How the ‘Yes’ campaign secured your number for an SMS

Controversial text message has people questioning their phone security.

How the ‘Yes’ vote got your number

Across the weekend, millions of Australians received text messages calling on them to vote ‘Yes’ in the marriage equality survey, with many questioning how their numbers were obtained.

People started receiving text messages on their mobile phones from YesEquality, which stated: "The Marriage Equality Survey forms have arrived! Help make history and vote YES for a fairer Australia. VoteYes.org.au."

The reaction on social media was swift, with many people asking how the YesEquality campaign had obtained their mobile phone numbers, especially if they were on the Do Not Call register. Others have questioned the ethics of being contacted in this manner.

Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Clint McGilvray explained that the texts were sent out to random computer-generated numbers.

The technology used by the Yes campaign has been used by political parties sending text messages in the past and it doesn’t mean that any organisation knows your phone number and who you are.

There are also exemptions on the Do Not Call register for a variety of political parties and organisations.

According to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, some public interest organisations are still allowed to make specific types of telemarketing calls even if a person is on the Do Not Call register.

Exemptions apply to:

  • registered charities
  • educational institutions
  • government bodies
  • registered political parties
  • independent members of parliament
  • political candidates.

Did you receive a ‘Yes’ campaign text messages? Were you worried about your privacy? Do you think this is an effective campaign tool?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Dickb
    26th Sep 2017
    10:33am
    I received the message on my mobile and whether I am a supporter or not of the yes campaign, this method of promoting the yes vote should not be used. A check of the source revealed that the number where the message was coming from was not transmitted therefore I could not block further text messages from this source.
    Waiting to retire at 70
    26th Sep 2017
    11:13am
    You can block the number. Oh ... don't tell me you have an iPhone ... serves you right.
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    11:20am
    A little stupid to close the gate after the horse is out?
    Troubadour
    26th Sep 2017
    3:36pm
    I too was incensed by this intrusion into my privacy,and wondered where they had got my number from as we have not had any connections to them in any way, shape or form.
    It was a totally bad idea and am sure angered so many.
    Strummer
    27th Sep 2017
    7:20am
    They send text messages to computer generated, random numbers.
    Adrianus
    27th Sep 2017
    7:32am
    Strummer, then how do you explain that no text messages were sent to youngsters under voting age?
    jennyc355
    26th Sep 2017
    10:38am
    Did not appreciate getting the txt , this should not have happened .
    nena
    26th Sep 2017
    10:41am
    Well, they have lost my support and respect. Nobody is able to change the mind of those who think critically and I´m one of those. It seems their aim is to convert everybody to homosexuality. One, two or a number of adult people can do whatever they like among themselves, as far I´m concerned. But trying to get legally married is not going to change what they are: DIFERENT, THEREFORE NOT EQUALITY IS GOING TO MAKE THEM EQUAL. Just live your life without interfering into other´s, don’t try to twist the mind of those still young and immature.

    .
    Waiting to retire at 70
    26th Sep 2017
    11:19am
    Come on Nena ... they never had either your 'support' or 'respect'. At least be truthful.

    By the way, you don't have to become a 'gay'. That'd like ... well like ... you asking a 'gay' to be straight.
    Alky
    26th Sep 2017
    11:31am
    The aim of the changes is NOT to convert people. At the moment, if two gay people live together and one of them dies, their partner has no legal right to inherit their estate. Even if a will is made, the family can legally contest that will and the partner will get nothing. The changes are to give gay people the same legal rights as straight people. They're not out to convert people and not out to change marriage. All they want are the same legal rights as everyone else.

    For the record, I did get that text and my number is on the Do Not Call Register. Yes I was pissed off that I received that text, BUT like any logical thinking person, it did not sway me to change my vote. I had already decided how to vote beforehand. I believe the text was ill-conceived and shouldn't have been done
    nena
    26th Sep 2017
    11:40am
    ....et tu quoque Brute fili mi!
    Budwah
    26th Sep 2017
    12:37pm
    "Alky" You said that
    "The moment, if two gay people live together and one of them dies, their partner has no legal right to in Herret there are state. Even if will is made, the family can legally contest that will and apartment will get nothing."

    The same thing applies with straight people who have made a will, their family can also contest a legally made will.
    GreyViper
    26th Sep 2017
    12:48pm
    Alky, I'm afraid you are wrong about this being about giving gay people the same legal rights as straight people. They already have that by legislation passed previously. Gay people DO have the same right to inherit their partner's estate as straight people. If you are thinking of the case of the gay couple living in the retirement village that would have been exactly the same for an heterosexual couple as the partner's name was not on the lease. It had NOTHING to do with their sexuality. As far as contesting a will goes, anyone can contest a will if they believe that they have been unfairly treated by the deceased and then it will be up to the courts to decide. This is about wanting what someone else has and trying to change that so that they can be normal and equal. It's not anything to do with equal legal rights! I don't understand why they can't just get their own word and leave marriage as it stands alone. Why do we have to impact a large majority for the benefit of a small selfish minority who don't care about people's religious beliefs or other attitudes.

    Just for clarification, I am not a religious person nor am I an HOMOPHOBE but I do believe in traditional marriage. I do support gays in having all of the same legal rights as any defacto couple but I don't understand why they can't have their own term and ceremony. I DO NOT believe that it has got anything to do with 'equal rights'.
    Anonymous
    26th Sep 2017
    1:47pm
    Bravo, Nena!
    DoctorW
    26th Sep 2017
    1:50pm
    Brutus autem iste homo filium tuum?! Id est Romanam te.
    Anonymous
    26th Sep 2017
    3:39pm
    Bravo Nena ?

    Poor dear is afraid she may get converted !!!!!

    Oh dear
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:53pm
    What's with the latin? Are we to think you are of the highly educated kind of pompous ass that thinks they are better than anyone else? Well, you just LOST MY VOTE!! That was discriminant against those of us who don't speak the dead language!!
    nena
    26th Sep 2017
    4:03pm
    ....et tu quoque Raphael fili mi!
    DoctorW
    26th Sep 2017
    4:29pm
    Queri si dimittimus eum in occulto ??
    Rosret
    26th Sep 2017
    5:38pm
    Nena - your mind was made up long before getting a spam phone call.
    No one is asking you to be homosexual, nor are they asking you to accept or understand it. They just want to be allowed to be married to the person they love.
    It won't hurt you or me and they can live the life they want to live rather than pretending and marry someone of the opposite sex making two people unhappy for the rest of their lives.
    Would you have liked to be married to someone who was gay and pretended they weren't knowing they were physically repulsed by your body. - I think not.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    3:10am
    Rosret my mind was made up the moment I started researching the history of the SSM campaign and uncovered the real motive of those behind it. Things are seldom what they appear. When people lobby for change, they very often hide their true agenda, knowing it would be unacceptable to the majority. They create a blind that they know will win support. Here's just one thought-provoking article. I've read dozens of others - including some written by SSM campaign leaders, and those are the most disturbing of all.

    https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/tying-the-gordian-knot/
    Rosret
    27th Sep 2017
    7:21am
    Rainey That is the most weak argument based on the fear premise of what teachers do in schools.
    My goodness its the religious faction making the most noise and look at the horrific track record they have had with the care of children.
    Schools are not aiming to groom children, the survey is whether they may marry. Surely a monogamous relationship with a person you love lessens the feeling of being lost and unaccepted, it lowers the rate of STD and lets people be who they are not what we think they should be.
    No one is going to "convert" you or me either way and any teacher found "grooming" a child (which has nothing to do with same sex marriage by the way) will be dealt with by the law.
    What your reference link is incorrectly inferring is their is a link between pedophilia and homosexuality and that isn't the case at all.
    These days evil can't hide under the canopy of the church.
    The more communication we have the better understanding everyone has.
    However, with our age group, minds have been indoctrinated long ago so I won't attempt to convert other people.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    8:45am
    Not ''fear premise of what teachers do in schools'' Rosret. Rather grave concern about what IS being taught in schools - under the deceptive guise of an ''anti-bullying'' program. If my concerns are unfounded, why is the Federal Government demanding the Safe Schools program be modified? Why have several states abandoned it or refused to introduce it? Why have private school enrolments in Victorian schools that refuse to embrace Safe Schools skyrocketed? Why shouldn't I be worried that Safe Schools was devised and is supported by known paedophiles? Why shouldn't I be upset that children as young as 10 are being taught to masturbate in schools, and told that anal sex is better than vaginal and same-sex relationships can be much more fulfilling than mixed sex relationships; that marriage is ''obsolete'' - an archaic notion; that biology does not dictate parentage?

    Rosret, you are wearing blinkers. Evil hid under the canopy of the church. Evil prevails in families. Family breakdown is at unprecedented rates. All the more reason to fight for morality and family and community values - if for no other reason, for the sake of the children who will suffer grave hurt as a consequence of the death of these values. Giving in to evil is not the solution to revelation of wrong. The right response to revelation of evil is to fight harder for what is right, natural, and most likely to secure the future of our society.
    Bazbee
    27th Sep 2017
    11:29am
    Nena is right. As soon as I opened that SMS I was converted to homosexuality.
    Not Senile Yet!
    26th Sep 2017
    10:42am
    Stupid act by yes campaigners...and the access to mobiles should be blocked for all political campaigns...rediculous intrusion!
    Bad enough to turn people and vote NO just out of anger at the Intrusion!
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:48pm
    Not Senile Yet....you say?
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    6:10am
    ''Bad enough to turn people and vote NO just out of anger at the Intrusion!''

    I hope so, Not Senile Yet! But I fear not. The 97% continue to be unconscious.
    Drewbie
    26th Sep 2017
    10:52am
    The " Yes Campaign " proponents/supporters have, yet again, shown their true colours in that they are no respecter of " all Australians who have a Constitutional Right " to cast a vote on this issue. Their arrogance has no boundary/respect to those in our Country who have an accepted basic human right to disagree. Gaining millions of Australian's mobile ph numbers & deliberately violating their privacy, shows how arrogant this " small percentage " of Australia's population really is.

    In complete contrast, the " No Campaign " side has been quite distinguished in its behaviour regarding s.s.m & its supporters. Vote No supporters have been downright respectful, not used foul language, not posted vilifying on social media, etc. They in contrast have displayed what it is takes to be " truly Australian"!
    Not Amused
    26th Sep 2017
    11:15am
    I don't believe our society will be socially enhanced for redefining the meaning of marriage from a union between a man and a woman. Step 2. in the push to redefine what it is to be male and female will soon gather pace. I hope they are prepared for what this confusion is going to do to young children. Teachers are sometimes required to take birds and bees classes so they will be obliged under anti-discrimination laws to include the dynamics of homosexual sex or be hauled over the coals for discrimination. We have seen more than enough examples of the arrogance and boldness that occurs when yelling and screaming minority groups succeed in force-feeding their demands onto the wider population. Setting that aside, it will also be illegal to merely voice an opposite opinion. What about kids whose parents teach that homosexual sex is wrong and kids repeat it in the playground? Who then faces the wrath of the homosexual lobby - parents or children?
    geofftuke
    26th Sep 2017
    11:56am
    I'm with you 'not amused'. Straight white people are not allowed to discriminate against gay or coloured people and usually do not report discrimination and racial slurs made against them by gay or coloured people.
    I wonder when the gay and coloured people of our society will just learn that as a general rule, straight white people do not really care about your sexual proclivities or your skin tone. All we ask is mutual respect which as a rule is given until it is not returned.
    Just give respect to get respect! An insult will earn an insult.
    Eclair
    26th Sep 2017
    12:20pm
    Any claim that the No campaign has been respectful is a downright lie. You have obviously closed your eyes (along with your mind) to the beating taken by Kevin Rudd's godson, and the recent brick-throwing, window-smashing intimidation campaign against houses displaying Yes campaign signs.
    Let's not deny the rights of long-term couples. Too often you hear of estranged, disapproving relatives stepping in after a death to take over funeral arrangements and prevent a gay partner from attending.
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    9:14pm
    Ooh poor not amused and geoftuke. It must be terrible being a straight white guy. You must get abused verbally and physically every time you leave your front door.
    And drewbie, the 'no campaign are truly Australian by making decisions for others lives

    I can't wait til your kind dies off, you self righteous, hypocritical, self important morons.

    I had no rights as a child, but now I'm a straight white 59yr old married woman and I voted YES.
    Strummer
    27th Sep 2017
    7:28am
    "Truly Australian"? When the AFL declared their support for the Yes campaign they received a bomb threat. Truly Australian.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    8:52am
    Crafty, it's not the case that the ''no'' side is making decisions for others' lives. The reverse is true. The LGBT lobby insists on making decisions for the future of society - decisions that deny children their natural biological parentage and the security of parental love; decisions that deny parents the right to protect their children from premature exposure to inappropriate sex education' decisions that deny parents the right to educate their children to be proud of their bodies and sexuality and to commit to partnership with someone of the opposite sex and to healthy family life. Read what the LGBT and SSM lobby really seeks. They want to abolish the concept of marriage. Demanding expansion of the definition is only the first step in a campaign that seeks to destroy the family unit completely.

    The SSM-lobby seeks to redefine marriage so that they can destroy the basic fabric of our society, because it is the family and community that presents the greatest threat to inappropriate political dominance. Support for SSM is support for political dominance and the loss of our freedom.
    Ted Wards
    26th Sep 2017
    11:02am
    Yes and i really didnt like the fact that they could send me that number because I have been getting phone calls from the greens as I have never voted for them nor have I ever registered with them yet they call me and use my name. Im not impressed and have told them so!
    Not Amused
    26th Sep 2017
    11:03am
    I certainly was not amused to receive that text. The sender group doesn't fit any of the "exempt" categories (listed above) and they should be held to account on the grounds that harrassment via telecommunications is unlawful.
    Meggie
    26th Sep 2017
    7:46pm
    I also cannot see how the Yes campaign could possibly fit any of the categories above. How were they able to obtain an exemption to enable them to send out the texts all over Australia?
    Army veteran
    26th Sep 2017
    9:06pm
    Not Amused, they even sent a message to my 14 year old sons mobile phone.
    I am not happy !!!! I don't care who it is be it the Yes or the No campaign people if they cannot distinguish the age of the person they send the message to they should not send it at all.
    I find it highly offensive for someone without a moral conscience to send messages to children. I would love to get my hands on the perpetrators that sent messages to children. It's not a mistake a 10 year old can tell you indiscriminately sending computer generated messaging will obviously go to children as well as the rest of the community. They have done untold damage to their case.
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    9:24pm
    Your 14 year old probably knows more than you but as any 14 year old boy his mind only thinks of 2 things, girls and football. Getting a text won't make him gay. But I'm sure if he was you would love him just as much and keep him safe.

    If you are an army veteran you would know of the unwarranted discrimination against the army after the Vietnam war.

    Don't make such a big deal out of a text. Live your life, enjoy your children.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    9:21am
    I think you miss the point, Crafty. The fact that 14 year-olds have such free access to information is all the more reason for society to ensure parents have every opportunity to protect them. No, getting a text won't make anyone gay, but it may confuse and distress them such that they struggle to understand the truths about sexuality and family life. And yes, if a child was gay you would love them and want to keep them safe - but the law already ensures your ability to do that. What it DOES NOT do is protect your right to ensure that being gay is not a misguided choice - as it is for the vast majority of gays in today's society. A tiny number are born with a homosexual gene. Gender confusion and wrongful sex education is responsible for the vast majority of gays making an ill-advised and inappropriate choice. And it is these gender-confused who are pushing for the right to ensure that more young make the same inappropriate choice, and to deny parents the right to protect their offspring.

    Please don't compare the discrimination against Vietnam veterans. There IS no comparison. First, veterans mostly did not choose their status. It was forced on them by society and government. Second, their sacrifice was in the interests of preserving freedom - not abolishing it. And third, they generally suffered in proud and dignified silence. They did not bully, attack, vilify, and demand taxpayer funding to abuse the rest of the population in demand of remedy.

    It's hard to enjoy your children if you are denied the right to protect them. And if parents are denied the right to claim biological parentage - as has happened in Canada - what enjoyment is left to them then?
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    12:00pm
    Education in school.
    I want basic sex education taught in high school. When a girl starts menstruating, she is not afraid as many of us were. A friend was told 'just drink a glass of water", she thought that would stop her getting pregnant. Where babies come from. I don't know what boys would want to know but when my boys asked questions, I told them the truth. Sexuality should not come into it. Nor which way is better or with whoever. That's something to protect children from.
    Discrimination.
    You and I both know gays do not choose but are born that way. My heart will always go out for veterans.
    Biological parentage.
    A lot of grandparents are bringing up grandchildren due to drug abuse, mental illness, death or abandonment by their own children. Children are placed in foster care for above reasons. Their crying out for carers. The family unit changed a long time ago.
    Rainey, We will always have the numbers to fight for children's rights. We are more aware of the dangers, and we can protect them.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    1:37pm
    Crafty, I wish that were true!

    Gays fall into two categories - those born with a homosexual gene, and the MAJORITY who DO CHOOSE to be gay or lesbian. And the Safe Schools program is encouraging that choice. In fact, it's advocating the right of choice and education that supports the notion that we are not born male or female, but only given a body that is often the ''wrong'' body, and that we are all actually ''gender neutral'' until we make an ''informed decision'' whether we wish to be male or female. In one family, two boys both underwent sex change operations in before puberty. Two boys in one family in the wrong body? Come now! In another, mother and daughter became father and son. Really? Please don't try to tell me this is okay on any level. And please DO NOT try to tell me that both mother and daughter were born 'in the wrong body'. What utter crap!

    Sure, kids are placed in foster care for all kinds of reasons, but that's not a reason to deny biological parentage. We should be fighting for a better deal for kids - helping biological parents to learn how to be better parents and providing strong incentives and support systems to strengthen families. Preaching the benefits of homosexual relationships and anal sex is NEVER going to help fix broken families. But it certainly will add to the pain and suffering of confused kids who, at times of extreme vulnerability, are exposed to the message that their problems might be resolved by joining the LGBT community. And letting gays marry and adopt kids can only cause further social harm - if not because kids are deprived of the love of a biological parent, then because gays have a far higher rate of partnership breakup, promiscuity, and mental instability than heterosexuals.
    ibis1315
    27th Sep 2017
    3:07pm
    Rainey your credibility just took a nose dive!!!
    Ny19
    27th Sep 2017
    3:18pm
    Just? No Ibis 1315, it took a nose dive long ago. It really angers me when people play expert when they don't know what they are talking about! Lots of false information being spread by Rainey.
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    12:51am
    Says the crazy who claimed the SSM campaign only began two weeks ago!!!!!
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    12:51am
    Says the crazy who claimed the SSM campaign only began two weeks ago!!!!!
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    12:54am
    I'm only quoting the most aggressive of the pro-SSM/pro-Safe Schools LGBTQs, Robi and ibis1315. If I'm wrong, then many of those driving the campaign are misleading us all.
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    12:54am
    I'm only quoting the most aggressive of the pro-SSM/pro-Safe Schools LGBTQs, Robi and ibis1315. If I'm wrong, then many of those driving the campaign are misleading us all.
    Jezemeg8
    26th Sep 2017
    11:07am
    I quite frankly don't care whether somebody deemed it 'suitable' to send or not, I didn't subscribe to their service, I DON'T WANT IT OR ANYTHING ELSE LIKE IT!!!!
    Waiting to retire at 70
    26th Sep 2017
    11:22am
    You chose it by purchasing your phone. Turn it off.
    micky d.
    26th Sep 2017
    1:00pm
    That was an absolutely brilliant remark "Waiting to Retire at 70" !
    Why didn't we all think about doing that - at the appropriate time/s too ?
    I'll remember to do that next time. Thanks for the suggestion.
    Brilliant !!!!!
    Rae
    26th Sep 2017
    2:55pm
    Just delete it like you do all the junk that floods into email accounts.
    Army veteran
    26th Sep 2017
    9:16pm
    Waiting to retire should have more commonsense, phones only work if they are turned on, furthermore I find it outrageous and totally unacceptable that they sent their messaging to my 14 year old sons phone. He like other children today use the mobile phones for security purposes, schools also Email and text students in 2017 as it's not 1967. If they can't determine the person they are sending messaging to then DON'T SEND THE MESSAGES AT ALL. (Morons !!!!)
    mike
    26th Sep 2017
    11:10am
    I have no problems with Gays living together but I am very concerned with the proposed changes to Legislation if the SSM goes ahead. Shorten has already stated that Labour will use the law to punish anyone who does not fall in line with same sex ideology and religious practice outside the church will be under threat. In Canada, school curriculums were immediately changed after SSM came into force, freedom of speech went out of the window and parents lost control of their children who were still very immature and schools thought they were a candidate for transgender. Similiar horror stories emerged from the UK. We are continually bombarded, even with threats of violence, that SSM is all about Love and Equality, but Turnbull is chasing the Yes vote and is refusing to explain the full legal consequences of SSM. It is frightening. open your eyes, or better still Google results of SSM in Canada and the UK and also what is starting to happen in the US.
    Waiting to retire at 70
    26th Sep 2017
    11:25am
    You started your commentary with "I have no problems ..." and went down from there. Your bigotry is obvious.
    Not Amused
    26th Sep 2017
    11:47am
    Dear Waiting to retire, it is rude to refer to someone simply giving their opinion on this forum as a bigot. Mike is giving a general opinion and what No voters are worried about is evident in your post - an example of the bullying Yes campaigners and a real turn-off. "You chose it by purchasing your phone. Turn it off." If this how campaigners treat opinions on a forum like this, it's no recommendation for a yes vote. I've never met a heterosexual who gave 2 seconds' thought about homosexuals living together. What is often deplored is the overt coarse sexual boldness displayed in the Sydney Mardi Gras. Two men I was friendly with for a very long time lived together for 35 years. Both of them say that marriage is a traditional union between a man and a woman. They both made wills - to each other. In hospital they were both treated as a couple and were pensioned in the same way as any de facto couple. The argument that homosexual couples are legally deprived is a ploy to muscle in on traditional marriage to prove a point and achieve legitimacy whilst walking all over the rest of us with the proverbial hob-nailed boots.
    micky d.
    26th Sep 2017
    12:42pm
    Hi mike.
    "WAITING TO RETIRE's" response to your comments is so very, very typical of the Yes campaigner's bullying tactics by calling you a bigot.
    That's about the best they can come up with.
    You are not a bigot. You have every right to express your opinion.
    Shame and scorn on bullies.
    I agree, fully, with "NOT AMUSED's" comments.
    KSS
    26th Sep 2017
    12:42pm
    Waiting to retire, your response is exactly the kind of response we have come to expect from the 'Yes' side of the argument. No respect for someone with a different opinion but straight to the name calling.

    mike is doing nothing other than reporting on some of the consequences that occurred in other countries after the 'Yes' vote prevailed. Given this is fact (inconvenient though that may be for some) it is not bigotry to point it out. At least not if you are having an adult discussion. Something I am not convinced the 'Yes" voters are all capable of given their behaviour to date.

    And in any case; wasn't it George Brandis, during the fight over media and free speech who said "Australians have the right to be bigots!"?
    GreyViper
    26th Sep 2017
    1:14pm
    Well said Mike. That's the way some people try to deal with this issue. The pigeon hole you, call you names and then they don't have to deal with you or debate you on issues because you're a 'homophobe' or a 'bigot' and, therefore, you're opinion doesn't matter.

    Waiting To Retire, how long do you have to go until retirement ..... 40 years? You carry on like someone from Gen Y and don't respect other people or their opinions. Not a proper way to make your point!
    Marg
    26th Sep 2017
    2:20pm
    Mike, can you please supply the evidence of changes to school curriculums in Canada and the UK whereby children are being indoctrinated into being transgender?

    I have, as you suggested, Googled and all I can find is ultra right wing and/or religious opinion that presents rather scaremongering scenarios that are completely over the top.

    I would really be interesting in reading any articles that are based on fact rather than fiction that you have come across. Thank you.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:36pm
    You don't seem to bring up the millions of reports, worldwide, about the killings and grievous bodily harm inflicted on gays. Not to mention the mental harm!!!

    All generated by fear, misunderstanding, not being educated and ignorance.

    Oh, wait, is that OK?
    youngunpassingthru
    26th Sep 2017
    7:58pm
    Marg:

    Put it this way, if there were a conspiracy to turn children gay or transgender those behind it would not admit it openly. These things are done by stealth, and can be inferred by drawing a conclusion based on numerous observations over a period of time. The world we live in is up to interpretation, and truth cannot be expected to originate from any one source.

    Also, you assume that simply because a website is designated as far right or religious that it's point of view is 'wrong' by default. The left can use this trick because media and academia are largely of the left, culturally speaking.

    You've set up your argument so those critical of gay marriage can't win, as you won't accept evidence provided by someone who is 'far right', and if you oppose gay marriage you will often be labeled 'far right' to begin with, so it's a catch-22.

    Equality is a religious concept, it only exists in the abstract, and not in nature.

    ibis1315:

    How is that even an argument? It is already illegal to bash people regardless of sexual preference or marital status. How would allowing gays to marry stop them from being bashed? How would it 'educate people'? Besides, most of those examples are likely to originate in the third world, where there is a completely different culture and society. Why lecture and finger wag at us for behaviour that is largely not our own?

    You'd think over 50s would have more common sense, that's what several decades of believing everything on TV does to you I guess.
    ibis1315
    27th Sep 2017
    1:13am
    younunpassingthru......

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/australia/australia-gay-men-killed-suicides-sydney.html

    Pull your head out of your backside and get a dose of reality!!!

    I think you should keep on passing through!!!
    Strummer
    27th Sep 2017
    7:35am
    Bigots, racists, xenophobes, homophobes etc. always have "but" in their comments. The hardest person to be honest with is yourself.
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    1:02am
    That entire article is pure supposition and assertion. Nothing has yet been evidenced. But regardless, society has changed a lot since then. There are strong laws against discrimination and gays have extensive legislated rights.

    On the other hand, those Strummer brands with vile insulting names have NO legal protection against the nasty attacks perpetrated on them for merely having an opinion on an issue the government has asked us all to have an opinion on.

    youngunpassingthru is absolutely correct - ESPECIALLY with the remark that allowing SSM won't stop bullying. One has nothing to do with the other!
    missmarple
    26th Sep 2017
    11:12am
    I too recieved the text message from yes campaign but people just do as I did and DELETE, don't get yourselves upset over it, is it really worth the angst ?
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    11:22am
    YES!
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    12:24pm
    No it's not. I get unwanted messages all the time from businesses selling stuff and advertising sales etc. I just delete them. No big deal.
    Rosret
    26th Sep 2017
    7:04pm
    Actually Robi I am totally over advertising, dental reminders, how to vote, charities etc. I didn't give people my number and I don't want ANY nuisance calls.
    I won't give to charities who phone anymore because of the nuisance calls it generates and if they want visa or any other details even off line I won't donate.
    Suze
    26th Sep 2017
    11:13am
    This will unable all the people that are undecided to vote NO for the intrusion
    People on the DO NOT CALL LIST value their privacy.
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    11:26am
    Suze, I think this is a portent of the future.
    Waiting to retire at 70
    26th Sep 2017
    11:30am
    But you're not:
    1. "voting" nor
    2. asked to express your opinion on an "intrusion" (which you've signed up to by purchasing a phone).
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    11:19am
    Computer generated random numbers huh??
    Call me a sceptic, but I find that explanation difficult to believe.
    If that were the case then many young people who have not reached voting age would have received this text?
    My message was authorised by A Greenwich of 6 Macquarie Street Sydney. That's Parliament House. My initial thought was that it had come from Medicare.
    If the YES camp want equal rights then I suggest they show it!!!
    Edenbann
    26th Sep 2017
    11:36am
    Would you believe I've just received my SECOND text from this organisation. They must be slow learners after the commotion about this over the weekend!
    cupoftea
    26th Sep 2017
    11:57am
    one way of turning a real man against
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    12:32pm
    You must be complaining too much!
    Peking
    26th Sep 2017
    11:43am
    Is everyone who is getting uptight about their number being accessed, in this case for promotion of one side of the non-binding postal vote, despite their listing on the Do Not Call Register, aware that anyone can access their number if they want to?
    How many calls have you had from the "solar" and "Telstra" frauds?
    Unfortunately, the phone access issue has turned into shots at the SSM rights.
    Just vote and rely on the Government to delay/smother the issue.
    Drewbie
    26th Sep 2017
    11:44am
    Furthermore: " such socially, morally illegal & inept " tactics may very well explode in their faces, causing " Yes campaign big wigs " & their minions to wail & sob bitterly into their latte / spiced chai mugs about how " outrageously unfair " it is that they lost the Plebiscite.

    Gaining millions of Australian mobile ph numbers " will " only do one thing for the " Yes Campaign " proponents. It will give those Australians, who haven't voted yet, the impetus & reasoned social conscience to " Vote No " purely because their Legislated personal privacy has been so arrogantly violated for what actually is a deliberate " Obscene Hidden Agenda ".

