payment for work (Genesis 28-30); one man and his sister (Genesis 20:12); one man and a slave (Exodus 21:7-11); one man and his virgin rape victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16); one man and many women (1 Chronicles 3:1-5, Genesis 4:19, and many more); one man and 700 women and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3); one man and many of his prisoners (Deuteronomy 21:11-13); one man and a surviving virgin after killing the non-virgins (Numbers 31:18); but not one man and one other man or one woman and one other woman - that would be totally immoral (except maybe Jonathan and David, 1 Samuel 18:21 and 20:30).

    There are 10 clear reasons to keep gay marriage illegal:
    1. Being gay is not natural. Real Australians always reject unnatural things, like spectacles, polyester and air conditioning.
    2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
    3. Legalising gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their pets, because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage certificate.
    4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and shouldn't be changed at all; women are still property, slave ownership is great, blacks still can't marry whites and divorce is still illegal.
    5. Straight marriage will be made less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55 hour just-for-fun marriage or the television show "Married at First Sight" would be destroyed.
    6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
    7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
    8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in Australia.
    9. Children can never succeed without a male and female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents from raising children.
    10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to the new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to aeroplanes, the Internet or clean drinking water.

    All that said, I will vote to allow horses to marry fridges if it gets me a free t-shirt.

    • +7

      Can't tell if this is parody or not

    • +5

      You see, intelligence is funny. Thanks for the laugh!

    • +2

      Thank you

    • +1

      Absolutely brilliant!

    • +1

      This is fantastic.

    • +4

      I so wish I could like this more than once

    • +3

      Username checks out

    • +2

      You sir, are awesome

    • Thanks for putting something together that actually had thought put in, let me just present some further discussion points. BTW I DO NOT advocate for all of these points but I can understand why there are people concerned:

      1. Being gay has always been historically recorded, so while less in instances it is not unnatural. However, the changes you mentioned had direct benefits to society, which makes them easier to adopt, while SSM is a topic that has no impact to the majority, so the push for change naturally would be slower
      2. but hanging around people who do good deeds tends to make you a better person and vice versa, it's a poor equivalency you put up regarding height
      3. Polygamy and Incest [both historically socially accepted in many parts of the world] can provide consent as well, so love is love, and what they do is their business. But I can understand some people on both sides are not comfortable with this idea
      4. Social change takes time, shaped by upbringing. As you can see, racial tensions still exists, as well as sexism
      5. I agree with you on this notion, I think society has reduced its promotion of traditional core family unit, I believe to its detriment. Single parenthood has a close correlation with poverty. So there are some who thinks this change to the definition will further deteriorate this core family unit concept
      6. Agree with you here as well, I don't really see people against the relation / union, just the name change seems to have people more concerned (as per point above)
      7. There are studies pointed out on these forum that seem to refute this, but mainly these are based on self-assessment. I there is argument that being gay is partly nature and partly nurture, so the notion is plausible. Unfortunately counter-evidence is fairly lacking
      8. Western values are rooted heavily in Judah Christian values and evolved over hundreds of years, it would be ignorant to think it can be changed in a short period of time by force
      9. Refer my point 5 around single parents
      10. No, but as already mentioned, social changes is in general slow and some (especially the elderly) may find it difficult to adapt (may say the wrong things which was perfectly accepted previous or cross an ever moving line) a perfect example is the current issue of the growing Pronouns in the Transgender community.
  • +11

    I am voting NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    • +4

      Go ahead but your vote will be invalid :)

    • +3

      Unluckily for you it isn't a vote, it's a survey.

      • semantics

      • +1

        Since you negged me, here's the definition of 'vote' :a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands.
        Yes, obvsly it's a servey but a choice between two options is still a vote. So yeah, semantics.

  • +1

    Good deal. That's one ugly t-shirt though.

  • wondering for those who vote yes , what if their future kids learn the same sex marriage, and ended up to be in same sex marriage, will you approve it?

    • +24

      Yes. Who wouldn't?

      • +3

        I don't know, MonkeyMan; Gandi raises a very irrelevant point.

    • +26

      Yes. If they are gay and want to be in a gay relationship then that's fine by me. What is the alternative? Disown your child and never speak to them again?

      • +10

        Unfortunately, this is a sad reality for many. Heartbreaking.

    • +19

      how does one learn to be gay?

      • +1

        I guess they must learn to see the funny side of things.

