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.
It reminded me of ACA: “And tonight, a special edition on the MUSLIMS who are stopping true blue Aussie gays from getting married. Are they evil, or are they monsters? Find out after the news.”
Seriously though Trip, Muslims in the west do have slightly lower acceptance rates of gay marriage compared to Catholics (42% to 54% in America). But they make up 2% of the population of Australia, and we’re 25% Catholic. I’m not saying Catholic people are preventing gay marriage from passing, but it’s definitely not Muslims.
And it’s not because ‘everyone’s too afraid to talk about it’: WTF does that even mean? Is ‘too afraid’ a euphemism for ‘not racist enough’?
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.
yeah when will someone in this country have the balls to finally speak up about repressive muslim religious culture.
Next you’ll be allowed to wear those head coverings in parliament house and no-one will even mention it on account of the shariah law haapens with prayer rooms at the football.
You know it was probably good christians fighting for gay marriage that sparked that cronulla kerfuffle a while back.
It reminded me of ACA: "And tonight, a special edition on the MUSLIMS who are stopping true blue Aussie gays from getting married. Are they evil, or are they monsters? Find out after the news."
Seriously though Trip, Muslims in the west do have slightly lower acceptance rates of gay marriage compared to Catholics (42% to 54% in America). But they make up 2% of the population of Australia, and we’re 25% Catholic. I’m not saying Catholic people are preventing gay marriage from passing, but it’s definitely not Muslims.
And it’s not because ‘everyone’s too afraid to talk about it’: WTF does that even mean? Is ‘too afraid’ a euphemism for ‘not racist enough’?
It means the media focus is on Catholics as being the main stumbling blocks.
But everyone knows that gay marriage would have got over the line under Labor except they didn’t want to upset the Muslims in the marginals in Sydney’s west just before the election.
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.
Just so you know refusing to serve a person based on their sexuality is already a crime in Australia.
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.
The same as a business who picks a man over a woman because ‘everyone knows women can’t hack it’ or who picks a white guy over a person of another race because just because.
A business shouldn’t be judged any less harshly than a private citizen - discrimination is illegal under Australian Law.
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.
The same as a business who picks a man over a woman because ‘everyone knows women can’t hack it’ or who picks a white guy over a person of another race because just because.
A business shouldn’t be judged any less harshly than a private citizen - discrimination is illegal under Australian Law.
If this is the most pressing issue this country is facing at the moment, then we are in good shape.
This. It ■■■■■■ me off that so much time and energy has been wasted on this trivia for so long. I know it is not trivia to a lot of people, but this is a no brainer and should have been decided five or ten years ago, voted on passed and been done with. It’s an issue of equality under the law, not a religious issue, and it should have been a five minute vote.
Instead of that we have wasted years and years that should have been spent in discussion over far more serious and complex issues such as war, nuclear power, environment, health care, the casualisation of the workforce and lack of employment, rather than same sex marriage.
Get the legislation passed, make all Australians equal under the law and move on.
I am against gay marriage… but also believe people shouldnt be help ransom to my belief. Easiest way to end this is to have a referendum. Let the people of this country decide.
I am against gay marriage.. but also believe people shouldnt be help ransom to my belief. Easiest way to end this is to have a referendum. Let the people of this country decide.
Referendums are for constitutional change. As the constitution does not need to be changed for this to happen, wouldn't a referendum be the hardest way? Indeed, changing the constitution would still mean changing the legislation to then conform to the constitution.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong here, but that was my understanding…
I am against gay marriage.. but also believe people shouldnt be help ransom to my belief. Easiest way to end this is to have a referendum. Let the people of this country decide.
Referendums are for constitutional change. As the constitution does not need to be changed for this to happen, wouldn't a referendum be the hardest way? Indeed, changing the constitution would still mean changing the legislation to then conform to the constitution.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong here, but that was my understanding…
Referenda have to be passed by a majority of people in a majority of states and are very difficult to win. And yes as far as I understand are for constitutional change.
I am against gay marriage.. but also believe people shouldnt be help ransom to my belief. Easiest way to end this is to have a referendum. Let the people of this country decide.
Referendums are for constitutional change. As the constitution does not need to be changed for this to happen, wouldn't a referendum be the hardest way? Indeed, changing the constitution would still mean changing the legislation to then conform to the constitution.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong here, but that was my understanding…
Why should homosexuals be spared the destructive and costly shambles that is divorce? Equality.
When they do divorce, how do they work out which man gets destroyed in the settlement? Or do they clean out both of them?
Deserves repeating.
I’m reading that as ban marriages for everyone.
Not be the worst idea I’ve ever heard, although it is akin to the whole “if nobody owns up to this, you’re all staying in at recess…” approach.
Imagine a world without wedding ceremonies. Catering companies and freelance photographers would have to find something else to triple their prices for…
Why should homosexuals be spared the destructive and costly shambles that is divorce? Equality.
When they do divorce, how do they work out which man gets destroyed in the settlement? Or do they clean out both of them?
Deserves repeating.
I’m reading that as ban marriages for everyone.
Not be the worst idea I’ve ever heard, although it is akin to the whole “if nobody owns up to this, you’re all staying in at recess…” approach.
Imagine a world without wedding ceremonies. Catering companies and freelance photographers would have to find something else to triple their prices for…
Big difference between a wedding ceremony and a marriage. You could still have the ceremony without the marriage.
Why should homosexuals be spared the destructive and costly shambles that is divorce? Equality.
When they do divorce, how do they work out which man gets destroyed in the settlement? Or do they clean out both of them?
Deserves repeating.
I’m reading that as ban marriages for everyone.
Not be the worst idea I’ve ever heard, although it is akin to the whole “if nobody owns up to this, you’re all staying in at recess…” approach.
Imagine a world without wedding ceremonies. Catering companies and freelance photographers would have to find something else to triple their prices for…
Big difference between a wedding ceremony and a marriage. You could still have the ceremony without the marriage.