Page 1 of 17 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 336

Thread: Why I am Voting NO

  1. #1
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    50
    Posts
    29,478
    Thanks
    1,916
    Thanked 12,109 Times in 5,222 Posts
    Rep Power
    3759
    Reputation
    132758

    Default Why I am Voting NO

    Our Poll :


    I have had a long think about whether to post what I am posting, and due to the ridiculous situation in this country where anyone who does not support leftist minority causes gets howled down, spat on and abused, but I am going to buck the trend and take a stand for the democracy that we are supposed to have in Australia. We will soon be receiving voting material in the mail in regards to "marriage equality". At the last Federal Election, we were told that if the coalition was re-elected that we would be having a plebiscite on this matter - effectively the same way we vote at State and Federal elections. This is as fair as it gets.....people get to have a say.

    As soon as we had a re-elected government, the Labor Party headed by Bill Shorten and supported by the Greens decided that the people of this country were not capable of making their own decision on this matter, and using their combined senate numbers decided to block the plebiscite and demand that the government make gay marriage law.......without any say from the citizens of this country. Every leftist and green minority group quickly jumped on board to push this, ably assisted by the rich and famous who apparently need to speak for us less rich and famous because we are in fact so stupid, we should not be allowed to vote because we are "ignorant" and "ill informed". The end result was the Federal Government buckling under pressure and announcing a less binding postal vote. Unlike a plebiscite that has the same rules as state and federal voting, yes campaigners are already organising supporters to collect and fill in as many forms from disinterested people as possible to make sure they win. That’s supposedly our democracy at work. It really makes you wonder what people have fought and died for in this country…..I am quite sure it wasn’t so that leftist minority groups could hijack our country on a large scale.

    Gay couples of course could just have their own union, after all marriage is a religious ceremony between and a man and a woman for the procreation of a child. So why is it necessary for the gay community to rain on someone else's parade? Simply, it isn't necessary at all, it’s just another example of a small minority trying to impose their will on others. What portion of the Australian population are gay? Its estimated at less than 5%.......so why does every person for the yes campaign claim they have gay friends that are very upset that they can’t get married in Australia ? In a nutshell, they either all have the same friends or they are liars. It’s as simple as that.

    The gender teachings that are going on in this country are a disgrace. Teaching children that your gender is "fluid", ie, that you can just change it at will is stupid and dangerous and is yet more of the constant leftist garbage that we are brainwashed with. I shudder to think of the results of this in 20 years. Teaching that you can be “Arthur” or “Martha” all in the one week is as idiotic as it gets, as is the promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle. It wasn’t that long ago that we were hearing “we can’t help it if were born like this”, then in the space of a couple of years we are actively promoting it to children. If gay marriage becomes law, (and no doubt it will be given that anyone against it is abused) we will see marriage decimated by record divorce rates. Gay men are realistically the most promiscuous species on the planet, and if you add to that young men who are being brainwashed with “gender fluidity” and “sexual choice”, marriage is likely to become a nonstop merry go round of which there will only be one winner….lawyers.

    I compare this to other large scale stupidity such as it wasn’t that long ago that we were being screamed at that “Global Warming” was going to kill us all. OMG, panic, panic, we are all going to die. A government expert gave us only a few years before we were out of water and croaking it large scale. Then it rained….like it does after any period of drought. And some people looked very, very stupid. But they didn’t let it rest, if at first you don’t succeed, have another go. So after the “Global Warming” failure, they came up with “Climate Change”. Now they were on a dead set winner with this one, because the weather actually does change. Most of us know that as seasons, but apparently we are wrong.
    “Gay Marriage” didn’t really get off the ground to well either, but it was promptly relabelled as “Marriage Equality”. Of course the real meaning of this is that any marriage is equal, if you want to get married to 6 different people that will of course be marriage equality. Already in this country we are accepting marriages from migrants with multiple partners. And why stop there? What if you want to marry your cat or your dog? Surely we can’t discriminate against you, after all if you can change your gender and sexuality at will, then you can of course simply say “I identify as a dog and I want to marry my partner”. You don’t think that will happen? Give it 10 years. As it stands, I am a 50 year old male, but if I want to say I identify as a woman I can. And be treated as one.

    Our traditional way of life in Australia is under attack and if you don’t agree with it, please don’t vote for it. Marriage will be a laughing stock and you can add to that the rest of the current idiotic leftist causes – pulling down our statues and monuments, rewriting our constitution so that Aboriginals are elevated as being more equal than anyone else and banning Australia Day because it was invasion day. The latter being most amusing……I think it should be celebrated as the day Aboriginal Australia took in its first refugees, which they are course compelled to do. Of course if the lefty’s don’t agree with that one (How can they not, they promote it) then as an Australian with 4 convict ancestors I would like to take legal action against Aboriginal Australia for their breach of duty of care to my ancestors, failing to intervene in my ancestors incarceration and 101 breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. And if they think you can’t apply that retrospectively, then why do they constantly apply today’s standards against historical events? Remember Sorry day? Just say sorry, and that’s end of it all? Yeah……hoodwinked again.

    I have been with my wife for about 25 years........a very up and down 25 years. My opinion when we first started going out together in regards to marriage was the old favourite......it’s just a piece of paper. I stuck to that, but after 7 years my wife wanted a commitment from me and I thought that was fair enough. But I said, if it’s really just about us, then you won’t have a problem if we get married at the registry office in Melbourne, just the 2 of us and no one else. She agreed. And our wedding was truly only about us, I hijacked a couple of old ladies having coffee in a cafe to stand in as witnesses. And so I was married.
    Spending your life with someone presents all kinds of challenges and believe me, my marriage has plenty. There have been several times when I have seriously considered walking away from it, particularly over the last 10 years. But do you know why I haven’t? Because I made a commitment for better or worse. As a man and a woman.

    I would urge you to help stop the rot. Send a firm message that you are sick of people raining on your parade…….this is just the start of more to come. I have nothing personal against anyone that is gay and treat anyone as an individual. But the gay community can have their own union and call it anything they like……..but they don’t want to because these days it’s simply more fun to hijack something that belongs to someone else.

    Unlike my own country, I will allow you to have your say here. As long as it is done constructively and respectfully.

  2. The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to admin For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked

    alpha0ne (30-08-17),B52 (03-10-17),band59 (08-10-17),blackpete (07-10-17),borisbadfinger (20-09-17),borjatelcom (09-10-17),croozer (20-09-17),dai (30-08-17),danone (09-10-17),DB44 (30-08-17),eaglem (30-08-17),GavinSV (20-09-17),jonnyath (18-09-17),kclar (20-09-17),lsemmens (31-08-17),MOTechGuy (17-09-17),OSIRUS (29-08-17),Svenok (02-10-17),Thaddeus (02-10-17),tony54 (29-08-17),tristen (29-08-17),VroomVroom (30-08-17)



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Newcastle, Nsw
    Posts
    4,281
    Thanks
    715
    Thanked 2,234 Times in 998 Posts
    Rep Power
    812
    Reputation
    27436

    Default

    I'm not going to vote - I couldn't care less whether they're allowed to marry or not.

    If they want to marry... why not, they have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us.
    Oops I forgot - I'm divorced.

  • The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to WhiteOx For This Useful Post:

    admin (29-08-17),kyteflyer (25-10-17),me_ashman (05-10-17),Rick (29-08-17),tony54 (29-08-17),TZB (18-09-17)

  • #3
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    50
    Posts
    29,478
    Thanks
    1,916
    Thanked 12,109 Times in 5,222 Posts
    Rep Power
    3759
    Reputation
    132758

    Default

    Channel 10 now deceiving viewers.