    LGBTIQ folk already have similar legal rights as do heterosexual couples such as, relationship & personal property rights, real estate acquisition/disposal - including lifestyle & financial gain there-in, legal representation, just to name a few.

    Let's all just hope that " sheer, common sense " will provide the best outcome for all Aussies, & regardless of political or personal persuasion, that which ever way the vote falls: the ( umpire's decision ) . . . the majority will of the people is thoroughly & permanently respected!
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    1:06am
    Drewbie, if the ''no'' side prevails, the media and lobby groups will become far more aggressive and continue their bullying and false claims until they get what they want. That's how it's been for decades and it will continue. The ''no'' side doesn't stand a chance, no matter what is best for society and no matter what the majority prefer.
    geofftuke
    26th Sep 2017
    11:46am
    I too had decided, BUT I was not impressed getting that intrusive SMS. I also watched the interview on ABC Morning show on Monday and the guy being interviewed did not give a straight answer to any of the questions asked.
    I have nothing against gay people having employed several in the past, but if you have to dodge the straight up question being asked, then your honesty is definitely questionable.
    That sort of thing is what turns people against you! In future, if you're asked a question, give an honest answer. People will respect you for it! Much more than for any dodgy answer
    Hawkeye
    26th Sep 2017
    1:08pm
    Did you really expect a gay to give a "straight" answer?

    Sounds like there were a lot of gay answers to straight questions.
    geofftuke
    26th Sep 2017
    4:05pm
    Certainly was. Exactly my point
    Puglet
    26th Sep 2017
    11:47am
    I received a phone text and deleted it. It won’t change my vote. I have also had a number of No vote rubbish in my mail box, telling me we’ll turn into communists if gays marry. Thee has been No graffiti complete with obscene comments put on walls and fences. A couple of No people from the local church banged on my door on Sunday to tell me my children will be taught to hate heterosexual Australians if gays marry. They were unable to explain how gays marrying will mean we’ll be communist or hate our parents. Everyone knew this would happen and it is so wrong. I didn’t have to ask society if I could marry and nor should gays.
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    9:37pm
    Thank you for showing me your humanity. As a forgotten Australian, I haven't seen much here. It is disheartening.

    'I didn't have to ask society if I could marry and nor should gays." That should be on a poster.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    10:08pm
    A forgotten Australian ?
    KSS
    27th Sep 2017
    8:00am
    Actually Crafty if you married in a church you did in fact ask society if you could marry. Its called "reading the Banns" and you do it three times before the wedding and again during the ceremony!
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    8:06am
    having spent my childhood in and out of religious institutions i tend to avoid churches. Hence I got married at the registry. Just needed a yes from the hubby.
    Eddy
    26th Sep 2017
    11:48am
    That text was the last straw that tipped me to vote NO. I was most likely to have refrained from voting as I have no hard and fast views on either side of the question, although I was uneasy about using the term 'marriage' to describe a same sex union.
    As for this so called 'marriage equality' my under 18yo grandson remarked that we already have marriage equality in Australia, any person can marry another person (of the opposite gender) as long as both consent regardless of race or creed. Mutual love is not a requirement.
    The other thing that inclined me against voting YES was the $1M donation to the YES campaign. With all the suffering in the world due to poverty and disease better use could have been made of that money (and yes I am aware it is his money to do with as he pleases) irrespective of what other philanthropic causes to which he donates.
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    12:34pm
    You aint seen nothing yet Eddy. Wait to see what your grandkids will be learning in school!
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    12:43pm
    Your under 18 grandson is wrong. We do not "already have marriage equality in Australia". Without equality society is delivering the message that same-sex relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships.

    The NO campaigners have more money than the YES campaigners. Where do you think it all came from?
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    1:16pm
    Equality in this context is a term used to make people feel they must agree that all relationships, homosexual or heterosexual, deserve the same category and that marriage can be a union between any gender. Homosexual relationships were never regarded as "unequal", more so very different from the 98% who relate to traditional marriage between a man and woman as an expression of commitment. As a heterosexual woman I happen to want my marital status to remain different from the lesbian grouping. There is no such thing as pure "equal" in most spheres of life except in socialism and communism where everyone is equally poor.
    Hawkeye
    26th Sep 2017
    1:32pm
    NO NO NO Robi.

    The message is simply that same sex relationships are DIFFERENT to heterosexual relationships, and can never be a marriage.

    It's just like saying 1+1 is different to 1+2, and can never be 3.
    And no changes to any laws will ever make it be 3.

    It seems that only the yes campaigners feel an inferiority in same sex relationships, and for that you have my pity but not my vote.
    geofftuke
    26th Sep 2017
    11:48am
    PS. And the next poll I saw said that the no vote % had increased by something like 5% since that SMS. Serves you right!
    Hawkeye
    26th Sep 2017
    1:38pm
    Perhaps the NO side should start sending out YES texts.

    I think it's a great example of how people have had a gutful of advertising in any form, and how it now tends to have an opposite effect on the vast majority.
    Rosret
    26th Sep 2017
    7:06pm
    Hawkeye I agree with your last sentence. I am so over the aggressive nature of this survey. Roll on November 7th.
    mike
    26th Sep 2017
    11:49am
    To waiting to retire, Open your eyes, see what is happening in Canada and the UK and to some extent in the US and already starting to happen here. Are you that blind. I am 70 years old, so too old to be affected, but i have 4 children and several grandchildren and what sort of a world will you offer them. You call me a bigot because I am concerned at what is happening in other countries and what Shorten proposes to happen here. You are obviously a Yes voter, anyone who dares disagree with you or is concerned at proposed changes to legislation is a bigot. In Nazi Germany you would have been a brownshirt.
    Brissiegirl
    26th Sep 2017
    12:14pm
    Mike
    many Australians probably haven't researched what's happening in Canada and UK and the No campaign has been financially swamped by rainbows andwealthy homosexuals in high places. Some yes campaigners even complained that the OK to Vote No sky writing sign was inappropriate.

    Waiting to retire

    If your arrogance and rudeness are an indication of how homosexual people react to opposing straight opinions on marriage definition, the future of young children in regard to sex education could turn out to be far more disoriented than anyone could possibly predict.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:40pm
    Brissiegirl, I think we know where you stand (vote)...what makes you think Waiting to retire is homosexual?
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    5:27pm
    ibis1315 ---- I did not assume Waiting to Retire at 70 is a homosexual, merely responding to his/her accusations about bigotry by the No-ers, but now you bring attention to such a possibility...
    Kathleen
    26th Sep 2017
    9:53pm
    Yes I did research Canada and other countries post ssm and it is enlightening. Everyone should do that!
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    5:55am
    Correct, GrandmaKathleen22. Canada, UK, USA, Ireland... But take heart. In a few decades, Australia will be a Muslim nation, and then heaven help the LGBTs! Morality and family values will be restored, and nothing anyone can do will stop it.

    No, I'm not Muslim nor pro-Muslim. I don't like that their numbers are increasing so fast. But I foresee what's coming, and frankly, I'm not sure which is worse - Muslim domination or the death of family and community values. I'm just glad I won't be around to see much of either.
    Rosret
    27th Sep 2017
    7:30am
    Rainey, Australia won't be a Muslim nation it will be our quiet immigrants - the Chinese. I wonder what their thoughts are as a cohort?
    Ny19
    27th Sep 2017
    9:52am
    Looks like Brissiegirl is Swinging voter.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    2:02pm
    Ignorance showing again Robi. There is a strong Muslim presence in China and among the Chinese. Other Chinese religions are very pro family and community. In general, Chinese are very actively pro-family and morality - ESPECIALLY those who migrate to Australia, because many of them do so to escape socialism or communism and thus they place high value on freedom, and they understand that it is the strength of the family and the community that is our best defence of freedom.
    Puglet
    26th Sep 2017
    11:54am
    I have just come home from helping my neighbours clean the obscene filth sprayed on his garden wall by No campaigners. I have no idea if he is gay and I really don’t care. I do care that that he cares about my elderly neighbour and mows her lawn. I don’t think she cares who he marries either. Surely this sort of behaviour is worse than a text message. It took two seconds to delete mine and two hours to clean the walls.
    Jennie
    26th Sep 2017
    12:02pm
    Puglet, I think you are the most sensible, calm and unbiased commenter in this forum. Thank you.
    Spud
    26th Sep 2017
    12:25pm
    Thank you Puglet ! On behalf of my gay son it does lift my spirit when I see good deeds done .
    I ask those who have voted no in these posts to take a couple of minutes to actually have a look at what civil liberties are denied to LGBT people . Yes that's what it's all about ! Not religion marriage! The pedophiles in these institutions can and will do as they please but in regards to what is denied to 10% of the population is a disgrace !
    Eclair
    26th Sep 2017
    12:33pm
    Yes, Puglet is getting my vote. This forum always attracts a good deal of negative grizzlers but today it is crossing the boundary into ill-informed bigotry.
    KSS
    26th Sep 2017
    12:50pm
    Spud, apart from the act of marriage, can you please explain exactly what 'civil liberties' are denied to any LGTBI person? And where do pedophiles fit into the equation?

    I am asking a genuine question here, given that LGBTQI people are all already protected by various other bits of legislation concerning 'civil liberties'.
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    12:53pm
    Eclair, trying to characterise opposing opinion as bigotry no longer works. Just because someone wants to retain the traditional meaning of marriage does not make them a bigot and this is the language that is causing heterosexuals to re-think their attitudes towards homosexuals. And yes I agree that not enough people are informed as to what has happened wherever the meaning of marriage as a heterosexual union has been re-defined. Many people who agreed with homosexual marriage now regret the impacts it is having on kids.
    bro
    26th Sep 2017
    12:02pm
    Several mental health organisations expressed concens a few days ago about the spike in calls to help lines from netero people (particularly young people) being stressed by the folding of and actions around this postal survey. This was predicted and seems unsurprising given the vitriol that some people are expressing.

    I'd be surprised if there were a similar number of calls to help lines by people stressed from receiving one of these randomised robocalls - not that I personally think they are of any great benefit to the callers except in circumstances where they supply false information designed to whip prejudices. This message message does not seem to be of that type.
    JanP
    26th Sep 2017
    12:04pm
    Waiting to retire at 70...Just what sort of douchebag are you?
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    12:32pm
    To: Waiting to Retire

    You sound like a heterophobe, and as a heterosexual Mrs I am highly offended.
    Tommo
    26th Sep 2017
    12:05pm
    How much longer must we put up with this " marriage " crap. I am SICK - SICK - Sick of TV, radio,newspapers, electronic media pushing this BULLSHIT that the Government didn't have the guts to put to the people with a plebiscite as PROMISED by the weakest Prime Minister this country has ever known. Whatever, you get what you deserve. Gutless bloody politicians.
    Spud
    26th Sep 2017
    12:11pm
    I got the text so what ? I also get telcos texting me about footy tickets I've won! The scams do the " internet will go down" the solar government rebate the gas and electricity deals ! Yes I'm on the no call register!! Oh and the politicians voice mailing me as well as the charity's ect. Get over it ! I would like to plug the constant ACL adds on the TV but it's expected of them , control by fear and guilt ! $35000 a day I have read to transmit their stupid red herrings. I have 2sons ,one of them has more rights in law than the other , that's just not right !
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    1:27pm
    Same here Spud. Two of my children have less rights than the other one. In my heart and mind they are all equal. I want society to accept them as equal too.

    If all the people complaining about receiving the text message had gay children or other loved gay family members they would place more emphasis on what the message conveys than on their sense of privacy. I think most who are carrying on about receiving the text are probably "no" voters anyway.
    Army veteran
    26th Sep 2017
    12:15pm
    Sending out unsolicited text messages in that manner is a certain method to turn people away from the objective they were trying to achieve. Those that are marketing in this manner need to go back to back to the classroom and learn proper marketing.
    Nomad51
    26th Sep 2017
    12:28pm
    I have also heard the story that the campaign was directed at younger people. The fact that we received these messages tends to suggest that the story is crap as is the story about computer generation of numbers. This was nothing more than leftism at work invading our privacy. The fact that they chose to hide behind anonymity tells me they are not really prepared for scrutiny or to defend their cause. Until our politicians fix up the laws governing this sort of crap (remember the Medicare scam put out by Shorten's mob), clowns like this will exploit the system. Sadly our politicians do not have the spine or inclination to upset ratbags and minority groups.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    12:31pm
    There is much better ways to communicate than SMS. I hear headbutting works a treat.
    Joy Anne
    26th Sep 2017
    12:32pm
    I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE FOLLOWING HAVE ACCESS IF WE HAVE "DO NOT CALL REGISTER"
    Exemptions apply to:
    •registered charities
    •educational institutions
    •government bodies
    •registered political parties
    •independent members of parliament
    •political candidates.
    THESE SHOULD NOT HAVE EXEMPTION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. PEOPLE THINK BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER THE "DO NOT CALL REGISTER" THAT IS WHAT THEY EXPECT. THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATES. I EXPECT TO NOT HAVE ANY OF THESE CALLS HAVING MY NUMBER ON THE "DO NOT CALL REGISTER".
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    12:38pm
    Couldn't agree more but the human rights nutters would say all of the above have legitimate telecommunications access rights (that you do not have).
    Eclair
    26th Sep 2017
    12:51pm
    By now I expect people sending electronic messages to know that using all capitals is the equivalent of shouting and extremely rude. However I do agree that there are too many exceptions to the Do Not Call register. Of course it is all made nonsense by the fact that it only applies to calls originating in Australia which gives complete freedom to all the overseas scam calls.
    Hawkeye
    26th Sep 2017
    1:57pm
    ECLAIR
    I THINK WE NEED ANOTHER PLEBISCITE ON "EQUAL RIGHTS FOR CAPITALS"
    colsbit
    26th Sep 2017
    12:39pm
    As an older Australian I can't believe the hatred, vitreol and ignorance shown by many (most) people commenting here on this Issue of basic civil rights/equality.
    Thank goodness that younger Australians will, on the whole, be a more civil, inclusive and tolerant older generation as they age.
    Shame on those of you who show hatred, ignorance and demonstrate your homophobia towards your fellow countrymen and women. And thank you to those few here on this forum who speak for the vast majority of us Aussies wanting a fairer, inclusive, happy and non-judgemental world.
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    12:46pm
    There is no hatred here. Characterisation of personal opinions as hatred, vitriol and ignorance is a sinister tactic that no longer works.
    KSS
    26th Sep 2017
    1:07pm
    Colsbit, I assume that by saying younger people being civil you mean like those on Sydney University campus who overturned tables, threw home cooked food on the walkway, pushed, shoved and hit the people manning said tables and threw food at them whilst yelling and screaming abuse at them all because the victims were sitting quietly at the aforementioned tables with food their Mothers cooked and that they were giving away to anyone who wanted it and a few 'vote No' pamphlets.

    I heard that the 'Yes' campaign was targeting younger voters because the organisers didn't think that the 'younger voter' would not know how to mark the form and more importantly, put it in a letter-box! They 'feared' only the older generation (I guess they mean us) would have the ability to tick a single box on the form and make it safely to the nearest letterbox. Talk about under and overestimating the Australian public in the single campaign!
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    9:43pm
    Colsbit, thank you for your morality and your humanity.

    quoting piglet "I DIDN'T HAVE TO ASK SOCIETY IF I COULD MARRY, WHY SHOULD GAYS.
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    9:55pm
    Sorry puglet it's the bloody spellchecker.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    5:41am
    Colsbit and Crafty, I've witnessed more hatred, bullying and vile insults against heterosexuals since this campaign began than I've seen in 60 years against gays. Favouring the ''no'' side does NOT equal hatred. In my view, it equals intelligence and awareness. I have many gay friends and I respect their choices, but I did my research before making up my mind and I uncovered the real agenda behind SSM. And, by the way, my gay friends did also and voted NO. And are lobbying strongly for a ''no'' result - because THEY know what it's rally all about.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    6:49am
    Rainey i don't know any agenda behind SSM.
    If it's about the sex education in schools then that's something that should be bought out into the open. It should always be age appropriate. I'd hate to think that children's minds are being exploited.
    Years ago they gave gay people electric shock treatment supposedly to turn them straight.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    7:05am
    I googled searched "does SSM have an agender".

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-hardcore-samesex-marriage-supporters-have-an-unacceptable-agenda/news-story/29e77d5ab4a7932af4552686418d7773

    I found this. It's crazy. I don't want to celebrate anyone's sexuality. I don't want to wear a badge. I don't want to be called "ze". And I definitely don't want children worrying about their sexuality before their old enough to accept it.
    KSS
    26th Sep 2017
    12:56pm
    The "YES" campaign has been designed and run by the same man who did the same for Kevin Rudd "Kevin 07". Enough said.
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    12:58pm
    Say no more!!! Is that the same Irish chap who ran the campaign in Ireland?
    KSS
    26th Sep 2017
    1:13pm
    Tim Gartrell former ALP boss!
    See here:
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/tim-gartrell-uses-same-tactics-for-kevin-07-to-campaign-for-yes-vote/news-story/c945a4fffc9303f12533bc6682db0c98

    One bit of the report concerns the telephone calls:

    "“The targets we’ve had have been smashed,” he said. “We were hoping to place half a million targeted phone calls by the end of the process. The volunteers teams have already done 600,000 and we’ve doorknocked 100,000 homes."

    So random they are not!
    Rosret
    27th Sep 2017
    7:31am
    So what do you think KSS - do feel it has helped or hindered the cause?
    KSS
    27th Sep 2017
    8:06am
    In my opinion I think it has hindered the Yes cause simply because it has put a lot of recipients off side. Likewise the doorknocking. Being confronted by 'passionate' advocates on your doorstep in not conducive to to a non-threatening discussion. It feels coercive and that is wrong.
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    12:56pm
    Does anyone know of any young people who have received this message??
    If these were random generated numbers then many young people who have not reached voting age would have received this text?
    Kathleen
    26th Sep 2017
    1:17pm
    Good point. I got one but did not see it til now lol.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:42pm
    Maybe they are aimed at the dinosaurs!!!!
    Adrianus
    27th Sep 2017
    7:35am
    I cant find anyone under voting age who has received this text message. Therefor the numbers were not randomly generated. They were selected from a list.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    1:07pm
    I didn't get the text, but I get text from people I don't like all the time. Big deal! If I could get someone to stop sending me texts it would be Telstra. I hate those guys.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:41pm
    Yeah, I agree with you....Big deal.
    Kathleen
    26th Sep 2017
    1:15pm
    I am not going to be told what to vote. People have the right to vote how they feel. I do not have have an issue with people who choose yes or who choose no. There is far too much judgment and I hate to say on Facebook it is the yes voters. People are being viciously attacked and it is not right. We have a gay boy on either side of the family so I feel for them personally. If the name had been changed to 'union' and away from the word, 'marriage' all this could have been avoided. Everyone would choose a legal union.
    Kathleen
    26th Sep 2017
    1:16pm
    I mean legal union for all couples.
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    1:18pm
    Union would have been a non-divisive, acceptable and reasonable term. Thank you for that.
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    1:21pm
    I doubt it would be acceptable to remove "marriage" as it does define a particular relationship between a man and woman who more than likely would have children together. But it would have been far more sensible to adopt a name for homosexual relationships as a "union".
    Hawkeye
    26th Sep 2017
    2:10pm
    GrandmaKathleen22 for President.

    Yes, the sweet voice of reason.
    But I don't think this would be acceptable to the gay community, who's aim is to hi-jack the term "marriage"
    seadog
    26th Sep 2017
    1:25pm
    I also received this text message. I am appalled that this has happened by whatever means it was done. The text also had a email address on it which does not exist as I responded to it. This is shameful conduct and totally unnecessary As I can make my own mind up. It is bad enough when political parties do this so who is going to be next?
    recyled
    26th Sep 2017
    1:27pm
    The one fundamental question I would like to ask both the Yes and the No groups is:
    If the vote goes against you, will you accept the verdict and not try to affect a change in the future?
    Hawkeye
    26th Sep 2017
    2:12pm
    What, just like the republicans?
    jackyd
    26th Sep 2017
    1:29pm
    Tacky campaign tricks aside, the issue for me comes down to 2 points.

    Why would approximately 70% of the people wish to discriminate against 30% of the people for the sake of 1% of the people whom claim discrimination but are in fact not being discriminated against at all, considering Civil Union carries the same legal weight as the Marriage Act.

    The overseas experience does indicate that changing the Marriage Act has far reaching ramifications that includes legal discrimination against devout religious believers in the USA, parents in Canada concerned at little recourse regarding the over sexualized gay agenda in the school curriculum and growing pressure on the churches in England not to discriminate homosexual marriage.
    Intrusive
    26th Sep 2017
    1:43pm
    Thanks to the SMS I shall either vote NO or not vote at all. I strongly object to being harrassed by such messages.
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    2:36pm
    Intrusive if you don't vote it's just the same as voting YES and NO at the same time.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:39pm
    When you go to vote and the people are handing out "how to vote" pamphlets, what do you do???
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    1:45pm
    Two of my children have less rights than the other one. In my heart and mind they are all equal. I want society to consider them equal too.

    If all the people complaining about receiving the text message had gay children or other loved gay family members they would place more emphasis on what the message conveys than on their sense of privacy. I think most who are carrying on about receiving the text are probably "no" voters anyway.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:37pm
    I feel where you're coming from!!! How dare someone, who doesn't even know the people concerned, get a say in what happens between them. We are currently in line with the countries we vilify for disgusting human rights atrocities........Not the Australia I want to be proud of!!!
    CindyLou
    26th Sep 2017
    4:36pm
    I didn't like getting the message but I voted yes, well that blows your theory hey.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    9:37am
    Robi, I have gay loved family members, and they say this SSM campaign is misleading socialist BS designed to destroy the family unit. They freely state that they already have the rights the SSM-lobby claims to be pursuing, and they know the campaign is about something else entirely. And they are voting NO.
    Ny19
    27th Sep 2017
    10:27am
    Sorry Rainey but I am sceptical. Earlier you said you have gay friends who are arguing your line. Now you have gay family members doing the same thing. Are you making up all these gay figures who are arguing against equal rights for gays?
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    2:23pm
    Absolutely not, Robi. These people are very real, much loved, strongly respected, and very anti-SSM and Safe Schools, because they understand the real objective. But sorry, I struggle to believe TWO of your offspring were born with the homosexual gene. Would be highly unusual at best.
    Ny19
    27th Sep 2017
    3:58pm
    Very common to have more than one gay in the family Rainey. I also have a gay nephew. The more you pretend to know about homosexuality, the less credible you become.
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    1:50am
    'Common to have more than one gay in the family now, because most gays are not born that way. There is a homosexual gene that some (a small number) are born with. But today, most gays are not born with it. Most gays are like one of my relatives, who was persuaded - at age 40 and after being heterosexual all her life - that is was ''hip'' to be gay, and a defence against the abuse and rejection she had suffered from men.

    I have friends and family in both categories, Robi. I respect their life choices regardless of their gene structure, but I am deeply concerned that society is moving in an unhealthy direction - resulting in an increases of the numbers who are gay or lesbian purely by choice. And I'm gravely concerned that sex-change operations are now being permitted on children who are not old enough to know what they are doing.

    My credibility is only doubted by those who promote the gay agenda, Robi. I have researched extensively on this subject, because the decision of a loved one disturbed me greatly and I wanted to understand the motivation and behaviour.

    Something I found very interesting indeed is that the relative I refer to above is not quite sure of herself yet. She's waiting for the results of the SSM referendum before deciding whether to ''come out'' or not! She wants majority approval.
    KB
    26th Sep 2017
    1:45pm
    I did not receive the call. My daughter did and I know of others who had received the call. One person changed their vote . Calls should not have been made This is private and personal matter to vote on. Furthermore organizations should not sell phone numbers for companies to use at their whim.

    26th Sep 2017
    1:46pm
    The desperate, privacy-invading homofascists are out in force. I'll be voting NO and encourage others to do the same. Same-sex unions are NOT marriages; they're something else entirely.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:33pm
    For goodness sake.....Homophobic much???
    Anonymous
    27th Oct 2017
    4:13pm
    For goodness sake... No. Just being logical, without resorting to name-calling as you have done. You thereby FAIL automatically.
    floss
    26th Sep 2017
    1:51pm
    If our Parliamentarians were to do the job they were elected to do would we be in this mess. And what will it achieve in the long run ,all it has done is divide Australia.But it did divert our attention away from the power disaster as was intended.
    Kathleen
    26th Sep 2017
    2:30pm
    My husband reckons they want to have the people agree to fracking. That is where the power debate is headed.
    Rosret
    27th Sep 2017
    7:26am
    Yes - and hasn't it worked well! It used to be the flag or change Australia day.
    Phredt
    26th Sep 2017
    2:00pm
    Like so many other people, I am aware that homosexual people in a civil relationship have the same rights as married people. And like many other people, I am confused and annoyed by a call for equality when homosexual people already have it. What they want is the use of the word 'marriage' so they can also use the words 'husband' and 'wife'.
    If they are comfortable with themselves and their relationships, they don't need 'marriage' and this whole thing is a money-wasting sop to political correctness.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:22pm
    They DON"T have it Phredt!!! That's the whole bloody point!!!
    Redwyne
    26th Sep 2017
    2:06pm
    I objected to the lies told in the flyer dropped in my letterbox by the NO campaign. I didn't need the flyer or the SMS to help me make up my mind. Just the same with general elections.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:31pm
    Yes, I objected to the lies too...
    inextratime
    26th Sep 2017
    2:10pm
    Thank you for the explanation but what category does the "yes'' campaign come under ?
    JudyM
    26th Sep 2017
    2:11pm
    I was absolutely angry at receiving that email. why, are they frightened they are going to lose that they have to bully people into voting Yes. I had already voted so useless impact on me in that regard. How did they get my number .. I am on the do not call register and pay for a silent listing. I was even more outraged that when I tried to contact them to let them know of my displeasure .. a reply email didn't work, their website has no contact details (email or phone). Cowards I say. knew there would be a backlash and gutless as to not manning up and taking the feedback.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:30pm
    I wonder JudyM if this much anger is generated to every single advertising email, text or phone call. It's just advertising, if it had been the No campaign, would we be hearing about this??
    Hawkeye
    26th Sep 2017
    2:26pm
    As I said in one of my replies above:
    1+1 is DIFFERENT to 1+2, and can never be 3.
    And no changes to any laws will ever make it be 3.

    Similarly:
    Same sex relationships are DIFFERENT to heterosexual relationships, and can never be a marriage.
    And no changes to any laws will ever make it be marriage.

    Call it anything else, but please don't turn my marriage into a political plaything.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:27pm
    But heterosexual de-facto is OK and divorce is OK...Children out of wedlock.......is that OK?? aren't they the opposite of "marriage"?
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    5:53pm
    I agree Hawkeye, homosexual relationships are very different from heterosexual relationships and can never be marriage, the institution ordained for a man and a woman. I too don't want my marriage being "equated" alongside homosexual relationships and as already commented I definitely don't approve of detailed dynamics of homosexual sex being sanctioned and discussed in schools. Until all this fuss and loud demands, homosexual relationships were rarely spoken about and no-one was inquisitive as to how they conducted their lives, and they do have civil rights. The overtly sexually vulgar conduct of the Mardi Gras says it all, really.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    2:28pm
    Couldn't agree more, Swinging voter.
    Grateful
    26th Sep 2017
    2:32pm
    Regardless of the purpose, what does an informal, voluntary, anonymous anything prove??
    So, if one "side" gets 55%, what does that mean? It means that 55% of those that even bothered to complete it agree with that "side".
    Nobody can even tell who really completed the returned document!!!
    It certainly does not mean 55% of the voting population.
    So, why spend $120 million for something that proves absolutely nothing and definitely does upset very many people, even among those that are wanting a positive reply??
    cat
    26th Sep 2017
    2:40pm
    I have no problem with anybodys sexual inclination so long as it is kept respectful to each othere and private. That goes for all parties. Wouldn't go for orgies for example for any sex lol. Having said that I have friends who are 'gay who feel the same way, flaunting their 'gayness' in other peoples faces is not the way to get acceptance. So this texting has had a reverse affect on a lot of people. not a god idea from whomever thought it up.
    Hawkeye
    27th Sep 2017
    1:59am
    "not a god idea"??????
    Please Cat, lets keep religion out of it
    Marg
    26th Sep 2017
    2:59pm
    I am so tired of the vitriol that this opinion poll has generated. It has come to the point where reading anything to do with same sex marriage is like seeing one group trying to tear apart another group. The vitriol does not just come from the ‘yes’ campaigns but from the ‘no’ as well. In fact most of what I see in comments is how nasty the ‘yes’ campaigners are but not much on what the ‘no’ side has done.

    Homosexuals are ordinary people, just like everyone else. All they want to the right to stand in front of their parents, relations, friends and declare their commitment to each other in a legally binding way. I’ve seen so many comments that express fear that giving them that right will somehow undermine society, bring about some kind of gay Armageddon where straight people will lose their freedom of speech, their right to be straight, their so valued word ‘marriage’. Society will fall in a heap and the end is nigh.

