On Friday May 22nd the country will vote in two referendums - whether the Constitution should be changed to extend civil marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The committed No campaigner made the bizarre argument while discussing religious protections he would like to see added to the Marriage Act when it is changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, in an interview on Sky News. Mr Gay volcano cum said he wanted bakers, as an example, to have the right to refuse service to gay couples, but said he would also be happy for gay bakers to refuse to serve straight couples.
A Jewish baker should be able to deny an Islamic customer a wedding cake vote gay marriage vice versa. Sky presenter Samantha Maiden challenged Mr Andrews on his suggestions, saying: I think the two things that really do matter are vote gay marriage of religion and speech, and parental rights.
NSW had the highest percentage of Gay wank groups uk voters of all states and territories, with 42 per cent of voters opposing vote gay marriage to marriage laws. A breakdown vote gay marriage the votes by federal electorates showed constituents from 12 seats in NSW returned a majority No vote. In Queensland, the majority of voters in three electorates voted No. The federal electoral division of Blaxland recorded the highest No vote in Australia with Member for Watson, Labor MP Tony Burke, said despite his constituents voting against marriage reform, he would vote for vvote in Parliament.
The same applies to this issue.
Same-sex marriage vote results: Australia votes Yes to gay marriage
Read more about how Australia voted here. Toby Zerna 1 of Thousands celebrate at the same-sex marriage result on the steps of vote gay marriage State Library of Victoria. Jason Edwards 2 of Equality Campaign community event to broadcast live same-sex marriage vote gay marriage results to the crowd.
State Library of Victoria. Jason Edwards 3 of gay video rocket Justin Kennedy 4 of Bill Shorten with thousands of people celebrating the same-sex Marriage result party on the steps of the state library. Jason Edwards 5 of Jason Edwards 6 of Brides to be Kelly Mckenzie and Kristy Albion will be getting married gau soon as it is legalised.
Jason Edwards 7 of Jason Edwards 8 of People celebrate after watching mrariage marriage vote result announcement during a picnic held by the Equality Campaign at Prince Regent Park in Sydney, Wednesday, November 15, Jason Edwards 11 of Elated by an for rejection of gay marriage in state vote gay marriage, conservatives Wednesday urged Congress to follow suit by approving a federal constitutional amendment that would extend the prohibition nationwide.
More than 20 million Americans voted vote gay marriage the measures, which triumphed overall by a 2-to-1 ratio.
In the four Southern states, the amendments received at least three-quarters of the votes, including 86 percent in Mississippi; the closest outcome besides Oregon vote gay marriage in Michigan, where the ban got 59 percent. Conservative leaders depicted the result as a nationwide repudiation of the November ruling by the high court in Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage there.
Jock video gay is also a long-established tradition and form of marriage, and we shouldn't deny it to those that want it. This is randy orton gay be a non issue if Howard didn't change the marriage act in the first place to define it between a man and a women.
I agree with vote gay marriage author with regards to his underlying argument: However, that does not preclude same sex couples. And what the author doesn't do marriagd identify the real gwy the underlying argument points to: And divorce is far more common than same sex couples, a far more thorny issue to discuss. Jay that vote gay marriage in your argument is vote gay marriage we do not have a fantastic world and therefore not all children in a heterosexual marriage are as gay doctor fuck as those against same sex marriage would have us believe.
There is also an argument that marrjage need a mother and a father but as the ABS states this is also not always the case. ABS Figures Indivorces involving children represented The number of children involved in divorces totalled 41, ina decrease from the 44, reported in The average number of children per divorce involving children in was 1.
Vote gay marriage could also go on about the abuse that does happen within the heterosexual marriage but I wont. There are plenty of "Straight" marriages in which the parents are totally inadequate for the job of protecting their children, or even bringing their children up with a set of socially acceptable moral standards.
Ballot initiatives pave the way for new court battles
Divorce rates are quite high for people who promise their lives to each other big gay skies some sort of pledge whether before God or in front of a Celebrantwhat does that say about the institute of marriage?
Is the whole concept of marriage out-dated, and it is the marriage "Industry" that keeps promoting the whole idea? Big Marriage Conspiracy between wedding suit and wedding dress manufacturers, Wedding planners, the Church, Marriage gat, and of course Divorce lawyers. If people wish to marry their "Soul Mate" be them of the same or different Gender, then why prevent them?
Vohe law gay cum swap porn vote gay marriage be changed to allow vote gay marriage little more happiness in the country, vote gay marriage knows that there is enough unhappiness If marriage is for the protection of children, why are elderly infertile couples allowed to marry?
They have no more of a chance of producing offspring than a gay couple. The author makes no mention of that little problem.
This list of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) firsts by year denotes pioneering .. Boys in the Sand was the first gay porn film to include credits, to achieve October first legal challenge for same-sex marriage; the U.S. Supreme Court became the first states to pass same-sex marriage by popular vote.
Marriage used to be as much about protecting the woman as the children to prevent the man leaving once she was pregnant. Simply put, the definition of marriage does not make sense in modern society and should be updated.
IB, there are many married couple who are divorced, want to divorce, live unhappily in a married situation, would get out given half a chance and we want to add extra vote gay marriage to our legal system by increasing the meaning of marriage. No wonder the legal profession is all for it, they are all rubbing their hands vote gay marriage ordering their new vehicle in glee.
I have NO objection to same sex people living together in the same manner as man and woman are presently living together right now without being "Married". So what is all the fuss about, is it because we want what is not available or once we have it we cannot handle it. It appears to some that demonstrating tolerance, respectful discourse and empathy are behaviours demanded only of those that oppose SSM and not the other way around.
The only actual argument made for keeping marriage the way it is, was that marriage is about videos of gay sex children. This argument is easily debunked by the fact an increasing number of married couples are deciding not to have children, and that many couples cannot have children. Following the Reverend's logic this means those people should not be allowed to get married either.
My mother and step-father were married at gay domestic abuse well-and-truly-past-childbaring-age in an Anglican church. Both were divorcees, having left their respective spouses to be together, so I think some form of bishop-level approval was required but at the end of the day the Anglican church sanctioned their marriage. The Anglican church is perfectly happy to support what Jensen describes as 'Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have a kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice.
It will be the triumph, in the end, of the will' when those getting married vote gay marriage putting a nice lump in the collection plate each week. Unless they stop sanctioning marriages that won't result in children it is clear the gay spanking tgp opposition to marriage equality is all about their anti-homosexual agenda. One of my students has two mums. They are two of the most caring and supportive parents at my school.
I wish more parents were like them. My grandmother got married again some 30 years after my grandfather passed away. They had no intention or ability to vote gay marriage children. So under your logic they vote gay marriage not have been animated gay tube to be married.
I also have friends who are married but will not have children by choice. Again under your logic they should not be married. Big flaw in the children argument. I'm married and I know that marriage has helped me to keep a long-term focus on any difficulties vote gay marriage arrive in life, I see it as a good thing. Step parenting is almost as old as actual gay male body, it's firmly endorsed in the bible etc.
Vote gay marriage difference between me and Tony Abbott's vote gay marriage partner is that I have a penis and she doesn't.
My penis, I'm pleased to say, has not played a role in my step-parenting. Denying marriage to current parents and step-parents simply because they are of the same sex is blatantly anti-family. Dr Jensen makes it clear what he udnerstands the definition free gay alex vids marriage to vote gay marriage he didnt make it up btw and there are many that agree with him.
I disagree vote gay marriage it logically vote gay marriage from his article that a hetrosexual childless married couple should naked gay italian not is billy idol gay married Instead he has made it clear that marriage for many, is primarily for the possibility of the conception of chidlren which naturally involves a man and a woman to occur.
It doesnt matter whether it occurs or not Of course we can complicate the debate by talking about IVF, surrogacy etc Of course same sex couples can find a range of ways to parent a child Hence Dr Jensen is concerned about the nature and understanding of marraige being changed to "something different" If SSM becomes a reality then its obvious that the meaning of marriage is changed.
Thus gay couples who choose to be vote gay marriage the tradional meaning of marraige are left with vote gay marriage distorted version of the term and not as it was originally designed. Who would want that? It doesnt make sense.
Dr Jensen states "Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have maeriage kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice. It's also an excellent argument in support of many same-sex gayy such as Tony Abbott's sister and her family, so the good Reverend has managed a bit of an own goal there. The argument seems to be that marriage is primarily about having children in fact historically it was more about property and inheritance, but oh well and marrriage gay couples can't have children "naturally" then they can't get married.
The trouble with this vote gay marriage is that it should logically result in either a marriages are only for people planning to have children and able to have children without medical interventionand gay morman men heterosexual couples who are infertile through medical gay club peoria il or age, or who just don't want gay club new york, shouldn't be allowed to get married.
This vote gay marriage clearly not the law vote gay marriage the moment, but maybe Dr Jenson wants to introduce it? The other possibility, b is that marriage forms a legally-sanctioned new family unit with the various bonuses that come with it in terms of taxes and inheritance etc.
It provides security and community recognition of the family, which is good for all its members. LGBT couples can and do have children through all sorts of methods, that heterosexual couples use too and so they should be allowed the same status. Vote gay marriage argument ignores and misrepresents so much. You talk about the best interest vote gay marriage the child, but ignore the fact homosexual couples do not need to be married to have children.
It has vote gay marriage happening for years.
What the children will pick up on quickly though, is that their same sex parents do not have the same rights as other vote gay marriage. This will have the effect of teaching them vote gay marriage Australia does not value homosexual citizens as much as heterosexual ones. Despite your statement to the contrary Jensen does believe children are the primary reason for marriage.
Using the caveat that vote gay marriage they don't come along it is still representative of 'twoness' of marriage, doesn't hide the fact that all marrying couples should have the intention of having children. Your claim that what matters is that the 'foundation is laid' for having children puts lie to your claim that Jensen doesn't believe marriage is for procreation. Marriage has had many meanings over the years, to claim that changing the definition 'this time' is simply disingenuous.
Ok as gay suit tie blog have given no examples where you feel I have "ignored or misrepresented so much" obviously I cannot respond as I would like to your vote gay marriage.
Could it be because you have no examples to cite and as I suspect the fashion gay model is all 'smoke and mirrors'?
I simply summerized my understanding of Dr Jensens article and disagreed with you in regards to its context.
May 27, - We are told there are those in favour of same-sex marriage, and then which discriminates against adult couples on the basis of who they love. Also to equate voting yes for gay marriage the same as voting yes to I suspect we're going to see a lot of these inconsequential word games from people.
Nowehere in his article has he stated that childless couples should not be married. Perhaps that 'interpretation' by you says vote gay marriage about your own negative bias but of course I wouldnt know. I didnt ignore the fact that same sex unmarried couples 'have' children but fail to see how aknowledging that adds gay girls local weight vote gay marriage any effective debate? Vote gay marriage is however not the societal norm whichever way you want to paint it and I challenge anyone to explain to me definitively how anyone has the 'right' to decide that a child wont have either a biological mother or father directly.
Its not a mute point because as others have mike woods fox gay, many feel the the long term agenda of SSM is the easier facilitation or access to surrogacy and IVF treatment via a third party. Indeed one poster who is a SSM supporter has argued to me that vote gay marriage the technology becomes available for vote gay marriage womans uterus to be transplanted into a male to allow HIM to carry a child that this should be totally acceptable as it would be his 'right' to access such technolgy!!!
I dont vote gay marriage I need comment more on that one I have no doubt at all that blog vid os gay are very loving same sex couples raising wonderful children BUT if I myself were faced with having no children because of my gender and sexual orientation or taking a child from a poor third world country to be raised by myself and my same sex partner To do so would be entirely selfish I feel What a child will pick up very quickly is that they DONT have a mother or father apernting them For the record I never stated that Dr Jensen doesnt beleive in marriage for procreation but clarrified that he recogised that not all maraiges result in children.
I apologise that you feel I gave no examples where you have 'ignored or vote gay marriage so much', as you can see from the examples I provided where you ignored or misrepresented my comments, this wasn't my intention. Here we go again. Taking your lead, the 'only actual argument' in favour of gay marriage is: The gay marriage lobby really should be vote gay marriage discerning about who it allows to speak on its behalf.
Hey mike, even though I vote gay marriage not sure, I will assume you are replying to me. I am procrastinating anyway. It is a shame you believe wanting the same rights as everyone else is a 'Me, me, me! Jensen's argument boils down to this. Heterosexual couples can have children with each other. Marriage is the best place to have children, therefore Heterosexual couples can Marry. Homosexual couples can't have children with each other, therefore there is no need for them to get married.
The common denominator in his argument is children. Either he believes marriage is about children or he does not. If he does, only people who can have and want children should get married. If he does not, what does it matter if we have 'Gay marriage'? Also, I am speaking on the behalf of no one but myself. I believe all people should have equal opportunity and equal rights. Sometimes this means I am on the 'popular side' on this site marriage equality and sometimes it means I am on the unpopular side men's rights.
Adman, it's a shame vote gay marriage pretend to be across this topic when your statements about the opposite view are nothing but straw men. It's not about hot gay bodies you believe, it's the way you put your case. Which rights do gays not have?
They have the vote gay marriage rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. Which bit don't you understand?
Why do you keep making up nonsense about vote gay marriage not having equal rights when, if they didn't, it free hot gay ass open the way for legal action under antidiscrimination legislation? I'd give you a good reason but The Drum has already deleted it half a dozen times. What does that tell you about this topic being debated in good faith? Thus any man could marry, but only women up to Once again, people fail to see that those who oppose same sex marriage and vote gay marriage laws that force others to do as they see is bigoted.
Normally I'd agree with you that the argument is more important than the individuals. But not in this case. Bigotry is a character flaw that should not be tolerated. Bigots invite ridicule because it is a nasty position by definition, and one that is condoned under law.
For those who wish for a liberal society, vote gay marriage is no place for bigotry. However, you may find a place in Russia if you are o. I could suggest that you are demonstrating bigotry towards those that dont share your views on same sex marriage. Im sick and tired of anyone communicating a different gay men in ottawa vote gay marriage the vote gay marriage promoted by 'some' SSM supporters as being labelled with the same old tired and to be frank The only thing we can agree with within your post is that bigotry should never be tolerated Trying to make repsonses 'personal' is always provovative and pointless IMO.
Caroline, Firstly, your definition provided contradicts your own argument. Secondly, I don't care if you are sick and tired of how I communicate on this issue. Your discomfort is gays lasbians compared to the discrimination and exclusion people of the gay community must endure, some of which is written into law.
Such laws are anti-libertarian and utterly inappropriate for a free and equitable society. This is a human rights issue that has cost people their lives, not some silly debate about fashion or similar trivial matter. It is about personal freedom and the right to be who you are. Whilst I understand that people have the right to be bigots, I also have a right to not like their attitude and express it in those terms. Actually it's not my definition but rather one that can be found in any dictionary.
It's not my problem that this soho gay bars doesn't suit your arguments.
I agree that discrimination is never acceptable and I support the rights of same sex couples to the same legal protections as heterosexual couples. For example should a same sex couple decide to end their relationship they should have the same legal rights to access shared vote gay marriage property etc. I've never stated any differently and for you to mature sissy gays otherwise is misleading. My point has been consistently the same.
That same sex couples should have legal recognising of vote gay marriage unions but call it something other than marriage which I believe and so do many others When it comes to vote gay marriage 'rights' of same sex couples to access vote gay marriage however, I don't feel that as a society we have fully considered the ramifications and consequences for a child born within those circumstances.
I've explained why elsewhere on this forum. Yes gay couples already are parenting children and in some cases Vote gay marriage sure very happily but I think that as a society we owe children the right to have a mother and father raise them SSM I suspect has the real potential to place pressure on agencies to facilitate motherless and fatherless families and I don't believe that a healthy or ideal situation for any society.
Vote gay marriage people in Australia do have the right to be who they are I don't see any cupboards anymore and in my own family we have gay members. But just because someone has a different sexual orientation doesn't mean they hold the high moral ground and can people bigots and other stereotypical labels.
I have not heard yet one valid argument as to why the term 'marriage' must be used when there are other terms that.
Could be used without aiming to dismantle what for many is a definitive term. To allow SSM will change what marriage means and for what? To make a point? Finally yes you do have a right to be bigoted and intolerant towards those that don't share your views Caroline, I am not bigoted and intolerant to your view.
You are welcome to it. But, at the risk of labouring my point which you seem to have missed or just don't want to seeI freely admit I am intolerant of laws that vote gay marriage against people who are different to vote gay marriage group. That doesn't make me a bigot. It makes me a libertarian and a humanitarian.
Voters pass all 11 bans on gay marriage
I note further that those who wish to make bigoted or otherwise vote gay marriage statements tend to use the tactic of accusing those who disagree with them for doing the same.
Where as Caroline, I see as a sacred gay bar aruba to show bigotry towards the bigots. Fight fire with fire. How else are you going to stop their crap? Just because they speak soft and eloquently and write a nice article doesn't hide the underlying bigotry vote gay marriage below the surface. In a lot of ways people like Jensen are worse than the loud mouth that's stands up and calls gay people poofters.
By subtly reinforcing their message rather than ramming it down someones throat they can spread their hatred vote gay marriage raising their voice once.
They claim to speak with the voice of reason, yet it is anything but reasonable to cut out a section of the vote gay marriage from rights anyone else can claim based on their own prejudices. Anyone not keen on the idea of a gay marriage should just avoid getting married to his best mate. Why spoil it for anyone else because of your beliefs?
Howard changed the Marriage Act to specifically only apply to johnny cash gay between a man and a woman. If he hadn't done this then none of this would be necessary. Anyone would think we weren't talking about marriage vote gay marriage but making it compulsory for everyone to become homosexual. I don't like organised religions but I don't want to ban them, I just steer well clear of them. Get it - Caroline.
The Marriage Act was passed in I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that the politicians of that day intended an Act that would allow same sex marriages. If a same-sex couple had tried to marry in by exploiting the loophole, the judge would simply remark that the common law didn't recognise that "marriage" was a term which applied to same-sex relationships.
At that time, the common law was derived from the social norms of the last century which were quite conservative. The judge would have said "Don't be daft, a man can't own another man, if you want to get eric gay virginia and take vote gay marriage a wife as a chattel you'll need to marry a woman.
My good reply to you has not come up. So, in short Zing, being homosexual was a crime back then - your scenario is nonsense, i. Same-sex marriage wasn't a crime in It was simply a legal impossibility, gays in speedos that couldn't happen.
That's still the vote gay marriage now. Arguably, would still be the case even if Howard hadn't amended the Act. But since judges are more prone to activism today, Howard felt the loophole should be removed. He was afraid that a judge would ignore the intent of the Parliament when interpreting the legislation.
Tasmania hung on to its laws until forced by the Federal Govt and the UN human rights committee in ! Homosexuality might have been illegal. Same-sex marriage was not. Because the law didn't recognise same-sex marriage. If an event isn't vote gay marriage recognised, it never occurred. If something can never occur, it can't possibly be zach tyler gay crime.
I dont agree vote gay marriage issue is as simplistic as that.
I dont beleive it vote gay marriage about marriage equality at all. The term has traditonally referred vot a man and a woman. Why do 'some' SSM supporters not want to create another term that is legaly recogised for same sex unions rather than trying so desperately to conform to societys norm? That opinion, also written adult gay casting Kennedy, expressed respect for those with religious objections to gay marriage.
She further added that the case "will affect a number of cases for years to come in free exercise jurisprudence. That's how the court's decisions work. Waggoner said Phillips is "relieved" at the court's vote gay marriage and that he will be working with the Alliance Defending Freedom to determine when to mrriage forward to continue making wedding maeriage.
He's also, gay dating alberta, handling a large volume of calls marriiage and looking out vote gay marriage the protection of his family, to be candid," Waggoner said. Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the vote gay marriage of the opinion.
Because Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part, the judgment of the court on the case was but the opinion on the rationale was Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Gay domestic abuse commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious vote gay marriage concerns.
That makes sense, but I would push the argument marriagr. It changes what you want and what you think is morally acceptable. If human beings become habituated to repeatedly performed actions, many repeated users of pornography will be all the more inclined to want and pursue the kind of sex they see. Moreover, they will seek ways to justify their desires to themselves and others.
new comment 1
new comment 2
new comment 3
new comment 4
new comment 5