  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to admin For This Useful Post:

    eaglem (30-08-17),MOTechGuy (17-09-17)

  • #4
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    63
    Posts
    11,617
    Thanks
    9,161
    Thanked 13,062 Times in 4,530 Posts
    Rep Power
    4616
    Reputation
    205390

    Default

    Typical....can't say I'm surprised. Like all of these issues lies abound.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to enf For This Useful Post:

    eaglem (30-08-17)

  • #5
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    50
    Posts
    29,478
    Thanks
    1,916
    Thanked 12,109 Times in 5,222 Posts
    Rep Power
    3759
    Reputation
    132758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    Typical....can't say I'm surprised. Like all of these issues lies abound.
    Apart from the marriage debate, lies galore are being spread about Cook and other Australians at the moment. I wish people would take time to actually read some historic books about events rather than jump on bandwagons. Stan Grant's recent historical blunders are plain embarrassing. I am currently reading a book from 1870 called The Black War of Van Diemens Land.

    While written for the purpose of sympathy for the Aboriginals of Tasmania, it also shows that Aboriginals were probably in front when it came to doing the killing which caused the action that resulted in their demise in Tasmania.

    Misinformation is becoming a professional business in every leftist campaign and as they now brainwash the young from kindergarten to university you have to wonder how long our history is going to last. They now engage in effective virtual book burning because our young are pre programmed with garbage.

  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to admin For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (30-08-17),eaglem (30-08-17),Landytrack (29-08-17)

  • #6
    Premium Member
    Xplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Mid SE
    Posts
    631
    Thanks
    349
    Thanked 315 Times in 140 Posts
    Rep Power
    195
    Reputation
    3185

    Default

    I could not care less about it and totally sick of the wasted air time this crap is getting.

    I'd much rather postal votes about matters that matter to all Australians - not for the selected minority we are about to see in the mail that's costing tax-payers millions.

    Rising crime; bail conditions; continued failure of judges and magistrates; border protection; pensions; housing affordability; immigration; superannuation... - any politician tackling these problems gets my vote.

  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Xplorer For This Useful Post:

    alpha0ne (30-08-17),Landytrack (29-08-17),TVguy (24-09-17)

  • #7
    Senior Member
    PZ.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,683
    Thanks
    993
    Thanked 748 Times in 428 Posts
    Rep Power
    359
    Reputation
    9117

    Thumbs up

    I'm voting YES for three reasons.

    1. I have nothing to gain from voting NO.
    2. I have nothing to lose from voting YES.
    3. I'm sick and tired of this debate dominating everything we say and do in this country including how people like to obfuscate gay marriage with political leanings.


    Try independent thinking - it's free!

  • The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to PZ. For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked

    bob_m_54 (29-08-17),Dognorab (22-10-17),gordon_s1942 (29-08-17),kyteflyer (25-10-17),nomeat (30-08-17),Ozdemon (24-09-17),Rick (29-08-17),sail (20-09-17),scratchy (08-10-17),Sektor (11-10-17),william10 (29-08-17)

  • #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,742
    Thanks
    2,501
    Thanked 2,295 Times in 850 Posts
    Rep Power
    919
    Reputation
    36415

    Default

    I'm voting yes for very similar reasons to PZ however I just wish they could find another name for it.
    In hindsight I should have posted my Facebook status as: "I've blown the head gasket on my 1997 XR3i" rather than "I've just buggered a 14 year old escort".
    The police still haven't seen the funny side, my lap top's been confiscated and the wife has gone off to her mum's.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Seymour Butts For This Useful Post:

    gulliver (20-09-17),william10 (29-08-17)

  • #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 117 Times in 63 Posts
    Rep Power
    102
    Reputation
    2040

    Default

    I will be voting NO as am sick of minority groups trying to shove their leftist ideology down everyone's throats.

    Personally I could not care less what people do with their lives but this issue is a waste of time and taxpayers money.

