Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

  • Yes

    Votes: 77 55.8%
  • No

    Votes: 61 44.2%

  • Total voters
    138
Every time I check the voting on here it's showing 2/3rd's in favour and 1/3rd against. However on an entirely different forum it is 2/3rd's the other way. It's going to be a close vote.

The poll results would largely reflect the demographic of each type of forum or group being asked. e.g. I'm 27 and the majority of my peers of similar age who I grew up with have told me that they will vote yes (I cant actually think of anyone I know personally who will vote no). My younger sister who is in her late teens also told me that many of her friends are registering to vote for the first time specifically for the vote on SSM (who think that it should be allowed).

I'm sure that the results of a poll would vary greatly for other age groups, religious groups, socioeconomic status, education etc.
 
The churches have nothing to do with legal marriage anyway.
Not quite truem, VC:
A priest or padre can well become a licensed Marriage Celebrant, thus killing two birds with one stone. See https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/Becomingamarriagecelebrant.aspx
and note in particular this advice:
Before you apply
Many marriage celebrants perform few or no marriages each year as there are:
  • more than 8 000 Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants
  • more than 23 000 ministers of religion who can perform marriages
  • about 121 200 marriages that took place in Australia in 2014.
 
Not quite truem, VC:
A priest or padre can well become a licensed Marriage Celebrant, thus killing two birds with one stone. See https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/Becomingamarriagecelebrant.aspx
and note in particular this advice:

Yes, but it's the part about being a "licensed marriage celebrant" that's important, not the priest/pardre bit, without that any religious service is nothing.

We are discussing the right of gays to have their marriages legally recognized by the Australian government, whether the church recognizes it is irrelevant.
 
VC: what about the religious wedding cake baker? and wedding photographer?
If you work in a pub then you're going to be serving alcohol.

If you work as a butcher then you're going to be cutting up dead animals.

If you work as a wedding photographer then you're going to be photographing weddings.

Presumably someone with religious or other ideological opposition to what's involved in any particular job wouldn't choose to be employed in that industry.

That said, there's no law so far as I'm aware forcing a baker or photographer to provide their services to any particular client. Just like nobody's forcing xyz plumbing to fix your taps and nobody's forcing someone to cut your hair.
 
Last edited:
If you work in a pub then you're going to be serving alcohol.

If you work as a butcher then you're going to be cutting up dead animals.

If you work as a wedding photographer then you're going to be photographing weddings.

Presumably someone with religious or other ideological opposition to what's involved in any particular job wouldn't choose to be employed in that industry. :2twocents
Wasn't the point that if you choose to work in the industry and be open to the public that you should serve all costomers?
 
Yes, but it's the part about being a "licensed marriage celebrant" that's important, not the priest/pardre bit, without that any religious service is nothing.

We are discussing the right of gays to have their marriages legally recognized by the Australian government, whether the church recognizes it is irrelevant.
You brought it up, VC: It was your initial statement, "The churches have nothing to do with legal marriage" that I replied to. According to the .gov.au website that I cited, the vast majority of legal marriage celebrants are ministers of various churches, which makes them indeed partners in crime. That means, in cases where couples choose a religious minister, the respective church is well and truly involved. And every licensed celebrant ought to be bound to marry any two persons that are legally permitted to get married.

Countries that maintain stricter segregation of Secular and Church matters won't allow those two to be mixed-up. In those countries, couples must get their marriage recorded by a Public Servant in a dedicated Government Office. The Officer is obliged to marry any couples that qualify under the Law of the respective Land and cannot refuse to do so on a personal whim. OK, one may try, and some have refused to marry same-sex couples. One refusal is usually their last; then they're free to look for another job outside Government/ Public Service.
After the marriage is legally recorded, if the newly-weds so wish, they may organise a ceremony of their choosing. It's up to them and the "Club" that accepts them as members, how that pans out.
 
You brought it up, VC: It was your initial statement, "The churches have nothing to do with legal marriage" that I replied to. According to the .gov.au website that I cited, the vast majority of legal marriage celebrants are ministers of various churches, which makes them indeed partners in crime. That means, in cases where couples choose a religious minister, the respective church is well and truly involved. And every licensed celebrant ought to be bound to marry any two persons that are legally permitted to get married.

