9 comments

That seems like a sensible proposal and one that should leave the religious people satisfied, if not actually happy. They wont be obliged to conduct "same sex" marriages if it goes against their conscience.

The community should not have their lives dictated by peoples personal religious views whether that be our Prime Minister or our local priest/minister/rabbi etc.

Now go one step further and find another word for there Union other than Married/Marriage 

How is a lawful marriage between a man and women, whether in a church or before a JP. be personal religious beliefs'?  It is the law.

IMO you have to be stretching the obvious  to deny a homo marriage is different.  Call it what you like.. but it is not marriage in how a marriage has always been.

Marriage of homosexuals demeans the meaning of marriage...........why bother if same sex intrude in the long time tradition of vows.

It is a case of squeeking wheel ......

I thought that they used vasoline or in the RAAF brylcream.

Let them have a civil union and call them Lucky buggers rather than married.

...   as the Beatles sang many years ago ... "All we need is love ...."      :-)

This mob has taken the word Gay to mean something else and now they want Marriage to be   something else   let it be called the Homo Union that would be better for this horrible n mob

Wrong, the gay community did not invent the word, here's some interesting stuff to read:

"Around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality.  By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean  “addicted to pleasures and dissipations.  Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life”.  This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefree”, meaning more or less uninhibited.

Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women (ironically enough), often prostitutes. Also at this time, the phrase “gay it” meant to have sex.

With these new definitions, the original meanings of “carefree”, “joyful”, and “bright and showy” were still around; so the word was not exclusively used to refer to prostitutes or a promiscuous man.  Those were just accepted definitions, along with the other meanings of the word.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-mean-homosexual/

The division of State and Religion willl soon lbe a thing of the past. Recently, a worldwide poll conducted by Win-Gallup International, found that 48 per cent of Australians said they were not religious; 10 per cent declared themselves "convinced atheists"; and 5 per cent did not know or did not respond. Only 37 per cent were religious. What's more, the poll placed Australia in the bottom 14 for religiosity and in the top 11 for atheism. Yet the increasing influence and funding of religion in Australia persists.

So why does the government continue to provide financial assistance in the order of $31 billion annually,according to the Secular Party of Australia, to religious institutions that are becoming less relevant to Australians? One explanation lies with the outsourcing of a lot of social welfare to various religious organisations by the Howard government. Tax exemptions to Australian churches are costing federal, state and local governments more than $500 million a year.

Religious groups in Australia have a combined wealth of around $1 billion, they run cereal companies, insurance companies, wineries and pizza chains, and pay none of the income tax or capital gains tax that slows the rest of us down on our climb to wealth and profit.

What is my reason for saying all the above? OK I have some good ones, first of all let me say I agree with Nick Xenophon that religious organisations should pay tax. They are providing a service and getting quite rich, secondly, they should be looked upon as employers same as everybody else, and as employers they break the law by refusing to marry anyone in churches on the grounds of sexual preferences. If not, tax concessions should be stopped, becasuse this is discrimination, same as racial or any other kind. Alright if a priest really doesnt want to perform these marriagesl, it is the responsibility of the bishop to get another priest to do it, but the church should be under obligation by law. Stop all their perks and see how quickly they'll change their minds. I certainly dont want my taxes to be helping certain bodies to religious or otherwise to promote discrimination. The world has moved onm, they should too.

http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf

http://www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/submissions/pre_14_november_2008/Secular_Party_of_Australia.pdf

Totally agree all religious organiations should pay tax.

Watched a programme last night about Hillsong religion? ... there was this women making fortnightly donations from the benefits she received for her 8 children ?? which she referred to as payday ??? So the taxpayer is not only supporting this women, also is indirectly providing Hillsong with the tax free money.

Saw that too and in addition to getting tremendous tax concessions,these churches are getting centrelink benefits too, incredible

Hillsong is nothing but a tax free way of conning the gullible...how stupid can some people be...never ceases to amaze me how readily people will part with their money so that the leaders of these religious cults can live a life of luxury.

The old saying "A fool and his money are soon parted" is so true.

...lol - saw Hillsong on ACA last night - the new mega star - under their "wing"  "Justin Bieber" (spare me!) Baby Baby Baby Love ....... lol ...said they make approx. $38 MILLION per year - and that is just in Oz alone ......but that is just a ball-park "estimated" amount - because it is all put into "buckets of cash"  - no one really knows the exact amount  people donate!

Why these people/religious organisations are beyond paying TAX -  beggars belief?  Whats wrong with the Government passing a law and making these places pay their fair share?????  Sucks!

ALL CHURCHES AND THESE MOSQUES SHOULD BE PAYING TAXES,   RE,  RENT,    AND LAND TAX,     we all in one way or another pay rent,   im sure GOD wouldnt object to paying his way,       some of these churches sit on huge blocks of land,       one near me is on a block big enough to build a dozen homes,     it has a residence at the back,  which i assume the priest/ pastor lives in,   all rent free,      the money the government could get in rent and taxes from these places could go a long way,   

ALL CHURCHES AND THESE MOSQUES SHOULD BE PAYING TAXES,   RE,  RENT,    AND LAND TAX,     we all in one way or another pay rent,   im sure GOD wouldnt object to paying his way,       some of these churches sit on huge blocks of land,       one near me is on a block big enough to build a dozen homes,     it has a residence at the back,  which i assume the priest/ pastor lives in,   all rent free,      the money the government could get in rent and taxes from these places could go a long way,   

9 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment