Australia recognises gay unions

[sexnews]

Sydney - Australia's centre-left ruling party on Saturday voted for national recognition of same-sex unions but stopped short of lifting a ban on gay marriage.

The national Labour conference voted to develop a system for the registration and recognition of same-sex relationships, after gay rights advocates failed to gather enough numbers for a resolution to legalise gay marriage.

But frontbencher Anthony Albanese told delegates while it was not his "ideal position", the watered-down resolution was an important reflection of shifting public attitudes.

"History is moving forward on these issues," said Albanese, presenting the motion for vote.

"When I first proposed equality for same-sex couples in superannuation in 1997 that was a controversial issue. Today that is an issue of consensus."

Unstoppable equality

"I believe that the issue of equality for all is something that is unstoppable," he added, prompting wild applause.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election on a platform that supported the former conservative government's legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Rudd, who considers himself a moderate Christian, said earlier this week that he "fully respected" the integrity of same-sex relationships but would not change Labour's ban on gay marriage.

His government has moved a raft of legislation to remove same-sex discrimination from almost 100 national laws, in areas such as pensions, tax and employment.

Thousands of people held rallies and demonstrations across the nation as the vote was held, calling on Labour to legalise gay marriage.

Protesters marched through Sydney's central business district to the harbourside conference venue, many in tuxedos and white gowns, to stage a mass "illegal wedding" stunt.

A recent poll suggested up to 60% of Australians supported gay marriage and the statistics bureau in May announced it would count same-sex couples who declared themselves married in the national census.

- SAPA

 

[lifterdead]

LOL, when I saw the headline, I thought,

"Gay Unions? What do they need a union for? Better working conditions?"

 

[El Freako]

So we're slightly less retarded now. Good for us!

 

[Adam23]

up to 60% of Australians supported gay marriage

this is good news for skippy :iorofl:

 

[Skeptic]

God I hate you adam.

 

[tim290280]

up to 60% of Australians supported gay marriage

this is good news for skippy :iorofl:

Fucking homophobe :angrydude:

You know what they say about homophobic people


I know that marriages are regarded as a religious union and thus up to the church to decide, but they aren't. They are the domain of government so they should be able to make it legal whenever they want.

 

[Robcardu]

Dont mess with those ppl guys, not only they have to deal with the fact of being aussies they are gays, thats having a fucked up luck!!

 

[Pickle]

one more step in the right direction

 

[Natzo]

So we're slightly less retarded now. Good for us!

finally you can end that sick "off the record " relation with Skeptic.

Now you can share the same Kangaroo pounch with pride.

congrats.

 

[tim290280]

finally you can end that sick "off the record " relation with Skeptic.

Now you can share the same Kangaroo pounch with pride.

congrats.

Sounds like you want to share a bed with Adam with all that homophobic facade.

 

[tkD]

LOL, teh tags!

 

[quorom]

I recognize Gay Unions....as wrong Just kidding, if you wanna sausage wrestle that's up to you.

 

[mvsf1]

Spain did it in 2005, I think.

You can disagree with gay unions, it doesn't mean you are an homophobe. Get over it. In fact, I disagree just because here, in Spain, they can adopt childs and I'm sorry, a little kid should always have a dad and a mom. If you want to call me homophobe, congratulations.


It's almost the same as other thing that annoys me a lot: I'm tired of people who say, in public, "I'm not a racist, I have not problems with black people". Then, his 19-year old daugther arrives at home with a good black guy and the mega-cool daddy tell him: "Don't touch my daughter".

There is too much hypocrisy in this world and I can't stand it.

 

[Pickle]

Spain did it in 2005, I think.
I disagree just because here, in Spain, they can adopt childs and I'm sorry, a little kid should always have a dad and a mom. If you want to call me homophobe, congratulations.
.

Why must a kid have a dad and a mum? Many kids grow up in a divorced family growing up with just their dad or just their mum and turn out just like everyone else, Similairly some kids that grow up in so called Ideal family with mum and dad turn out suicidal,drug dependant and just plain messed up. why do you believe a kid must always have a dad and mum? Do you honestly think a dad and a dad or a mum and a mum would make any difference to the childs upbringing? Sure the kid could rebel against his parents and become a homophobe but then thats no different to most kids who grow up with a mum and a dad.

 

[tim290280]

You can disagree with gay unions, it doesn't mean you are an homophobe. Get over it.

Sorry but you have to have some reasoning to go with this. I can't see how you can be against a loving couple being joined in marriage without having something against gay people. They have as much right as anyone to have their relationship acknowledged in law.

I have no problem with the church being against gay unions, as it is their call and there are clear passages in most religious texts condemning gay union. But in Australia marriages are actually now regulated by the office of the Governor General and as such are no longer the religious ceremony they once were. So a civil marriage would be perfectly fine.

