There are several hundreds of government, non for profit, media and corporate organisations advocating for redefining marriage in the Australian law. The list is so broad that it effectively establishes ideological monopoly in many markets and sometimes over entire industries. A clear example can be seen in the payment processing industry where it practically impossible to conduct financial transactions without supporting this specific ideology, there are many more. How can a corporations formed by thousands of employees and millions of stakeholders make a claim to represent people? These are legal constructs, mostly created for profit and non-democratic, reaching moral conclusions without a consistent process and proper consultation. Several local government organisations and popular representatives officially advocate the currently illegal concept. These are the institutions created to listen to the people they represent through democratic processes, instead they choose to urge us to vote a certain way with unsolicited communications. Conscientious objectors have been left with no choice but to support the movement through their taxes and daily transactions. Does it not come down to elitism, believing that the people are ignorant and not able to reach the right decisions for themselves.

They have tried to compare the issue with the civil rights movement but the type of activism and support is completely different. The civil rights was a grassroots movement led by the unquestionable moral authority Martin Luther King, it did not have the support of government nor corporations. This issue instead has no clear leaders and the few poster figures like Penny Wong were just recently against it until faced with pressure by the LGBT lobby. So now, half a century later, have the likes of Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Visa and Mastercard become the new moral authorities in matters of civil rights? These names belong in the list of sponsors of the latest Justin Bieber concert but should never be in the list of organisations we look up to as a guiding light on human rights

//Should corporations and other organisations influence public opinion on same sex marriage?//

What, like churches?

Toni,

Red herring and old and on the nose!

Should corporations and other organisations influence
public opinion on same-sex marriage?

No they should not.

The postal survey is supposedly to determine
individual opinion of Australian voters and not the
dictates of Churches, Corporations, or any other
influences, including those of politicians.

The biggest mistakes the politicians make is
attempting to influence the electorates which only
results in division - which is damaging to the
political parties. Prime example is the behaviour
of former PM Mr Abbott.

They won't allow a free-vote in Parliament, yet they
are determined to influence the voters.
Now isn't that hypocritical.

The taxpayer-funded leftist-leaning ABC deserves mention as the most obvious and most persistent culprit over decades, so in a way it is nothing new and the federal politicians have presided over that,

http://davidvangend.com/?p=1984

"Peter Hitchens v the ferals on Q&A: a masterclass in disdain
November 8, 2013"

"For those who missed Peter Hitchens on Q&A last week, here he is in all his curmudgeonly magnificence, amidst the regulation four lefties.
Note his prescient comments in 2011:

“People like me – though still allowed to speak – are allowed on to mainstream national broadcasting only under strict conditions: that we are ‘balanced’ by at least three other people who disagree with us so that our views, actually held by millions, are made to look like an eccentric minority opinion.”

PETER HITCHENS: "You’ll have the whole world to yourself soon. You can’t imagine anybody else is entitled to hold a view different from yours without having some kind of personal defect. That’s what’s wrong with you…"
DAN SAVAGE: …" It’s a less intolerant world than it used to be because people like me are now empowered to look at people like you and say you are full of [profanity]".

What about sporting organisations?

I take offense to all of it, only people can vote, local councils, corporations, sporting bodies are all trying to influence the outcome.
Politicians personal opinions - 'their vote' so to speak should not be publicised too much because of 'Us and Them'.

They should all respect the right of people to choose for themselves, as all eligible voters must be over 18.
They should all stay out of it.

It all sets up a bad playing field, and precedent.
Suddenly business owners feel compelled to choose a side, and then victimise their own staff for having an opinion other than their own.
I support prosecution of businesses who deny the right of their employees; actual eligible voters on this issue - to speak freely.

Trumps truest words. Drain the swamp!

It causes strong polarisation of views within the group, and not everyone in the company or organisation holds the same view. FOR TONY, INCLUDING CHURCHES!

This is pretty easy folks. Do you support corporations donating to political parties? If you do but don't want them showing their support for same sex marriage then why shouldn't the rest of us consider your stance as homophobic?

