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.
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.
Any polly that votes against it should be thrown out of parliament as they are clearly stuck in the past and are so out out of touch that they therefor forfeit their right to represent rhe voters.
If this is the most pressing issue this country is facing at the moment, then we are in good shape.
So government should only tackle one issue at a time?
Its been put
I would prefer it if they spent more time dealing with proper issues instead of this crap to be honest.
Hmmmm.
The Parliament has allocated a grand total of ten minutes so far to this issue and that was this morning.
If you don’t think that lawful discrimination against a group of persons based on their sexual orientation is a ‘proper issue’ then I don’t quite know what to tell you.
Nonsense - I dare say all their media strategy briefings have revolved around this subject.
Its not a proper issue in context to other more valid issues. Its a feel good topic that appeals to people because its something the masses can all understand.
Third world countries must look at first world countries debating this nonsense and think we’re a pack of spoilt morons. Its embarrassing.
Oh please.
More valid issues like taking away the citizenship of those involved in terrorism? A completely meaningless populist gesture?
Yeah, lets allocate more parliamentary time to that. ■■■■ those spoiled gay people and their rights, we’ve just got no time for them.
That has more validity than ■■■■■■ gay marriage.
Who f**king cares. I doubt even gay people care to be honest.
Sells a few papers I guess and the media get to use footage of some lesbians which is always a good seller.
Right wing conservatives care, that’s who (even the gay ones). Otherwise it would have been all over long ago.
Its been put up in the Parliament now, what - twelve times I think.
Failed every single time.
And lets not forget that the Rudd/Gillard government had 6 years to change the law.
Now all of a sudden its an issue of major importance.
Spare me
Well, I never said that Labor was without its conservative right wing reps, did I? And I wasn't just talking about politicians anyhow.
Personally I don't care, so perhaps we have that in common, but I can see that many people do.
Not everyone who opposes this issue are “right-wing conservative” types. Stereotyping isn’t helpful in this sort of discussion.
Of course they’re not, but I suppose they have a relatively strong voice. I could have just said conservatives, but it was DT, got carried away, sorry
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.
Christianity is only one culture though, it’s not the only culture. Plenty of other cultures have/had different forms of marriage. I’m not Christian so why should I be bound by your beliefs?
I DO have an issue with forcing priests to marry people who don’t conform to the priests beliefs. Thankfully, this proposal isn’t doing that. This won’t effect you at all. And it won’t change any childrens rights either.
I have no idea why anyone would oppose this, unless your intent is to force people to conform to your personal beliefs.
I think the problem that some people find of concern is what is happening in the US and UK where organisations or businesses that choose not to do something that goes against their beliefs are being targetted and finding themselves being charged under hate crimes, fined and, in some cases although rare, jailed. Some are concerned that might happen here in Aus once this issues is resolved.
As a Christian I appose this change however I do not believe in standing in the way of it, and I acknowlegde that the change will come soon. I also support the view that same-sex relationships should be treated legally as any other form of relationship.
well businesses should just do ‘what their business does’, regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer. You cant spin discrimination to be a ‘religious right’ and then call the opposition to discrimination to being ‘targeted’.
If the same business weren’t serving wearers of polyester, shellfish eaters or adulteress I could maybe understand, at least we’d have some consistency, but they do serve those people. Refusing to serves gays is just throwing the toys out of the cot because same sex-marriage laws were upheld.
A business should have the right to do what they like with their business, the government should not declare who they should do business with. If a business wants to be discriminatory then let them be, soon enough they will run out of clients.
Bizarre issue. Should be a non issue. change the wording. Go about your life thereafter. No one loses anything.
easy solution i’ve always claimed is.
make the legal version of two people being together a civil union, whether it be man and woman, man/man or whatever.
“marriage” is then merely a title the religious zealots can use to have as whatever they want it to mean, but it should have no legal bearing or backing.
The very first step is to allow homosexual marriage to be legal in the civil sense. At least this allows for a civil union so all rights are on a par with heterosexual marriage.
Then they can work on religious institutions to allow it, especially for homosexuals who want to be married in a religious setting.
Why the hell a “god” would give two hoots what people do to their or others genitals in a consensual situation is beyond me.