I actually agree with your point about kids though. I also think that kids need a mother and father. We are quickly reaching a point in our society were a child can reach adulthood without having a strong paternal influence of any sort. There have been some studies (not sure of their strength as studies) that have shown that this is terrible for the kids development into adults.

 

[Tech]

But in Australia marriages are actually now regulated by the office of the Governor General and as such are no longer the religious ceremony they once were. So a civil marriage would be perfectly fine.

which is why the government shouldn't be involved in marriages at all. it would avoid many problems.

 

[Pickle]

I actually agree with your point about kids though. I also think that kids need a mother and father. We are quickly reaching a point in our society were a child can reach adulthood without having a strong paternal influence of any sort. There have been some studies (not sure of their strength as studies) that have shown that this is terrible for the kids development into adults.

A strong paternal figure can be just as detrimental as no paternal figure. (michael jackson had a strong paternal figure look how he developed) . Also consider multi children families how they can grow up in the same home with the same upbringing and develop very differently. Id take your study like a grain of salt on a traditionalists beach.Wouldnt you agree, how a child develops is more upto the child and the parenting of the parents then the gender of their parents?There is no magic formula of paternal+maternal= great kid. In todays society a child is just as likely to thrive off one parent over the other as it would be to rebel against both parents.
lets compile a few child needs. love, education, friends, guidance,moral conditioning, food, water, air. cross off the basics and leave love,education guidance and moral conditioning. If anything a homosexual couple would be better at expressing love to their child then a heavy paternal figure or even some maternal figures as they are geniunley more intouch emotionally then hetrosexuals. Just as equal as a hetro for education and guidance and probably better at giving moral guidance as it will like teach the child to live without discrimination.


Talk with me timmy, i usually like your moral compass but i dont get you here have you been going to ze church? If a person is born gay do they lose thier natural instict to parent?

 

[tim290280]

which is why the government shouldn't be involved in marriages at all. it would avoid many problems.

I don't think you understand why the government stepped in to regulate. Suffice to say you are wrong that the govt shouldn't be involved. Identity fraud alone was a huge issue, let alone the record keeping and accountability.

A strong paternal figure can be just as detrimental as no paternal figure. (michael jackson had a strong paternal figure look how he developed) . Also consider multi children families how they can grow up in the same home with the same upbringing and develop very differently. Id take your study like a grain of salt on a traditionalists beach.Wouldnt you agree, how a child develops is more upto the child and the parenting of the parents then the gender of their parents?There is no magic formula of paternal+maternal= great kid. In todays society a child is just as likely to thrive off one parent over the other as it would be to rebel against both parents.
lets compile a few child needs. love, education, friends, guidance,moral conditioning, food, water, air. cross off the basics and leave love,education guidance and moral conditioning. If anything a homosexual couple would be better at expressing love to their child then a heavy paternal figure or even some maternal figures as they are geniunley more intouch emotionally then hetrosexuals. Just as equal as a hetro for education and guidance and probably better at giving moral guidance as it will like teach the child to live without discrimination.


Talk with me timmy, i usually like your moral compass but i dont get you here have you been going to ze church? If a person is born gay do they lose thier natural instict to parent?

I'm not saying that a single parent can't do the job well. I'm not saying that same-sex couples can't do a good job.

What I am saying is that a child in this society can grow up without any paternal figures in their lives. There are virtually no male primary school teachers anymore (the numbers are dropping all the time), the same trend is starting in high school. So it is conceivable to have a child go through without any understanding of what it is to be male, or have the father figure.

This is concerning and is why I'm not a fan of kids being raised without both sex of parents. But of course this is the idealised way of raising a kid. The other factors come first as the list you made are going to shape the child far more.

 

[mvsf1]

Sorry but you have to have some reasoning to go with this. I can't see how you can be against a loving couple being joined in marriage without having something against gay people. They have as much right as anyone to have their relationship acknowledged in law.

Where did I say that? I don't mind if a guy loves another guy. I'm agaist to call it "marriage", just because it allows them to adopt childs and blah blah blah.

I actually agree with your point about kids though. I also think that kids need a mother and father. We are quickly reaching a point in our society were a child can reach adulthood without having a strong paternal influence of any sort. There have been some studies (not sure of their strength as studies) that have shown that this is terrible for the kids development into adults.

I'm glad, we agree.

 

[tim290280]

Where did I say that? I don't mind if a guy loves another guy. I'm agaist to call it "marriage", just because it allows them to adopt childs and blah blah blah.

That isn't a justification. In fact the last statement is homophobic.

What is wrong with a loving couple being married? What is wrong with a loving couple having kids? Or do you think that gays can't raise kids now? Because that is what your last sentence says.