This is a contemporary topic at the moment. The PM has backflipped and will support the Labor Party members voting with their respective consciences. Conversely Tony Abbott has a clear view that the matter should not be visited.
I believe that Gay Marriage should be legalised as otherwise its discrimination. I have no problem with it and support the view that all Australians should have equality. The legislation should be put to the Parliament and the major parties should have a clear policy on the matter. Clearly the Libs/Nats support discrimination and Labor don't have the balls to form a party policy on the subject. It seems that only the Greens are prepared to openly support it.
What with the growing divorce rate over the years, many straight marraiges are losing their meaning and I find it hard to see why two people who love each other (regardless of gender, race, or species) should not be able to tie the knot.
"I’m just a normal functioning member of the human race and there’s no way anyone can prove otherwise"
I'm not overly keen on the whole idea. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If they created a new name for it (don't they already call it a civil union in some US states?) where they had the same legal rights then I feel there would be far less outrage from the religious groups, which is where I assume most of the outrage would be coming from.
Worried about the sanctity of marraige? Then ban celebrity/fake marraiges like Kim Kardashian's etc. It makes me sad that people like that are allowed to get married and make millions out of it yet a gay couple who love each other just as much as a man and woman should aren't allowed to get married.
At the end of the day, who does it hurt if gay couples are allowed to marry? What do people think will happen...this?
"I’m just a normal functioning member of the human race and there’s no way anyone can prove otherwise"
If religious nuts have a problem with it, fine, keep it banned from taking place in a church, let them remain in the 18th century. Let everyone else live their life how they like.
For me it revolves around what legal/financial rights 'Marriage' confers as opposed to the term 'Civil Union'. I think you'll find gay people are more concerned about that than the sound of the words.
Does anyone know the differences? The facts of the legislation are what is needed.
For example: The right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits.
Example: Where a gay couple wangled for IVF for say, a surrogate, under govt funding, (think > $50,000) I would like to draw a firm line. (This may be possible right now, but I hope not.) But, if they are 'Married' it may be illegal NOT to provide the services from your taxes.
WCE Booka 89 wrote:I'm not overly keen on the whole idea. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If they created a new name for it (don't they already call it a civil union in some US states?) where they had the same legal rights then I feel there would be far less outrage from the religious groups, which is where I assume most of the outrage would be coming from.
I agree with this, call it something else but with the same legal status. Also don't force existing institutions to transact it. I.e. you cannot force catholic/anglican/muslim/jewish etc... ministers/priests/Rabbi's etc.. to do these ceremonies.
One of those issues i wish would just go away, i think the bulk of the general population don't care either way, i know i don't - it is just those with extreme views that jump up and down about it.
