Marriage Equality | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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

tigersnake said:
I don't disagree with this, and the bottom line is you are correct, but to play the devils advocate JG avoided the issue because she believed it would distract from the issues she wanted to work on, the carbon tax and the NBN for example. (If she'd know the Coalition would subsequently wreck both she may have done things differently)
I’m not sure Gillard “avoided” the issue because it would distract from NBN and the carbon tax.
 
tigersnake said:
I don't disagree with this, and the bottom line is you are correct, but to play the devils advocate JG avoided the issue because she believed it would distract from the issues she wanted to work on, the carbon tax and the NBN for example. (If she'd know the Coalition would subsequently wreck both she may have done things differently)

Not buying that Gillard excuse at all snakey. And i read today that Wong supported the Howard amendments in 2004.
 
jb03 said:
Not buying that Gillard excuse at all snakey. And i read today that Wong supported the Howard amendments in 2004.
Yep, people hailing PW in this cause have short term memories. Yet another gutless hypocritical pollie who’s all talk and bravado ........in opposition.
 
jb03 said:
Not buying that Gillard excuse at all snakey. And i read today that Wong supported the Howard amendments in 2004.

Until recently Labor had a policy of a conscience vote on gay marriage and the Libs had a policy against gay marriage.
Labor could have introduced legislation to parliament but they could never have got it through until the Libs at least allowed a conscience vote, which they did not do until their recent survey.
 
Brodders17 said:
Until recently Labor had a policy of a conscience vote on gay marriage and the Libs had a policy against gay marriage.
Labor could have introduced legislation to parliament but they could never have got it through until the Libs at least allowed a conscience vote, which they did not do until their recent survey.

Makes the ALP sound even weaker.
 
Coberg tiger please show me where l said " As gutfull would say, we may get gay schools."
 
Giardiasis said:
Are celebrants and pastors allowed to deny marriage services to gay couples? Are they allowed to claim that marriage is between a man and a women to the exclusion of all others during their ceremonies?
Anyone?
 
gutfull said:
Coberg tiger please show me where l said " As gutfull would say, we may get gay schools."

gutfull said:
Yeah most of those countries are pretty much *smile*ed....the worlds gone mad ...gay schools coming your way bank on it ...

It's hard to keep track when you are just spewing random nonsense all the time, isn't it?

Brodders17 said:
Until recently Labor had a policy of a conscience vote on gay marriage and the Libs had a policy against gay marriage.
Labor could have introduced legislation to parliament but they could never have got it through until the Libs at least allowed a conscience vote, which they did not do until their recent survey.

I remember when Abbot was voted in, saying to a friend, the only good thing about this is the hilarity of Tony Abbot having to be the PM who legalises gay marriage. My mate said no way, would never happen. I said that within the next few years, the global and societal pressure to not be left in the dark ages is going to be too intense. It's a matter of when, not if, and the when just has to be soon.

Now, I was wrong about it being Abbot, but it ended up being the libs anyway. I do think that it wouldn't have mattered who was in charge though, this was a matter of timing, not partisan politics. Society pushed, pollies are bound to follow. Even Tony supported it in the end, because, as he said, it was the will of his constituent.
 
jb03 said:
Makes the ALP sound even weaker.

maybe, but the fact remains this law change was possible because the libs changed their policy from a 'no' to a conscience vote, catching up to Labor.
The eventual train of events the led to the change was set in place by Abbott, of all people.
 
Giardiasis said:

i would assume they would have to follow the same laws as anyone and not discriminate against same sex couples, just as restaurants or hotels cant.

im not sure what they are allowed, or not allowed to say during a ceremony.
 
Giardiasis said:
It's to do with the lack of protections for celebrants and pastors that don't want to marry gay couples for a start.

Maybe it was the lack of protections for celebrants and pastors who don't want to marry couples of different races?
 
Brodders17 said:
Maybe it was the lack of protections for celebrants and pastors who don't want to marry couples of different races?
Guess what Brodders, people should be free to discriminate along those lines too.

Do you support incest marriage? If not, then you are a bigot by your own reasoning.
 
Giardiasis said:
Guess what Brodders, people should be free to discriminate along those lines too.

Do you support incest marriage? If not, then you are a bigot by your own reasoning.

Huh - incest is illegal - what are you drinking G
 
year of the tiger said:
Huh - incest is illegal - what are you drinking G

Based on logic used incest should be legal. #Equalty. Polygamy also. Everyone has the right to get married. Marriage equality for all.
 
Harry said:
Incest should be legal. #Equalty. Polygamy also. Love is love. Everyone has the right to get married. Marriage equality.
I’m happy with those arguments, I’m not happy with people that use them for gay marriage but don’t stay consistent.