Labor party and gay marriage

A

Asguard

Kiss my dark side
Valued Senior Member
It seems that this issue isn't going to lay down (nor should it) for Rudd. Recently a senior labor party parliamentarian in the SA parliament called on the federal parliamentary party to support gay marriage. There is a thread around here that i posted on it. For some reason (i don't know why) the issue has suddenly heated up again

Rudd firm on gay marriage stance

Posted 3 hours 32 minutes ago
ABC News

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will move against a push at this week's Labor Party conference to allow same-sex marriages.

The Labor Party's Tasmanian state conference has called for the Federal Government to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry.

It will be an issue at this week's National Labor Conference.

Mr Rudd says he will not change the policy he took to the last election.

"We went to the last election being very clear-cut about our position on marriage under the Marriage Act being between a man and a woman," he said.

"We've also said that in terms of all legal discriminations against same-sex partners that we would act to remove them, and the Attorney-General has been hard at work."

Viewed 29\07\09 at 16:25
Click to expand...

Well i happened to be listening to the interview which i believe formed the basis of this story (ABC Adelaide, Mornings, Mat and Dave) and he did not sound comfortable at all with the topic. He was asked innumerable times WHY his party had chosen to go against removing discrimination in this area and he simply refused to answer or he ducked the question. I wish they had pushed him harder but i understand there is a limit to how far an interviewer can go when the interviewee refuses to answer the question. It will be interesting to see if he is overruled by the national conferance what he will do, these things are quite widly reported and concedering the number of people for it i cant see him getting much political surport if he buries the vote or refuses to act on it if it goes against him.
 
NSW set for gay adoption stoush

ABC News
Posted Thu Jul 9, 2009 9:06am AEST

A recommendation for New South Wales to allow same-sex adoptions is facing a fight within State Parliament.

Lesbian women and gay men are currently allowed to adopt as individuals in the state, but not as couples.

However, an Upper House inquiry yesterday concluded that the definition of a couple in the Adoption Act should be amended to include those of the same sex.

It recommended that exemptions should be granted to faith-based adoption agencies, as long as they refer same-sex couples to other providers.

But the Law and Justice Committee was unable to reach a unanimous conclusion and there were dissenting reports from a Labor MP and a Liberal Member.

The committee's chairwoman, Labor Upper House MP Christine Robertson, says some committee members have also vowed to work hard to maintain the status quo.

Ms Robertson acknowledges the issue is likely to divide MPs.

"There was lots of dissent throughout the entire inquiry because the issue actually is based on belief patterns and persons who believe a certain way," she said.

"This actually reflected right across any of the research that we were bringing into the inquiry."

Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby convener Emily Gray says allowing the reform would bring NSW into line Western Australia and the ACT.

Ms Gray says there is no need for the Government to delay, given gays and lesbians can already adopt as individuals in this state.

"Adoption reform has been the last piece of inequality when it comes to same-sex couples," she said. "We urge the Government to implement the recommendations of the report as soon as possible."

NSW Community Services Minister Linda Burney, who initiated the inquiry, says the Government will respond within six months.

viewed 29\07\09 at 16:43
Click to expand...

Wish the other states and the federal gov would follow suit
 
because it is fundermental to the political ideology which a) i subscribe to and b) to which the country was founded on, ie liberalisium as defined as "that which causes no harm to another person should be permitted unless a strong case can be argued for its perscription" (that quote maybe a little off, its six months since i studied law and philosophy)
 
If you stick with gay partners then you won't get stuck with child support!

Well unless your partner has kids and you get married.
 
"L" Is For "Logic"

Swarm said:

If you stick with gay partners then you won't get stuck with child support!

Well unless your partner has kids and you get married.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's something resembling logic in there somewhere. Care to fill us in?
 
Asguard said:
because it is fundermental to the political ideology which a) i subscribe to and b) to which the country was founded on, ie liberalisium as defined as "that which causes no harm to another person should be permitted unless a strong case can be argued for its perscription" (that quote maybe a little off, its six months since i studied law and philosophy)
Click to expand...

I know, but meh, I'm not gay, so I don't really care if gay marriage is legal or not. I only support it in principal. I don't understnad why non homosexuals are so extreme on this case.
 
a) im actually bi so its just a coincidence i found PB and thats who i want to spend my life with

b) justice is a very important concept wether its for self or others. "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing" (that statment has nothing to do with war and countries but rather PEOPLE) and rember the poem about the nazies?
 
swarm said:
If you stick with gay partners then you won't get stuck with child support!

Well unless your partner has kids and you get married.
Click to expand...

Actually no. In Australia at least, same sex couples are recognised for child support purposes. So if a same sex couple have children (either through IVF or adoption, for example) and their relationship ends, they are liable to pay child support for the children.

So sticking with "gay partners" to escape paying child support will not absolve you of your obligations to be financially responsible for your children.:)
 
Asguard said:
a) im actually bi so its just a coincidence i found PB and thats who i want to spend my life with

b) justice is a very important concept wether its for self or others. "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing" (that statment has nothing to do with war and countries but rather PEOPLE) and rember the poem about the nazies?
Click to expand...

asgaurd, do you think (to a certain degree that) homosexual marriage is a blight on straight marriage?
 
no, i dont, anymore than i think interracial marriages did or interfaith or no faith marrages. why would it? does me being married or not have any effect on you? of course it doesnt it only effects yourself and your partner.

marrage, just like education, may have started as a religious cerimony but now it is a civil one and there is no more reason to exclude any group than there was for white only buses.

to be honest im surprised to see you asking that question
 
Asguard said:
no, i dont, anymore than i think interracial marriages did or interfaith or no faith marrages. why would it? does me being married or not have any effect on you? of course it doesnt it only effects yourself and your partner.

marrage, just like education, may have started as a religious cerimony but now it is a civil one and there is no more reason to exclude any group than there was for white only buses.

to be honest im surprised to see you asking that question
Click to expand...

why? i dont agree with homosexual marriage, because i see it has a blight on hetrosexual marriage likewise homosexuals adopting children shouldnt be allowed either, where will it stop? why cant we have multi partner marriage? why can't we have children marrieing? whats fair for one should be fair for anouther
 
on poligamy why not again what right do you have to judge what other consenting adults do?

i was just reading your thread on swinging. you do realise there was a time (and it still happens in some contries today) where you would be stoned to death for that. would that be correct because "its a blight on marrage"?

we live in liberal democracies, that is everything which causes no harm (ovious physical harm) to non consenting people unless a strong case can be made against it. ie the burden of proof osnt on gays to prove why they should be equal, the burden is on you to prove why they shouldnt be and the "yuck factor" isnt enough
 
Asguard said:
on poligamy why not again what right do you have to judge what other consenting adults do?

i was just reading your thread on swinging. you do realise there was a time (and it still happens in some contries today) where you would be stoned to death for that. would that be correct because "its a blight on marrage"?

we live in liberal democracies, that is everything which causes no harm (ovious physical harm) to non consenting people unless a strong case can be made against it. ie the burden of proof osnt on gays to prove why they should be equal, the burden is on you to prove why they shouldnt be and the "yuck factor" isnt enough
Click to expand...

i am not saying that homosexuality is "Yuck" in fact i have friends who are gay and how they want to live they're lives is totally up to them, what gives you the right to say that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? what gives you the right to tell me that i am wrong thinking what i do?

i have spoken to my gay friends about this and they see my point and can understand why i say what i do, however they also say that they're life style isnt conjusive to marriage and children,

and yes i am fully aware that in some countries swingers and adulterers can be stoned, and so can homosexuals.
 
Don't bring up that consent nonsense, seeing as your economic views completely ignore it.

I suppose what I really support isn't necessarily gay marriage, but rather that government stay out of marriage and it be left as a social matter to be determined by the individual, gay or straight.
 
Norsefire said:
Don't bring up that consent nonsense, seeing as your economic views completely ignore it.

I suppose what I really support isn't necessarily gay marriage, but rather that government stay out of marriage and it be left as a social matter to be determined by the individual, gay or straight.
Click to expand...

but...goverments can stop you getting married, take people who want to marry people in a differant country, they need to have persmission to stay with they're intended
 
I know, which is why I said the gov't should stick out of marriage altogether. It's not a state insitution, it's a religious institution, and in some cases a secular one, but we ought to leave such decisions to the individual. Laissez-faire.
 
Norsefire said:
I know, which is why I said the gov't should stick out of marriage altogether. It's not a state insitution, it's a religious institution, and in some cases a secular one, but we ought to leave such decisions to the individual. Laissez-faire.
Click to expand...

ok right i see your point you were making now, but what if said homosexuals wanted to get married in a church, churches are against homosexual marriages, should they then be forced to break they're belifes and marry a gay couple?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top