    The legality of marriage bestows on a couple rights that defacto relationships do not and no matter how many people say that gay couples have the same legal rights as any other couple the fact is they do not when it comes to testing those legalities.

    As for those who say they will now vote ‘no’ just because of a text message – really? This is a debate about equal rights, not about text message or a perceived slight. If your conscience directs you to vote ‘no’ that’s fine, but please treat this question with some respect.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:24pm
    Good on you Marg...I totally agree with you.....
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    3:30pm
    So very well said Marg.
    jackyd
    26th Sep 2017
    3:49pm
    Marg...what about the greater minority that view traditional marriage as precious to them, don't they have rights as well or do you wish to see their rights eroded for the sake of the one percenters?
    nena
    26th Sep 2017
    3:59pm
    jackyd, you have got a brain. You are not a blinded follower.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:00pm
    jackyd.....just how are their rights eroded....Seriously, I'm interested to know...
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    4:05pm
    How will their rights be eroded Jackryd? They will still be able to marry. You must mean their "exclusive" right? Yep they will lose that. I wonder why it is so important to have a sense of exclusiveness and why those that have it are so fearful of losing it? I'm married and I couldn't give a bugger about having an exclusive heterosexual right.
    jackyd
    26th Sep 2017
    4:27pm
    For those that have a spiritual connection to the institution of marriage!
    That being that marriage was always intended to be between a man and a woman as the foundation of the family unit as only a man and a woman can procreate life.
    That is something that homosexual couples can never do and such ceremony was never intended for such couples.
    In respect to the brain issue nena, that is the very bigoted response so prevalent with the Yes people in this debate.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:49pm
    jackyd, go and have a bex, a cup of tea and good lie down, before you hurt yourself. I do believe that you have just insulted any heterosexual married couple that do not/cannot have children!!!

    And if you were paying attention to this thread, I think you will find that Nena is very, definitely not of the YES vote persuasion!
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    5:08pm
    Jackyd, nena was insulting the "yes" supporters with her comment to you. Most of the really ugly comments I have seen around the place have come from the "No" supporters.
    jackyd
    26th Sep 2017
    5:13pm
    ibis...you seem to have a say on every thread going here...some would refer that as super trolling.
    The insult is entirely yours!
    Of course there are circumstances outside the norm but redefining the marriage act is not such an issue, it is fact an attack on the norms of our society.
    Strange this debate is not occurring in the Muslim world or in the Buddhist world or in Japan or India, only in Western Judeo-Christian democracies where freedom is given to undermine those very freedoms that allow such as this debate to take place and to change the law that directly attacks that foundation that built our society.
    jackyd
    26th Sep 2017
    5:22pm
    Apology to nena...

    I misread your response. ...missed the YOU part before have you got a brain!
    So used to derogatory remarks for my point of view on this matter..lol.
    Redwyne
    26th Sep 2017
    10:00pm
    Thank you for your view, Marj. I'm so tired of the negativity surrounding this issue. What goes on in other people's lives is none of my business, and nothing will change if this gets passed. This is Australia and we believe in a fair go, and equal rights are so important.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    5:33am
    Dream on, Redwyne! Have you not read the SSM Campaigners' agenda and forward plan? Have you not observed what went on in other nations when SSM was legalized? A baker in the US is now broke and out of business because he refused to put a pro-SSM message on a cake! Freedom of speech and safety from bullying? Only for SOME it seems! Educate yourself. SSM is only the first step in a plan to change society completely.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    5:45am
    Rainey, I haven't heard of this SSM campaigners agenda. I've done several google searches and I'm only getting news on this vote. Do you have a link?
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    6:02am
    Start with this one, Crafty: https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/tying-the-gordian-knot/

    Then research the history of the ''Safe Schools'' campaign and the reason the Federal Government is concerned about funding it. Check out the people behind it - same people as behind the SSM campaign. What they want to teach young children causes me very grave concern.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    6:48am
    And this, Crafty: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

    It's well researched and factual, I assure you. I've investigated the claims in depth.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    8:32am
    Don't know how you became a ''forgotten Australian'', Crafty, but many FAs were orphans - either single or double. And every one of those I've met who were denied knowledge of their biological parentage suffered grief and confusion, longing for knowledge of their heritage and origins and for the love of the missing parent. So should we wish that same pain on a new generation of children?

    Pro SSMs often quote the rate of family breakdown as justification for further destroying family values, but surely this tragedy is a reason to fight FOR the family and the rights of the child - a reason to seek a remedy, rather than to support further destruction?
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    9:21am
    Rainey.
    There were many like me from disfunctional families. Unfortunately we went from one nightmare to another.

    I was placed in good shepherd at abbottsford by my mother at the age of 5. She was catholic, my father Church of England. My father retrieved me at 7. Kept me for a while, then he reunited with my mother.violence erupted and Welfare collected me and I was placed in Church of England girls home carlingford from age 8 to 10. Age 11 in foster care. My mother 12-15 then shown the door. Then the hostel, Glebe shelter and lastly Broughton hall. I've taken care of myself from age 16. My parents were violent. Yes, when you are young you yearn for the love of a parent. I have a book 'royal commission into institutional care' received by CLAN. Care leavers Australia network. I'm not sure where it is. It was put away years ago at my psychiatrist's request. It caused me great distress. It'll be on the web.
    I didn't talk as a child. This forum is allowing me a voice. To stand up and be counted, to be worth as much as the next person. Even if I'm out of line on a rare occasion lol.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    9:31am
    A sad story, Crafty. I feel for you - deeply. But I see stories like this as sound reason for society to fight to preserve and protect family values and to build the strength of the family and the community. The pro-SSM lobby seeks to destroy the institution of marriage as the basis of the family unit. That will result in many more damaged children and in the loss of power of the people to protect our freedom and rights.

    I applaud you for using your voice. And I respect your right to form your own opinions. You ARE worth as much as the next person - more actually, because you have demonstrated remarkable resilience and the ability to survive despite harsh challenges and cruel injustice.

    I do not seek to dismiss your views or to challenge your right to air them - only, hopefully, to give you food for thought. And I speak out because I care passionately about children and I seek to do all I can to ensure that society does not repeat the mistakes of the past, and does not make worse mistakes in the future. I seek to ensure the protection of children and the protection of our basic rights and freedoms - the strength of a society based on strong moral, family and community values and able to stand united against threats to our way of life.

    Gays do not threaten our way of life. Nor do we threaten their rights. Pro-SSM campaigners DO present a threat, and one we must fight against.
    ibis1315
    27th Sep 2017
    3:14pm
    Yes jackyd, thank you, I AM SUPER!!!
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:20pm
    I get all sorts of rubbish sent to my mobile....definitely stuff I don't want!!! But the YES vote is so important... Pretend it's about you, or someone you love and try and think about it from that perspective. Don't give credence to the myth that seniors can't change their way of thinking and keep up with the world. The world is made up of all kinds, if it doesn't directly have an adverse effect on your life, live and let live.
    geofftuke
    26th Sep 2017
    4:02pm
    The 'NO' vote is just as important
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:08pm
    geofftuke....is it though? The No vote is already in existence.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    6:14am
    But it DOES adversely effect my life, Ibis1315, because the campaign has nothing to do with SSM. I object to my tax dollar funding gay mardi gras and sex education campaigns that seek to destroy the family unit and encourage gender confusion. I object to the abuse of military funding to support SSM campaigns and run ''gay balls''.

    Gays already have the rights they claim to seek. What they want to do is destroy the family. And it's telling that EVERY ONE of the many lovely gays I know are voting NO and encouraging others to do the same.

    26th Sep 2017
    3:37pm
    Don't understand the negativity. Its an important issue and people should be reminded of their obligation to Vote
    only a homophobe or a religous bigot would have been "offended" by the message
    Storm in a teacup
    CindyLou
    26th Sep 2017
    3:45pm
    Well I was offended and annoyed by the message but I am not a "homophobe or a religious bigot".

    I have sent a "yes" vote off but I really was pissed off at this message and also the constant harping on by some folk that suggeste an individual is being "bad" etc. if they have a different opinion on this issue.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:01pm
    CindyLou, me thinks you doth protest too much.
    CindyLou
    26th Sep 2017
    4:41pm
    I've seen people harping on about this issue - I think it's a private issue and I don't want people to push their views onto me.

    What I have observed, in my opinion, is that the yes people frequently are plain rude and pushy. It's nobody's business what an individual wants to vote for.
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    5:27pm
    Blame the government CindyLou. They chickened out of doing their job, turning it over to a public vote. When you have a vote you have campaigning and where you have campaigning you have fervour. Personally I have experienced more negative, rude and insulting comment coming from the NO side + lots of lies.
    Hawkeye
    27th Sep 2017
    2:14am
    OH DUUUHHH Robi

    You're on the YES side, so of course you are going to experience more negative, rude and insulting comment coming from the NO side.

    Just as those of us on the NO side will experience more negative, rude and insulting comment coming from the YES side.

    That's life. Get over it.
    Troubadour
    26th Sep 2017
    3:50pm
    Grey Viper I have been saying almost the same as your message for the last few days - this has nothing to do with 'equality' as you say they have those rights passed already. Like you I feel they should be able to have their own form of ceremony and certificate - but not mess with the long standing marriage vows which of stood for centuries.
    We are not homophobes, have known and socialised with several gay people, who have been lovely people.
    JudyM
    26th Sep 2017
    3:51pm
    this is the whole problem with this debate .. if you disagree with anything you labeled a homophobe and/or a bigot .. why cant you just have an opinion which may not match that of others. get a life Raphael and stop labeling other people.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    3:58pm
    You do realise that YOUR "people" are totally to blame for this whole thing, don't you??....Who gave birth to the gays??????....It was the heterosexuals!!!!!. If you heterosexuals weren't out there, having unprotected sex, none of this would have happened!!....PULEESE!!!
    Charlie
    26th Sep 2017
    3:59pm
    I disconnected my phone from the wall for a couple of days, on three occasions this month when an automated survey was announced.
    I have my phone listed on all the regular anti advertising places, but it does no good.

    If it was the YES camp who phoned, then I am more happy I cut them off. I don't believe in the manipulation of the word "equality" to serve their needs and I think the "transgender experiments" on school children in Sweden or Germany are like something out of science fiction.
    The natural gender of children like boy/girl demonstrated by their bodies, is ignored until until puberty, so transexual children wont be stressed and other children will be more tolerant of homosexuality. It doesn't seem to matter that everybody else is stressed and transexualized. This could happen here if we don't legislate against it.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:04pm
    I think you read too much science fiction.
    Charlie
    27th Sep 2017
    10:36am
    What I read is straight out of European news articles, via U-Tube/google search. I read this stuff every day.
    One of the big issues before the British parliament at the moment is what age transexual children should be allowed to go under the knife for a sex change.
    This is because the approval of same-sex marriage has caused a big demand for sex change operations and hormonal treatment. If SSM is approved here we will be deciding if these operations should be under medicare.
    Also we will be deciding what amount of homosexual teaching should will be allowed in schools and kinder garden under the same warped interpretation of "equality". How far are we prepared to go in making transexual children fell free from stress? Do we all have to become transexual ourselves, because someone threatens to kill themselves and blames heterosexual beliefs.
    Jacka
    26th Sep 2017
    4:04pm
    The filth and stench of homosexuality seeping through the gutters of technology should not at any time be inflicted on those minding their own business communicating on the net. These people should be treated as they have been since the beginning of time and still are in some so called barbaric countries. Yet another cancer infecting the social and wellbeing of the civilized world. Jacka.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:06pm
    Jacka, I hope you die by a thousand cuts!!! All inflicted by gay people.
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    4:13pm
    From sbs news:

    The Federal Government passed a new law to protect anyone threatened by banning vilification, intimidation and threats, despite protests from a handful of crossbench senators who warned of a threat to free speech.

    Breaking this law could cost up to $12,600.

    Federal laws outlawing intimidation or threats will apply across all forms of communications.

    "These arrangements will apply to communications of all forms, including paid advertising, social media, bulk text messages and telephony, broadcast matter ... and printed material," Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said.

    "While the government would like nothing more than for these provisions never to be used, their inclusion gives the parliament the opportunity to send a clear message that hateful and malicious conduct will not be tolerated."
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    4:17pm
    You are vilifying with hateful, malicious conduct Jacka.
    floss
    26th Sep 2017
    4:10pm
    Just make sure your letter is put in the correct recycle bin and do the right thing.Keep Australia clean.
    ibis1315
    26th Sep 2017
    4:51pm
    I hope you are not referring to the right Australians have of actually voting....Some countries do not have this luxury. Those are the countries I would not like to live in.
    Rob
    26th Sep 2017
    4:10pm
    Scenario:
    a bank offers me a home loan. Don’t worry about the details: we’ll sort it out later. Do you want it: yes or no.
    me: can I have a look at the detail ......
    OR
    The private school my grand-children attend want to erect a new gymnasium. Guess who is paying? So there won’t be any unpleasant school carpark talk, every family gets a yes or no vote, and we’ll do what that vote determines.
    me: can I have a look at the detail ....
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    4:22pm
    I'm sure the pollies can work out the details if the YES vote wins Rob. Isn't that their job?
    Rob
    26th Sep 2017
    4:29pm
    Yes, that is their job. I do not have your confidence in them to actually do it though.
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    4:47pm
    They did it in Ireland. Gee if they can do it with all those Catholic institutions it should be a piece of cake to do it here.
    Rob
    26th Sep 2017
    5:16pm
    got me. I have no idea how the Irish did it. I don't live there! Are you saying the Irish did a vote like us, and then trusted their pollies with the outcome ....As my scenarios infer: can I please have the details.
    Adrianus
    26th Sep 2017
    5:48pm
    No Rob you cannot, there's a devil in there. And besides its none of your business what gays do. How would you like it if you had to ask 17million people before you could get married. Don't you know love is love. This is about equality don't you get it?? BS BS BS etc etc...
    Anonymous
    26th Sep 2017
    6:00pm
    what is it exactly you are afraid of Rob.?
    seems like you are good at boxing shadows
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    6:04pm
    Google it Rob. Lots of info out there. Wikipedia is a good place to start:

    Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Thirty-f...
    Rob
    26th Sep 2017
    6:48pm
    Perhaps Forrest had it after all ... life is a bit like a box of chocolates; You never know what you are going to get.
    I’ll just sign in again tomorrow. After all, we have all done our YES or NO bit by now.
    Don’t know why either campaign would waste further money on this part of the process.
    So let’s move on .... there’s nobody left to influence one way or the other.
    Any ideas how the legislation will look, presuming the vote goes YES ?

    26th Sep 2017
    4:21pm
    For me, this intrusion was a sound reason to vote ''no''. Not that I needed further reason after being called a ''homophobe'' for merely expressing concern about the ''Safe Schools Program'' content and the connection between it and extremists whose public statements about sex education and family rights were offensive and deeply disturbing.

    I don't care what people choose to do in private, but I'm heartily sick of gays jamming their sex practices down everyone's throat and demanding taxpayers subsidize their ''gay mardi gras'' and ''gay balls''. Keep your private life private and there is very little risk of being discriminated against, but to the extent that discrimination happens, it happens to all of us for one reason or another. Learning how to respond to it is usually a more effective protection than screaming and shouting and demanding penalties and 'education programs' in the vain hope of trying to stop it. Bullies exist. I hate them. I'd like them to suffer the appropriate fate. But intelligent folk know that the surest way to encourage a bully is to react in anger or distress, or with demands for legal protection.

    As for SSM, it seems to me that it's a ''done deal'', because the media and so-called ''progressives'' will continue to harp in support until it happens. But it worries me that many on the ''yes'' side are admitting the campaign has nothing to do with SSM, but is merely laying the foundation for more extreme changes. Gays already have all the rights they claim to be seeking, EXCEPT the right to use the word ''marriage''. So they are seeking the right to change the meaning of a word that has, for centuries, implied a special kind of commitment between a man and a woman. In the past, they have demanded the right to parade and stage balls, the right to use tax dollars to fund their promotional activities, the right to serve in the military, the right to change sex education programs in schools... on and on, one demand after another. However justified you think these demands are, one has to ask: ""After SSM, what comes next? When and where do the demands end?"
    Ny19
    26th Sep 2017
    4:54pm
    I'm heartily sick of heterosexuals jamming their sex practices down everyone's throat in films, tv programmes, magazines etc and hey, I'm a hetero! Seems to me their is far more flaunting of heterosexual sex every which way than there is gay sex.
    jackyd
    26th Sep 2017
    7:30pm
    Very well said Rainey...Robi seems to think that debauchery can only be counted by more debauchery!
    What a silly debate this is!
    Brissiegirl
    26th Sep 2017
    10:11pm
    In the city where I live, a crowd looked on as two young women engaged in simulated lesbian sex. The police were called to break the session up. Not long after that we saw two men tongue-kissing quite passionately in a busy public area. Passers-by looked on in distaste in both instances. I've not seen that much heated heterosexual action in public in my entire life.
    Kosmo
    26th Sep 2017
    4:48pm
    People needs to get a life, I'm on the Do not call register and I get call and messages from everyone, marketing people, annoying people, anybody can do it! You guys need to smile more!
    Marg
    26th Sep 2017
    4:59pm
    To jackyd, who asked me the question.

    Marriage has changed so much over the centuries that the word ‘traditional’ doesn’t really apply. Of course you, and the greater minority, have the right to hold your views and beliefs to yourself. But is a marriage any less precious to those of the same sex who want to marry in the eyes of the law, or even in the eyes of a particular church if that church is willing to marry them? Or is a marriage any less precious to those couples, same sex or not, who marry in a registry office instead of a church? How exactly will same sex marriage affect you personally?

    No one would be forced to give up their own ideals or rights if same sex marriage were to come into law. It would just be a case of allowing the ‘one percenters’ to enjoy the benefits and acceptance you already have through a loving marriage.
    jackyd
    26th Sep 2017
    8:04pm
    Marg I am with your sentiments however the matter still remains with the scope of the law that this change to the marriage act will enforce.
    As I have previously stated here, the overseas experience, although still in it's infancy, has already indicated legal persecution to devout Christians under laws of discrimination that never existed before where as homosexuals have never experience such modern day discrimination.
    That is just one example of many other concerns.
    Why cannot there be Civil Union in one corner and Traditional Marriage in the other, in stead of the divisiveness now occurring because of the fundamental differences with this issue.
    I would have thought that as a society, we were becoming more tolerant of these social issues as each generation takes it place and the gay community has come out, but to enforce the SSM is only counter productive and produces division and legal ramifications which are now only too obvious.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    3:07am
    Marg, reading this might make you rethink: https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/tying-the-gordian-knot/

    It's NOT about changing the definition of marriage. It's a far bigger campaign than that, but cleverly disguised.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    6:01pm
    Marriage is a contract about property. If gays want to get married ...let them. Serves them right why should they have all the fun. But if both the partners are male who are they going to give all the stuff too?..I guess they will have to work out who's the most feminine and give him everything.
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    8:51pm
    Had a bad marriage....boohoo.

    Gay people have children too.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    9:38pm
    Oh you had a bad marriage sorry to hear that Crafty. Gay people don't have children together at least not naturally.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    9:46pm
    By the way crafty don't feel too bad most people have a bad marriage that's why the divorce rate is high.
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    10:05pm
    No tib, I actually have a great marriage with a wonderful husband and 2 beautiful boys. Both are married one has a toddler and the other's wife is pregnant.

    As a forgotten Australian the childhood was crap to say the least but I have a great family now. I don't worry about the small stuff like a text messages etc.

    Lots of gay couples use ivf or adopt not any different to straight couples.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    10:13pm
    Again what is a forgotten Australian , that's a victim group I haven't heard of before. Must be a new one. From your comment I feel sorry for your husband.
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    10:33pm
    No, not a new one, an old one. We are not the stolen generation nor the UK child immigration. We were the white Australian children bought up in church and government children's homes. I'd been abused and raped from age 5 til age 16. I don't cry victim I just enjoy what I know have. No need to feel sorry for my husband, I am loved dearly.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    10:43pm
    It's so hard to keep up with all the female victims these days there are so many claims. Perhaps you should get together and provide a list so we can keep up. A victims list.
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    11:14pm
    I told you, I don't cry victim, I was just stating facts. I was a child victim just like the boy children were victims. Life is sometimes bad and sad.

    There are just as many bastards as bitches out there. Don't paint every woman the same as the last one.

    And yes, we can all(both men and women) say bitchy things. Sorry for my bitchy comment "boohoo, bad marriage thing", it's harder when it's fresh but everything gets better in time.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    3:05am
    OMG Tib! You had not heard of ''Forgotten Australians''? I can't believe anyone could be so ignorant. Please educate yourself before you post cruel and insensitive comments. You have no idea who you offend, or what hurt those you target might have suffered. Read my post below please! And try to educate yourself and show some sensitivity. You may not like Crafty, and that's your affair. But to cruelly insult tens of thousands of seriously hurt innocent Australians who were victims of hideous injustice and whose suffering defies description is inexcusable.

    FYI, ''Forgotten Australians'' were both male and female, and they are certainly NOT crying ''victim''. If they were, they might be getting more attention and you would be aware of their plight. Most are proudly stoic - working, paying taxes, building families, getting on with doing the best they can to raise respectful, loving, strong children who will fight social injustice and stand up for the deprived and wronged.
    Tib
    27th Sep 2017
    8:09am
    As I said Rainey make a list. I am all out of sympathy for yet more victims. If crafty wasn't playing the victim she wouldnt have brought it up in every comment she made. After all it has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion. I'm also really sick of sanctimonious females telling me to educate myself just because I couldn't care less about their latest attempt at victim status.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    9:11am
    I agree there was no need for Crafty to bring up the subject, and I agree it is irrelevant, but to dismiss the pain and suffering of people who suffered hideous injustice and dish out insults to them is vile and disgusting, Tib. It exposes you as a very nasty individual.

    Crafty wasn't ''playing the victim'', but Forgotten Australians WERE victims, of the worst kind of social injustice and cruelty imaginable. And anyone who cannot empathize with them for that is sick and inhuman. But perhaps you are among those vile and disgusting self-serving who care only for their own welfare and will support and endorse any injustice, cruelty or wrong as long as it advances their selfish interests?

    Yes, you SHOULD educate yourself, because educated people don't rant about a ''latest attempt at victim status''. They recognize that only by understanding history can we hope to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. But continue to be sanctimonious, cruel, and nasty, Tib. Karma will take care of folk like you.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    9:37am
    Tib and Rainey,
    I bring it up now as all these years I have held the shame but I know now it is not my shame. I say it because it is part of me. I say it to prove I am as good as anyone. And as I've said before, I' didn't have a voice for years, I'll certainly have one now and I'll put in my 2 bobs worth whether you like it or not.
    Teenagers should not feel shamed for being LGB. Nor should they be cohersed to be something their not.
    Tib
    27th Sep 2017
    1:34pm
    Yes Rainey every women in Australia seems to be some sort of victim these days. Maybe you should all get together , wring your hands and feel sorry for yourselves. You'll understand if I don't come. I get bored easy.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    2:15pm
    Firstly, Tib, there are just as many males claiming victim status as women - specifically, anyone not white, immigrants, and LBGTs for example. In fact, this discussion began because LBGTs claimed to be ''victims''.

    Secondly, very few genuine ''victims'' feel sorry for themselves, wring their hands, or make demands for remedy or reparation. That's the domain of the radical lobbyists who, for the most part, were NOT victims, but seek to cash in on the pain of others. The 'victims' are too busy trying to recover and get on with building a better life for themselves to bother with hand-wringing, whining, or making demands. Like Crafty, they may make statements of fact, because their traumatic past is part of who they are. For many, making statements about what they experienced is a vital part of the healing process. They need to face their past, and they need to see that people no longer judge and condemn them for it. They benefit from seeing that most people - ALL DECENT PEOPLE - empathize, and respect them for their strength and resilience. For many people - and not just victims, but people in general - it's necessary to expose what occurred in order to try to ensure tragic and shameful history is not repeated. The young need to know what mistakes were made.

    Your comments are vile in thee extreme, and socially harmful, but typical of the over-privileged self-serving ''entitled'' in our community.

    Forgotten Australians do get together, by the way - to support each other on their journey of recovery and to look for solutions to the practical challenges do many face. There is no hand-wringing. There is no female dominance. And there is certainly no feeling sorry for themselves.
    Tib
    27th Sep 2017
    5:53pm
    Rainey try to control your anger and bitterness, perhaps an anger management course would help you.You obviously have anger management problems.
    Redwyne
    27th Sep 2017
    11:23pm
    Rainey. You're a sad person. There's no need to name call in this discussion. Please attempt to be polite.
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    1:35am
    I'm not sad person, Redwyne. I'm a caring person. And I did NOT name call. I said Tib's comments were vile and socially harmful, and they are. They are also typical of the over-privileged self-serving ''entitled''. I referred to the COMMENTS, not a person. And I stand by my statement that the comments were far more than impolite. They were downright cruel, and those who make such remarks have no idea who they are hurting or how.

    No, Tib. I won't control my anger over behaviour that rightly angers. Your comments were cruel and hurtful and totally uncalled for. I am not bitter, but I will remain angry at those who show contempt for people who suffered great hurt and at those who insult me for standing up for someone who was wrongfully targeted with offensive comment. And I am disgusted at the insulting comment about 'female victims'', which is totally false and baseless.
    ibis1315
    28th Sep 2017
    8:55am
    Tib.......can you spell M-I-S-O-G-Y-N-I-S-T-I-C P-I-G!!!!
    Tib
    28th Sep 2017
    9:56am
    Oh dear Rainey Ibis ,as feminists you display such violent and aggressive behaviour really. Such a demonstration of hate. I feel triggered I think I'll have to go to my safe space away from your aggressive behaviour. Women are so emotional and aggressive. No self control.
    Anonymous
    1st Oct 2017
    1:27am
    Assumptions make you an ass, Tib. I am neither feminist nor female. And it's you who is aggressive. You cruelly abused and hurt someone for making a simple truthful statement about events of the past that caused great hurt to tens of thousands, and then you responded rudely and without empathy to being asked politely to refrain from making cruel and contemptuous remarks out of ignorance of history.
    CLM
    26th Sep 2017
    6:23pm
    I received pamphlets in my mail box from the No campaign. How did they get my address? I support messaging, using up to date technology is probably the best way to get to the voters we need to get out there and vote Yes. I expect this method will be used in future election campaigns, get used to it. Randomly generated numbers makes perfect sense to me, just as my letter box was chosen at random.
    KSS
    26th Sep 2017
    9:34pm
    Getting an address is easy, the electoral role for a start is public information. A phone number on the other hand, particularly one on the silent number list and even mobile numbers, are not public (unless listed in a phone book) and that is the difference.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    2:56am
    And it doesn't impose cost to receive mail. The sender pays. To receive a phone call often imposes cost on the receiver - e.g. if the receiver has set up call-forwarding or is overseas.

    There is no excuse for this abuse of personal rights, but it shows the lack of ethics and integrity of those behind the SSM campaign.
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    6:54pm
    I know a man who detests fat people and is rude and unkind when the opportunity to vilify them arises. Is it illegal to vilify fat people? He thinks it is o.k. because he has been vilified for being an old white man. Is it illegal to vilify old white men, a descriptor we often see and hear delivered by well-known public identities.
    KSS
    26th Sep 2017
    9:36pm
    Vilifying both fat people and old white men (and especially fat old white men) may both be discriminatory acts and thus against the law. Good luck trying to prosecute it though!
    Brissiegirl
    26th Sep 2017
    9:57pm
    Is vilifying homosexuality itself illegal or is vilifying homosexuals illegal? Vilification of fat old white men seems quite legal and popular so I wish George Brandis would figure it out and let us know exactly what speech is now allowed in Australia and what is not. Brandis did say that people have a right to be bigots, suddenly changed his mind on that. I suppose some groups must wear prejudice and bigotry e.g. Penny Wong's sneering of grumpy old white men. They're fair game but other groups are not. What a joke has Western society become, on a slippery slope in almost every aspect of public policy.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    2:49am
    How about vilifying heterosexuals by branding them ''homophobes'' and targeting them with insults and abuse because they dare to have an opinion on an issue the government is asking us all to have an opinion on? Seems some think that's perfectly okay. Only minorities are protected. Well... before long, heterosexuals and those with morals and family values will be the minority. Then perhaps there will be some protection for them.
    Suze
    26th Sep 2017
    7:06pm
    I was not impressed receiving a text on the weekend to vote yes for marriage equality. It's not acceptable for organisations/governments to be using this kind of method. I found it very sneaking and below acceptable standards. If it happens again I will be pursuing the matter further
    Anonymous
    26th Sep 2017
    7:16pm
    lighten up Suze
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    8:48pm
    Big bloody deal. So you got a text, boohoo.

