TOPIC:

Grassy wrote: Firstly,the whole Gay and Lesbian Marriage Equality issue.

Secondly,she's another one who's taken umbrage with Qantas and their stand on this issue.

As much as I think she's a conservative old fuddy duddy,she might have a point here.

Is it really Qantas' job to dictate how people feel on this issue?Especially when it's not yet Legal and has not been voted on in a Plebiscite or Referendum?

One thing for sure,the coming Summer's Australian Open is sure to be interesting,with protests galore abound.Be more interesting than a bunch of Pissed young Croatians and Serbians having a mock Romper Stomper choreographed Chairfight!

I'm not against Gay and Lesbian Marriage.I'm still trying to fathom out though,why they want such unions to be recognised by Ultra Conservative Institutions?!

Agreed, companies like Qantas need to stay out of it. If they want to get into the political area on subjects like this, expect to get some heat from the other side.

But seriously both sides need to step back and get some perspective. Much bigger, more important issues in the world to be spending time and money on. Move on.

Grassy: the real question is: would Quantas be able to run an anti-gay marriage campaign? The gay lobby want acceptance from all of society, even the ultra Conservative elements.

Anch: not necessarilly right wingers, plenty of Catholics in the ALP would oppose gay marriage. The issue is that the parliament and its membership is much more religious -- the Liberal party British prodis and the ALP Irish Catholics -- than the electorate is on the question. Hence, the impasse.

Margaret Court has a right to express her views, just as I have the right to disagree strongly with them. The call to rename the arena in Melbourne is over the top because there she is being celebrated for her tennis prowess not her views on gay marriage. One thing I would say is that the church and state meddle too much in what is primarily a private issue and there is a strong body of research to show that children raised by gay couples are just as happy and well adjusted as those raised in male/female unions

To speak to the more general concept we don't have citizen's initiated referenda in Australia as a matter of course. It is generally only used for constitutional changes. Therefore, to spend upwards of $200 million on a plebiscite that would not bind the members of parliament and particularly in the current environment seems an extraordinary waste of money. We have elections to elect the members of parliament and the PM should ensure legislation is put before the house and in a conscience vote voted on.

I don't agree with Margaret Courts views but she has an inalienable right to express her opinion. I support the right to marry whoever you want, it is a private issue and really should not even be an issue. It is driven by the religious right and in particular, the Catholic Church which, lets face it has no right to make any comment on individuals decisions and rights given their horrendous history of child abuse cover ups by their clergy.

The parliament is there to represent the people of Australia and pretty much every survey has shown over 70% of the voting public and something like 90% of voters under 30 support marriage equality, so the parliament should have no other option but to pass that legislation when it is tabled. They are not there to espouse their own personal views which are often tainted by bigoted and outdated religious beliefs.

Senior Seagull wrote: ..... I support the right to marry whoever you want, it is a private issue and really should not even be an issue......

Then could I marry my neighbor's dog who would be unfaithful by providing me with a litter of pups whom I could claim as dependants.. NO LIKELY

Leather Stops wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote: ..... I support the right to marry whoever you want, it is a private issue and really should not even be an issue......

Then could I marry my neighbor's dog who would be unfaithful by providing me with a litter of pups whom I could claim as dependants.. NO LIKELY

You're not Cory Bernardi are you?

Absolutely ridiculous to suggest renaming the arena, buy hardly surprising given the gay nazi lobby who have far to much say given they make up a tiny proportion of the society.

Grassy wrote: We could McBob,if the likes of Penny Wong allow the people to have a say on this in a Binding Plebiscite or Referendum.But she and her Cohorts are too Shitscared,our answer will be NO.That is why they are trying to slip a fast one by us in Parliament.

The only reason anyone or anything doesn't want to allow a general vote on an issue is because they are shit scared of losing, its the same story all the time, all this BS excuse about cost and not being binding letting parliament have its say , is just a smoke screen, we have had votes on many things, conscription, even the bloody national anthem all the same points applied to those votes but we still had them, besides The Libs took the plebiscite front and centre to the election and they won and Labor lost, parliament should not of stood in the way and allowed the people to have their say.