It is broken. Full of self entitlement - damn right, the entitlement to marry just like straight people.
Gay Marriage for or agin?
- Thread starter BayView
- Start date
It is broken. Full of self entitlement - damn right, the entitlement to marry just like straight people.
Your cat can't consent to marrying you.
You can swear on a religious writing or just do an affirmation. They give you the choice.
Are you fishing for a Kudos?Oh... I don't know. It cod happen
Only a few weeks ago Ed Husic was slated (by a bunch of racist idiots, mostly) for choosing to be sworn in (as Australia's first Muslim frontbencher) on a copy of the Koran (rather than the traditional King James Bible).
Good on him. People have a right to their beliefs.
One day we will have an openly Atheist politician or (perhaps even) PM. I don't know what book they will choose - perhaps Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species"?.
And that will sit fine with me too.
No. You can chose it to be a religious ceremony. There is a choice between an oath:
or an affirmation
Australia is a secular country. Simple as that.
I don't believe anyone has answered olly's question...
It was Kevin Rudd in 2007 who gave gay de facto couples all the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples, which are also the same as married couples. This includes the full suite of property rights, adoption rights, access to family pensions for military personnel etc etc. This was after a decade of refusal to do so by John Howard. But gay couples have always been able to raise children. Just the other day I was speaking to a lovely 30 year old lady raised by lesbian parents following a night of fun with some bloke in a pub. She still sees her father regularly but was raised in a different part of the country.
Anyway, this issue is now purely about symbolism. Do we want gay couples to be allowed access to the symbolism of marriage? All the other issues are water under the bridge, never to return...
It was Kevin Rudd in 2007 who gave gay de facto couples all the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples, which are also the same as married couples. This includes the full suite of property rights, adoption rights, access to family pensions for military personnel etc etc. This was after a decade of refusal to do so by John Howard. But gay couples have always been able to raise children. Just the other day I was speaking to a lovely 30 year old lady raised by lesbian parents following a night of fun with some bloke in a pub. She still sees her father regularly but was raised in a different part of the country.
Anyway, this issue is now purely about symbolism. Do we want gay couples to be allowed access to the symbolism of marriage? All the other issues are water under the bridge, never to return...
Gillard made an oath of allegiance rather than swearing on a holy text.
It's a lot more honest than pretending to believe in something you don't.
Marriage pre-dates Christianity by many centuries. Some bedtime reading for you: http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries
I'm a bit confused on what this issue actually is about!
Put aside that the bible says marraige should be between a man and a woman because religious teachings shouldn't have a bearing on a legal issue (I believe).
We all know the male & female of the species are supposed to procreate to continue their species, but there's all sorts of ways around that now too.
We all know homosexual males and females can have long and loving relationships and this should be recognised somehow even for the legal aspect alone when property and other assets need to be divided if the relationship fails.
So what is the actual black & white legal definition of a marraige? I've never seen it mentioned anywhere. Is it an actual law we have to re-word or re-define?
In other words -
When we are being asked to vote on this issue - are we being asked to vote on a change of a laws legal definition, which if it came about would immediately give them the same rights as a hetero couple i.e the right to marry not just commit, the right to have/adopt and raise children (which would naturally follow), the right to inherit assets as a spouse and so on.
Can someone dumb it right down for me please
From the point of view of some of the homosexuals in society I would imagine their aim would be that homosexual couples ideally would be socially accepted on the same basis as heterosexual couples. So that there would be no distinction at all in the way they are treated compared to hetero couples. They want to change the way they are viewed by society in general.
Quote:
Australia currently allows same-sex couples to enter civil unions in the Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales.
The Federal Government recognises these state and territory civil unions for the purposes of federal entitlements.
These civil union schemes are only open to residents of the particular state or territory which provides them. They are only beginning to be recognised by other Australian states or territories. Some other countries, however, do recognise Australian civil unions, for example, the United Kingdom.
Additionally, the City of Melbourne and Yarra City Council in Victoria and the City of Sydney in New South Wales provide relationship declaration programs. More information is provided below under respective state headings..............continues
And, on a similar note, slavery is mentioned in the bible. Are we picking and choosing what elements should be followed?
The old letter circulating on the internet since time immemorial shows the logical fallacy in this:
Depends on the country.
Turkey, for one, has the following Oath of office
No religion needs to be mentioned.
Because you're probably married to your half sister ;-)Why would you need to get divorced if you went to Tasmania?
I don't care either way.
It's people's personal choices.
Far be it for me to say if two people love each who they should be allowed to marry.
But, it's time to move forward as the church and state are separate in this country and that appears the only hang up, not wanting to upset the ultra conservatives.
It's people's personal choices.
Far be it for me to say if two people love each who they should be allowed to marry.
But, it's time to move forward as the church and state are separate in this country and that appears the only hang up, not wanting to upset the ultra conservatives.
I've been married for 25 years.
I would not deprive loving couples of the same sex the opportunity to make the identical public commitment to each other that my wife and I did.
Nor should anyone else.
I would not deprive loving couples of the same sex the opportunity to make the identical public commitment to each other that my wife and I did.
Nor should anyone else.
I am for gay marriage because, having undertaken a civil marriage, I have no right to preach religious reasons - and - more importantly - it's not about entitlement but rather a desire to legally join in a union that acknowledges their partnership.
Marriage is not about religion ... traditionally it was about ownership of the woman (and all her possessions) by the man, and about supposed security for any offspring. Fortunately those times have passed.
Last edited:
Why must it be tit for tat? - change has to start somewhere.
Similar threads
