2nd Dec 2011
FONT SIZE: A+ A-
The fight for gay marriage in Australia
news, gay, marriage, homosexual, married, couples, lesbian, opinion, drew, rachel, civil union

With the ALP National Conference in town, a key area of debate is on the current marriage laws in Australia, with at least two MPs expected to strongly voice their opinion supporting gay marriage.

Earlier this week, Queensland legalised civil unions, which are already law in Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. Civil unions recognise the relationship between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, providing legal recognition of the relationship. The current problem is that civil unions are NOT implemented Australia-wide and the legal rights of those who enter a civil union are not as strong as marriage.

I am 100 per cent for equal rights for all Australian couples, whether that is a man and a woman, man and a man or a woman and a woman. However, I believe that marriage IS a religious act shared between a man and a woman and that non-religious couples, regardless of sexuality, should undertake a civil union, not a church service. As a heterosexual agnostic male, I never want to get married and will be more than happy to be connected for life to my future partner by a civil union.

To bring the rights of gay Australian couples into line with those of same-sex couples, the civil law act needs to be implemented on a federal level, with full rights for all Australians.

Registered partnership recognition in state and territory governments:

 

Official relationship status

Year of enactment

ACT

Civil Partnership

2008

New South Wales

Domestic Partnership (Registry)

2010

Northern Territory

Defined as 'De facto', no registry

Queensland

Civil Partnership

2011

South Australia

Domestic Partnership (Agreement)

2007

Tasmania

Registered Partnership (Registry)

2004

Victoria

Domestic Partnership (Registry)

2008

Western Australia

Defined as 'De facto', no registry

Rachel’s opinion
I don’t disagree with Drew’s point that civil unions should afford those involved the same rights as married couples. I think it’s important to offer a legal alternative to marriage. I don’t however, believe that marriage is solely the domain of the church, or that it should only be entered into by a heterosexual couple.

I think that there is something very powerful about the tradition of marriage. We have been pledging our lives to our better halves with the same ritual for hundreds of years, and I just feel as though a civil union is missing some of the history and romance of marriage. I’m not suggesting that the church should be legally obliged to perform same-sex marriages. I think that would be wrong and I don’t think anybody is asking that of this institution.

What I am saying is that to give same-sex couples equal rights we need to offer them the right to follow the age-old tradition of getting married. I’m not coming at this from a practical point of view. Yes, give those in a civil union the same rights as a married couple. But don’t shut same-sex couples out when it comes to getting married – they have the right to choose how and to whom they pledge their life and love.


What is your opinion about same sex marriage? Do you agree with Drew or Rachel, or do you think they are both wrong? Comment below and get your voice heard.





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Aloysius
    2nd Dec 2011
    2:47pm
    If love is the only criterion, then I should be able to marry my brother or sister or pet dog. The next move is to legalise incest and polygamy. It seems that there is another agenda in play because legal equalitry is already in place.
    Kali-G
    6th Dec 2011
    7:59am
    once again you are so right.
    It is a deep socialist subterfuge to distract ones interest from the real issue with this anti social diatribe.
    Nan Norma
    2nd Dec 2011
    3:27pm
    The Oxford dictionary states quite clearly the the word Marriage refers to a man and a women. Some may disagree with me, but to use the word marriage for two people of the same sex, somehow demeans marriage as we know it. But I very happy that gay people can finally have a legal civil unions and have the same rights as other couples. As far as having children, I'd feel more comfortable if one gay parent is the biological father/mother of any children they might have.
    jennyya
    2nd Dec 2011
    3:46pm
    We as a Western Society are sliding more and more into abyss. One day there won't be any Western Society if we continue the way we are. Traditionally marriage is between two people, namely a man and a woman. Some of those unions have children. The children have role models in the two sexes and grow accordingly. Our society has been based on this idea for centuries. Most religions of the world agree. I can agree with a civil union between same sex and all people should have rights as far as inheritance, superannuation, etc but I certainly do not agree with same sex marriage. It flies in the face of everything I believe in. Our traditions are being eaten away - one by one - and we are becoming weaker and weaker because of it.
    genimi
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:03pm
    As already commented, both the dictionary and the bible define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. While I am not a religious person, Australia defines itself as a primarily christian society - why therefore would we change such a basic religious law?
    Rachel, your comment that churches should not be forced to conduct marriages means that such marriages would be a civil union - and does this not already exist anyway?
    We must draw a line in the sand - we are constantly changing our laws and practices so as to not offend this group or that group, and to allow everyone to do exactly as they please. What next? As someone said - polygamy? incest? what about paedophilia - I am sure they believe they have rights too.
    ibis1315
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:17pm
    I have a gay son! I know many gay people and I belong to a support group for Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and as usual I am horrified by the rediculous comments being made! Gay people and Lesbian people are PEOPLE!!! If a gay or lesbian couple are religious, why can't they be married in the church of their faith. If they belong to a congregation, why can't they be married in the church. The Lord God made us all. Including Gays and Lesbians. I have two other sons and it bothers me to think one of my sons will be discriminated against in his own country. He will be denied the rights of his brothers. For God's sake, realise what you are saying people, have some compassion and put yourselves in someone else's shoe for five minutes. Gays and Lesbians ARE NOT PAEDOPHILES. They are made differently to many people, saying that we are not all blonde with blue eyes, we are all different. I am sad to say that when the older generation have shuffled off this mortal coil, the next generation may be a little more understanding, and with openness comes understanding. Should we refuse people with blonde hair and blue eyes marriage within out churches because they differ from brunettes with brown eyes.....be very careful......This is how Hitler started!!!!
    Kali-G
    6th Dec 2011
    8:04am
    I am sorry but GAY means HAPPY!
    People whom have sex with their own kind are homosexuals and lesbians.
    Get the word right please.
    JJ
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:20pm
    A legal civil union is what is required in this situation. As the above letters state, marriage is traditionally intended join together a man and woman. It has always been that way, and I can't see the purpose of alteration just because it would suit same-sex couples. Of course civil unions should entail the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, because the same level of committment is (or should) be made on both these styles of union. I don't see that it is discriminatory to say that it is fairly obvious that there are certain differences in the manner in which the same-sex relationship operates as compared to the heterogenous. That is not intended as a derogatory comment, but a realistic one. No-one could possibly claim that a same-sex union would have as it's basic core the intention to create a family with offspring of the combined pair. That intent has been the first fundamental principle of marriage through the ages. I know there are many arguments on that score, such as where deliberately childless couples fit into this traditional mould; to me those couples also have no need of marriage - a civil union is more appropriate to them.
    genimi
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:21pm
    I did not say that gays and lesbians are paedophiles, I was referring to them as a separate group altogether, merely an example of yet another group of people who also consider their needs and wants are justified.
    terrib
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:28pm
    I totally agree that all people male or female should have the rights allocated to all people. Just because their beliefs are different does not make them any less human. We all have different beliefs on many subjects luckily, otherwise this would be a very dull world. So we should we discriminate against people because they don't believe the same things everyone else does. It is becoming ridiculous. I also wish they would allow euthanasia, as some of us believe we have the right to die when we believe we have suffered enough. No one knows our bodies as we do, and we know when we have come to the end of useful, meaningful and livable life. It is time to put the bible where it belongs, in the church and not in politics.
    ibis1315
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:28pm
    Robynann, are your wants and needs justified as far as a choice of where and how you would like to get married? You have a choice of either a church wedding or a civil ceremony.Two of my sons have that choice, but not my third son. As a citizen of this great, free, lucky county one third of my offspring is being discriminated against. In the 21st Century,no less!
    B5YCK
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:34pm
    If a gay couple divorce, could it be on the ground it was never consumated?
    ibis1315
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:42pm