      • +4

        Watch PewDiePie videos

    • +3

      No, I'll disown them and never speak to them again. Of course I would. What sort of person wouldn't?!

      • +3

        Loving and caring parents won't ;)

      • A psycho called Jimmy?

    • +8

      Didn't realise you could access the internet in the 1950s

    • +1

      Abso-frickin-lutely

    • Nah, I'd kick them out on the street.
      Is that a serious question or not?

    • +3

      Yep. As a parent, all that matters to me is that my child is healthy and happy. If it came down to it, I'd much rather my son would be with an amazing man who treats him well than some woman who manipulates him and makes his life a misery!

    • +1

      Yes, of course. That's the whole point of it, isn't it?

      Despite that, I don't think parents are entitled to approve or disapprove their kids marriage.
      Your kids are not your property, they are free humans with a free will and have their own rights.

    • Absolutely would approve. Yes I do have a daughter and I am a straight man.

  • +3

    Amazon

    Price jacking

    Cheaper else where

    Not the Australian version

  • Is verified enrolment details just the "Check my enrolment" page?

  • +10

    I really dont care what gay people do to themselves.
    But they already have the same rights.
    Redefining marriage is about sticking the boot into enemies, not gaining rights.

    That´s why I´m voting NO.

    • +5

      Ok, wrong, so why don't you go and do some research and come back here when you're ready.

      • +5

        I see you've made the "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid" argument.

        Let's see how good your research skills are and go ahead and disprove the following facts:
        Gays have higher rates of STDs
        Gays have higher rates of mental illness (even in the most tolerant nations)
        Gays have higher rates of domestic violence (lesbians are second, but still more than straights)

        • +6

          Thought you were talking about their rights, not random statistics. I'm sure I could find shitty stats on straight people too for random stuff. Selection bias.

        • +1

          Actually the violence rate in lesbian relationships is about double compared to straight and gay ones:

          https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/intimate-partner-viole…

        • +4

          Nah, his statements were literally wrong. LGBT+ people don't have the same rights. If they did, they could get married, obviously

        • +1

          Im struggling to see the relevance here

        • +5

          Gays have higher rates of mental illness (even in the most tolerant nations)

          I would probably get mental illness if I was gay and was reading all of the comments in this deal.

    • +8

      Sticking the boot in how? How does someone else's ability to get married affect anyone else? who are the enemies exactly?

      • +3

        Now who is being dishonest and selective?

        He is 100% right. Gay people have already the same rights, its just the act of a MARRIAGE that they do not have. Gay people can have a celebrant perform a ceremony, say the words or any words, sign papers, do the ceremony, have the party. They could start their own church and have that type too if they like.

        This is all about reacting to organised Christian religion, which has stuck strictly to the abomination line. MARRIAGE is like a christening, or any other religious adventure.

        It effects them, because they believe MARRIAGE, is between one man and one woman. Allowing MARRIAGE of a different kind, lessens what MARRIAGE is, including their own. Its not rocket science. Truth is, those that do not grasp the importance of that stance, do not value marriage, and prove his point. Its about, "because they said I cant, I want it" Yes yes, his view of marriage, not your view of marriage. Let everyone have their own view of marriage. Again, no value on marriage. Its just a thing that can be whatever. As opposed to it being a specific thing, socially acceptable and possessing uniformity.

        @ajee, why dont you tell him why he is wrong. No, you cant can you? All you can do is spout mantra about rights and equality which has no bearing on anything he actually said.

        • +3

          I wasn't telling anyone anything, I was asking questions. How about this; a gay couple, been together for years and years and share everything, one of them falls ill and ends up in hospital, the partner may not be able to make decisions on what happens to their partner, if they die may not be able to make decisions on internment, have trouble with assets if there is no will especially if the family of the ill/dead person have contrary views.

        • +8

          Same-sex couples and families are denied basic financial and work-related entitlements which opposite-sex couples and their families take for granted.

          Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner.

          Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets.

          Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples.

          The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner.

          The same-sex partner of a defence force veteran is denied a range of pensions and concessions available to an opposite-sex partner.

          Older same-sex couples will generally pay more than opposite-sex couples when entering aged care facilities.

          This is just a small sample of the discrimination caused by the many federal financial and work-related laws which exclude same-sex couples and their children.

          Source: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-same-en…

        • +1

          @dazweeja: So change those things. Same would apply to defactos, and where inconsistent, make it consistent.

          The church does not own those constructs. It does own marriage.

