• 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

    • +3

      partly nature, partly nurture, I think.

      It's like the trans community, their kids seems to have an abnormally high rate of also being trans.

      It would be interesting to see if gay parents tend to have gay children (as the children would be adopted, it should have no higher incidence than the general population). This way we can determine and validate the born this way argument is

      • +3

        "children raised by same-sex parents appear no more likely to describe themselves as conclusively lesbian, gay or otherwise homosexual."
        https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/same-sex-parented-fami…

        • interesting, although this is based on self reporting, and involved kids as young as ? "500 children aged 0-17 years" I'm not sure if a 0 year old can self identify anything.

        • @yannyrjl: That is not an accurate interpretation of the paper. The paper refers to numerous studies, with reports from both parents and children.

        • @yannyrjl: Well where the hell did you pull "[transgender parents] kids seem to have an abnormally high rate of also being trans". Complete poppycock.

        • @ThithLord: merely anecdotal, unfortunately the whole trans movement is fairly recent so not much studies have been done

        • @jason_ruz: yes you are right, i stand corrected, then I suppose the question is how would parents identify their child as gay or straight at the age of 0?

  • +5

    Now imagine if this was about blacks and not gays.

    • +2

      blacks were always allowed to get married to other blacks

      i presume you mean inter-racial

  • +11

    Reading some of these comments is infuriating. Not just because of discriminatory or inaccurate statements being made, but because some people have no idea how to argue. If you make a statement, and that statement is questioned, you should be able to back it up with reasons, and if required, facts.

    You can't say you believe something just because you believe it and expect anyone to be won over by that. And if you're not willing to do that then you have nothing to add to the discussion, you're simply fanning the flames by continuing to comment.

    • +4

      jv: wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

  • +2

    Where were these people saying no when Kim k or Britney marry shows like marriage at first sight made mockery of marriage? But two people of samesex who love each other can't marry.

    • +2

      But two people of samesex who love each other can't marry.

      They can marry, but it needs to be to someone of the opposite sex…

      • +2

        Why it "needs" to be? How if I marry the guy I love change your life? Also what you dont like with the same sex marriage?

      • jv is technically correct on that. love is not a precondition to marriage by law. That's why it's stupid that the law even controls Marriage because it's legal meaning is totally different to the common one.

        • +1

          I think government should get out of the business of marriage all together, since they suck at almost everything, they will screw things up regardless as well

  • +2

    Even if I ideologically opposed gay marriage (I dont), I'd vote yes PURELY to get it over and done with, rather than put up hearing about it inevitably in the future.

    • +5

      too bad, this stupid vote carries no weight so the argument will keep going on either way.

      • +2

        Not so much of an argument if you read the replies here. It boils down to:

        1. An ancient religious text told me so
        2. Gays are icky

        Too bad those people will be on the wrong side of history.

        • +1

          I said argument, not logical discussion or debate.

        • I dont like this "wrong side of history" narrative either.

        • +2

          @meatgasm: SSM will win out eventually. Just like women's right to vote. Just like interracial marriage. Opposition to it is a losing battle and history books are not kind to the losers.

        • +1

          @phosphoresce: I dont disagree wit that sentiment, I just feel that the statement these days is loaded and mainly used to silence and shame people.

        • +1

          @meatgasm: well it is shameful to discriminate against other people and control their lives just because you don't like them, even though it has nothing to do with you.

        • +1

          @The Land of Smeg: Yeah. I agree. Thats why I'm likely going to be voting yes.

        • @meatgasm: I am not particularly concerned on how you are going to be voting comrade, I'm just saying that it IS a shameful act, that's all.

        • @The Land of Smeg: Im lost … whats a shameful act exactly?

        • +2

          @meatgasm: to discriminate for no justifiable reason.

        • +1

          @The Land of Smeg: Oh yeah. I agree. If you are prepared to hate/discriminate, you should be prepared to try to justify and defend it.

        • @meatgasm: History is written by the victor so I guess we'll have to wait and see. Then again I don't see massive casualties due to SSM

      • +1

        Even if it was 100% legalised today, another social outrage would come up. The politicians need something to distract the general public with, and SJW's need something to be outraged about.

  • +25

    I knew there was a reason I didn't like JV but I just couldn't put my finger in it. Now I know why

    • +1

      I've been on ozbargain for nearly 7 years and I'm not sure if JV is just taking the piss here.