    There shouldn't have been a referendum in the fist place. We are all human whether we are black, white, Muslim, catholic or homosexual. Every single human being should have the same rights as everyone else. There should be no barriers to anything. How dare any of you think you have the right to the decisions other people make for themselves.

    Start fighting for a life without murderers, peopophiles, abusers, thieves and others of the like who destroy lives.

    Homosexuality is no different to heterosexuality. They just like the same sex. No big deal and it doesn't affect me or you in the slightest.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    9:57pm
    Boohoo I'm willing to start fighting now for a life without winging old bags who want claim the high moral ground by making half smart comments. Oh that's you crafty.
    Crafty
    26th Sep 2017
    10:16pm
    Only half smart comments tib, um I'll have to fix that.

    Oh and it's "whinging" not 'winging' old bag to you, though it would be nice to have wings.

    BTW. I'm not the one whinging about getting a random text or how other people should live. Oh, I think that's you and your crowd.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    10:26pm
    Correcting my spellcheck well done that's all you've got to say? From all your bitter comments I think you need to spend more time making your husbands life a misery and less time bothering other people.I suspect you are one of those hate filled femtards.
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    10:32pm
    A forgotten Australian is that like the stolen generation but they forgot to pick you up?
    Tib
    26th Sep 2017
    10:37pm
    BTW crafty I voted Yes I hAve nothing against gays. It's you I don't like.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    2:41am
    Tib, vote as you like and dislike who you please, but your comment about ''Forgotten Australians'' is offensive and uncalled for. Yes, ''forgotten Australians'' are like the Stolen Generation - stolen, in many cases from good, loving but poor and defenceless parents or parents in crisis, and denied future contact with or knowledge of loved ones - stripped of their heritage; denied affection, guidance and support; often seriously abused physically, mentally and even sexually in many cases; horribly deprived; denied education or skills training. Many went through life with a ''criminal record'', charged formally, in early childhood, with the ''crime'' of being a ''neglected child''.

    Their stories are heart-wrenching to those who have the capacity to empathize and infuriating to those who respect the right of all to access social justice. That such Australians exist at all brings shame on our society - particularly when it is understood that many of the children were taken for monetary gain. Bureaucrats and those who ran the institutions they were condemned to profited handsomely from having as many children as possible ''in the system''. Numbers created jobs - well paid jobs with great retirement benefits.

    The ill-effects of what they suffered linger on throughout their entire lives and impact on their children and grandchildren.

    I suspect your comment was thoughtless rather than intentionally cruel, but please, in future, think before you post.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    2:46am
    PS. Many of these so-called ''Forgotten Australians'' were certainly NOT forgotten. Families searched for them and cried for them. Mothers arms ached to hold their babies. Brothers and sisters continued searches long after parents passed on. Organizations were formed to seek and secure government grants to fund searches and arrange belated family reunions. Family contact was blocked by cruel and arrogant bureaucrats who withheld information and so-called ''carers'' who indoctrinated children with lies about the families they came from. Families did not forget. Society ''forgot'' to care.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    5:34am
    Rainy your compassion is beyond compare.

    The charge was uncontrollable.I was at a hostel run by Catholics at age 15 to16. 1973. It was near the cross. I snuck out on New Year's Eve to meet my brother but he did not show. I went to get back in but they locked the window. I spent that night at a friends, there was no choice. 3 days later they called the police because I did not apologise. I was finger printed and charged with being uncontrollable and sent to Glebe shelter.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    5:51am
    Crafty, I am close to many Forgotten Australians. My heart goes out to you. Believe me, I know only too well what you suffered. One friend was beaten to within an inch of his life at age 11 for refusing to convert to Catholic. Another was so indoctrinated to despise himself that at 60 he told friends he ''must be no good for anything, because even his own mother didn't want him''. Asked why he thought that, he replied ''The nuns told me every day of my childhood - many times a day''. One I know was made aware of his ''criminal record'', acquired at age 7 when he was charged with ''being neglected'', when he was compelled to join the army before his 15th birthday - forced to sign on for 8 years.

    I'm sure Tib was just thoughtless and not intentionally cruel, but I'm astonished that anyone could not know about this shameful part of our history, and alarmed that cruel remarks can be made based on wild assumption, and without any attempt at self-education.

    Stay strong, Crafty. Forgotten Australians have much to be proud of.
    Tib
    27th Sep 2017
    8:24am
    No I still don't care. Nothing to do with the discussion. Be a victim in a discussion about forgotten Australians.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    10:53am
    Rainey, The nuns were good at putting us down. I was evil at 7, good for nothing and would amount to nothing. It affects you.

    Tib, neither does divorce, or the varied other statements being made. And it's ok, you don't have to care.
    Tib
    27th Sep 2017
    1:42pm
    If marriage equality is the discussion then divorce is relevant. After all marriage is legal document and affects the distribution of property at divorce.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    1:52pm
    No, Tib doesn't have to care. But anyone who doesn't has zero credibility in a discussion of this kind, because IT'S ALL ABOUT CARING. For the ''no'' side, it's about caring about the future of society and the family and the welfare of children. For the ''yes'' side, it's about CLAIMING TO CARE for the welfare of gays and lesbians. And anyone who cares about the latter and not the former is one very sick puppy.
    Tib
    27th Sep 2017
    2:16pm
    Well for me Rainey it's not about either of the issues you point out. Marriage is a legal document if two people wish to sign it , it's up to them not my problem. So yes go ahead. Why should I care who gets the house in their divorce.
    Army veteran
    26th Sep 2017
    8:49pm
    So that is their excuse for sending their crap to my 14 year old son's mobile phone.
    I find it disgusting and absolutely wrong that they can Computer generate messages to children, or for that matter send unsolicited messages to any child.
    This Army Veteran IS NOT HAPPY, I would like to spend just 2 minutes with the person that authorised the messaging to be sent to my son, you can guess the outcome and it won't be pretty.
    Kopernicus
    26th Sep 2017
    9:07pm
    That is an ugly response - a dark threat of violence, impugned by someone, presumably drilled in the skill of physical extermination. Whoa get a hold of yourself, your response is well beyond the infringement - I too disliked getting a private message. You go miles beyond that. It was, after all about a vote - children are not eligible, the robocall was obviously misplaced. Pull your head in, you sound psycho and not pretty yourself.
    Swinging voter
    26th Sep 2017
    9:38pm
    The army veteran is entitled to his opinion, he is entitled to his anger under the circumstances described, and to express his protective parental instincts. The loss of free speech is one of the first casualties when minorities insist on walking over the top of anyone who disagrees with their demands.
    Army veteran
    26th Sep 2017
    10:02pm
    Kopernicus, it's time to wake up to yourself fool. Just like most other people in the community I do not like receiving messages when I am on the Do Not Call Register, furthermore I purposefully put my child on that to stop anyone outside his school and family from contacting him.
    It a breach of the The Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Spam Act 2003.
    Furthermore if I knew the person responsible I would have no hesitation in charging the person and that's not a veiled threat.
    Army veteran
    26th Sep 2017
    10:20pm
    Swinging Voter, thank you for understanding how a parent feels about children being dragged into this, people have to learn to follow the law, nobody has the right to send messages to a child without the parents authority, indiscriminately sending messages in that manner is illegal. Furthermore I had my sons phone number on the Do Not Call Register.
    It's a nonsense to say they just indiscriminately send out messages. The Telecommunications Act does not allow that to happen. Thank you again Swinging Voter for being so understanding, unfortunately people like you are becoming a minority in today's society of dog eat dog.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    2:32am
    Read the history of the SSM campaign, and weep for our children! They are the real targets of this campaign. It has nothing whatever to do with ''equal rights'' or ''marriage''.

    https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/tying-the-gordian-knot/
    Ny19
    27th Sep 2017
    6:43am
    Rainey,
    The "history" of the SSM campaign??? The campaign only began 2 weeks ago. You have shown yourself capable of having a great deal of empathy for "the forgotten people" yet you have no empathy for, nor understanding of homosexual persecution over eons. Your attitude towards LGBTI comes across as exceedingly fearful and ignorant. They are not targeting children. They just want to have the same choice as heterosexuals to marry the person they love.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    7:21am
    Sorry Robi, but you are horribly misinformed. Read the history! Study a little.

    Answer this if you can, Robi. If the campaign only began 2 weeks ago, how did it begin? Who suddenly, just 2 weeks ago, decided it was necessary, lobbied for an opinion poll, rejected the idea of a parliamentary decision, rejected the idea of a referendum, persuaded the government to do a mail survey, created and mailed voting papers.. all in just TWO SHORT WEEKS?

    The campaign has been going on behind the scenes for decades - gradually achieving milestones. It was NEVER about SSM, and it isn't now. Canada is well on the way to achieving the ultimate goal - the abolition of the concept of ''natural'' or ''biological'' parentage. In Canada, parentage is dictated solely by the state and biology has nothing to do with it. In Canada, freedom of speech no longer exists. Parents have no rights. Children are being educated to reject all traditional moral, family and community values and to embrace gender neutrality.

    The goal is to change society, and it's happening. And yes, they ARE targeting children. Just look at the content of the ''Safe Schools'' program. And those of us who oppose this destruction of the family as the backbone of society are forced to fund this sickness, and denied the right to withdraw our children from such ''education programs''.

    Gays already have the same right as heterosexuals to form legal partnerships. The word ''marriage'' isn't used, but the rights are identical.

    As for me having ''no empathy for, nor understanding of homosexual problems'' - you couldn't be more wrong. I have many close friends who are gay or lesbian. And all of them are strongly opposed to SSM for the same reasons I am. I am neither fearful nor ignorant, any more than they are. I am informed, alert, and worried for the future of a sick society in which the gullible 97% are being led around by the nose and fed on straw.

    Empathy? What about some empathy for the heterosexual couple who were denied the right to adopt in favour of a gay couple? What about empathy for the child who will grow up without one or the other biological parent? Please don't tell me it doesn't matter. Thousands of orphans - single and double - will attest otherwise.

    Gays can love whomever they please. They can partner legally with whomever they please. They are protected by law from discrimination. When they behave with decorum and treat others with respect, they are respected in return. But that's not enough. SSM-lobbyists have to force us to subsidize their public displays of debauchery. They demand the right to brand others ''homophobes'' and ''bigots'' and ''religious fanatics''. They demand laws that deny natural parents the right to raise and educate their children as they see fit.

    I have great empathy for the small minority who were born with a homosexual gene. I have NONE for the radical ratbags who want to preach gender confusion and immoral conduct and who seek to destroy the institution of marriage, the notion of natural parenthood, and the moral and family values that have underpinned our society for centuries.
    Adrianus
    27th Sep 2017
    9:36am
    Next comes the personal attacks Rainey.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    1:49pm
    Already happened, Frank. Funny how those who preach that Safe Schools is needed to teach kids not to bully are the most aggressive bullies insulting and vilifying anyone who disagrees with their views on SSM or Safe Schools. But then, we know that Safe Schools has nothing to do with bullying, but is about promoting the LGBT lifestyle and gender neutrality.

    26th Sep 2017
    9:02pm
    watching last nights Brownlow medal, we were introduced to a female dressed like a male in trousers who introduced her female partner as her wife and you still call for equal marriage, as it is known for centuries MARRIAGE is a bounding between a man and a woman with the object to produce offspring, I got no objecting to two males or for that matter two females or those who love to have sex with more than one of the opposite sex. however I put a line when being attacked by these persons who think they are equal,let them prove this by producing offspring without interference of a third party, while I agree many marriages of two opposites sexes result into divorces it still beats those of the same sex.
    my believe, a marriage is between two persons of opposite sex as has been for centuries, you want to call it another name good luck, I will never accept to call it a marriage unless it is between 2 opposite sexes persons, a female and a male, as for your bullying in attempting to change voters opinion, keep it up the more the better, just dig your own grave
    Life experience
    26th Sep 2017
    9:18pm
    How dare they be so instructive and pushy. I'm overseas and I got it. Twice. It used up my credit. No vote for me. Because I'm angry.
    ibis1315
    27th Sep 2017
    3:20pm
    I'll send you $2.....

    27th Sep 2017
    6:22am
    Fear not, friends. The death of morality and family and community values will continue a while yet, and then the Muslims will take over and..

    No, I don't favour Muslim domination. But nor do I favour educating children to think they might have ''been born in the wrong body'' or to reject traditional family values. Nature ruled that reproduction results from the union of a man and a woman, and that women should nurture our young. And every time we challenge nature, we create hideous problems.

    One way or another, society will sort itself out. Thankfully, I won't be around to see which way it eventually goes, or when, but I can safely predict that the wheel will turn, and the laws of nature will ultimately prevail.

    27th Sep 2017
    6:44am
    Supporting a ''yes'' vote? Please read this and rethink! It's thoroughly researched and it IS factual.
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    7:41am
    a warning from Canada?
    It talks of a grown child who loves his same sex parents but yearns for his biological parents. So do adopted children.
    Children from a divorce or parents death can also grow up without a father or mother figure. Remarriage brings a non biological parent to the home.
    Free speech shouldn't be about vilifying anyone.
    Sorry Rainey, this wouldn't change my vote.

    I'm scared about the article I read (UK) about the exploitation of children.
    Apparently we didn't vote for just SSM. That would have made me sustain from voting. You try and do the right thing and they go to far. It's politics, black or white no grey, no middle ground. It makes me sad.
    Adrianus
    27th Sep 2017
    7:50am
    Rainey, that is a very interesting article. If we take no notice of what is happening in Canada and other countries which have redefined marriage, then we are disrespecting future generations.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    9:02am
    Crafty, the breakdown of the family unit is a reason to fight to preserve it, for the benefit of children - NOT a reason to allow its further destruction. This is NOT about vilification. It's about a demand for the right to vilify those who support traditional moral and family values. It's about destroying the institution of marriage and the family, because the family is the strongest barrier to inappropriate political dominance. Solid families can fight for freedom and rights. Those who have been deprived of family are least likely to be able to defend their rights - as the story of Forgotten Australians proves.

    In the USA, a prosperous bakery closed and its owners bankrupted because the owner - a religious man - refused to put a pro-SSM message on a cake. A celebrant was prosecuted for refusing to marry a gay couple. This is NOT freedom. This is vilification. This its torture. This is denial of rights. As the article stated, in Canada the notion of biological parentage has been abolished.

    In Victoria, parents are furious that they are being denied the right to determine what sex and moral education is appropriate for their children. Kids are being taught that they are 'gender neutral'; that anal sex is better; that same-sex relationships are more satisfying. Ten year olds are being taught how to masturbate.