        • +1

          @dazweeja:

          This is just a small sample of the discrimination caused by the many federal financial and work-related laws which exclude same-sex couples and their children.

          How do same sex couples have children?

        • +9

          @Tuba:

          We are not talking about Christian marriage, what some call Holy Matrimony. We are talking about the legal construct of marriage as defined in our laws. It seems very strange that you think that the church owns marriage, people have been having civil ceremonies for decades. That ship sailed long ago.

          And which "church" are you talking about? If a Muslim gets married in Indonesia, is that the same "church"? Or don't you consider them married?

        • +4

          At some point don't we have to say that peoples religious beliefs are fine, but you can't force them onto other people?

          A religion can have whatever definition it like for 'Marriage ' and can have a priest perform a ceremony, say the words or any words, sign papers, do the ceremony, have the party etc and the country you live in can recognise that union legally. You might not approve or let Gay people get Married within your church system - but I don't see why that should apply to the country as a whole. I mean do Christians own the idea of marriage? Did it not occur before in other forms in other religions?. What about other religions and their beliefs about marriage do they then apply to everyone … ie Nikah Polygyny etc.

          So the argument of one religion or another about how people outside that religion should live holds little water I think - you could call it a separation of Church and State. I could be convinced if there was a economic or societal reason. Economically I can only see benefits and as far as Australian society goes but lets face it marriage itself makes no difference if people are gay or not and they will exist in society anyway. I'd rather we all just get along and focus our energy on the real enemy - New Zealanders.

        • +2

          Nice copypaste but most of those issues have already been changed in law years ago.

          The fact is that the left has always been opposed to the institution of marriage, and this push for gay marriage is a lie designed to trash traditions out of spite.

        • @dazweeja: Ive said this a hundred times. MARRIAGE did not exist before 1300. The church created it. Dont argue with me, look it up.

          Do not confuse marriage, with unions, relationships or commitment. MARRIAGE is religious. It was born of religion, canon law. People are claiming its changed, but it hasnt. Or we wouldnt be asking this question re: pesky little man and woman thing which stems from the bible too.

          You have a non religious union, civil unions. These are not marriages. Yes yes, I know, people have been doing it for years in registry offices and parks etc, and the church let it go. But now, they arent. These were not looked on favourably either at the time. Many parents objected when their progeny choose non church weddings.

          Ill break it down a little.
          Canon Law is all the law there was. Canon law is church law.
          Marriage comes into existence in the 1300s, when the world was run by the CHURCH, the catholic church, the POPE etc. Look it up.
          Marriage as a word has roots, not biblical, but etymologically. Those roots revolve around man and woman, and the state of motherhood. Its all tied to procreation. Thats the words roots.

          I dont care if you like it. Its fact.

          Gay people have no rightful claim to marriage. They have rights to equality under the law for sure. But marriage, belongs to the church. Unions, civil unions, celebrants, these are made of the modern legal system, with not so much connection to the church.

          Last time Ill say it. Im not amrried, never have been, never will. 29 years same relationship. I place no value on marriage. Itds an archaic religious institution, about men owning women. I dont understand why anyone wants it.

          Ill say this once more. Want equality, get people to move away from marriage, and instead adopt civil unions as the preferred option for legal commitment.

        • +2

          @nimaeryk:

          I'm really not sure where you got that idea. My motivation and that of my friends is that a group of people who have traditionally been treated like second-class citizens will feel like equal members of our society in every respect. It's based on love. It's the opposite motivation to spite and that you think that is what is driving this change is really quite sad.

        • @Elijha: You still dont get it. The Catholic church, the POPE, the gay is an abomination king, INVENTED marriage.

          Youre assumign marriage is some thing that always existed, cavement did it? No, they may have celebrated a union, or a commitment. But they did not MARRY.

          Marry is being used like Coke is to Cola. No, Coke is Coke. The others are Cola. Marriage is the churches, the other names for it belong to whoever.

          Separation of Church and state is often misunderstood. All it means is the state will not mandate the nations religion. ie: you can not be forced to be Catholic, or Protestant. I suggest you look up Henry VIII, and his daughters Mary (Bloody Mary) and Elizabeth to grasp what the separation of church and state is about. A hint, many people were executed because they were the wrong religion. Follow it up with the English revolutions of the mid 17th century, and the importation of Mary and William of Orange and the creation of the current constitutional monarch with very limited power, who must be Protestant. This is the crux of the separation of church and state.