    In any case, the church has made many, many changes over many years. It needs to keep up with times. Contraception was an enormous issue and changes have been made to deal with unwanted pregnancies. The dinosaurs of the day couldn't not get their heads around that! Members of different faiths inter-marrying was another stumbling block in it's day, inter-racial marriages...need I go on? Lesbians and Gays are not a separate group to our community, they are members of our communities. You probably don't realise how many gay and Lesbian people are in your community because of your own narrow-mindedness and bigoted attitude. They probably steer well clear of you, and more's the pity because you are missing out on an integeral part of life. In fact, I feel a bit sorry for anyone who cannot accept that we are all different and I would not like to be living next door to you!!!
    genimi
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:49pm
    we quite obviously all have very different views and isn't it fortunate as citizens of this great free country we are allowed to express them - I actually have a friend who is in a lesbian relationship, she has her views and I have mine, doesn't mean we can't socialise. and the point about the churches making changes has already been covered by others who have commented that our society is becoming weaker and weaker by the eating away of our traditions. anyway, enough of this - we were asked for our opinions and that is all I gave. thank you.
    Drew
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:53pm
    A strange addition to the debate on gay marriage from GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann in America.
    "Gay People Can Get Married -- But Only To Members Of The Opposite Sex".
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/michele-bachmann-gay-marriage_n_1123784.html.
    genimi
    2nd Dec 2011
    4:59pm
    gotta love it!!!!! LOL
    ibis1315
    2nd Dec 2011
    5:04pm
    I'm sure all the pious and holier-than-thou people live their lives strictly by the bible. "Thou shalt not lie" and "Thou shalt not steal" are but two of the recommendations from the bible. I wonder how many of you can say you TOTALLY abide by these two? Bringing a pen home from work is stealing and ringing up sick when you aren't are classic examples......Hmmm. Those without sin cast the first stone!!!
    terrib
    2nd Dec 2011
    5:12pm
    I think it is time the religious looked at things properly. The bible is a book of fiction. It was written many centuries after christ was born so who amongst us can say we remember any stories are family told us from that long back. Also it has been re-written many times, so what truth is there in it?
    genimi
    2nd Dec 2011
    5:16pm
    oh dear, different topic entirely - think it is time to let it go folks
    Aloysius
    2nd Dec 2011
    5:39pm
    Didn't the decline of the Roman Empire begin with a downfall in ethical principles?
    Kali-G
    6th Dec 2011
    7:56am
    What an excellent and intelligent observation!
    Nan Norma
    2nd Dec 2011
    5:39pm
    After reading these further comments to may own, I would like to ask, is it possible for the church to conduct civil union ceremonies. Could the church do that not feel they had broken God's law.
    I for one, do not thinks gays are any more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals. but it does concern me that we are moving away from the ideal, and that is, that every child as the right to a mother and a father.
    arrow
    2nd Dec 2011
    5:59pm
    I am neither very religious nor anti-gay. Neither have I any objection to two people of the same gender, who love one another, committing themselves to a life together as a couple. However, I feel that attaching the term 'marriage' to the union of two people of the same sex is inappropriate. There is no reason why a legal and binding Ceremony of Commitment, or rite with a similar meaning, could not be performed. But to call it marriage is unnecessary and likely to give offence, and thereby further deepen the divide between 'gays' and 'straights', to persons holding a traditional point of view on the subject.
    Casepac
    2nd Dec 2011
    6:04pm
    God loves the people but He does not condone their action. The Bible is againts murderers, thiefs homosexuals, liars etc. Because governments legalise it does not make it right with God. I appreciate that parents find it hard to come to terms with situations like gay sons etc. But ultimately we will stand before our maker and have to give an account of our lives. A person will find an answer in Christ who died and rose again so we may find forgiveness. But there must be a change of life style and only Christ can change a person. A pastor or any church minister cannot marry such couples as it is against God's will. Pray for your children that God will change them. I am no bodies judge, I to love the gays, thiefs etc and love to help and support them, but I do not condone their actions either. Two cows don't make a calf, two males don't make a bay and multiply the worldd as God intended it. Please don't get mad at me as I love you all but I must stick and live accordint to the Word of God and so must everyone else.
    Casepac
    2nd Dec 2011
    6:06pm
    Make that two males make a baby.
    terrib
    2nd Dec 2011
    6:19pm
    Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and no one should tell another how they should think based on what they do.
    Casepac
    2nd Dec 2011
    6:23pm
    Indeed you are, but the truth is still the truth.
    Kali-G
    2nd Dec 2011
    7:29pm
    Typical Labour party sham.
    The economy is stuffed, pensioners go without and our boys are dying in a dreadful country like Afghanistan. and what occupy the Govt?
    GAY MARRIAGE......................................
    GOD SAVE AUSTARLIA because Juliar and her cohorts are killing decency and our lifestyle.
    lillypilly
    2nd Dec 2011
    7:50pm
    Let'm marry - why should hetrosexuals be the only miserable ones tee hee
    jennyb
    2nd Dec 2011
    7:53pm
    My view is simple. Two human beings love each other and want to commit to a life together. They may or may not wish to procreate. They should be allowed to legally register this union, whether by marriage in a church or by civil union, according to their wishes and beliefs. Their legal rights as partners thus joined should be the same. Their gender or sexual preference is irrelevant. Love is scarce enough in this crazy world. That is all.
    Nan Norma
    2nd Dec 2011
    8:22pm
    If you know anything about biology you would know that nature does get it wrong sometimes. Babies are born with undetermined sex. The journey from embryo to birth is is quite complex.
    I went to school with a boy whom we all knew was different, only many years later did I realize he was gay. At that time (1950's) we were all too innocent then to know what gay was.
    brakeway99
    2nd Dec 2011
    8:58pm
    Next time will wanting two wifes... it is ok this for 1800 why chande it now?