      • you'd think so but I'm not so sure

  • +7

    What happened here?
    Every one has right to have their own opinion.

    My opinion is, this is a good post to get a free T Shirt. :)
    Have one and vote what ever you like. The T shirt talk about Love and not about LGBT.

    • +4

      true, shirt is about enrolling, and love, whatever you want that to mean.

    • Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But they shouldn't be surprised if they get called a bigot.

      Go through the supposed 'no' voters. Replace the word gay with "black" or "asian" or "women". It starts to look pretty sinister.

      • +1

        Or even try replacing it with "white".

      • +4

        name calling isn't right, just debate them with logic and reason, listen to their arguments and make counterpoints it will convince others to follow your way of thinking.

        Calling someone a bigot, would indicate you don't have any reasonable argument to back you up and unfortunately that does not change people's minds

  • +1

    The t-shirt looks a bit gay…

    • +1

      Jump in, honey, the water's fine! ;)

  • +3

    Majority disscuss and vote regarding minority problems. Good Democracy

  • +2

    HOW DARE YOU ALL HAVE AN OPINION??! WE LIVE IN A COMMUNIS…. I MEAN FREE COUNTRY FOR GOODNESS SAKE

    • You can have opinion but if you read comments see how bigotry and hurtful it is. Free speech is good but make sure our speech shouldn't hurt others

      • +4

        That means the speech it isnt free.

      • +1

        Australia don't really have free speech like the US.

        Also, the reason why we need free speech is for the controversial / unpopular topics, which otherwise gets censored (like women's suffrage, black civil rights movement, stolen generation discussion) all unpopular topics for their time.

        The popular opinions don't need any protection what so ever, don't you agree?

        Therefore, You can't pick and choose free speech vs hate speech to suit you

        • The US has free speech? You really must watch what you say over there… not that we are far behind that silliness but not as bad as the US just yet.
          We have the right to have an opinion, just respect the right for others to do do likewise.

        • +1

          @xywolap: they do in the sense you can't be punished by the law for saying stuff, as long as it doesn't incite directly violence, supreme court case Brandenburg V. Ohio (1969). However, you will still need to bear repercussions of criticism.

          In Australia however, the level of protection is weaker as we do not have a constitutional right to free speech.

        • @yannyrjl:
          Law specifics aside… if you dont watch your mouth over there you get put down very fast and maybe also sucking on the barrel of a gun. My source of this … from living there for years.

        • +1

          @xywolap: we are talking about the laws here, crime is a complete different thing all together, and then we go from the first to the second amendment

        • @yannyrjl:
          We are talking about free speech and i repeat… "not law specifics"…
          I know for a fact that over there you just keep your mouth shut and have no opinion, especially if you are as they call it an "alien". The land of the free it is not.
          No one mentioned crime.

        • @xywolap: well you can't really discussion free speech without reference to the first amendment, as it's the part that allows people to say sometimes very hateful things without direct lawful repercussions.

          You mentioned "put down very fast and maybe also suckcing on the barrel of a gun" so I presume you meant threatened with violence, which I drew the conclusion its about crime as it's a criminal offense. I may have miss understood what you are saying.

          As for "alien" I presume the context is "illegal alien" i.e. Illegal immigrants, in that case they would receive lesser protection given they broke the law to be there.

        • @yannyrjl:
          No… this is what i mean…
          Ignore US "law" specifics and fine points and much quoted and meaningless amendments and other BS.. OK.
          What I am saying is that people over there are far more touchy/sensitive and are more likely to react in a more violent way than here.
          I can not make it any more simpler than that..

    • Everyone body in the country love Lenon/Mao/Kim/Castro/Chaves/Maduro etc. (because those who don't are dead)

    • Your free to speak and I'm free to call you a biggot if I feel your being one. If you get offended well that's your problem isn't it?

      • Why would I get called a bigot if I support gay marriage? Doesn't make sense

        • Then I'll use my freedom of speech to say "thanks for supporting gay marriage"

  • +5

    It's a really cute tshirt. I have a feeling they'll run out by the time I feel ready to drag myself out of bed though. Pity.

    As for the politics of it all… I don't believe in marriage as an institution, but also it's not going to harm me if other people have legal recognition and the economic and legal rights that come with marriage.

    Given that marriage as an institution is so deeply embedded in our society it's highly unlikely that we are going to get rid of it soon.

    • It might harm your children and future generations, it's not only about the me society we live in, I heard in the news that somebody wanted to marry a bridge and another marrying themselves, it's crazy times ahead

      • +16
        1. I don't want children.
        2. I'm gay. (Edit: to spell it out, I don't believe same sex marriage or the existence and visibility of LGBTQ people is harmful to children.)
        3. I think it is incredibly disengenuous to equate two consenting adults requesting an affirmation of their relationship in the eyes of the state to somebody wanting to marry an inanimate object which cannot consent. Edit: or someone attempting to marry themself.
      • +2

        Hahaha that was a parody article.

      • +3

        "OH WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!1!"

        You are being wilfully ignorant if you say that marriage equality will equate to harm for children. I would love to see your reasoning, JV. Don't feed me "that's just my opinion"; actually put forth an argument.

      • Have to admit that I would like to marry myself, but in my defence, I'm me. How can I resist me.

    • it's not going to harm me if other people have legal recognition and the economic and legal rights

      They already have the exact same rights under law, a defacto or partner has the same rights as a married person.

      The only difference is that they can't legally marry.

      • +1

        Nope. Different rights. DeFacto isn't recognised federal wide or internationally for anything other than taxation purposes. Also, if a person dies in a DeFacto relationship and the will is contestable, the blood family gets priority over the DeFacto member. Those are just some of the many, many differences.

        • +1

          the blood family gets priority over the DeFacto member

          Incorrect, I've just been through this, a De Facto has the same rights as a married person: https://goo.gl/CuKvmA

          "All de facto couples have the same rights as married couples under the Family Law Act in relation to the distribution of property ".

        • +2

          @Scab: You're right. Looks like they even recognise it at the federal level now if proven in court but registration only carries on to the state. The relationship isn't recognised internationally though and it looks like the relationships only carry as far as family court.

          Plus there's the problem of having to go to court to prove a relationship. For example, if the partner dies and the blood family doesn't agree with the relationship then the partner is not considered next of kin unless it has been specifically spelled out in the will and the executor agrees to it. They then need to go to court to prove that their relationship was De Facto all while not being allowed to do anything with the body.

        • @GunnerMcDagget:

          For example, if the partner dies and the blood family doesn't agree with the relationship then the partner is not considered next of kin unless it has been specifically spelled out in the will and the executor agrees to it.

          It doesn't work like that, and even if there's a will they can be easily contested.

          Basically, under the law a de facto/domestic partner is more entitled than a child.

          They then need to go to court to prove that their relationship was De Facto all while not being allowed to do anything with the body.

          Not sure what you mean by "the body".

          And it's easy to prove that you're a de facto; photos, evidence from friends, neighbours, joint bank accounts, rental agreements and so on.

        • @Scab:

          "Basically, under the law a de facto/domestic partner is more entitled than a child."

          Not sure what you mean by that. He's a description of the next of kin issue.

          https://lawpath.com.au/blog/what-is-next-of-kin

          "Partners of same-sex relationships can be NoK. However a person in a same-sex relationship may have their wishes ignored by the family if their partner dies without leaving a will. Should this be the case, the partner must establish that a de facto relationship existed between them. This is important for the same-sex partner wishing to make decisions or organising funeral arrangements for their partner"

        • @GunnerMcDagget:

          Not sure what you mean by that.

          What I meant by that is what I posted, the de facto gets more of the estate when it's divided up than a child.

          De factos/domestic partners are treated no differently than a person in wedlock, regardless of their sexuality.

          And being legally married doesn't grant you more of an estate than an unmarried partner.

          Should this be the case, the partner must establish that a de facto relationship existed between them.

          That's not in dispute, of course other parties can challenge a relationship and it has to be proven, but as I stated, that's not difficult to do.

      • +2
        1. To my understanding of it, most of the rights are the same, however, in a few areas, there are additional barriers, such as the necessity of having to "prove" your relationship in certain circumstances.

        2. In the end, for me, it's about people being able to have a choice. A straight couple in a de facto relationship faces the same additional barriers that a gay couple would, however, the straight couple, as a general rule, can choose to marry or not to, and being married allows for the bypass of the aforementioned complications. Other barriers to marriage - such as cost, family, etc, would be similar regardless of the gender makeup of the participants in the relationship.

        3. Again, I do not believe that changing it will cause harm. To me, or other people. While there are issues about freedom of religion and being allowed to discriminate on religious grounds… They're related issues, but still separate.

        edited for formatting

  • +5

    Sad to see the vitriol being espoused on this post.

    Side note, $122 million cost to taxpayers because Turnbull lacked the spine to show leadership. When politicians can't even do the job that they're elected to do, which is VOTE on issues, rather than passing the buck. I can't wait for the high court challenge to be heard on 5th and 6th September, where we'll hopefully hear a ruling that this pathetic attempt to do anything but govern, is illegal. Then we can watch the life-force of this government being sucked out by the issue of same sex marriage rather than just bloody allowing conscience voting for same sex marriage, while hypocrites cry about being politically persecuted because they failed to do their proper due diligence, ie. checking if they have a freaking dual citizenship.

    • The dual citizenship fiasco is another bag of hot wind. They should just direct all members to sort out their matters, give them say 6 months to do so and if after that time any who are found to be braking the rule are dismissed. End of story.. on with the job.
      The media love this silly rot.

      • +1

        You don't understand what the constitution is do you?

    • Turnbull is doing what the liberal government was elected to do, are you happy for him to break any election promises he wishes or just the ones you agree with? And you think $122mil for society to have their say is a waste but are seemingly happy for this to be voted down in court with all money spent so far achieving absolutely nothing? Sorry but I find this all more than a tad hypocritical.

  • +9

    I am for gay marriage, cannot see it hurting anyone.
    That matter aside I find that wasting $120 million plus on getting the response to just ONE question from the population is crazy. Why not also include a few more hot topics that the people would like to have a say on?
    It would cost nothing to add them to this "opinion poll" and it would show what the citizens think and guide the politicians more accurately in forming decisions.
    Anyway… we all know it is a big waste of money and time which could be better used to address far more important matters. That is one thing we all agree on i am sure.
    Just do it…

    • +1

      The only reason I voted liberal was to get this vote, money all goes down the drain eventually lol

      • +2

        I could easily find far more worthy places to waste $120 million…
        Start with creating a few jobs, care for some suffering elderly or kids without parents..
        It's only money.. but does a lot more when put to a good use, not wasted through stupidity.

        • I agree but how do you know they would spend it on those things, I thought we were in debt anyway

      • +3

        Money going down the drain is the most counter thing you could say to the ozbargain spirit. This comment makes me sad.

        • Tomorrow you will find a bargain and all will be ok again .. :-)

    • +1

      given the amount of discussion on this thread, i'd say the debate is not settled, just let democracy do it's work

  • +1

    regardless of your feelings in this matter, please understand this is not a vote its a drive to get people to enrolee to vote in federal elections using this topic to blind those who wouldn't enrolee to vote under other circumstance's.

    its a scam people you have been warned but I guess paying the 55 $ fine for not voting in real elections will be the wake up call that you just had the wool pulled over your eyes.

    its just a way of keeping us monitored like sheep we walk blindly to the slaughter,

    stay alert people and read the fine print.

    • +3

      i like this theory/conspiracy

    • +1

      … so your point is, exercising the privilege to participate in process of picking a representative in parliament is a bad thing? You do realise that people have literally died for the right to vote.

      • I think he means that it could be targeted at those off the grid… who don't exercise their right to vote even though they are eligible. I think it's a fun theory, not likely, but fun.

        • sorry :( I'll put on the tin foil hat on and sit quietly in the corner while the adults talk :)

    • +4

      The liberal party risk getting young, unenrolled voters to back labor or greens? I think not.

    • @ Maximum Dag Unrule
      "but I guess paying the 55 $ fine for not voting"
      But you have just become a 7th day adventist and that fine was waived wasn't it? (wink wink)
      There goes that conspiracy theory. Time to invent another one..

    • +1

      choosing not to participate in democracy should also be a right, and is the democratic thing to allow

      • +4

        You want the benefits of a democracy but dont want to participate, is that it?

        • +2

          I don't advocate for it. Not the logical thing to do, as it reduced your chance to further your own interests. If a person don't care about their own or society's interest they do have that right, as long as they are not preventing others from exercising their right.

          Many democratic countries do not have mandatory voting in place

        • @yannyrjl:?? OK… that one made me dizzy LOL. What ya smokin bro?

        • +1

          @xywolap: hey, if it was my rule, everybody should vote, but not must vote

        • +1

          @yannyrjl: Optional and compulsory voting.. arguments for both sides there. Both have definite faults.

Login or Join to leave a comment