  • The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Landytrack For This Useful Post:

    admin (30-08-17),blackpete (07-10-17),croozer (20-09-17),DB44 (30-08-17),geosatman (21-10-17),gulliver (20-09-17),MOTechGuy (17-09-17),VroomVroom (30-08-17)

  • #10
    Senior Member
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tassi
    Posts
    3,856
    Thanks
    3,759
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,408 Posts
    Rep Power
    1151
    Reputation
    46882

    Default

    I'll vote yes, if I can have more than 1 wife

  • The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Rick For This Useful Post:

    johnhoward (15-10-17),jonnyath (18-09-17),motorolavkg (20-09-17),Seymour Butts (29-08-17)

  • #11
    Senior Member
    bob_m_54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Posts
    1,377
    Thanks
    631
    Thanked 629 Times in 393 Posts
    Rep Power
    324
    Reputation
    9738

    Default

    I'll vote yes for pretty much the same reasons as PZ. I don't see any gain voting no, just because you're sick and tired of the issue, or think it's a waste of time and money. If the vote turns out to be a majority negative, then it will just come up again and again anyway. Better off if the law is passed, the situation is resolved and let them get on with it.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to bob_m_54 For This Useful Post:

    kyteflyer (25-10-17)

  • #12
    Super Moderator
    mtv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    15,819
    Thanks
    4,478
    Thanked 9,755 Times in 4,834 Posts
    Rep Power
    3237
    Reputation
    129630

    Default

    Love is love.

    If two people of the same gender want to be legally recognised as a couple in the same manner as a heterosexual couple is recognised in a marriage and make that commitment to each other, I have no objection.

    Unlike some other factions of our society that want/demand we all change to be like them, these people just want the right to be themselves, so I vote yes... let them have a choice.

  • The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to mtv For This Useful Post:

    bob_m_54 (30-08-17),Learjet (31-08-17),nomeat (30-08-17),Rick (30-08-17),scratchy (08-10-17),Sektor (30-08-17),telephonemike (26-10-17)

  • #13
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,779
    Thanks
    1,292
    Thanked 1,480 Times in 710 Posts
    Rep Power
    611
    Reputation
    19988

    Default

    I think every one has come to the conclusion that it will be inevitable if not now but in the future
    A point that was made to me on Friday night is, as present, a long partner ship of a couple is not legally established by time, should one partner die, the other has no common law rights as say a husband and wife has in organizing their ex partner's legal affairs, etc . It is this flaw that the vote is trying to rectify
    There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"

  • The Following User Says Thank You to allover For This Useful Post:

    bob_m_54 (30-08-17)

  • #14
    Senior Member
    LeroyPatrol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    N.E. Vic
    Posts
    15,390
    Thanks
    3,000
    Thanked 4,149 Times in 2,505 Posts
    Rep Power
    1341
    Reputation
    35331

    Default

    Just don't call it marriage......becuase that's not what it is in the traditional sense

  • The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to LeroyPatrol For This Useful Post:

    aa23 (30-08-17),ammlione (19-09-17),DB44 (30-08-17),eaglem (30-08-17),gamve (19-09-17),geosatman (21-10-17),lsemmens (31-08-17),MOTechGuy (17-09-17)

  • #15
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,088
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 508 Times in 286 Posts
    Rep Power
    298
    Reputation
    8556

    Default

    Changing the law so we have 'marriage equality' is a falsehood - we already have 'marriage equality', in that any man can marry any woman and vice versa. Marriage, by that definition, is not reliant on love nor sexuality, it is simply the same for every person, excludes nobody and is therefore already 'equal'.

    Those who use the argument that marriage is about 'religion' and 'children' need to move on and realise marriage has not been about those things since the 19th century. In short, move on.

    'Same-Sex Marriage' is what the postal 'opinion poll' will be about. I see no reason why SSM should not be allowed, on the proviso it is termed that way - 'Same-Sex Marriage' and not just 'marriage'. Why? Because I still feel strongly that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman. That's my view.

    Oh, and on the 'postal vote' - WTF? It's not compulsory, will be ignored by many, costs a fortune and any result is completely non-binding. So one must ask - WHAT IS THE POINT!

  • The Following User Says Thank You to peteramjet For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (30-08-17)

  • #16
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    63
    Posts
    11,617
    Thanks
    9,161
    Thanked 13,062 Times in 4,530 Posts
    Rep Power
    4616
    Reputation
    205390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteramjet View Post
    Changing the law so we have 'marriage equality' is a falsehood - we already have 'marriage equality', in that any man can marry any woman and vice versa. Marriage, by that definition, is not reliant on love nor sexuality, it is simply the same for every person, excludes nobody and is therefore already 'equal'.