I’m also at a bit of a loss as to why homosexuals choose to belong to a religious institution that disapproves of them. Some people have their god I suppose.
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.
Christianity is only one culture though, it’s not the only culture. Plenty of other cultures have/had different forms of marriage. I’m not Christian so why should I be bound by your beliefs?
I DO have an issue with forcing priests to marry people who don’t conform to the priests beliefs. Thankfully, this proposal isn’t doing that. This won’t effect you at all. And it won’t change any childrens rights either.
I have no idea why anyone would oppose this, unless your intent is to force people to conform to your personal beliefs.
I think the problem that some people find of concern is what is happening in the US and UK where organisations or businesses that choose not to do something that goes against their beliefs are being targetted and finding themselves being charged under hate crimes, fined and, in some cases although rare, jailed. Some are concerned that might happen here in Aus once this issues is resolved.
As a Christian I appose this change however I do not believe in standing in the way of it, and I acknowlegde that the change will come soon. I also support the view that same-sex relationships should be treated legally as any other form of relationship.
well businesses should just do ‘what their business does’, regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer. You cant spin discrimination to be a ‘religious right’ and then call the opposition to discrimination to being ‘targeted’.
If the same business weren’t serving wearers of polyester, shellfish eaters or adulteress I could maybe understand, at least we’d have some consistency, but they do serve those people. Refusing to serves gays is just throwing the toys out of the cot because same sex-marriage laws were upheld.
A business should have the right to do what they like with their business, the government should not declare who they should do business with. If a business wants to be discriminatory then let them be, soon enough they will run out of clients.
government regulates many aspects of business. what they can sell, what guarantees they need to offer at a minimum, what they pay employees, how they compete in the market, forces them to pay tax. I don’t see any reason to draw a line at allowing denial of service for reasons of bigotry. Why would that “freedom” be more important to protect than the list of regulations already required of people wishing to operate as a business?
People have the freedom not to have their own business if they hold their bigotry that dearly.
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.
Christianity is only one culture though, it’s not the only culture. Plenty of other cultures have/had different forms of marriage. I’m not Christian so why should I be bound by your beliefs?
I DO have an issue with forcing priests to marry people who don’t conform to the priests beliefs. Thankfully, this proposal isn’t doing that. This won’t effect you at all. And it won’t change any childrens rights either.
I have no idea why anyone would oppose this, unless your intent is to force people to conform to your personal beliefs.
I think the problem that some people find of concern is what is happening in the US and UK where organisations or businesses that choose not to do something that goes against their beliefs are being targetted and finding themselves being charged under hate crimes, fined and, in some cases although rare, jailed. Some are concerned that might happen here in Aus once this issues is resolved.
As a Christian I appose this change however I do not believe in standing in the way of it, and I acknowlegde that the change will come soon. I also support the view that same-sex relationships should be treated legally as any other form of relationship.
well businesses should just do ‘what their business does’, regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer. You cant spin discrimination to be a ‘religious right’ and then call the opposition to discrimination to being ‘targeted’.
If the same business weren’t serving wearers of polyester, shellfish eaters or adulteress I could maybe understand, at least we’d have some consistency, but they do serve those people. Refusing to serves gays is just throwing the toys out of the cot because same sex-marriage laws were upheld.
A business should have the right to do what they like with their business, the government should not declare who they should do business with. If a business wants to be discriminatory then let them be, soon enough they will run out of clients.
You want it that way then business should also be able to discriminate based on race or gender too.
What concerns me is that you propose pandering to people who are so insecure in their religion that they can’t be challenged by serving a gay man. What next? Beheading the infidels?
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.
Christianity is only one culture though, it’s not the only culture. Plenty of other cultures have/had different forms of marriage. I’m not Christian so why should I be bound by your beliefs?
I DO have an issue with forcing priests to marry people who don’t conform to the priests beliefs. Thankfully, this proposal isn’t doing that. This won’t effect you at all. And it won’t change any childrens rights either.
I have no idea why anyone would oppose this, unless your intent is to force people to conform to your personal beliefs.
I think the problem that some people find of concern is what is happening in the US and UK where organisations or businesses that choose not to do something that goes against their beliefs are being targetted and finding themselves being charged under hate crimes, fined and, in some cases although rare, jailed. Some are concerned that might happen here in Aus once this issues is resolved.
As a Christian I appose this change however I do not believe in standing in the way of it, and I acknowlegde that the change will come soon. I also support the view that same-sex relationships should be treated legally as any other form of relationship.
well businesses should just do ‘what their business does’, regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer. You cant spin discrimination to be a ‘religious right’ and then call the opposition to discrimination to being ‘targeted’.
If the same business weren’t serving wearers of polyester, shellfish eaters or adulteress I could maybe understand, at least we’d have some consistency, but they do serve those people. Refusing to serves gays is just throwing the toys out of the cot because same sex-marriage laws were upheld.
A business should have the right to do what they like with their business, the government should not declare who they should do business with. If a business wants to be discriminatory then let them be, soon enough they will run out of clients.
You want it that way then business should also be able to discriminate based on race or gender too.
What concerns me is that you propose pandering to people who are so insecure in their religion that they can’t be challenged by serving a gay man. What next? Beheading the infidels?
Unlike another religion, Christians do not behead people.
Are you not aware of what is happening in Uganda? Are you trying to tell me that no gays have been killed by Christians? And don’t give me the “no true Scotsman” response here. There are good, evil and neutral Christians just as there are good, evil and neutral everything else. The Ugandans may well believe they are good Christians but they still proposed a law making homosexuality a capital offence and it would have passed if not for international pressure.
Anti-discrimination laws are essential becuase for every “good” Christian refusing service because they want to lead someone to the light there is an ■■■■■■■ in the shop next door refusing service because he’s an ■■■■■■■. When we make it ok for shopkeepers to refuse service to gays, blacks, unwed mothers, etc, we make it OK for people to jeer them on the way out, then spit on them, then push them, etc. This is a real “slippery slope” not the Cory we’ll-soon-be-marrying-our-pets Bernadi slippery slope. One is restricting the rights of people (or permitting others to restrict peoples rights), but allowing same sex marriage is not restricting anyones rights or freedoms.
While you make valid arguments regarding what shop keepers do and government intrusion into that, my question is that if someone refuses to service someone should they be fined, sued and have their business closed becuase of it? Should they have people protesting outside their shop, by spat upon, vilified, be pushed upon? Because that will come, just as it is happening in the UK and US currently.
I don’t support a business refusing service btw, if you open a business you sell to everyone equally. I am just showing what I know others are talking about and where this debate is going. I am also not “against” gay rights. I don’t support it but I am not against it.
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.
Christianity is only one culture though, it’s not the only culture. Plenty of other cultures have/had different forms of marriage. I’m not Christian so why should I be bound by your beliefs?
I DO have an issue with forcing priests to marry people who don’t conform to the priests beliefs. Thankfully, this proposal isn’t doing that. This won’t effect you at all. And it won’t change any childrens rights either.
I have no idea why anyone would oppose this, unless your intent is to force people to conform to your personal beliefs.
I think the problem that some people find of concern is what is happening in the US and UK where organisations or businesses that choose not to do something that goes against their beliefs are being targetted and finding themselves being charged under hate crimes, fined and, in some cases although rare, jailed. Some are concerned that might happen here in Aus once this issues is resolved.
As a Christian I appose this change however I do not believe in standing in the way of it, and I acknowlegde that the change will come soon. I also support the view that same-sex relationships should be treated legally as any other form of relationship.
well businesses should just do ‘what their business does’, regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer. You cant spin discrimination to be a ‘religious right’ and then call the opposition to discrimination to being ‘targeted’.
If the same business weren’t serving wearers of polyester, shellfish eaters or adulteress I could maybe understand, at least we’d have some consistency, but they do serve those people. Refusing to serves gays is just throwing the toys out of the cot because same sex-marriage laws were upheld.
A business should have the right to do what they like with their business, the government should not declare who they should do business with. If a business wants to be discriminatory then let them be, soon enough they will run out of clients.
You want it that way then business should also be able to discriminate based on race or gender too.
What concerns me is that you propose pandering to people who are so insecure in their religion that they can’t be challenged by serving a gay man. What next? Beheading the infidels?
Unlike another religion, Christians do not behead people.
Are you not aware of what is happening in Uganda? Are you trying to tell me that no gays have been killed by Christians? And don’t give me the “no true Scotsman” response here. There are good, evil and neutral Christians just as there are good, evil and neutral everything else. The Ugandans may well believe they are good Christians but they still proposed a law making homosexuality a capital offence and it would have passed if not for international pressure.
Anti-discrimination laws are essential becuase for every “good” Christian refusing service because they want to lead someone to the light there is an ■■■■■■■ in the shop next door refusing service because he’s an ■■■■■■■. When we make it ok for shopkeepers to refuse service to gays, blacks, unwed mothers, etc, we make it OK for people to jeer them on the way out, then spit on them, then push them, etc. This is a real “slippery slope” not the Cory we’ll-soon-be-marrying-our-pets Bernadi slippery slope. One is restricting the rights of people (or permitting others to restrict peoples rights), but allowing same sex marriage is not restricting anyones rights or freedoms.
While you make valid arguments regarding what shop keepers do and government intrusion into that, my question is that if someone refuses to service someone should they be fined, sued and have their business closed becuase of it? Should they have people protesting outside their shop, by spat upon, vilified, be pushed upon? Because that will come, just as it is happening in the UK and US currently.
I don’t support a business refusing service btw, if you open a business you sell to everyone equally. I am just showing what I know others are talking about and where this debate is going. I am also not “against” gay rights. I don’t support it but I am not against it.
If you’re going to sue for damages they should be real damages. I can’t imagine a scenario where those damages would be so considerable they lead to closure, so yeah, that would appear to be an injustice.
For a fine, it all depends on the extent of the fine. Fines are supposed to be about disincentive, not punishment (IMO). A repeat offender absolutely should be hurt so much that they are forced to close, but a one-time offender shouldn’t.
And people protesting? Well that’s trickier. The shopkeeper could be seen as starting this through their own act of protest so the crowd out the front are just protesting in kind. But are they harassing customers, blocking ingress, etc? There’s a line. Shopkeepers need legal protection from harassment in the same way that customers do. They should also be given the opportunity to make amends and not have it dangled over their heads until they fold.
Bizarre issue. Should be a non issue. change the wording. Go about your life thereafter. No one loses anything.
easy solution i’ve always claimed is.
make the legal version of two people being together a civil union, whether it be man and woman, man/man or whatever.
“marriage” is then merely a title the religious zealots can use to have as whatever they want it to mean, but it should have no legal bearing or backing.
problem solved
The legal changes to the marriage act will literally involve changing
“a man and a woman”
to
“two people”
about 5? times in the piece of legislation.
That’s it.
That’s all.
Right now there’s no difference how a husband and a wife are seen in the law, to the ATO, to insurance etc. You’re a spouse and you’re either dependant or not. That’s it.
Won’t affect anyone other than homosexuals who want to get married.
Oh and of course all the catholics who are going to be forced to marry Bull Mastiffs and Shetland ponies against their will. It affects them.
Bizarre issue. Should be a non issue. change the wording. Go about your life thereafter. No one loses anything.
easy solution i’ve always claimed is.
make the legal version of two people being together a civil union, whether it be man and woman, man/man or whatever.
“marriage” is then merely a title the religious zealots can use to have as whatever they want it to mean, but it should have no legal bearing or backing.
problem solved
The legal changes to the marriage act will literally involve changing
“a man and a woman”
to
“two people”
about 5? times in the piece of legislation.
That’s it.
That’s all.
Right now there’s no difference how a husband and a wife are seen in the law, to the ATO, to insurance etc. You’re a spouse and you’re either dependant or not. That’s it.
Won’t affect anyone other than homosexuals who want to get married.
Oh and of course all the catholics who are going to be forced to marry Bull Mastiffs and Shetland ponies against their will. It affects them.
Not sure why Catholics are always hammered as being anti gay marriage. Dear Leader Shorten is of course Catholic being from that renowned working mans school, Xavier College.
Most Catholics could not give a toss.
Muslims are the ones who are vehemently anti gay. Everyone is too scared to talk about it though.