Australia living in the dark ages

[Guest241083]

And as form filling goes....................are you Single, married, de facto and now ??????????? easy really.

I have already opined regarding entitlements but incase you missed it, then Yes!

 

 

..........oh fiddle sticks form filling....!

..........same sex couple do not have equal entitlement or even respect in many situations....

...........sorry havnt time ATM to read back.....

............but sure this would of been mentioned somewhere......

[newjez]

Well if the Irish can vote it in, a country until recent times very woven up in Catholic traditionalism, perhaps there is some hope Australian social conservatism wouldn't make this country a bit of a laughing stock, then I'm on the fence a little on this, but can certainly see Australia as being cast as still living in the dark ages, if large number especially, in what is hardly a religious practising country, making it more akin to conservative Middle Eastern countries that being the case.

 

 

You don't think Australia is a catholic country?

[newjez]

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

 

You could probably QUOTE from the Koran too. I love the irony of the Christian right locked arm in arm with their Muslim brotherhood. Maybe they'll harp back to the IRA days and start blowing up gay nightclubs?

[newjez]

Actually I'd like to marry 2 women.

 

You couldn't handle one.

[newjez]

Up to now I have not stated my position on this subject, some may probably have made incorrect assumptions, but here goes, I have no problems with gays, lesbians, cross dressers, trans genders or whatever of being in some form of union, my view is that they want to hi-jack marriage and use it as some sort of weapon in their quest. To me marriage is between a man and a woman, anything which differs to this should also have a different name. This is progress!

 

Tbh, I just think they want to get married because they love each other, they want to stay with each other, make a commitment to each other, and they want that recognised by the state. I don't think they are trying to hijack anything.

[Parley]

Tbh, I just think they want to get married because they love each other, they want to stay with each other, make a commitment to each other, and they want that recognised by the state. I don't think they are trying to hijack anything.

 

What would you know.

[Skani]

Skani, I know you just take this stance because it is Liberal policy.

If it was reversed and Labor wanted to do the plebiscite you would be an enthusiastic supporter.

 

Well you'd be wrong - AGAIN. I'm sure I've voted Labor at some stage in my life but I can't remember when that last was. I object to wasting millions of dollars on an expensive exercise which (a) won't be binding (b) funds a free for all for groups to spew division and bigotry in the Australian community.

 

These politicians are paid between $200,000 and $517,000 a year (base salary - without all their perks) to do a job. Well DO IT - make a decision and stop wimping out at the hard stuff to save your own skins. Or have a plebiscite, make it binding and don't fund anyone. If they had half a brain they could have conducted it in tandem with the last election....goodness knows, they had the longest lead up to an election in history, so had time to print a voting paper or two.....and would have saved all those millions for something of value like hospitals or funding for food services.

[Gbye grey sky]

Up to now I have not stated my position on this subject, some may probably have made incorrect assumptions, but here goes, I have no problems with gays, lesbians, cross dressers, trans genders or whatever of being in some form of union, my view is that they want to hi-jack marriage and use it as some sort of weapon in their quest. To me marriage is between a man and a woman, anything which differs to this should also have a different name. This is progress!

 

What quest is that though? For everyone to be gay?

 

In a nutshell your issue then is the word 'marriage'. And I agree that it is symbolic and important as if you have gay marriage then you have full legitimacy of a relationship. So the 'some form of union' you might approve of would have to be a 2nd class style union to reassure you that gay people are not and cannot be equal to heterosexual people.

 

I expect that your views on this are likely to be fixed but your children will be much less likely to be concerned about limiting the rights of gay people and the generations that struggle with this will gradually die out. This ultimately is progress.

[Parley]

Nostradamus has spoke.

[flag of convenience]

What would you know.

 

You do come over alpha butch when playing with a straight face.

[flag of convenience]

You don't think Australia is a catholic country?

 

Quite probably more practising Catholics out there than Anglicans. Amazingly 61% claimed a Christian faith in the 2011 census.

[Diane]

What quest is that though? For everyone to be gay?

 

In a nutshell your issue then is the word 'marriage'. And I agree that it is symbolic and important as if you have gay marriage then you have full legitimacy of a relationship. So the 'some form of union' you might approve of would have to be a 2nd class style union to reassure you that gay people are not and cannot be equal to heterosexual people.

 

I expect that your views on this are likely to be fixed but your children will be much less likely to be concerned about limiting the rights of gay people and the generations that struggle with this will gradually die out. This ultimately is progress.

 

Brilliant answer.

[Diane]

[robfromdublin]

I had no idea that in 2004 they legislated specifically against gay marriage! No plebiscite then.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/SameSexMarriage#_Toc316885795

 

Up until then, no definition of marriage was included in Australian legislation

[tea4too]

i was thinking along the lines that in plural marriage between men and women they can procreate naturally the same as marriage between one man and one woman whereas homosexual couples cant procreate on their own. so from that view plural marriage is more closely aligned. either way though i am starting to think that if people believe in marriage equality then that should include all forms of marriage.

 

Opposite sex couples who cannot procreate (for whatever reason) are not excluded from marriage, so the ability to produce children is not necessarily a key factor in marriage equality. T x

[newjez]

What would you know.

 

I have a few gay and lesbian friends. I talk with them occasionally.

[BacktoDemocracy]

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

Wonderful how the bible is always so against things which are human, religion always wants to control people's actions like it has a right to do so..

[newjez]

its odd that plural marriage wouldnt be accepted. it seems more closely related to conventional marriage than homosexual marriage. the more i thought about it over the night the more sense it makes to make it legal.

 

I don't have a problem with it if people want to live that way. They will anyway, so it makes sense for the law to catch up to deal with issues of inheritance etc. There would have to be a large review of current laws and benefits etc, not to mention migration laws to cater for these situations. I imagine it would get very complicated if people legally married in one country then travel to Australia to try and fit in with Australias discriminating laws.

 

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself what you are trying to achieve with the law.

[newjez]

Opposite sex couples who cannot procreate (for whatever reason) are not excluded from marriage, so the ability to produce children is not necessarily a key factor in marriage equality. T x

 

We know heaps of childless hetrosexual couples. We also know a few gay and lesbian couples who have kids.

[newjez]

I had no idea that in 2004 they legislated specifically against gay marriage! No plebiscite then.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/SameSexMarriage#_Toc316885795

 

Up until then, no definition of marriage was included in Australian legislation

 

Personally I would consider the law to be illegal and I'm amazed it hasn't been challenged.

 

The UN should be considering sanctions.

[Parley]

How can a law be illegal ?

 

Is it illegal for me to marry 2 women then ?

Edited September 15, 2016 by parleycross

[robfromdublin]

This thread needs a plebiscite. Can a mod add a poll?

[Keith and Linda]

What quest is that though? For everyone to be gay?

 

In a nutshell your issue then is the word 'marriage'. And I agree that it is symbolic and important as if you have gay marriage then you have full legitimacy of a relationship. So the 'some form of union' you might approve of would have to be a 2nd class style union to reassure you that gay people are not and cannot be equal to heterosexual people.

 

I expect that your views on this are likely to be fixed but your children will be much less likely to be concerned about limiting the rights of gay people and the generations that struggle with this will gradually die out. This ultimately is progress.

 

I do not understand as to why you have brought 2nd class into this?

Also where do I say that my views are different to that my children (not to mention that you have no idea what my children's views are) and where do I mention about limiting anybody's rights?

My only fixed view is on the term marriage in that it means between a man and a woman, anything different to this needs to be called something different.

[Keith and Linda]

Tbh, I just think they want to get married because they love each other, they want to stay with each other, make a commitment to each other, and they want that recognised by the state. I don't think they are trying to hijack anything.

 

They want the law changed so that they have equal rights and everything else that goes with being married, I have no argument with this in fact I am in favour of that, but it is not marriage in the sense we know it.

There are countless terms which identify and differentiate - Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Sir, Madam, Dame, Lord, countess, Blues or maroon supporter, British, English, Scottish, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Catholic, Protestant etc. etc. and most titles are worn with pride for what they stand for, so leave marriage for what it stands for and just get a different name for gay union and be proud of it!

[Keith and Linda]

What quest is that though? For everyone to be gay?

 

.

 

I though everybody already knew this! and I am not sure as to how you can think that gay people want everyone else to be gay! totally stupid suggestion really. However the quest is for the same rights as that of a married man & woman.