        • +1

          @Tuba: I'd be keen to learn more of this Pope inventing marriage - citation?. Also you don't have to take my point to the absurd point of cavemen. There was a lot of civilisation between 'cave men' and Christianity (I'm really not up on religious stuff but doesn't one of the Christian faiths deny cave men / prehistory anyway?).

        • @Tuba:

          That makes no sense. The word marriage is derived from the Latin marito (“to marry”, literally “give in marriage”). People have been getting married for thousands of years. Romans got married. Greeks got married. Hell even Abraham in the Old Testament married two wives.

          Marriage is mentioned throughout the bible but of course they used the Aramaic or Greek word, e.g. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+13%3A4

        • @Elijha: Absurd point nothing. Whether caveman, or Native Americans, or Aboriginals living in cohabiting arrangements… the idea of a commitment, a union for convenience, survival or procreation, is not new and does not belong to anyone. But Marriage is something else, based in that maybe, but distinct.

          Google marriage history, its not hard. Youll find its history starts in the 1300s, and tied to the church, and the requirement of a priest, and a sacred space. Marriage is intrinsically tied to religion. before there is no such thing as MARRIAGE.

          Society has adopted that concept as until recently its been fairly willing to be religious even if superficially. So sadly for those effected, there are some remnants of ye olde fire and brimstone.

          The rules of MARRIAGE do not, and should not change. We should, and piss MARRIAGE right off. Its an archaic religious construct about mans ownership of women. Its ugly.

          Not everyone opposed to changes to MARRIAGE, are opposed for the usual anti gay or pro MARRIAGE reasoning.

        • @dazweeja: Its not that simple. Theres French matrimony in it too, and that revolves mostly around the state of motherhood. The Latin root is not the definitive argument, its just the basis of the old English word which was coined by?? …the Church. You have to consider the history of the Normans, and where they come from (today its basically France). They were the rulers of England at the time so ignoring the French origins is wrong.

          Of course people have joined since time began …probably. Again though, people keep confusing unions, joining, relationships, commitment, call it whatever you like, but its not MARRIAGE. Im aware civil celebrants, parks, registry offices. But these are technically not marriages either. As was the fear at the time when they started to become popular. Many families refused to recongise a non church wedding. The church let it slide, its become acceptable although still controversial to some families. This particular battle, the church arnet letting it slide, and wont as the bible says bad things about homosexuality. Recognising gay marriage, is tantamount to saying the bible is bunkum.

          And they are right, its their concept. Like I said, I dont know why we are hung up on it like its a human right. Its like baptism, not necessarily anyones right without meeitng the particular conditions of the baptising body. But beats me how something thats based in ownership of a human being, is being touted as a human right to be obtained. Are people aware MARRIAGE gave men the LEGAL right to beat their wives? There were guidelines about how fat the stick you beat her with should be, no thicker than the thumb IIRC. Seriously, MARRIAGE is a twisted notion.

          Marriage law needs to go, not change. Church MARRIAGE can be legally recognised, like many international marriages are recognised under the treaty on recongition of marriages. As will Jedi, gay or defacto weddings.

        • @Elijha: I missed the contradiction bit earlier. What, youre suggesting theres contradiction in religion… Yeah, Im not in the slightest religious either. Theres no god, no power, no afterlife. This is it, when done, its over. In fact, its pretty much as if the universe didnt exist until I was born, and it ceases the day I die, as if it never existed at all so I suggest you enjoy it while Im here. And this is so for each of us.

          Now theres a contradiction I can get behind.

        • +1

          Why should Christian beliefs be vested in the laws of a country. Like you said everyone has their own view on marriage. Christians can be free to only marry heterosexual couples while others who are not Christians can choose to marry whoever they want. I fail to see how a non-Christian same sex couple getting married is hurting a Christian?

          The question is why should a Christian's view on marriage be enshrined in law and everyone else's view disregarded. Should we allow a radical Muslim to legalise stoning women who have sex before marriage? Religious beliefs are your own and I have absolutely nothing against that but your religion should not take precedence over that of other people's beliefs. You are free to act in accordance with your beliefs. Don't deny others the right to do the same. Your beliefs are not more important than someone else's.

          If someone came into your church and demanded you only be allowed to marry someone the same sex as you, how would you feel?

        • @Xastros: So many things in your posts show you do not grasp what Ive said, and try to push your square peg into the round hole and rely on the usual arguments. Im not Christian. I dont believe in god or any other fairy tales at all. I have no church, and couldnt care less what the church does or wants.