NO!

SteeleRedux, Not everyone in a political Party share the same views, that is why they have conferences to debate Policy. Same Sex unions to be called marriage has no precedent in cultural history; so it is a major cultural shift toward Marxist ideology on family.

I don't believe any large organisation, private or otherwise should impact or influence public opinion on same sex marriage. Moreover I don't condone sodomy, therefore I must be a homophobe - something that was taught and drilled into us as a young copper. In fact Long Bay Gaol in the sixties and early seventies, had a complete building (7 Wing) dedicated entirely to a group of prisoners known as 'non-associates' made up essentially of males convicted of sodomy, and others for more deviant offences.

Do I agree with crimes of violence being committed against homosexuals, purely because they're homosexuals? I do not and never have! The Act has been repealed, the law has been changed, and homosexual behaviour between two consenting males is now legal. It doesn't mean I agree with it. In this land of free speech and all that stuff, if one dares oppose the lawfulness of homosexuality, you render yourself liable to be kicked to death by the 'enlightened' 'Left' or the progressives (whatever the hell they support or believe) And as footnote; I would say 'No' to same sex marriage, for the same views I've expressed herein.

If any of you good people could see the human carnage, the suffering, and violence attributed purely to homosexual behaviour in or near a public street or place, between two males, that I've witnessed over the long period that I was a copper, many of you might well support my stance?

o sung wu,

You might remember, or have heard of, this:

Magistrate: "How did you apprehend the accused?"

Constable: "I was in one cubicle of a men's public toilet and a person in the next cubicle put his erect penis through a hole in the wall.
I grasped the penis and called to the Seargent who entered the adjacent cubicle and arrested the owner of the penis".

There was no laughter, but a lot of red faces as people held their breath in!

Elitist presumptiveness ironically has the opposite effect intended.
Many will vote no just to be defiant.

And many will vote Yes just to piss off the defiant.

and it won't put an end to anything.

Tax payer ABC has been promoting homosexuality and sowing seeds of bestiality for decades. Singer is one their high priests.

I like that IS MISE, thank you.

There's no doubt in my mind irrespective of how this Yes/No vote goes, 'Same Sex Marriage' will receive assent.

Dear o sung wu,

To give you piece of mind if you oppose anal sex between a hetrosexual couple as much as the act between those of the same sex then no you are not a homophobe on this issue.

Dear Josephus,

They might not all have the same view but they end up with the one policy direction. An organisation like the AFL which has been driving an ethos of inclusion for nearly quarter of a century, certainly has a right to encompass SSM in that mission.

Dear runner,

You wrote;

“Tax payer ABC has been promoting homosexuality and sowing seeds of bestiality for decades. Singer is one their high priests.”

Do you really want to go there?

The tax avoiding citadels of Christianity have seen their priestly class been either ignoring, defending, or directly participating in raping and buggering their way through countless Aussie kids. George Pell is indeed their high priest.

Hey difficultvote,
The ironic thing about it all is that the young progressives 'ANTIFA' or 'ANTI-Fascists' are actually supporting the REAL fascism.
It's an upside-down world, I keep telling everyone...

' The tax avoiding citadels of Christianity have seen their priestly class been either ignoring, defending, or directly participating in raping and buggering their way through countless Aussie kids'

wow Steele you even have a moral conscience to know that child sexual abuse is wrong. I wonder where that came from. Of course the perverted safe schools program will lead more to paedophile behaviour. Oh that's right regressive only seem to care when its a catholic priest.

Steele,

"The tax avoiding citadels of Christianity have seen their priestly class been either ignoring, defending, or directly participating in raping and buggering their way through countless Aussie kids. George Pell is indeed their high priest."

What percentage?

Dear Is Mise,

The following link gives some data:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-06/child-sex-abuse-royal-commission-data-reveals-catholic-abuse/8243890

I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND!

Following Senator Bernardi's threat to intrude people in the privacy of their homes, using robots to ring their phones, I no longer support the 'No' vote; and had I not voted already, I would have chucked the survey in the bin.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE: such behaviour is criminal and should be punished!

No matter what you stand for - such abusive actions are just not done!

I boycott any company that attempts to advertise at me - and now I boycott this criminal as well. Bernardi's party will also be at or near the bottom of my preferences in the next elections.

What could be more hypocritical when he dares to claim that he supports families, while interrupting their quality time with their children. His robots might for example interrupt at family meal times, or when reading a story or scripture to children, or during family prayers or meditation, during educational efforts, or perhaps just wake people who are having a nap, causing them to subsequently be more grumpy towards their spouse and children.

The only reason I wouldn't ask you to vote 'Yes' now, is that the 'Yes' campaign also committed similar crimes.

TO HELL WITH BOTH!

No matter how the vote turns out. Both sides will have to live with the result. Hope that the pressures from people, and from larger cooperations will lessen after the vote. But there is a chance that this division isn't temporary.

If the vote ends in a yes magority. The ones who supported a no will have to come to terms that the magority of people are ok with sodomy (or whatever other reason they are against the marriage proposal) and that their society is sick and wrong.

If the vote ends in a no magority. The ones who supported the yes will have to come to terms that the magority of people are against homosexual mariage (insert assertion why here, like they are all homophobes) and that the magority of their society is sick and wrong.

I hope for everyone here, the vote doesn't plague the people even after the voting is finished.

Cooperations and orginizations have made their move to influence on the vote. They could be doing it for moral reasons to support what they believe in, or they could be doing it for business reasons. Projecting what they think will be accepted and branding themselves in that light to gain support of customers. (Perhaps even convince the public to support the cause and influence them in this cause which they are committing themselves to and branding themselves as supporting or standing against.)

No mater the cause, these things are being done. The after math is point to be concerned about too.

Already posted this on another thread, but what the hey...

Call the Cory Hotline today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo1weahou0k

//No matter what you stand for - such abusive actions are just not done!//

I hear you, Yuyutsu. I hate being called by robots - especially if they're going to play me a recording of Cory. Apparently this guy is so out of touch with the Australian public that he doesn't know that EVERYBODY hates telemarketers and their ilk. This is why we have the 'Do Not Call' register - although what's the bet that Cory, in his hubris, will go ahead and ignore the register?

I don't mind the 'no' campaign advertising, leaflet dropping etc. I may disagree with what they say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it - unless they say through the medium to a telemarketing call, in which case they can go fornicate themselves.

For those of you who are as annoyed about this as Yuyutsu and myself, I propose engaging in a bit of direct democracy. Here are Cory's phone numbers (so good of him to provide them):

http://www.corybernardi.com/contact

Since Cory so fervently believes that we're all desperate to hear the sound of his whiny voice, I'm sure he'd be equally thrilled to receive lots of phone calls from people telling him their opinions on telemarketers.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I believe that all citizens can unite in rejecting the interference into their privacy and disturbing their peace in their own homes, be it by government or by commercial companies.

Regarding being or not being ok with sodomy, the vote is not going to change anyone's sexual behaviour either way: not one person will behave differently because they possess or do not possess a government-stamped marriage certificate.

It is our moral duty not to support, thus boycott, any organisations that disturb family-life in the family-home.

"When a telemarketer calls" Rated R.

They call at night.
I put the phone on the table (without hanging up).
They waste their time and money, waiting for a response that never comes.
Eventually they give up.

The End

No sodomites were harmed in the making of this film.

Dear Yuyutsu,

That sounds good to be against the telemarketing actions. I might be a bit cynical in thinking that won't change. With enough preasure it might though. As for any changes in behavior. That wasn't my point. I think this vote on gay marriage is showing how divided people are on homosexuality. If the vote passes those who voted no will have to live with the fact that the magority of people in the society are ok with homosexuality.
If the vote doesn't pass those who voted yes will have to live with the magority of people not being ok with homosexuality.

This is what I've heard from both sides. Both sides usually arguing that they are the magority and the other is the minority. Those who think homosexuality is ok often make the statement that those against homosexuality are intolerant, or bigoted. Those who are against homosexuality have said that those who support it are sick or suckening in one way or another.

If the vote itself is this divisive before the results are known, then the winning vote might be something to expect a reaction by for those who voted the other way.

Does that clear what I mean?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

For me this survey was never about homosexuality.

For one, homosexual acts do not require a marriage certificate, nor is a same-sex couple with a marriage certificate obliged to have sex between them.

The vote has been divisive and the debate heated because everyone can see that the homosexual [non-]issue, or shall I say excuse, was only used as a show of muscles against religion, especially against Christianity. Had Christians went about their business nonchalantly, nobody would have bothered to push this SSM thing, but seeing that Christians were offended and hurting, there are those ugly-hearted people who sought to hurt them more and show them who is the real new boss in society.

For the vast majority of Australians, suppose the survey-results are to be published at 1:00AM, 99% (myself included) would not bother to stay awake (or set up their alarm clocks) and rather learn the results from the next morning's news, if at all. The only lasting effect of this will be a $122,000,000 hole in our pockets.

//shall I say excuse, was only used as a show of muscles against religion, especially against Christianity. Had Christians went about their business nonchalantly, nobody would have bothered to push this SSM thing, but seeing that Christians were offended and hurting, there are those ugly-hearted people who sought to hurt them more and show them who is the real new boss in society.//

And what about the religious people that voted 'yes' in accordance with their conscience and their faith, Yuyutsu?

Dear Toni,

«And what about the religious people that voted 'yes' in accordance with their conscience and their faith, Yuyutsu?»

I suppose this disappoints those haters of religion who were unsuccessful in making all religious people suffer: their trick worked only partially, so they will be looking for different ways to make the others suffer as well.

Yeah, I'm starting to think these "haters of religion", who want to make religious people suffer, are all in Yuyutsu's head. Psychologists would refer to this as a "paranoid delusion".

http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/paranoid-delusion

Deeply religious people with schizophrenia have them quite regularly, and they can lead the sufferer to believe they have attained a higher state of being than everyone else.

http://www.livingwithschizophreniauk.org/religious-spiritual-delusions-schizophrenia

Absolutely not!

The debate is not about sodomy it includes lesbians and the whole LGBTQQS brigade. Are we to define their relationship as a human union of marriage?

A large potion of Catholic Priests are homosexual by preference, it is that children are in their care and that allows for grooming.

Josephus

"A large potion of Catholic Priests are homosexual by preference, it is that children are in their care and that allows for grooming.
Posted by Josephus"

Reference?

Dear Josephus,

«Are we to define their relationship as a human union of marriage?»

What business of us is to define other people's relationships? Let them define it for themselves any way they like!

Yuyutsu,
The fact is it is the State that represents all people who will define what is marriage not the persons themselves. We will then have to call their relationship marriage not just the two persons. It will be enforced upon society to recognise that they are legally married

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/04/20/how_the_catholic_priesthood_became_a_haven_for_many_gay_men.html

But most surveys (which, due to the sensitivity of the subject, admittedly suffer from limited samples and other design issues) find between 15 percent and 50 percent of U.S. priests are gay, which is much greater than the 3.8 percent of people who identify as LGBTQ in the general population.

Dear Josephus,

Only God knows who is truly married and who is not.
The state does not represent anyone - they are just a gang of thugs who occupy this land by force.
Just because they claim that someone is "married" does not make them actually married - and vice versa.
Certainly you don't need to call a relationship "marriage" if you don't believe that it is - I really cannot see how they can force anyone to recognise their nonsense.

Anyway, the concept of "legally married" is already nearly empty and has no practical implications: let's empty out whatever content is still left and erase that idiotic concept from legislation and from memory.

Josephus,

Was that the best that you could find?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_clergy_in_the_Catholic_Church#Estimating_numbers

The ABC recently interviewed an Ex priest who entered Catholic celibacy to cover for his homosexual preference. He has since com out and has a relationship with another man. He felt he could hide his desires in the Priesthood.