Countries that maintain stricter segregation of Secular and Church matters won't allow those two to be mixed-up. In those countries, couples must get their marriage recorded by a Public Servant in a dedicated Government Office. The Officer is obliged to marry any couples that qualify under the Law of the respective Land and cannot refuse to do so on a personal whim. OK, one may try, and some have refused to marry same-sex couples. One refusal is usually their last; then they're free to look for another job outside Government/ Public Service.
After the marriage is legally recorded, if the newly-weds so wish, they may organise a ceremony of their choosing. It's up to them and the "Club" that accepts them as members, how that pans out.
Alot of assumptions t here
 
You brought it up, VC: It was your initial statement, "The churches have nothing to do with legal marriage" that I replied to. According to the .gov.au website that I cited, the vast majority of legal marriage celebrants are ministers of various churches, which makes them indeed partners in crime. That means, in cases where couples choose a religious minister, the respective church is well and truly involved. And every licensed celebrant ought to be bound to marry any two persons that are legally permitted to get married.

Countries that maintain stricter segregation of Secular and Church matters won't allow those two to be mixed-up. In those countries, couples must get their marriage recorded by a Public Servant in a dedicated Government Office. The Officer is obliged to marry any couples that qualify under the Law of the respective Land and cannot refuse to do so on a personal whim. OK, one may try, and some have refused to marry same-sex couples. One refusal is usually their last; then they're free to look for another job outside Government/ Public Service.
After the marriage is legally recorded, if the newly-weds so wish, they may organise a ceremony of their choosing. It's up to them and the "Club" that accepts them as members, how that pans out.

My comment was more about that "marriage" as we are discussing here is a legal concept, not a religious one, so you don't actually need any religion to "bless you" or perform any rituals etc.

I wasn't trying to imply that a lot of priests etc aren't also marriage celebrants.

Some dress up as Elvis or darthvader to do ceremonies, others dress up as religious figures, it doesn't matter to the government which themed wedding you choose, that's my point when I say that religion doesn't matter.
 
Wasn't the point that if you choose to work in the industry and be open to the public that you should serve all costomers?

That may not be practical in some circumstances. A plumber may not be able to serve you because he has too much other work, should you be able to sue him ?
 
From a purely business perspective in most situations it's wise to not turn away paying customers unless you are unable to cope with the additional work.

The exception is where you're trying to create some sort of image surrounding the business and simply don't want certain types of people as your customers. Anywhere that has a dress code policy is doing that very openly.

Those (and there are plenty) who use their intentionally vague dress code policy as a means of turning away anyone who isn't their target demographic (regardless of what they're wearing) are doing it less openly but working around the law to keep out of trouble with discrimination etc. Nightclubs are the obvious example there.

If a marriage celebrant wants to turn down work then nobody's actually going to sue them if they simply say they're too busy.
 
So why not this:-

* Make a copy of the Marriage Act

* Change the title to The Gay Marriage Act

* Cross out "between a man and a woman", replace with "between two people of the same gender"

* Pass the Gay Marriage Act through Parliament.

Gays could get then married under their own Act, men and women can get married under the original Marriage Act, and both have the same rights under the law.

Everyone is happy.

Comments ?
 
Comments ?
You must have been watching too much "Common Sense", Rumpy :p
That would be far too easy. Therefore, it won't be happening.
Besides, not "everyone" would be happy: Many god-botherers would want the term "marriage" be patented for their narrow interpretation. And some in the rainbow brigade would still cry "Discrimination" because they're covered in a separate act.
 
Had an interesting conversation with a friend (one half of a same sex couple) on this subject.

She sees the whole thing as a legal formality and nothing more. In a practical sense well they already both use the same surname (officially changed for one of the two), already wear a wedding ring, they had a ceremony albeit not with any legal status, nobody has stopped them registering their details anywhere as Ms and Mrs and so on.

So they see the whole thing as a legal formality and nothing more.

As for those worried about same sex couples raising children, well they have two (same mother for both) and as she puts it they were conceived "in the normal way". Suffice to say that nothing I've seen with their family gives me any concerns and I'd say they're doing a better job of parenting than quite a few heterosexuals I can think of. They see their father (no it's not me by the way!) far more than a lot of kids do that's for sure.

No doubt there would be dud relationships among gays but then there are dud relationships among heterosexual couples too. Only today I head of yet another marriage breakdown from someone I know and yes they have children. And that's a man + woman marriage in the traditional sense.

I share my friend's view that the marriage issue a symbolic formality rather than something with a real practical impact. It won't change how anyone lives no matter what their sexual, religious or other preferences.

FWIW - They've been together 24 years so that counts as stable in my view. :2twocents
 
Top