          But to your question re religion in law. Why should they? Well Im not saying they should be, Im saying they are. Youre asking questions as if Im telling you its a Christian country, so live with it. Im not saying that at all. The reason they are part of the laws of Australia is because most laws of Australia come from England. We inherited that system of laws and governance (the Westminster System) when they colonised Australia, and we never really changed it. Its been altered a little, some laws are new, some have moved on, others overturned, some are now divergent from extensions or restrictions of common law in England. We are distinct, but our legal systems roots, and a large chunk of our laws, are English in origin. MARRIAGE is not one of the new ones. Those laws developed with much input from the Catholic Church, later the Church of England. Most laws in Australia relate to the 10 Commandments. Our history is a religious history. Where did you think the limitation on marriage to a man and a woman came from?

          Like or it not, our laws are Christian in origin. No, that does not mean we need to allow any other religion to enact its favourite laws. We, are a Christian society. Im not Christian, but my society is. Our laws developed from priests hearing and judging pleas, that was guided by the Pope, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a monarch that claimed divine right to rule, chosen by the Christian god.

          Thats why. How can people not know this?

          I get the idea that a wedding is a matter for the individuals, and I agree with that. But MARRIAGE, is a religious construct. Note, MARRIAGE, not wedding. The word was invented, by the Catholics, in the 14th century. They mandated a sacred place, with a sanctioned priest, in the presence of god (sacred place), the joining of one man, and one woman.

          Marriage, is like Coke. Youre using it like Cola. No, thats a wedding. Marriage, belongs to the Catholic, and Christian church. I cant help it if people do not understand MARRIAGE was invented in the 14th century, because they think that people married earlier. No, they wed, or some other such socially acknowledged union, but the CHURCH invented the sacred union, and called it MARRIAGE. It involves being wed, in a sacred place, with a priest, before god. Anything else, is a wedding, not MARRIAGE. Yes I know, but people use the word all the time. They also say spring onion, when they mean eschallot (sp?).

          The crux, is people have been using 'marriage' as a general term for being wed, and that is wrong.

      • +1

        "And I agree it’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. So uh that – that causes my brain some trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — you know, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

        The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. Uh, and again, I don’t think it should exist. "

        • Masha Gessen, Lesbian activist, speaking at the 2012 Sydney Writers Festival
        • My head hurts!

        • Smart lady… plus for you

  • +33

    It's so disappointing reading some of these comments.

    Is Australia so fearful of being progressive or accepting change?

    We take no pride in becoming a Republic and are happy to have a foreigner as our head of state.

    We won't allow same-sex couples to have the same rights (and opportunities) as heterosexual couples.

    If two people love one another, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married, have or adopt children, regardless of what gender they are.

    So what if it only affects a small percentage of the population, shouldn't we strive for equality?

    It sad that some are stuck on old-fashioned, traditional values. Move with the times. Other countries have.

    At the end of the day, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but if you've got nothing nice to say, please consider saying nothing at all rather than spreading hate. If you're not interested in the free shirt, move on to another deal.

    • +7

      If 2 why not 3 or 4 ?

      It sad that some are stuck on old-fashioned, traditional values. Move with the times. Other countries have.

    • +9

      Is Australia so fearful of being progressive or accepting change?

      Nothing to do with progress.

      Nothing to do with change.

      Everything to do with believing marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

      • +11

        Why should it only be between man and a woman? Any logical reason apart from "that's the way it has always been"?

        • +3

          Why should it only be between man and a woman?

          Because that is what I believe.

        • +8

          @jv: That doesn't answer the question

        • +1

          @Covfefe:

          That doesn't answer the question

          It sure did.

        • +2

          Because 'people' didnt create marriage, the church did in the 14th century. Look it up mate its not hard. If Abrahamis or specifically Christian religion made marriage, then it will reflect the words of a union between a man and owman, as its designed for the purposes of procreation.

          Marriage, is a word. That word has roots, and those rroots talk of man and woman, not just anyone. And specifically motherhood. These are concepts contained within the words roots and are intrinsically tied to the concept of MARRIAGE.

          You wanted logical reasons. You got them. You may not like them, but there they are.

          You need to consider history of all law. English law comes from Canon Law, Canon law is law made by the church. Like it or not, MARRIAGE, is tied to religion. If we want to create equality, we need a new form of union.

          If people (straight and gay) want to support gay marriage, try saying stuff marriage, and start undertaking a new type of union.

Login or Join to leave a comment