Shorten introduced it knowing nothing will come of it. Take it to an election rather than use this issue as point scoring (happens on both sides of politics I know)
When someone comes up with a reason as to why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry, can they let me know? Often it has come up in discussions at work and the best I have heard is “it’s just not right”. Really? Just. Not. Right! Ok.
And the argument of every child should have a father and mother is the biggest load of crap I simply have to just change the subject Everytime.
're last para, can be argued that the’re is a lot of mothers and fathers that shouldnt have children , so if people use that srguememt about who are fit to parent, then we need a screening process for all.
But I agree , just get it ■■■■■■ done.
Certainly is.
Having said that there is a lot of current research to suggest the infant brain responds differently to females and males at different stages of development.
Males and females each have a different impact on the developing brain.
I don’t fully understand the argument to be honest.
By wanting marriage equality there needs to be a change in the actual definition of marriage, currently that definition is based on our Christian heritage whether people like it or not.
I’m a Christian and I’m still working my way through it all.
I certainly believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure its members are looked after so that one is not discriminated over the other, I don’t know if that means the whole meaning of marriage needs to change.
Heard the classic 'Adam & Steve' argument rolled out on talk back during the week.
Never fails to get a run.
Heard that one a while back, and the interviewer asks… " So in turn then you really believe the entire world was populated with an incestuous family, twice ?".
Heard the classic 'Adam & Steve' argument rolled out on talk back during the week.
Never fails to get a run.
Heard that one a while back, and the interviewer asks… " So in turn then you really believe the entire world was populated with an incestuous family, twice ?".
nah ■■■■ fawning day, just a ■■■■ up with people you like talking to instead of everyone who is genetically linked and you have to pretend to give a ■■■■ about and be normal in front of.
Fawning day keeps the ridiculous expensive princess dress industry alive for no good reason.
Have I missed something: I thought Abbott had merely promised to ask his party room if they wanted a free vote? They say no, the Coalition (minus a few rebels) vote no, the vote fails in the House of Reps.
Wim I don’t think it should be partisan either, which is why I support the dual party approach that’s been proposed.
However I don’t think its a certainty to pass.
The lobby group advocating has it passing by one vote in the Senate, and a handful of votes in it in the House, and that’s based on some pretty generous assumptions in respect of the voting intentions of those who haven’t yet declared how they’ll vote.
Hopefully there’s a tidal wave of public support which strengthens those numbers but who knows.
That’s true DJR, but the best word at present is that a free vote should be allowed. This is a huge change from a week ago, but doesn’t necessarily mean the bill would pass as there will be a surprisingly large number of ALP members who will cross to vote against (those linked with Joe DeBruyn specifically).