Actually no one cited THE LAW as to why marriage should remain in the traditional format (because no one views the order of the world through the prism of legislation in Canberra lol). We were instead looking at why a lack of same sex marriage is not a denial of rights…
A “couple” of itself has no legal definition and therefore has no rights under the law…no point bolding terms if you don’t understand them.
I don’t have a fundamental opposition at all - I just want to see all individuals allowed to put THEIR VIEWS forward FREELY without the far-left bigots shutting down discussion.
Yup! Turnbull spot on here with how the far-left has infiltrated the ALP - I’m constantly told on this site that I’m bonkers for saying so.
Mr Turnbull said Labor had lost its way.
“The Labor Party of today is not the Labor Party of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating,” he said.
"This is the most dangerous left-wing leader of the Labor Party we have seen in generations.
“He is a wholly owned subsidiary of militant, left-wing unions who have no regard for the rights of others, let alone the law of the land. The CFMEU controls Bill Shorten.”
Thank you for the constructive comment Ando. If anything, at least it gives me a rational of insight into another point of view.
Thanks for that, I appreciate it. Took ages to try and articulate properly!
Great post! I agree with basically everything you said there.
It’s such an obvious tactic/strategy by the PM’s spin team.
Shorten consistently scores less in the Preferred PM polls, so rather than attack Labor or better yet actual Labor policies, they are targeting Shorten personally.
The only time Turnbull ever scored points was last year was when Turnbull cleaned up Shorten in the ‘Mr Waterfront Mansion’ comeback, and people thought he finally had a backbone.
So now that Australia considers him spineless, he will continue to try and use this technique to raise his polls. Thus every speech, opportunity, Turnbull will interject with a Shorten remark.
It’s very transparent.
My issue here is that a good Government would be able to talk about policy and achievements without personal attacks, but they literally only have a strategy to attack the Shorten.
The other obsession the LNP have is with unions, and I get their desire to destroy unions, as it would weaken Labor. But the average Aussie isn’t obsessed and doesn’t care about unions, only LNP diehards and Andrew Bolt readers care about such issues.
Thus I doubt he will raise his polls with these flawed obsessive strategies - or be PM by this time next year.
So will you be voting yes or no?
Incorrect; the recently proposed (but not tabled) private member’s bill had those exemptions, but the gov’t hasn’t put up a specific bill nor specific exemptions in the “postal survey” we’re going to “vote” on.
The slippery slope argument again. Why is it that people think keeping a form of discrimination is somehow going to stop the world progressing? We can’t stop change, so let’s stop pretending and accept reality, and work to do the right thing.
Where’s the racist violence in that one? (A swastika is offensive, represents violence, racial hatred, etc. but flying it isn’t actually violence itself.)
Some idiot flies the swastika flag doesn’t disprove an increase in racial-based violence.
Were all of these fake? And I suppose there hasn’t been an increase in racial hate groups…
Are you saying a married couple do not have additional rights under law compared to an unmarried couple?
There are legal rights conferred by marriage, so let’s stop pretending otherwise.
Also incorrect; there can be legal implications for what used to be called being a ‘common law marriage’ and is more recently known as a de-facto (marriage or relationship).
This is an example of the pot calling the kettle black; demanding to be allowed to push a bigotted position (against equality for same sex couples).
Another load of Trump-like hyperbole. Shorten is from the right faction of the Labor party, and these ridiculous lies are obviously due to desperation from a weak leader (who is barely able to keep his divided party together).
I love you TV-ACT
Ok, I’ll add my 2 cents worth into this. As a 25 year old gay bloke here, I can honestly say this right now. I do not see why spending an obscene amount of tax payers money is a feasible option on something that is for one not even legally binding.
However that is not even my biggest concern. My biggest concern is that the institution of marriage in let’s say the last 20 years or so has (in my opinion) become a joke. I say this, as according to the ABS the divorce rate in Australia increased 4.1% in 2015 from 46,498 in 2014 to 48,517 in 2015. Marriage rates have also declined during the same period from 121,197 in 2014 to 113,595 in 2015. The point I’m trying to make with these stats is if Marriage is such a protected institution than why are the above stats the way they are? According to the stats there are less people getting married and more getting divorced. What I find somewhat amusing is that the argument being thrown around willy nilly that it’s such a protected institution, yet it’s crumbling before our eyes. And it’s hetero sexual couples that are doing this.
And yet there are people out there (much like myself) that couldn’t be more in love with their partner, whom just because of their sexual orientation is denied the right to marry. The thing that I put to you, and other’s opposed is why should the nation have the right to vote on us being able to wed? We aren’t here to degrade existing heterosexual marriages, we just want to be able to make that final commitment with each other.
I have seen plenty of opposed comments on social media talking about how much of a democratic society we are and how they demand they need to vote, yet when tough legislation gets passed in parliament - they don’t get up in arms about it and demand to have a vote on those issues. So why does something that’s (most likely) not going to alter their way of life in all sense of the manner need to be voted on by them?
I would also like to make another point to distinguish certain differences between heterosexual married couples and defacto homosexual couples. In a heterosexual married couple, if one party was to die then the other party would be the next of kin and all assets would go to them. They would also be listed on the death certificate isssued by the relevant authority. For homosexual defacto couples, we don’t have this right. For instance if a homosexual defacto couple have been living together for let’s say 20 years, have a 50/50 partnership in bills etc and one of them dies - the other party is legally not entitled to the same rights as the heterosexual married couple. It’s because of this that homosexuals (including myself) are fighting tooth and nail for, as this is important.
I hope my points were constructive and not bigoted as you so eloquently requested.
LOL you say it’s an obvious tactic/strategy by one that can’t do anything but personal attacks, but in the same breath say it was in response to Shorten’s constant “Mr Waterfront Mansion” jibes.
The nonsense and hypocrisy is breathtaking!
I don’t think I’ll be voting.
Oh no no no - you mocked me for “smearing” for supposedly saying that “racial violence is fake, concocted by victims, or by people who are against against racism” saying “really? Wow. Just listen to yourself.”
That is what YOU said about me.
I just gave you MULTIPLE examples reported in the US NATIONAL media showing that to be in fact the case - that you can also point to a legitimate example of violence (just as I can point to legitimate cases of violence by the Antifa far-left in Washington after Trump’s election) does not invalidate my point that most of the high-profile “examples” DID turn out to be concocted.
Can you please apologise?
Yes, and I’m saying matlock can get married. Not to a person he loves (this is what he wants the law expanded to include), but he certainly can get married to a woman right now.
This is the same right everyone has.
No actually not incorrect; a “couple”, as I said, has no legal definition and no rights under the law.
I agree.
Marriage isn’t what it used to be.
Most obviously shown by the fact people are married in parks, restaurants, resorts; ie. it has become simply a social occasion.
THAT trend, that movement away from what marriage used to be, is why this debate is even happening in the first place.
Interesting, mind if you explain why?
It’s a bit surprising, you have strong feelings on the matter, so I suspected you would be.
This is not a legitimate point - many, many political topics are discussed (and votes take place) which don’t affect individuals personally.
With practically every English speaking western nation having legalised same sex marriage it is inevitable Australia will too - we shouldn’t be allowed to fall behind comparatively.
Yes, these are legitimate points.