    2nd Dec 2011
    9:12pm
    I think that it is terrible that the twisted perverts have stolen a beautiful word to discribe themselves... "GAY". I picked up an old Enid Blyton book some time ago and the gay five went off for a picnic...they were happy. They were not screwed in the head by strange hormones making males fancy males or females fancy anything except males including lumps of moulded plastic that shivers with joy.

    I am not happy with the way that all this has developed and I'm sure that the laws should not allow marriage as we know it.
    Nan Norma
    2nd Dec 2011
    9:42pm
    Yes, it is sad that the word gay is used to describe people that have suffered for centuries because their hormones caused them to have a different sex drive. They are certainly not screwed. Do we forget that there are gay doctors, teachers, truck drivers, and politicians etc etc . Gays are just human beings like the rest of us.
    Chevy Chase
    2nd Dec 2011
    9:53pm
    There's more to marriage than simply "being in love"; if that was the sole criterion then could an egotist marry themselves? Marriage is primarily supported by society to nurture the continuance of the species. Media, such as the "7pm Project" is being used to influence the young to support homosexual causes, pushed by the likes of Bob Brown, Penny Wong and Adam Brandt. Unfortunately the viewers are not getting the full story or considering the ramifications of legalising "Gay (homosexual) marriage". The next step will be to legalise homosexual couples "adopting". Experience in the US has shown that children raised by homosexual parents experience significantly higher rates of incest, promiscuity, "marital" break-ups, homosexual "off-spring', and sexual deviance than those of heterosexual couples. Acceptance of homosexual "marriage" can only be backward step for our society.
    Jaz
    2nd Dec 2011
    9:56pm
    Sorry but I agree with Rachael. I am not overly religious but Marriage is a sacred bond and I remember the words used on an American talk show.
    God created Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve.
    Motherof3
    3rd Dec 2011
    7:04pm
    Who says there even IS a God. And I was not married in a church, so my very happy and successful marriage is definitely not "sacred". Get over it. Is this a religious debate?

    2nd Dec 2011
    11:06pm
    It is very sad that a Gay person could have been the child of any of the above commentators except for one the PFLAGer. This is not a disease, it is not a deliberate choice (no-one would choose to be ostracised as many gays are) in fact it may well be genetic. At a tangent, divorce in the 50s led to the children of divorcees being not welcomed into friends homes to be brought up as I was by a divorced parent, my father, who brought up all 5 daughters we were hurt by society's attitude to a divorce not to an opposite sex solo father. Today we see many instances of parental abuse to children ...... from their heterosexual parents. I am not gay have 3 beautiful children and I hope in the life of my 6 grand-children there will be a natural acceptance that the warm cultured people that most gays are are just a different mixture and bigoted attitudes will go as they have in the past 60 years in regards to divorce. I think it is time to recognise society is changing than force a young person to take their own life in desperation. They might be any ones child even your own!
    dave
    3rd Dec 2011
    12:20am
    Australia rightly apologised for the stolen generation. Children who were stolen from their single mothers in hospital, Children who were stolen from their aboriginal parents, et al. The aptly named TV show "Who do you think you are ? " made the reality point that no matter how much children loved their adoptive parents, sooner rather than later they want to know who their real parents are. Not only as a natural human instinct, but also for medical and legal reasons which prevent them from making unwise partner choices.
    Inbreeding in humans as well as animals can lead to a whole range of deformities and medical problems. When a young person chooses a life partner and asks "Who was my real father foe genetic reasons of not wanting to marry their cousin or close relative, , it won't be any help to be told that your father was a vial of sperm in the womens' hospital. In both church and registry office marriages the same question is asked for sound practical reasons. Is there any lawful impediment to these two people marrying ? The inescapable reality is that some same sex couples will choose to deny their children, their birthright of a biological mother or father or both.It's a choice, not a right or an accident. Another stolen generation. When some medical and religious people warned against the medical dangers of decriminalising and sanctioning sodomy, they were ridiculed in the 1980's. The previously unknown Aids became an epidemic and still is. An old saying said that "those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad". They also Get Up and harras politicians, as before, with "irrelevant no brainer arguements". dave
    .
    Motherof3
    3rd Dec 2011
    12:59am
    Why does everybody get this wrong? A marriage is a LEGALLY binding commitment between TWO PEOPLE to care for one another for the remainder of their lives. Just because SOME choose to get married in a CHURCH, it is still a LEGAL issue.
    It does NOT imply that these two people must have children. Children have nothing to do with a MARRIAGE, they have something to do with a FAMILY.
    So, by taking religion out of the equasion, as well as the children, there is no reason why two adult people who love each other cannot get married, be it that they are a man and a woman, two women, or two men.
    If two people want to have children, they do not need to be married, nor do they necessarily have children "naturally". Some use IVF, others adopt, and there are those who intentionally do not have children. Those holier than thou people who say that children should be brought up by a man and a women, I would say: Open your eyes, look around you, and see how many, many children nowadays are being brought up by a SINGLE parent, after their so-called "perfect" male and female parents split up. Come on now. The next generations will laugh at us, asking "What was the big deal?" Finally I would like to say: marriage between gay people does not make MY marriage any less valuable, why should it?

    3rd Dec 2011
    1:57am
    Dave the obvious answer to you is that as we all, supposedly, descended from Adam and Eve all humans are inbred. "In-breeding" has always occurred in small communities, recessive mutant genes in a couple with no biological connection do occur too. Some married couples too who have chosen IVF may never reveal their child(rens) origins to them and, under your argument those children would have a right to get married as being non-DNA related! Most loving parents who have gone to great lengths to have their own child will probably reveal birth details don't assume any set of parents would be different just that hetero parents would find it easier to not do so against those who obviously would be unable to be joint parents. So possibly the children of Gay couples have more chance of being told the truth.
    I suggest you read up on the origins of Aids as blood samples prove it was emerging in the 1880s in Africa from monkey meat and faster transmission occurred after mass vaccinations and antibiotic use were commenced in the 1950s with unsterile needles leading to final recognition in the 1980s of Aids with what one could term a medical induced origin!
    Gay people in committed relationships are not usually any more promiscuous than committed straight couples.Finally many of us who are quite sane,older, hetero and aware are glad to have Get Up to bring attention to some areas in politics that should not be ignored.
    tango18
    3rd Dec 2011
    7:02am
    Gay was a lovely word (also a girl's name) which was hijacked by the homosexual community. Marriage is a word which has a specific meaning both in a religious and civil context. If the homosexual community wish to live an alternative lifestyle - and I have no objection to their doing so - then let them come up with their own words to describe themselves and their commitments. Stop hijacking existing words and changing, or trying to change, their meanings. New words are being added to our language every day, so maybe if the "alternative community" came up with their own new words the rest of us would be more accepting. Stop taking existing words and distorting them or changing their meaning!
    Motherof3
    3rd Dec 2011
    7:10pm
    Homosexuals live the same lifestyle as you and me, it's not a chosen "alternative lifestyle", nor an "alternative community". Gays and lesbians, like heterosexuals are doctors, dentists, artists, defence personel, brickies, shop assistants, etc.
    Also, language is a "living" thing: words and their meanings change over time. Don't be so rigid in your thinking please.
    ibis1315
    3rd Dec 2011
    8:46am
    Really, Tango? That's what's bothering you? That the word Gay has been hijaked! Gays and Lesbians are killing themselves because of non-acceptance by the wider community! And this doesn't bother you? Someone's son or daughter, sister or brother. There by the grace of god, goes you...And Dave, I'm not sure where you get your information...is it from an old encyclopeadia lurking on your bookshelf from the 1950's. Gays and Lesbians ARE the next stolen generation! Victims of a society who are condemning them for their own good. Being Gay is NOT a lifestyle choice. The sooner the wider community comes to grips with this, the better. My son was subjected to bullying at school, because he was different. Had he been born in another country it would have been racial discrimination and perhaps something could have been addressed. He grew up not really understanding why he was different to the ideals society has in place. His inner turmoil would have been difficult to cope with, as if the teen years aren't hard enough. Thank God, yes that's right, I said thank GOD, his parents understand him. Thank GOD he didn't suicide, like so many do. The point to all of this debate is "To bring the rights of gay Australian couples into line with those of hetero couples, the civil law act needs to be implemented on a federal level, with FULL RIGHTS for all Australians. "
    Wake up, you dinosaurs from a different world. You are fast becoming extinct, with good reason!!!
    Aloysius
    3rd Dec 2011
    9:44am
    Really Ibis

    Who is starting to sound like the bully now? Look in the mirror.
    Nan Norma
    3rd Dec 2011
    10:15am
    Again I refer to the Oxford dictionary: marriage: the legal union of a man and a women in order to live together and often to have children.
    We would have to change the meaning of the word if it is going to include same sex couples. But I do think people will still want to be able to distinguish, for practical reasons, whether a couple are the same sex or not. What is wrong with a Civil Union, if it provides all the same legal rights of marriage.
    I have a very well ajusted friend that has no idea who her father is, because her mother spent one night with a soldier before he was shipped overseas to fight never to be heard of again. 68 yrs later, my friend still desires to know who he was, what he was like.
    Many adopted children share that desire. How many will be denighed that right because their male parents used a 'surragate' mother overseas, sometimes using an donated egg. How many adults will be seeking to know 'where do I come from' in years come come. Its a fundermental human need.
    Aloysius
    3rd Dec 2011
    10:35am
    How ironic it would be if Ibis is correct and the heterosexual "dinosaurs" become extinct and the world is then populated by gays who would some how procreate using artificial insemination from gay donors. What a wonderful world that would be. They're coming to take me away haha!
    starbright
    3rd Dec 2011
    10:56am
    This is the way I look at it, I am a woman, I see a male I find attractive, I admire them this is a natural inclination on my part as an individual, A gay female walks down the street and sees a women she finds attractive, she admires them, it is a natural inclination for her, this is what most people dont realise this is a natural inclination it is simple really, just needs common sense, and as such should be recognised with a legal union call it what you will but it doesnt need a conscience vote it could me named Narrage for instance it doesnt matter what it is called just do it because it is fair.
    starbright
    3rd Dec 2011
    11:03am
    Further to my writings above, I feel it shouldnt be a conscience vote because it leaves some people able to judge others whom they dont understand, so to vote that way is discriminatory. To even put the word paedophile in the same discussion is absolutely ridiculous.
    Nan Norma
    3rd Dec 2011
    11:16am
    Yes, starbright, you sometimes need walk in another's shoes before making judgement.
    ibis1315
    3rd Dec 2011
    11:17am
    Aloysius, I am heterosexual. I have nothing against heterosexuals, unless they are idiots, bigots, those unwilling to learn from previous mistakes, uncompromising, dispassionate, totally uncaring and inconsiderate. I also dislike these traits in gays, lesbians members of the clergy, and those that come to these shores from distant lands. I do however, feel sadness for you and your archaic attitudes. You are clearly uneducated in these modern times. The issue is discrimination against same sex couples who wish to 'marry', recieving the same rights as every other citizen in this country. Quite frankly, I think they would be justified in taking you away! Gays and lesbians are being discriminated against. Many people in the community are also being discriminated and steps are being taken to rectify these issues, why not the ones in debate here?
    Aloysius
    3rd Dec 2011
    11:37am
    Thankyou Ibis for your condescending and judgemental lecture. You know nothing about me or my education. I have an adult son who was raised by lesbians and he is psychologically damaged. I have had as much exposure to the issues as you do and your experience does not make you an expert or superior. I have no bias against homosexual people and I bet I have more homosexual friends than most people. I do know several people who have changed from heterosexual to homosexual preference and the word preference is carefully chosen. In my view there is little legal discrimination against homosexual people. There are sections of the community that object to the marriage act being changed and their view has been the prevailing one for eons. Their views should not be dismissed because a vocal group wants change. You nare welcome to move to a commune that shares your views but leave the rest of us to our chosen tradition please.
    diamond3
    3rd Dec 2011
    11:46am
    marraige is between male and female,give them hormone injections so they can become what they were born to be,if approved by the government aids will spread
    daz
    3rd Dec 2011
    12:04pm
    How ignorant!
    Kali-G
    6th Dec 2011
    7:53am
    YOU ARE RIGHT MATE.
    Jaz
    3rd Dec 2011
    11:55am
    Just a thought. once homosexuality was outlawed- now it is accepted -If GAY marriages are ok'd is it only a step towards making homosexuality compulsary?
    daz
    3rd Dec 2011
    12:02pm
    That is just a stupid comment & no help to the debate!!!
    ibis1315
    3rd Dec 2011
    11:57am
    They used to nail people to the cross too, but views changed on that. They used cut off the hands of thieves, but views changed on that. In some countries they still stone women to death for being rape victims.......some things should not stay the same for eons.....
    ibis1315
    3rd Dec 2011
    12:01pm
    PS Aloysius, Just how did you choose to be herterosexual?
    ibis1315
    3rd Dec 2011
    12:14pm
    PPSS. Thank you Daz, and motherof3 and starbright and nan norma and vivity and jennyb. In any case, if two people love one another and want to commit to each other, whichever way, in the the church or in a civil ceremony, IT IS NO ONE'S BUSINESS EXCEPT THEIRS! I cannot see how making these laws national can have any effect on anyone else except those concerned.I'm sure your standard of living and your values will not change. The government has brought up these issues for debate. That's why there is so much controversy here on this site. It is a debate.
    Nan Norma
    3rd Dec 2011
    12:22pm
    Do you all realize what a convenient time this subject was brought up in parliament. What a diversion.The politicians have just given themselves an astronomical rise and instead of raising our voices in protest we are debating a subject that's here to stay anyway. Clever Julia.
    Aloysius
    3rd Dec 2011
    12:24pm
    Comments that employ personal abuse do not warrant consideration in a rational discussion. The discussion is supposed to be about changing the marriage act and it is not about homosexuality as a lifestyle. It would be helpful to know, resulting from the marriage act, what discrimination is suffered by homosexual couples. I don't recall referring to any religious view in my comments but I do respect the views of people who have them. Oppressive laws should be changed unless there is some fundamental requirement but I am unclear on the oppression resulting from the marriage act.
    ibis1315
    3rd Dec 2011
    12:54pm
    "Civil unions recognise the relationship between heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, providing legal recognition of the relationship. The current problem is that civil unions are NOT implemented Australia-wide and the legal rights of those who enter a civil union are not as strong as marriage." That right there Aloysius, is the oppression.

    Traditions, along with societal standards are made and changed by the people. Laws are made and changed, by the people. The bible is a translation by people on the teachings of God....How many times have things been changed in the bible, from translation to translation? I guess no one can say for sure.......
    jemat
    3rd Dec 2011
    1:24pm
    I grew up in the country.
    The only place to get married was the local church. There was not a registry office in the area.
    One of my sisters was pregnant when she got married. She was forced to get married out in a back room of the church with just my mother and farther present - the rest of the family was excluded. Another of my sisters married a catholic boy. She had to change her religion so they could get married as the priest convinced her husband to be that the marriage would be invalid and any children bastards ( his words), if they were not married in the catholic church. Both these events would not, thankfully, happen today. yet they were believed , at the time, to be correct and ethical strictures, necessary to uphold decency in society. I hope we will reach the stage where marriage between same sex couples will be totally accepted. Incidentally, do those people who base their objections on the bible consider people who marry as Buddhist, hindus etc to be "living in sin" because they were not married in the Christian religion?
    jemat
    talofa
    3rd Dec 2011
    1:49pm
    hallo...i find the oppinion of 'jennyb' the best of the lot...i am over
    70/single by choice/hetero but i like gay people & have longtime
    gay friends...as long as nobody is physically hurt everybody should have the same rights...i am a non-believer & don't have any fixed
    traditions....talofa ps: there seem to be a lot of religious cooks
    around
    terrib
    3rd Dec 2011
    2:22pm
    I have a suggestion and that is ditch all religions, that way there will be no arguments about marriage you just live together, That will save loads of money and if it doesn't work out there's no costs for divorce. Lawyers won't like it but that's their problem. No religion, no wars, as every one has been in the name of religion, no more argument. Everyone lives in peace.
    Motherof3
    3rd Dec 2011
    6:58pm
    Why do some people believe they can make life decisions for other fully intelligent adults? Mostly they base their "right" to make these decisions on THEIR belief system.
    Who do you think you ARE???? I am an adult, in full control of my faculties, and I do NOT wish other people to make decisions for me, especially not if they are religion based. By the way, I am a 64-year old, happily married mother of three and none of my children are gay. So you can hardly say I am swayed by personal circumstances! And for those people still living in the dark ages: being gay is not a "chosen life-style". You are gay or you're not. I cannot remember to have chosen to be hetero-sexual, did you?
    This whole debate is mostly not about the rights of gays to be married, it's more about religion! So let's start by getting rid of all religions, they are the cause of most problems and wars we have (and had) in the world. Now THAT would make the world a better place.
    daz
    4th Dec 2011
    12:18am
    Totally agree,
    Motherof3!
    terrib
    3rd Dec 2011
    7:46pm
    Isn't that what I just said Motherof3?
    Maggiegreen
    3rd Dec 2011
    11:23pm
    Freedom belongs to all people no matter their Nationality,or Sexual Orientation. We are as God created us, and that includes being Homosexual. It happens in the Mother's womb, there is no fault to it on anyone's side.People have a right to be married to the person they love. Opposition is just a smoke screen for something else that's bugging you. Look inward at yourself, how does other people's happiness affect you? Why would it affect you? How does their being gay effect you? They are the ones coping with their lives the same as you cope with yours. God alone is our Judge, how will we be judged for our bigotry? People aren't all the same anyway, let's accept the differences, God made us all, let us live in Peace and Acceptance.
    Nan Norma
    3rd Dec 2011
    11:28pm
    Well said, Maggiegreen.
    daz
    4th Dec 2011
    12:29am
    & Did you all see this news :
    "I’m writing to you from the Sydney Convention Centre, having just watched a 10,000-strong crowd converge on the Labor Party National Conference to demand marriage equality.

    It was an incredible moment.

    As the crowd rolled in, ALP delegates to the Conference voted in favour of a platform change proposed by Rainbow Labor. Now, for the first time, Labor party policy supports full marriage equality. The crowd went wild – thanking both grassroots campaigners like you and those brave individuals who have fought for this change from within.

    Today’s change sends a message to all gay and lesbian Australians that finally our nation’s governing party considers their love and relationships equal. "
    ibis1315
    4th Dec 2011
    12:40am
    At last. Thank God.
    mikeg
    4th Dec 2011
    12:04pm
    I agree with many other comments, I have no religious leanings so no grounds for objection there. In fact I have no grounds to a couple making a life long commitment to each other, but don't call it "marriage."
    mikeg
    Supernan
    4th Dec 2011
    4:53pm
    When did marriage become the property of Religion ? For hundreds of years it has been a civil contract between two people with various ceremonies to make it known to everyone that a contract was in place. Even today it is a legal contract - thats why divorce is a legal matter. In the Middle ages couples, once married, could choose to walk to the church door for a blessing from the Priest but actual marriage rites varied greatly from place to place and still do. So if you are a person with religious faith, have your ceremony in a church, but why expect the rest of us to treat marriage as a religious rite when it is not.
    Nan Norma
    4th Dec 2011
    5:17pm
    To get Married is actually to make a public announcement of a very private intention.
    lillian
    4th Dec 2011
    5:51pm
    I been brought up as a catholic,but I married a jew.I never been a fanatic.I been married for 56 year now,in my house we never discussed religion,in fact when my daughter was going to school I witdrew her for religion classes.I told her when she was old enough she
    could choose watever religion she wanted.I love reading about all different religion, but at the end I think i have became an atheist.I believe people can choose to do what they want as long as they becave correctly, never hurt other people,love animal and help people in need.For me marriage is just a piece of paper.
    ibis1315
    4th Dec 2011
    6:34pm
    I, too, agree that marriage is a piece of paper, but it's nice to have a choice. Hopefully same sex couples can have the same choices and rights that go with that piece of paper.

    5th Dec 2011
    10:24am
    If we castrated all the male homosexuals then little boys would be safer using public toilets.
    I don't know what female toilets are like?
    genimi
    5th Dec 2011
    2:40pm
    why stop there? plenty of priests, teachers, scout leaders, etc have been guilty of hurting children both male and female - this is definitely a step too far!!!

    5th Dec 2011
    10:39am
    Dave it has been said before Homosexuals are not Paedophiles, it is sad to realise that some one allowed to vote on important issues is as ignorant and as blinkered as you obviously are.
    daz
    5th Dec 2011
    2:06pm
    Yes vivity. He's just not worth acknowledging in this debate!

    5th Dec 2011
    2:52pm
    Have you both ever used a "GENTS"? Well I have and I was invited to join in rather nasty activity at a young age in the toilet block. Lucky even at age 11 I was a judo student and new how repell the would be attackers. Police got them.
    Yes priests I know have tried too. You would expect a catholic one but no he was C of E.
    ibis1315
    5th Dec 2011
    6:44pm
    Davey, smack yourself in the head for being stupid!
    Nan Norma
    5th Dec 2011
    7:26pm
    Wow Davey, we've gone from two people wanting to marry, to catholic priests molesting little boys. in toilets. But I'm sorry for what you have experienced as it has made you suspect everyone of being devious.
    colnlyn
    5th Dec 2011
    8:27pm
    I am not opposed to the Gay Society, I have a grandson who is in this category and although it broke my heart when I found out, I have come to respect and love both and his partner.
    IN my opinion marriage is the union between a Man and a Woman in the hope of creating children. I don't think it is right for a Govt. in power to change the way of life, if anything the people of the country should vote on this subject.
    ibis1315
    5th Dec 2011
    11:35pm
    How will it change the way of life? Life as we know it is evolving every day. I just can't see how it will change anyone's life, except those concerned. I'm sure the men of the time thought giving women the vote would change their way of life. I guess it has, but I believe for the better. gay and Lesbian couples can already have a civil union in most states of Australia. To unify it federally is the question. To be given the same rights as married hetero couples is the question. Would you deny your own grandson these rights?
    Nan Norma
    5th Dec 2011
    10:26pm
    Colnyn. I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right iIt will change our whole way of life I don't know if it will be for the better or not. Only time will tell.
    Kali-G
    6th Dec 2011
    7:52am
    How sad our society has become, to swallow this crap about the rights? of homosexuals and lesbians....
    while Rome burns we trifle away the chance to save our ass.
    the World is facing the largest depression as Europe fiddles with the euro crisis, and they will not be able to fix it. so what does our socialist Government do: spend their time about this trivia.
    GOD HELP AUSTRALIA
    Nan Norma
    6th Dec 2011
    2:48pm
    kali, If you look at my previous blog you'll see I said something similar. The politicians brought this up at the same time as they got themselves a big fat raise. Why as there been so little protest about that.
    genimi
    6th Dec 2011
    4:06pm
    cos it isn't open to debate?
    colnlyn
    6th Dec 2011
    6:21pm
    Ibis 1315 - Yes I would deny these two beautiful the right to marry. I can accept their relationship the way it is now, but I could not accept a marriage between them.
    ibis1315
    7th Dec 2011
    12:22am
    I hope your grandson is happy with his partner.
    Actual Cat
    2nd Feb 2012
    7:58pm
    I am happy for two people, man & woman, woman & woman or man & man to share their lives. I do wonder why they feel the need for the approval of the church and society to live together as a loving team. Surely it is what is in your heart that is most important.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles