Voted, posted, enjoy the divorce courts guys and err, guys/gals/gals.
7 Likes
Adoption, sperm donation, surrogate motherhood are 3 ways.
Four friends of ours are a lesbian couple and a gay male couple, with each couple having one of the biological parents and they share parenting with the main custodial parents being the lesbian couple. Great people, great kids, Iâve known them for 20 years and the whole set up is completely accepted by the community and both the kids have been a part of our local school from play group to VCE.
4 Likes
Thinking today they could have added a few more questions to the survey.
Just knock over a few more issues to help get parliament moving a bit quickly.
I mean capable of answering more than one question.
Nah marriage is.about two groups of families and friends coming together.
The whole kids thing is.a.furphy. Sure people have kids but many donât. I think if anything broadening the definition makes having kids less of an obligation out of marriage which is a good thing.
Plenty of people breed who shouldnât and itâs got nothing to do with sexualitĂ©.
Iâm not a breeder, doesnât mean I want to be single and unmarried.
1 Like
Apologies if this has been posted already, but Iâve noticed a couple of people are referring to Tony Abbottâs sister and his article has been shared, where this one I feel is much better:
Tony Abbottâs Machiavellian games on marriage must stop says his sister Christine Forster
Christine Forster
When my fiancĂ©e Virginia and I heard news of Thursdayâs High Court decision to allow the postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage, our immediate reaction was one of relief. Finally we have a clear and immediate path to marriage equality in Australia.
Virginia and I have been engaged since 2013. Since then the debate over same-sex marriage has waxed and waned as our federal politicians - including my brother, former prime minister Tony Abbott - have played relentlessly Machiavellian games with an issue that matters little to most of them personally. But for us, and our many friends who plan to marry, it has been an awful roller coaster ride, mostly of gut wrenching dips as our hopes for change have been raised, only to be repeatedly dashed.
The most significant disappointments were the August 2015 Coalition party room decision to deny a free vote on marriage in parliament, followed quickly by new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbullâs backing of a plebiscite.
Very few people who count themselves in the âyesâ column would have chosen to have the issue decided by any form of plebiscite, let alone one that has morphed due to political expediency into a non-compulsory postal survey.
Christine Forster (right) with her fiancee Virginia Edwards.
Since 2012, I have advocated for the reform to be put to a free vote in parliament. After all, that is what we elect our parliamentarians to do: enact legislation on our behalf. Thatâs what occurred in 2004 when Prime Minister John Howard changed the law to specify that marriage could only be between a man and a woman.
But the reality is the politics of the day, influenced heavily by the personalities involved, meant the plebiscite was the policy the government took to the 2016 election, delivering it an undeniable mandate that the High Court has now confirmed.
Those who have argued against a plebiscite have done so for legal, political, social and moral reasons. But the main issue has always been the potential divisiveness of asking all Australians to give consequential consideration to the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
That process has inevitably landed the country in a heated political campaign which provides opportunity for the intolerant, on both sides, to deny and deride their opponents.
It is the heavy responsibility over the coming weeks of both the yes and no campaigns, which are led by some of our most senior politicians past and present, to ensure the rhetoric from all advocates remains above the âbullies or bigotsâ standard. Itâs also their responsibility to prosecute their cases truthfully, respectfully and fairly.
The question put to the people will be simply whether they think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry under Australian law. It is not about the freedom to preach or practice religion, or what is taught by whom to our children, or being politically correct or otherwise. It is just about whether or not every Australian and their family, friends, neighbours and colleagues should have the same right to marry.
Because ultimately the yes and the no campaigns are arguing about the same thing: the special nature of marriage. Everyone intrinsically knows that marriage is a relationship exalted above all others, not just by religious people but by all people. It is the only way, other than by birth or adoption, that we can choose our family. That is why it is enshrined as a secular institution in our constitution and is now administered under our federal Marriage Act.
But itâs the special status of marriage that makes the yes case so compelling. I donât know a single person who wants to wed - straight or gay - who does not wholeheartedly respect the significance of marriage. All of them believe marriage will strengthen their commitment to each other, their families and ultimately their community, and it defies logic to suggest that letting them into the club will in any way diminish the special relationship of any heterosexual couple. On the contrary, allowing more people who profoundly revere and desire marriage to take that step can only provide greater security for the institution.
Rather than divide us, the plebiscite is a chance for Australia to come together. Over the coming weeks there will be millions of conversations held in homes, restaurants, offices, shops, churches, schools, hospitals and myriad other places about whether or not all Australians should be able to marry.
That will provide the opportunity to stop, listen, think and feel about what marriage means to each of us. It will be a time for those who want to get married to share our stories of why itâs so important to us, to our families, our friends and the next generation of Australians. A time for those who are already married to reflect on how that relationship has enriched their own lives and ask themselves, would I deny that opportunity to another person who seeks it?
Vote yes!
Christine Forster is a Liberal councillor in the City of Sydney.
2 Likes
I was going to comment on what Christine Forster wrote, but she says it all really. Vote YES.
3 Likes
I think sheâs really missing some of the stronger âNoâ arguments:
Edit: itâs a parody btw
3 Likes
What @SCarey said, and as a further example, Senator Penny Wong, along with her partner, have two children.
Two blokes and a cocker spaniel does not make a family
Of course they do
Why do they have different surnames?
But a straight couple with a cocker spaniel does?
Or is the breed of dog the problem?
6 Likes
@cory_Bernardi: Thoughts Please?
2 Likes
Using IVF, surrogacy, adoption. We have an eleven year old son through surrogacy. He is also an essendon member of 11 years,
6 Likes
Surprised no ones had the balls to call Tony Abbott out on his sanctity of marriage and itâs purpose in raising children.
A: he had a kid out of marriage
B: he has denied that kid the opportunity to know his real father.
Hypocrite of the highest order.
6 Likes
Can someone actually articulate this to me?
It may not be the correct wording but who really gives a â â â â . If two dudes want to marry, go nuts, if people want to be Buddhist go for it. I donât care, enjoy your time on the earth as you want like the rest of the world can.
If the church doesnât want to do it, then thatâs fine that is a religious group not the civil society, but to not allow them to be married (which is not solely owned by the church) is completely different.
I actually see a no vote the exact same as not allowing them to be together in the first place.
There are a lot more fkn pressing matters on the earth than should gay people be allowed to marry.
8 Likes
The last bit is the part that really matters. Proof that SS couples can raise their kids just as well as âtraditionalâ couples.
1 Like
heâs actually been a member for 12 years since conception! lol
2 Likes
Correction, if there were a heap of FCFC gay married couples adopting hordes of children and signing them up as members I would vote no.
Hang on a minute, is this the Hawks new membership drive ploy?
6 Likes
Iâm a very firm âYesâ voter. My post was a dig at the hypocrisy of Tony Abbott saying âThank Godâ for how gay people are now treated with more respect.
2 Likes