    Those who use the argument that marriage is about 'religion' and 'children' need to move on and realise marriage has not been about those things since the 19th century. In short, move on.

    'Same-Sex Marriage' is what the postal 'opinion poll' will be about. I see no reason why SSM should not be allowed, on the proviso it is termed that way - 'Same-Sex Marriage' and not just 'marriage'. Why? Because I still feel strongly that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman. That's my view.

    Oh, and on the 'postal vote' - WTF? It's not compulsory, will be ignored by many, costs a fortune and any result is completely non-binding. So one must ask - WHAT IS THE POINT!
    It would seem to me that the point is to give the people (you know them, they are the employers of politicians) the ability to at least voice their opinion on a major social shift that the last election was NOT fought on. Perhaps if it had been, government in this country would look radically different, or not. I don't have a problem with it.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to enf For This Useful Post:

    eaglem (30-08-17)

  • #17
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central Tablelands of NSW
    Age
    75
    Posts
    12,550
    Thanks
    1,148
    Thanked 3,221 Times in 2,189 Posts
    Rep Power
    1445
    Reputation
    45286

    Default

    $120 Million Dollars wasted on a Vote that has no meaning whether its YES, NO or couldnt care less !!!
    For a TRUE valid Vote it should have been a referendum.
    I stand unequivicably behind everything I say , I just dont ever remember saying it !!

  • #18
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    63
    Posts
    11,617
    Thanks
    9,161
    Thanked 13,062 Times in 4,530 Posts
    Rep Power
    4616
    Reputation
    205390

    Default

    I wasn't aware that same sex marriage had anything to do with the constitution, and if so, a referendum couldn't be held.

    These things should be settled at an election with each candidate declaring how they would vote on such legislation. And even then, would you honestly think some politicians would not change their minds after the election as they do about so many things these days? To me the real aim is to keep people FROM having a real say, as those who yell the loudest have a far better chance.

    To me it's just the thin edge of the wedge for mob rule, not rational democracy.....not that I give a sh*t who marries who. More PC crap will inevitably follow, with more demands for changes without popular consultation.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    427
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 60 Times in 35 Posts
    Rep Power
    155
    Reputation
    1005

    Default

    I will vote no as the more I look at it the more I see it is more than same sex marriage....

    I don't agree with all the stuff they are giving kids now & in some cases pushing transgender agenda into girls who are tomboys, to me that is child abuse.

    I don't trust the pollies & if it gets up I expect a whole heap of are laws to change, text books & learning materials for kids to change (as if they haven't got enough to worry about now) costing multiples more than this postal vote & I also see more activism for more changes...

  • The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to knowabit1 For This Useful Post:

    admin (30-08-17),B52 (03-10-17),croozer (20-09-17),DB44 (30-08-17),eaglem (30-08-17),jonnyath (18-09-17),loopyloo (17-09-17),mutanti (28-09-17),tristen (30-08-17),VroomVroom (30-08-17)

  • #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    38
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    126
    Reputation
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin View Post
    demand that the government make gay marriage law.......without any say from the citizens of this country
    We didn't have a poll or national vote when the marriage act was amended in 2004, so why waste time and money on that now when our reps could just vote on it themselves and have it actually be binding (at least until the next time it's voted on). I'll be ticking yes because I'm an atheist and I believe in equal rights. If there's marriage equality then shit like this won't happen: (a man died in Australia and his partner had no say in the funeral arrangements because his marriage wasn't recognised).

    I'm not really sure why the federal government is even involved with marriage, other than to keep a record of it. It should just be a civil matter like most contracts.

    Being able to vote online or over the phone for popular issues would in theory, reduce the costs considerably. It would be much faster to get the results and a lot easier to vote regularly. There would of course need to be a lot of security and fraud protection.
    Last edited by Sektor; 30-08-17 at 03:28 AM.

  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sektor For This Useful Post:

    bob_m_54 (30-08-17),lsemmens (31-08-17),nomeat (30-08-17)

  • Page 1 of 17 1234567891011 ... LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •