-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Marriage Equality
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
I think the yes vote will win - Hell will freeze over before that changes my opinion. I will still voice my views even if I get sent to prison. They can even burn me at the stake and I will go willingly.
It's Okay to say NO.
My pecker is made for my wife not another Man.
It's Okay to say NO.
My pecker is made for my wife not another Man.
gutfull said:
Why would that be the next step? What would that actually look like? And why would it be bad?
Can I ask, what's the difference between recognising
a) a legal civil union
Or
b) marriage
Between homosexual TGI etc couples?
Would it necessitate a change in laws etc that reference husband/wife/spouse.
In a legal civil union is either referred to to as husband or wife or spouse or partner?
In a marriage would a couple have to be referred to as one of either husband or wife (for legal reasons)? Or would it mean that husband/wife become gender neutral? And if so, does that apply to heterosexual couples from here on?
Just curious.
a) a legal civil union
Or
b) marriage
Between homosexual TGI etc couples?
Would it necessitate a change in laws etc that reference husband/wife/spouse.
In a legal civil union is either referred to to as husband or wife or spouse or partner?
In a marriage would a couple have to be referred to as one of either husband or wife (for legal reasons)? Or would it mean that husband/wife become gender neutral? And if so, does that apply to heterosexual couples from here on?
Just curious.
KnightersRevenge said:Rather unfortunately there is I think a problem with how teachers are taught. Especially Primary. I myself was almost a teacher. I was accepted into Secondary Teaching at Melbourne Uni. I dropped out after 6 months but the reason I was accepted was because the bar for entry was set so low. I wasn't a great student.We don't think of teaching as being as difficult as engineering. As a result we don't necessarily get the 'best' people with best skills, especially critical thinking skills, becoming teachers and we don't pay them all that well. All of that leads me to the point that we rely on teachers to educate our kids on complex topics and to be able to navigate moral and social minefields but we never question how they got to be qualified to actually do this. In many cases I just don't think they are.
I worry that it is a lot of vegan, naturopath, yoga types who end up at teacher's college.
Same, nearly went into teaching myself. Glad I didn't, wouldn't have the patience for it, especially dealing with parents.
The bar is set way to low, basically because pay is way too low. And, the majority of teachers have socialist leanings in my experience.
It's a difficult job, many relationships to manage. Many parents thinking it's the school's job to do too much in the way of discipline etc. My BIL is a primary school headmaster and shares some amazing stories of parents denial about their childs behaviour.
As it currently stands (to my understanding), a legal civil union is de facto relationships. This doesn't give SSC equal rights. Eg You aren't recognised as next of kin, financial benefits for taxation etc.willo said:
The government would need to create something new, which is separate to de facto, but comparable to marriage legally.
The_General said:
Thanks for the reply.
So why not just recognise legal civil unions to have the same rights and privileges?
Wouldn't that be far easier to implement seeing they'd have to do it anyway?
Or am I missing something?
Plus it would be saving $100 million or whatever it is.
Without creating something new, it would mean heterosexual couples living de facto would also have their relationship changed. Not sure everyone would be happy with that.
Interesting that former rugby player Ian Roberts is again being rolled out as a poster boy for the 'yes' case. Thought his reputation was damaged beyond repair by the unsavoury episode with the homeless kid. Whatever the case, I'm not sure it's a point in favour.
Harry said:
Correct. A no vote is like sitting eating a bag of chips and having someone else sit down beside you and opening a bag of chips. You crack the *smile* and claim if they are allowed to eat chips from their bag, that somehow makes your chips less tasty, less satisfying (it even materially diminishes your chips) and telling the shop owner they aren't allowed to sell anyone else chips when your having chips.
It's stupid.
Why should you be consulted about something that has nothing to do with you? It's like having to ask your neighbours whether you can buy a new telly.
That's a really, really poor analogy and insulting as well. Again, with attitudes like this, can you not see the damage that it could do to people who are championing the yes vote?KnightersRevenge said:
rosy3 said:
The church vows are worthless. the ceremony at the church has no standing in law. it is the signing of paper.
churches will still be able to refuse to hold ceremonies for whoever they wish, as they do now.
this will be just another change to the marriage act. i do wonder if we had the same debates when Aboriginals were first allowed to marry 'whites'.
