Support NeoGAF

[Chmpocalypse]

Cheers mate, i'd like to think so.....

Because i don't believe a union between a Man and a Woman should be altered and the principles changed, just because, of a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.
As well as instantly targeting the youth to push agendas and/or sway public opinion.
It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

Sorry, if my post upsets anyone. Just my View and Opinion on where i stand
.

Equal rights are not a fucking fad. Your views are bigoted garbage.

 

[the_darkness]

A resounding yes vote takes the breath away from opposers and gives the Libs (who have the more conservative base) the confidence to push through with the right legislation.

I actually think this way would be less of a shit fight.

If they'd just passed the damn legislation we wouldn't have had to put up with the "No" campaign's pathetic and harmful rhetoric over the past month.

 

[seanoff]

Whether or not Tony Abbott and is hypocritical friends on the far right of the liberal party vote for it in parliament it wont matter. There are a large group of libs who either outright support gay marriage or will not attempt to vote against the will of the people.

They see it not just as a mandate but a clear will of the people. There is a genuine fear that ignoring that will be extremely counterproductive. They are getting a response that goes far beyond the expectations and the vote will be overwhelmingly for the yes side.

 

[toddhunter]

Sheesh, for all the talk about about the Liberals "respecting" a yes vote, I ask, would you respect a no vote?

Be honest, even if it means your answer makes you a hypocrite.

I would respect a no vote if there was a proper reason given for it.

The only legit reason I can see for voting no is "I believe being gay is wrong and don't want to see gay people acknowledged as being equal".
This is of course in my mind a completely awful opinion, but if people feel this way because of their religion or upbringing or just general ignorance then I can at least understand it and hope they change their mind over time.

Stating that "the marriage act can't be changed?" That is demonstrably wrong. It has been changed many times over the years.

Stating that "somebody somewhere that I will never meet said something that hurt my feelings so I am voting no" is just absurd and being dishonest.

Stating that "Equality is just a fad, lol liberals" is just being an internet warrior. Nobody needs to respect that lunacy if you are just being contrarian to earn interweb level up points.

Stating that it is "a free speech issue" is not understanding what free speech is. You need to stop reading American reddit posts and realise that everyone in Australia can and will say whatever they want at any time, and we don't even have freedom of speech. After the marriage law changes (again), you will still be free to say whatever you want, and everyone will still be free to consider you a nob for saying it.

Saying that it is "against religious freedom" is ignoring the fact that historically marriage has had little to do with religion. You might instead mean "My church says being gay is wrong so if all of society is saying otherwise my religion starts to look strange and hmm, people will start to leave my religion and then my religion will start to look like a bit of a joke but I can't change religions now because nobody will take me seriously so damn this is all too hard I think I need to vote no just to help preserve my religion" then yes, this makes sense as an argument. You might then question why you need to fight with laws to preserve a religion under the false name of "freedom". The truth is, you will still be free to explore your religion after the law is changed. Luckily religions too are quite fluid in what is and isn't permissible, so they will likely adapt.

So by all means state your good reason for voting no if you have one. I doubt that you do. Ok maybe if you are in a right leaning party politician and have to appeal to religious fundamentalists and hard line right wingers so you can stop people defecting to minor parties and cling onto power... that is also apparently a good reason.

If that doesn't convince you, with any social issue like this, I have a simple test. If you have a daughter who is gay and tells you that she wants to be married to her partner with your blessing, do you look her in the eye and say:
"yes, I love and support you"
Or
"No, I think it is wrong and I'm going to stop that from happening".

If you answer the first way, obviously vote yes.
If you can honestly answer it would be the second one, vote no. But I would think long and hard about what sort of person you are and the reasons you would say that to your own child. Would you say "no" just because you are angry you lost at PUBG and felt better when you trolled with some other guys on a right wing facebook page? Maybe that isn't a real reason. Alternatively is what you are told in your religion more important than what your child in front of you needs? That is a personal question to answer, but again gets back to being honest about why you have a problem with gay people. Remember as well with this option you are not just stating your opinion, you are literally stopping the marriage from happening. You might say "well I would tell sorry because it is my religion and she would understand." She might, but in the real world she would still get married anyway. What you are doing with a no vote is going way beyond that.
If you can't answer that question, don't vote until you know the answer. If you vote no and answer this question on behalf of everyone else, you are not only doing the wrong thing, but doing it in the most cowardly way possible.

I have two daughters, I would look both in the eye without hesitation, tell them that I love and support them ... and then probably worry about how I was going to help pay for the wedding. I know they would do the same for their kids when the time comes. I'm proud of that.

 

[Shandy]

Look you guys, you can't just amend the Marriage Act. We don't do that anymore. You can't just hearken back to the halcyon days of 2004 every time you want to push your fad agenda. I thought you were progressives? Stop living in the past!

 

[Subpar Scrub]

Voted yes! As did everyone else in my family and almost every friend I have. Feels good not to be a selfish bigot, the people putting up “you can vote no” flyers all over the place should try it out. The individuals of the opposing side, those who are spray-painting over the hateful signs and tearing them down, are appreciated by many.

No. But because this very reason like your post of people getting triggered and act all pissy.
It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.
Hypocrite

I really hope you’re not in my state, because you’re an embarrassment if I’m being honest. How mighty of you to handwave away people being “pissy and triggered” because they’re upset about something which evidently doesn’t personally affect you in any way. What a hero you are.

None of your arguments for a “no” vote hold any water and are a little tricky to navigate due to your erratic capitalisation. Your total aversion to facts or coming to logical conclusions makes me believe that the only “yes” vote you’d make is for Pauline to be PM or some shit... Oh, but don’t ask me to justify how I came to that conclusion about you, “It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.”

 

[Elaugaufein]

I would respect a no vote if there was a proper reason given for it.

The only legit reason I can see for voting no is "I believe being gay is wrong and don't want to see gay people acknowledged as being equal".
This is of course in my mind a completely awful opinion, but if people feel this way because of their religion or upbringing or just general ignorance then I can at least understand it and hope they change their mind over time.

Stating that "the marriage act can't be changed?" That is demonstrably wrong. It has been changed many times over the years.

Stating that "somebody somewhere that I will never meet said something that hurt my feelings so I am voting no" is just absurd and being dishonest.

Stating that "Equality is just a fad, lol liberals" is just being an internet warrior. Nobody needs to respect that lunacy if you are just being contrarian to earn interweb level up points.

Stating that it is "a free speech issue" is not understanding what free speech is. You need to stop reading American reddit posts and realise that everyone in Australia can and will say whatever they want at any time, and we don't even have freedom of speech. After the marriage law changes (again), you will still be free to say whatever you want, and everyone will still be free to consider you a nob for saying it.

Saying that it is "against religious freedom" is ignoring the fact that historically marriage has had little to do with religion. You might instead mean "My church says being gay is wrong so if all of society is saying otherwise my religion starts to look strange and hmm, people will start to leave my religion and then my religion will start to look like a bit of a joke but I can't change religions now because nobody will take me seriously so damn this is all too hard I think I need to vote no just to help preserve my religion" then yes, this makes sense as an argument. You might then question why you need to fight with laws to preserve a religion under the false name of "freedom". The truth is, you will still be free to explore your religion after the law is changed. Luckily religions too are quite fluid in what is and isn't permissible, so they will likely adapt.

So by all means state your good reason for voting no if you have one. I doubt that you do. Ok maybe if you are in a right leaning party politician and have to appeal to religious fundamentalists and hard line right wingers so you can stop people defecting to minor parties and cling onto power... that is also apparently a good reason.

If that doesn't convince you, with any social issue like this, I have a simple test. If you have a daughter who is gay and tells you that she wants to be married to her partner with your blessing, do you look her in the eye and say:
"yes, I love and support you"
Or
"No, I think it is wrong and I'm going to stop that from happening".

If you answer the first way, obviously vote yes.
If you can honestly answer it would be the second one, vote no. But I would think long and hard about what sort of person you are and the reasons you would say that to your own child. Would you say "no" just because you are angry you lost at PUBG and felt better when you trolled with some other guys on a right wing facebook page? Maybe that isn't a real reason. Alternatively is what you are told in your religion more important than what your child in front of you needs? That is a personal question to answer, but again gets back to being honest about why you have a problem with gay people. Remember as well with this option you are not just stating your opinion, you are literally stopping the marriage from happening. You might say "well I would tell sorry because it is my religion and she would understand." She might, but in the real world she would still get married anyway. What you are doing with a no vote is going way beyond that.
If you can't answer that question, don't vote until you know the answer. If you vote no and answer this question on behalf of everyone else, you are not only doing the wrong thing, but doing it in the most cowardly way possible.

I have two daughters, I would look both in the eye without hesitation, tell them that I love and support them ... and then probably worry about how I was going to help pay for the wedding. I know they would do the same for their kids when the time comes. I'm proud of that.

Is this context what you meant farmerboy ? I think the this whole process is ludicrous but I don't think that returning a No on an individual level deserves reflexive spite. I largely agree with the above on an individual level. I'm like a tad more sympathetic to the effects of religious and political beliefs as shapers of world view and how difficult to shift those beliefs are, I still think the no view is wrong though.

 

[Aarglefarg]

For the arguments about religious liberty, right now have the government telling religious institutions and individuals that they aren't allowed to marry same-sex couples, regardless of if their religious beliefs are in favour of marriage equality. The status quo on this topic is the opposite of religious freedom.

 

[bomma_man]

I can see being against it if you don’t see marriage as a vehicle for individual self fulfilment and rather as a business transaction to strengthen the tribe/clan/family.

But that horse bolted a loooong time ago.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I can see being against it if you don’t see marriage as a vehicle for individual self fulfilment and rather as a business transaction to strengthen the tribe/clan/family.

But that horse bolted a loooong time ago.

But offering up your kids to cement alliance works just as well for SSM unless the goal is unification through bloodline absorption.

Edit - Okay, that sounds horrible but that's because using your children as bartering instruments is inherently terrible.

 

[boredandlazy]

I've had a few (depressing) chuckles at the people I've heard who said they'll vote no simply as retaliation for 'Yes' voters who got under their skin.

How old are you? Those are the actions of a tempestuous child...

Of course this way of thinking was preyed upon by advertisers for the 'No' campaign, but we all know it's really just a half-assed way people are attempting to gloss over their own bigotry.

 

[bomma_man]

But offering up your kids to cement alliance works just as well for SSM unless the goal is unification through bloodline absorption.

Edit - Okay, that sounds horrible but that's because using your children as bartering instruments is inherently terrible.

Yeah true. It’s also about reinforcing the patriarchal hierarchy too.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

Every idiot I’ve met in classes that wants to vote ‘no’ can’t justify their reasoning.

Person 1: “If it passes and I criticise a gay married person, I’ll go to prison”

Me: “What evidence do you have of that? I can criticise a married couple now and nothing will happen.”

Person 1: “It just will. I know it.”

Person 2: “I’ll be force to teach my son to have anal sex with other boys.”

Me: “What the fuck? You don’t have to teach them anything about sex now, what evidence do you have that you’d be legally obligated to teach him that?”

Person 2: “It will happen, trust me.”

And these idiots are studying legislation and law. It’s fucked.

 

[Dryk]

I can see being against it if you don’t see marriage as a vehicle for individual self fulfilment and rather as a business transaction to strengthen the tribe/clan/family.

But that horse bolted a loooong time ago.

SSM is a logical extension of love marriages, which were a thing started by straight people who were sick of other people telling them who they could and couldn't marry. From that perspective the No crowd are trying to have their cake and eat it and can fuck right off with that shit.

 

[RinsFury]

Cheers mate, i'd like to think so.....

Because i don't believe a union between a Man and a Woman should be altered and the principles changed, just because, of a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.
As well as instantly targeting the youth to push agendas and/or sway public opinion.
It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

Sorry, if my post upsets anyone. Just my View and Opinion on where i stand
.

I am sad and disgusted that you could have this worldview in 2017. Basic human rights are not a god damn fad.

 

[Yagharek]

Assuming yes wins and ssm is law by the end of the year, we can also safely assume that churches and religious celebrants will not have to conduct same sex marriage. That's Dean Smith's bill, as I understand it.

Churches get to continue business as usual, and everyone else gets to live in the modern era.

The one concern I have is if the No campaign manage to get some rights to discriminate. I'm referring to bakers and venue owners. The no voters want to be able to protect religious businesses from discriminating against same sex couples.

Does this open a door to enable discrimination on far more grounds? Same sex marriage opponents argue that we will be marrying bridges and dogs, but their Plan B is an actual slippery slope where if they are granted exemptions, risks pulling apart all the anti discrimination legislation we need for people in classes such as disabilities, race, religion, culture and sexuality.

I just think the No campaign is being incredibly short sighted and stupid in pursuing their goal.

Any legal minds have thoughts on the matter?

(FWIW I can't see any chance of discrimination being allowed, but the No campaign being in favour of it is baffling considering they love to use it when playing the victim in all other circumstances).

Bigots gonna bigot I guess.

 

[jdstorm]

I would respect a no vote if there was a proper reason given for it.

The only legit reason I can see for voting no is "I believe being gay is wrong and don't want to see gay people acknowledged as being equal".
This is of course in my mind a completely awful opinion, but if people feel this way because of their religion or upbringing or just general ignorance then I can at least understand it and hope they change their mind over time.

Stating that "the marriage act can't be changed?" That is demonstrably wrong. It has been changed many times over the years.

Stating that "somebody somewhere that I will never meet said something that hurt my feelings so I am voting no" is just absurd and being dishonest.

Stating that "Equality is just a fad, lol liberals" is just being an internet warrior. Nobody needs to respect that lunacy if you are just being contrarian to earn interweb level up points.

Stating that it is "a free speech issue" is not understanding what free speech is. You need to stop reading American reddit posts and realise that everyone in Australia can and will say whatever they want at any time, and we don't even have freedom of speech. After the marriage law changes (again), you will still be free to say whatever you want, and everyone will still be free to consider you a nob for saying it.

Saying that it is "against religious freedom" is ignoring the fact that historically marriage has had little to do with religion. You might instead mean "My church says being gay is wrong so if all of society is saying otherwise my religion starts to look strange and hmm, people will start to leave my religion and then my religion will start to look like a bit of a joke but I can't change religions now because nobody will take me seriously so damn this is all too hard I think I need to vote no just to help preserve my religion" then yes, this makes sense as an argument. You might then question why you need to fight with laws to preserve a religion under the false name of "freedom". The truth is, you will still be free to explore your religion after the law is changed. Luckily religions too are quite fluid in what is and isn't permissible, so they will likely adapt.

So by all means state your good reason for voting no if you have one. I doubt that you do. Ok maybe if you are in a right leaning party politician and have to appeal to religious fundamentalists and hard line right wingers so you can stop people defecting to minor parties and cling onto power... that is also apparently a good reason.

If that doesn't convince you, with any social issue like this, I have a simple test. If you have a daughter who is gay and tells you that she wants to be married to her partner with your blessing, do you look her in the eye and say:
"yes, I love and support you"
Or
"No, I think it is wrong and I'm going to stop that from happening".

If you answer the first way, obviously vote yes.
If you can honestly answer it would be the second one, vote no. But I would think long and hard about what sort of person you are and the reasons you would say that to your own child. Would you say "no" just because you are angry you lost at PUBG and felt better when you trolled with some other guys on a right wing facebook page? Maybe that isn't a real reason. Alternatively is what you are told in your religion more important than what your child in front of you needs? That is a personal question to answer, but again gets back to being honest about why you have a problem with gay people. Remember as well with this option you are not just stating your opinion, you are literally stopping the marriage from happening. You might say "well I would tell sorry because it is my religion and she would understand." She might, but in the real world she would still get married anyway. What you are doing with a no vote is going way beyond that.
If you can't answer that question, don't vote until you know the answer. If you vote no and answer this question on behalf of everyone else, you are not only doing the wrong thing, but doing it in the most cowardly way possible.

I have two daughters, I would look both in the eye without hesitation, tell them that I love and support them ... and then probably worry about how I was going to help pay for the wedding. I know they would do the same for their kids when the time comes. I'm proud of that.

The strongest arguement many "No" voters have is that voting yes would be an active act of rebellion against family members and close friends and that is a cost higher then they are willing to pay. For instance take a person who grew up in a religious/conservative environment that is unwelcoming to LGBT people. Telling those around you that you are voting yes is basically the same experience as LGBT people coming out to their families, and to vote yes against their wishes/pressure is to begin to live a lie when around those closest to you.

Essentially many straight people are experiencing something that may in some ways be similar to comming out but their choice is now time sensitive with a hard deadline. The difficulty of this situation is compounded by the fact that the Yes campaign is very publicly headed by visible personalities who are giant Assholes (Kyle Sanderlands and Karl Stefanovic ect) and the messaging has been to shame those who aren't voting Yes in a manner that is similar to Hillary Clinton's "Deplorables" gaf.

So now people who mostly dont really care about this issue and would happily vote yes are now faced with a decision where doing the right thing involves disapointing those that they are closest too in favor of siding with known assholes who have been insulting them for having doubts about the decision.

Would you want to fracture a relationship with a family member to side with Kyle Sanderlands? Or any of the other members of the vote yes campaign who are total tossers.

Personlly i voted YES, However i have had a few versions of that past conversation in the past few months.

 

[Novocaine]

Person 2: “I’ll be force to teach my son to have anal sex with other boys.”

That’s a good one. One guy I work with said if they allow gay marriage then men won’t marry women anymore and the human population would stop growing.

An adult said that.

 

[SatansReverence]

That’s a good one. One guy I work with said if they allow gay marriage then men won’t marry women anymore and the human population would stop growing.

An adult said that.

Good thing anyhow because overpopulation is a real problem.

Really though I have no strong opinion one way or another but simply do not see a single meaningful reason to prevent gay marriage beyond "Hurr religion" so I voted yes.

 

[gotoadgo]

That’s a good one. One guy I work with said if they allow gay marriage then men won’t marry women anymore and the human population would stop growing.

An adult said that.

It’s only logical. I’m only married to my wife because I wasn’t allowed to marry my best friend.

 

[Aarglefarg]

It’s only logical. I’m only married to my wife because I wasn’t allowed to marry my best friend.

Is Barnaby Joyce your father-in-law?

[In 2011] Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce told the rally his four daughters would be affected if same-sex marriage was allowed.

"We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband, and I want that to happen for them.

"I don't want any legislator to take that right away from me."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/anger-over-rally-to-ridicule-gay-marriage-20110816-1iw1e.html

 

[Subpar Scrub]

That’s a good one. One guy I work with said if they allow gay marriage then men won’t marry women anymore and the human population would stop growing.

An adult said that.

The same person who said they’d go to prison in my post said if SSM is passed, lesbians will just marry each other instead of dating him. I tried to explain to him that lesbians won’t date him regardless, but that seemed to confuse him more than anything.

Shocker; most of the ‘no’ supporters aren’t intelligent.

 

[Novocaine]

It’s almost like as soon as this passes they will all ditch their wives and go gay.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

It’s almost like as soon as this passes they will all ditch their wives and go gay.

one would hope one would hope

 

[Grazzt]

LMAO at the nature talk. Is your beloved Jesus crawling out of grave natural?
And you are going to lose, and please, stay losing.

 

[toddhunter]

Would you want to fracture a relationship with a family member to side with Kyle Sanderlands? Or any of the other members of the vote yes campaign who are total tossers.

Would you want to fracture a relationship with a family member to side with Tony "climate change is probably good?" Abbott?

Basically who cares what other people think? There are going to be tossers on both sides, that should be completely irrelevant. Certainly I'm sure right wing people would have no trouble nodding their heads at Sanderlands if he was whinging about something they cared about.

Be honest about how you feel yourself and vote yes or no accordingly.

If you can't vote yes because your family is religious and you don't want to go against them? Say that. I would love it if people were honest and said that was their reason because:

a) they are being honest
b) it highlights the problem of archaic religions, indoctrination and their control of modern society and maybe something can then be done about it.
c) it would destroy all the freedom of speech and political correctness bullshit. If you can't vote "yes" because you can't say something in front of your parents or feel like you need to do the right thing politically to appease them? You are doing everything you are claiming is forcing you to vote no.

 

[Jintor]

Essentially many straight people are experiencing something that may in some ways be similar to comming out but their choice is now time sensitive with a hard deadline. The difficulty of this situation is compounded by the fact that the Yes campaign is very publicly headed by visible personalities who are giant Assholes (Kyle Sanderlands and Karl Stefanovic ect) and the messaging has been to shame those who aren't voting Yes in a manner that is similar to Hillary Clinton's "Deplorables" gaf.

So now people who mostly dont really care about this issue and would happily vote yes are now faced with a decision where doing the right thing involves disapointing those that they are closest too in favor of siding with known assholes who have been insulting them for having doubts about the decision.

Would you want to fracture a relationship with a family member to side with Kyle Sanderlands? Or any of the other members of the vote yes campaign who are total tossers.

Personlly i voted YES, However i have had a few versions of that past conversation in the past few months.

I get that the 'persecution factor' of being shamed into a decision triggers an instinctive drive to do the opposite, but it's not as if the No campaign isn't headed by a bunch of very public drongos like Bernadi and Abbott.

 

[Yagharek]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...rallies-draw-big-crowds-to-sydney-cbd/9072952

Not content with ruining LGBTI lives, the No campaign have been busy trying to ruin a couple's marriage today with their protest.

Selfish bigots.

 

[Novocaine]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...rallies-draw-big-crowds-to-sydney-cbd/9072952

Not content with ruining LGBTI lives, the No campaign have been busy trying to ruin a couple's marriage today with their protest.

Selfish bigots.

What’s the bet most of those people got upset their privacy was invaded with the vote yes text?

What a bunch of cunts.

 

[hirokazu]

The strongest arguement many "No" voters have is that voting yes would be an active act of rebellion against family members and close friends and that is a cost higher then they are willing to pay. For instance take a person who grew up in a religious/conservative environment that is unwelcoming to LGBT people. Telling those around you that you are voting yes is basically the same experience as LGBT people coming out to their families, and to vote yes against their wishes/pressure is to begin to live a lie when around those closest to you.

What, that’s a load of garbage. It’s your vote not theirs. Voting no because of that is basically giving them your vote. You don’t have to tell them which way you voted if you feel it could jeopardise your relationship with them. But as with someone reluctant to come out, you should still be true to yourself and do what you think is right.

 

[Dryk]

That’s a good one. One guy I work with said if they allow gay marriage then men won’t marry women anymore and the human population would stop growing.

An adult said that.

To some people being gay is apparently such an objectively superior state of existence that the law is the only thing that's holding them back from ascension.

The one concern I have is if the No campaign manage to get some rights to discriminate. I'm referring to bakers and venue owners. The no voters want to be able to protect religious businesses from discriminating against same sex couples.

If they lay a single finger on the Discrimination Act I will rant about it from the rooftops until the end of time