    Why are the same people who promote SSM promoting ''Safe Schools'' - people who have endorsed paedophilia as ''an acceptable means of expressing love - similar to parental love''?

    Gays already have all the rights they claim to be fighting for. What they are seeking is the denial of rights that the rest of us have held dear and fought for for centuries. As the child of a man who gave his life fighting for freedom and our way of life, I will NEVER be silent in the face of a threat to the values and lifestyle he fought to defend.
    Brissiegirl
    27th Sep 2017
    9:33am
    Rainey congratulations on putting the entire issue into succinct context. I commend your bravery in referring to the under-referenced issue of what is likely to become sanctioned acceptance of anal sex as a normal activity so how it's done will be included in education curricula and if not, there will be complaints about discrimination. It's a pity that No voters are stifled, shouted down, belittled as bigots and homophobes and that sporting organisations are standing over their non-consulted shareholders (participating players, families and supporters) while the darker basics are kept quiet. For now.
    Ny19
    27th Sep 2017
    9:38am
    Rainey your article is from the Witherspoon Institute, a US ultra right wing conservative think tank which is anti LGBT rights, anti euthanasia, anti abortion and so on. The family study the institute undertook in 2012 was debunked by many:

    "In 2012, the Witherspoon Institute drew public attention for having funded the controversial New Family Structures Study (NFSS), a study of LGBT parenting conducted by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. The study was criticized by major professional scientific institutions and associations, as well as other sociologists at the University of Texas."

    Since this is your favoured reading material I can see there is no point in communicating with you further on SSM rights because your mind is closed and locked.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    10:03am
    You know I respect you Rainey, but I have a different point of view. And you know I will always defend the rights of children.

    50% of marriages break down. There are different family units.
    The safe schools was bought in by labour and ditched by liberal, I believe. It doesn't run anymore, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe what you say about the school teachings, and of course I think it's deplorable. There is no excuse for it.

    Grandmotherkathleen22 suggested the word 'union' in place of 'marriage'. As for 'the hidden agender', the inappropriate teachings or abuse of children, I'll stand up in protest with you.
    Reagan
    27th Sep 2017
    10:56am
    Rainey

    Thank you for your intelligent post. Correction: all of your intelligent posts on this page.
    Ny19
    27th Sep 2017
    12:14pm
    Crafty,
    The safe schools program was designed to stop bullying in schools. Much of the bullying over the years has been aimed at gay, lesbian and transgender teens, resulting in a high incidence of depression, suicide attempts and actual suicide of these teens. When my kids were at school in the 1980s and '90s schools behaved as though sexual diversity didn't exist. The safe school program does not deny their existence and encourages inclusiveness and acceptance of all children regardless of their sexual orientation. It in no way threatens heterosexual teens but has greatly reduced the bullying threat and injury to mental health that existed for homosexual and transgender teens in the past. The whole aim of the program is simply to make schools safe for all children. I know of a boy who in 2006 attended a Catholic school in my area and at age 14 told his best friend he was gay. The friend spread it all over the school and he was mercilessly bullied by not only other kids but also the priests who told him he would "go to hell". Exactly one fortnight after confiding to his friend he killed himself. If that school had had a safe schools program in place he most likely would still be alive today.

    Please don't be swayed by misleading statements and misinformation about this program. When it was introduced it was long overdue. Yes Abbott, Andrews and other conservatives in the liberal party went all out to get rid of it because they feel threatened by anything to do with homosexuality. Many schools have kept it in place though because they know it works to build a safer more inclusive, accepting environment for pupils. What definitely didn't work was schools pretending in the past that sexual diversity didn't exist.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    12:37pm
    Thank you for that information robi. Kanga just posted children were being taught about arousal and sexuality. I don't even know what the fluidity of sex is. Unless she talking about ejaculation. Unless it's in a clinical sense including sexuality, I don't think it's appropriate. Of course every child should be safe. is the church still that bad?

    This was supposed to be about whether an SMS was appropriate.
    My hubby and I voted yes.
    This is my last post on the subject. Very disappointed in this forum.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    1:47pm
    Crafty and Robi. Safe Schools is still operating in Victorian Schools and has been evidenced plainly to have NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH BULLYING. If it were about bullying, the defenders of it would surely not be bullying opponents, calling them ''bigots'' and ''homophobes''!

    It is about inappropriate sex education - specifically promoting gender neutrality and gender confusion and premature sex activities, including masturbation at age 10.

    It has NOTHING to do with building a ''safe and inclusive environment''. Quite the opposite, in fact, because anyone who wants their child taught traditional moral and family values suffers discrimination and vilification and is denied their parental rights.
    It has everything to do with destroying the strength of the family unit, because the family is the strongest defence against improper political dominance and denial of freedom.
    Ny19
    27th Sep 2017
    3:44pm
    For goodness sake Rainey, one only has to google it up and go straight to the program site to see what it is all about. It is not so easy to get away with lies these days when folk can so easily check out information for themselves. The majority of people are not hoodwinked by the type of misinformation you and others are spreading.
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    1:13am
    No, Robi. Most are hoodwinked by the cleverly calculated misleading claims of those who seek to achieve a goal they know is unpopular and have concocted marketing messages to disguise their real intent.

    Go to the schools and listen to what is being taught. Ask the kids. Ask the concerned parents who have swallowed the bitter pill of having to pay for private schooling or transport their kids long distances to get them out of the 'Safe Schools' program. People don't do that for no good reason. If the program was what it is claimed to be, there wouldn't be this reaction to it. ALL parents support safety from bullying! Only a total fool believes all the vast numbers of program opponents oppose promoting child safety.
    Strummer
    27th Sep 2017
    7:15am
    To all the Chicken Littles out there, guess what? The sky hasn't fallen in. A text message suggesting how you should vote is no different to the advertising flyers in your letterbox or the advertisements on your television. Take the advise or ignore it. Blatantly false moral outrage is quite boring.
    Rosret
    27th Sep 2017
    7:35am
    Well Strummer I now know why Parliamentarians make decisions rather than asking the general public. Surely the world must be learning a valuable lesson from this??? At least its not Brexit.
    ex PS
    27th Sep 2017
    7:41am
    At last someone who has some perspective, if it is not illegal to keep sending me messages about Viagra, why is it wrong to use media to push a civil rights case?
    Businesses direct advertising at targeted groups all the time using various methods of communication, this is no different, at worst it is just annoying, it certainly is not a plot to turn everyone GAY.
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    1:18am
    Actually, Strummer, a text message on your mobile phone is very different from TV ads and advertising flyers in the mail box, because many people have to pay to receive text messages, and they don't necessarily know who they are from or have an effective way of preventing delivery until AFTER the message is received and the cost incurred.
    Adrianus
    27th Sep 2017
    7:41am
    If nobody under voting age has received this text message the numbers may not have been randomly generated but selected from a list. This shows a very dangerous lack of respect.
    Adrianus
    27th Sep 2017
    9:33am
    It wouldn't be the first time. Smacks of the Medicare scare!
    sirrom50
    27th Sep 2017
    8:04am
    I received that SMS and I just deleted it without even reading it.

    Also it states on your opening page about how they got your SMARTPHONE mobile number...... Sorry to say but mine is only a basic phone.
    Adrianus
    27th Sep 2017
    9:47am
    What are you saying?? Your phone is punching above its weight in the intellect department??
    bigpella
    27th Sep 2017
    8:17am
    Remove ALL exemptions. DO NOT CALL means exactly that. Anyway, I do not see how the SSM campaign got an exemption as it doesn't meet, I feel, any of the listed exemptions stated in the article.
    alinejordan
    27th Sep 2017
    9:01am
    I get regular unwanted calls from electricity companies wanting to change my mind over who supplies my electricity. i find these a lot more intrusive (and by the way how did they get my number?) i block them but they get other numbers to call from.
    a little sms from the Yes campaign seems to offend so many of you, you seem to forget we didn't want this public forum which seems to bring out pettiness, meddlesome attitudes in other peoples' lives to an insane degree.
    ever heard of the saying live and let live???
    ibis1315
    27th Sep 2017
    3:24pm
    Long live "Live and let live"!!!!
    Kanga
    27th Sep 2017
    11:20am
    If same-sex marriage goes through, then things will deteriorate for us as it has my birth country, Canada, and the US. Right now, in the state o Victoria, kids as young as 12 are being taught how to masturbate and parents have no say; this is also happening in California and New Jersey in the US In Canada you have to ask which pronoun a person wants to be addressed by he, she, or ze or dir, and it is a criminal offense to refuse to use the latter. In the UK, religious schools are being pressured to teach about the fluidity of sex and the transgender bit. Personal freedom, freedom of speech, and religious freedom are being stealthily targeted. One group taking over telling what other groups can say or do; remember Hitler? How about dictatorship? It's happening in countries with same-sex marriage and it will happen here if we are not careful.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    12:13pm
    I'm not happy this is happening in Victorian schools. Why haven't a group of you gotten together and approached the media about this sort of content. Get some action going to protect your children.

    Sex education should be about the basics. Menstruation, contraception, the pregnancy cycle and correct names for sexual organs. Not about arousal or sexuality.

    Every woman gets asked whether they are a miss, ms or mrs. Why is that an issue.
    Crafty
    27th Sep 2017
    12:15pm
    Morality and behaviour should be taught at home.
    Ny19
    27th Sep 2017
    12:23pm
    Crafty,

    That stuff is not happening in schools. Please read my comment to you that I put above at 12.14pm.
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2017
    1:25pm
    Yes, it IS happening, Robi. Please don't mislead. You know it's happening. You deny it because it suits your agenda to have it continue. But it's been evidenced and verified, and the Federal Government is cautioning the Victorian Govt that funding will be discontinued unless the Safe Schools program is modified, but the Victorian Premier insists it will stay as is.
    Sophie
    27th Sep 2017
    2:42pm
    Whether one is religious or not..atheist or believer..the fact remains new evidence suggests that it was not agriculture which created civilization, but religion. The June issue of National Geographic offers a brief and provocative story from a place in Turkey known as Göbekli Tepe, site of the world’s oldest example of monumental architecture i.e. a temple.

    Now the reason for bringing this up is that no firm rules are in place to protect those who have religious beliefs regarding SSM. This needs to be addressed. This fact seems to be ignored in the melee. I have no great problems with SSM, however, I wish to see people who have.. offered the necessary safeguards.

    Whether we like it or not, religious freedom is an integral part of a democratic society and those who believe in this freedom should not be dubbed homophobe or spoken down to.
    Sophie
    27th Sep 2017
    2:59pm
    Forgot to mention...I am not at all in favour of the Safe Schools program since I believe these things should be taught at home. However..I am in favour of anti-bullying programs for all schools..
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    1:16am
    Likewise, Thea. I support any program that promotes child safety and teaches anti-discrimination, tolerance, and - hopefully - empathy. Safe Schools is NOT about that. It's inappropriate sex education and it's overriding the rights of responsible parents to manage how their children are taught about sex, morality, and family and community life.
    Triss
    27th Sep 2017
    7:26pm
    I can't see what all the hot air is about. The form states that it is a survey form only from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The ABS doesn't have authority to change laws.
    Why do we have to change the law? Why not just change a few words in the marriage service to accommodate SSM? How difficult is that? After all many couples have done that, leaving out 'honour and obey' for instance.
    Triss
    27th Sep 2017
    7:32pm
    I didn't mean change the words of the traditional marriage, just have two versions, one for heterosexual and a slightly different version for ss couples.
    Anonymous
    28th Sep 2017
    1:21am
    Why does it have to be called ''marriage''? Why, out of simple respect for those who value the definition of marriage that has been used for centuries, can't the LBGTQ lobby accept another term with similar implication? Oh, that's right! Because the real goal has nothing to do with ''equal rights'' or the right to marry. If it did, they would show some respect for those who want to preserve the traditional definition of the word and simply accept another with equal meaning.
    Adrianus
    28th Sep 2017
    6:01am
    They have no respect Rainey. The GLBTQI people are hell bent on destruction.
    Dexter Fox
    28th Sep 2017
    1:31am
    If you want to thank the sender:
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamknobel/
    https://www.facebook.com/adamjknobel
    http://www.yes.org.au/89
    adamknobel@australianmarriageequality.org
    Dexter Fox
    28th Sep 2017
    1:31am
    If you want to thank the sender:
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamknobel/
    https://www.facebook.com/adamjknobel
    http://www.yes.org.au/89
    adamknobel@australianmarriageequality.org
    Rickrick
    28th Sep 2017
    10:05am
    I did vote yes but damn them after waking me up with their stupid text I wish I hadn't voted as I'd know say no

    I don't care who gets married but do not invade my privacy in your crusade

    All such things and referendums will now all get NO I don't care what subject matter
    Glenda
    28th Sep 2017
    2:53pm
    Yes, I did get that SMS!! All this intrusion of privacy simply for a piece of paper declaring a certificate of marriage between same gender folks! That's what it is all about. It defies the ethics and definition of marriage. From me its a clear NO - regardless of the "yes" intrusive promotion.
    Mrs P
    28th Sep 2017
    3:48pm
    Well their little effort made me vote NO
    ex PS
    3rd Oct 2017
    9:38am
    Will all of the NO vote complainers now vote YES, after the intrusive phone calls from C.B? This is a good chance to see if the invasion of privacy complainers are genuine.
    Are all of those complainers now going to come out against the NO vote campaigners? I think not.
    Anonymous
    3rd Oct 2017
    8:04pm
    ex ps, still NO, just look at the abuse "NO " voters have copped, being sacked for stating " NO is not an offence", by being villified for their believes, such as Margaret Court, the greatest female tennisplayer Australia has produced, the list goes on, ex ps, you may belong to the glbtqi, whatever that means, the only LEGAL marriage is between a FEMALE AND A MALE AS IT HAS BEEN FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, You can call it whatever you want but unless it is between a man and a woman it will never, even if the yes vote wins, be accepted as a true marriage.
    Mae Miles
    31st Oct 2017
    2:06pm
    I am as 78 y.o. female who doesn't own a mobile phone BUT voted YES and posted my same sex marriage survey on the day after I received it.
    I voted yes because I have spent all of my life fighting for equal rights for Australian women and all Australians regardless of their colour, creed, sexuality etc.
    I am fed up with all women NOT receiving equal pay for equal work and still having to pay so much more than men for our haircuts, clothing, shoes etc. If men menstruated I'm sure they wouldn't still be paying GST on their tampons and sanitary napkins.
    Don't get me started on the shameful way our Federal Government has recently treated our First Australians. I'm sure that many Australians would vote for their desired inclusion in our constitution.
    Mae 31/10/2017


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles