Australian PM says she favors vote on...

Australian PM says she favors vote on gay marriage

There are 35 comments on the Bellingham Herald story from Nov 14, 2011, titled Australian PM says she favors vote on gay marriage. In it, Bellingham Herald reports that:

In an opinion piece published Tuesday in the Sydney Morning Herald and other Australian newspapers, Gillard said lawmakers "should be free to vote in Parliament according to their own values and beliefs." However, Gillard quickly came under attack from same-sex marriage advocates, who claimed the prime minister was endorsing a vote she knew was ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Bellingham Herald.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
mmm

Brisbane, Australia

#21 Nov 15, 2011
noteatpig2getha wrote:
<quoted text>
When has Gillard EVER said she is in favour of gay marriage ?
Sorry. You're right. I thought she supported same sex marriage after all of those hairdresser jokes when she first became prime minister.
Liam

Crows Nest, Australia

#22 Nov 16, 2011
Come on Canada has legalized Gay Marriage. They're a country in the Commonwealth. So why not Australia.

Who gives a crap what the Queen wants, keep her in her own country. Useless Monarchy.
celticblue

Rouse Hill, Australia

#23 Nov 16, 2011
Does anyone expect anything else from a labor/green government?
Ross Darwin Australia

Prospect, Australia

#24 Nov 18, 2011
All you dirty arse bandits out there yuck, fancy shaging someones dirty smelly arse, i would rather play with myself, maybe muslims are not so bad after all, they shag women, loverly.
Corbin

Pekin, IL

#25 Nov 19, 2011
Liam wrote:
Come on Canada has legalized Gay Marriage. They're a country in the Commonwealth. So why not Australia.
Who gives a crap what the Queen wants, keep her in her own country. Useless Monarchy.
Nothing homosexual shares ANY of the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No economically unequal genders are involved, it is not a basic building block of even homosexual society much less of society at large, no standardized pattern is involved, no child is ever born as a direct result, and no such relationship can supply even an adopted child with a father and mother.

Homosexual 'marriage' is a cruel lie with no real basis in how homosexuals live. It has been overwhelmingly rejected as an actual practice by homosexuals in EVERY country that allows the concocted oxymoron.

There is no logical argument for homosexual 'marriage.'

Since: Nov 11

The Nile

#26 Nov 19, 2011
sancitity of marriage needs to be left for the christians to decide. i still dont know why homosexuals still tryn to being there lifestyle on us. it dont take a brainer to know dat god create woman and man for reason.
live your own life

Melbourne, Australia

#27 Nov 19, 2011
Corbin wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing homosexual shares ANY of the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No economically unequal genders are involved, it is not a basic building block of even homosexual society much less of society at large, no standardized pattern is involved, no child is ever born as a direct result, and no such relationship can supply even an adopted child with a father and mother.
Homosexual 'marriage' is a cruel lie with no real basis in how homosexuals live. It has been overwhelmingly rejected as an actual practice by homosexuals in EVERY country that allows the concocted oxymoron.
There is no logical argument for homosexual 'marriage.'
Except for LOVE.
NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST

Australia

#28 Nov 19, 2011
Marriage can be conducted by the government, so it's no longer a religious ceremony. But they're are plenty of Christians I know that support gay marriage and don't follow a 2000 year old book to give themselves morals. Which you've got to sift through to find amongst all the hate.

Homosexuals are imposing their way of life on you at all. Because they want to get married. If the government is going to recognize them as a "civil union" how is that any different than marriage?

I know a lot of homosexuals and Lesbians and they're fantastic people, lots of them are actually better people than straight people. Defiantly better than really religious people.

She favors a vote, because she thinks it will never happen, she thinks that the majority of Australians will vote against gay marriage. That way she can say I let them vote, It's one of those things for her to better Tony Abbot, who also doesn't support gay marriage.

“Lock up your cat ....”

Since: Oct 08

...or I'll kill it.

#29 Nov 20, 2011
NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST wrote:
She favors a vote, because she thinks it will never happen, she thinks that the majority of Australians will vote against gay marriage. That way she can say I let them vote, It's one of those things for her to better Tony Abbot, who also doesn't support gay marriage.
The "conscience vote" is for members of Parliament, not the general public.
WHITEMAN

Prahran, Australia

#30 Nov 20, 2011
welll, if gays want to fccuukkk themselves to OBLIVION, LET THEM.

GAYS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.

Since: Oct 11

Bracken Ridge, Australia

#31 Nov 22, 2011
Listen to yourself u fuk wits , no idea at all if I could like chicks I would it's not a choice I've had a blonde hair big tit slut as a girlfriend , sexier then most of u have f**ked. Lol , but I still always wanted to be with a guy , guys turn me on and they always have since a young hormonal boy , u don't chose to be different it's people like u that think we do ... Most guys will not get married but some will , there are some sick gay and sick str8 relationships out the but there are some fun loving great gay couples that deserve rights of marriage and kids , We will be excepted oneday , U all know a gay guy and u don't even know it or u don't care because u know that person , open your eyes people , u may understand when your son or daughter comes out oneday , if there not to scared to be themselves .....
NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST

Manly, Australia

#32 Nov 22, 2011
noteatpig2getha wrote:
<quoted text>
The "conscience vote" is for members of Parliament, not the general public.
This is why we need a Direct Democracy based system.
Hello

Beaumaris, Australia

#33 Feb 12, 2012
noteatpig2getha wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly - who cares ? If they want to get married let them.
yeh but isn't that like saying to people who are for poligamy that if they want to get married let them or even in the case of a father and daughter, if they want to get married let them... Well the law can't change just like that and it would be discrimination against homosexuals anyway because the clear definition of marriage states that it is between a man and a women for them to become an organic union(which biology textbooks would point out to you that it is between heterosexual couples), also it is with a clear intention of procreation and also it is to be a permanent relationship although we know that that does not always occur but that long lasting relationship starts from the organic union between the two as our bodies chemically change to be more like each other.
So now try and tell me that if they want to do it let them because the marriage act would be discriminating them and also it will lessen the value of marriage for heterosexual couples in the long run.
And if we break down a barrier by changing the definition wouldn't it give the right for people who are for poligamy a right to change the laws or them...
Think about it!!!
Hello

Beaumaris, Australia

#34 Feb 12, 2012
Liam wrote:
Come on Canada has legalized Gay Marriage. They're a country in the Commonwealth. So why not Australia.
Who gives a crap what the Queen wants, keep her in her own country. Useless Monarchy.
Yeh but Canada is also proposing to allow poligamy!! what's next fathers and daughters getting married?siblings getting married? You just need to know where to draw the line and it's discrimination against the gays because their type of marriage would be completely different there wouldn't be any organic union or even procreation between the two and even if they got a surrogate mother or sperm donation the child would only be one of theirs!!!
paul hogan

Clontarf, Australia

#35 Feb 12, 2012
Hello wrote:
<quoted text>yeh but isn't that like saying to people who are for poligamy that if they want to get married let them or even in the case of a father and daughter, if they want to get married let them... Well the law can't change just like that and it would be discrimination against homosexuals anyway because the clear definition of marriage states that it is between a man and a women for them to become an organic union(which biology textbooks would point out to you that it is between heterosexual couples), also it is with a clear intention of procreation and also it is to be a permanent relationship although we know that that does not always occur but that long lasting relationship starts from the organic union between the two as our bodies chemically change to be more like each other.
So now try and tell me that if they want to do it let them because the marriage act would be discriminating them and also it will lessen the value of marriage for heterosexual couples in the long run.
And if we break down a barrier by changing the definition wouldn't it give the right for people who are for poligamy a right to change the laws or them...
Think about it!!!
How would it lessen the value of marriage for straight couples?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Julia Gillard Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News IS, Russia, China: all fascist states (Mar '15) Mar '15 Giligan 2
News Australia Day an uncomfortable reminder of colo... (Jan '15) Feb '15 be fair 40
News Gillard's ex claims he was offered cash (Jun '14) Jun '14 sid 2
News Downsizing Australia's Government and Repealing... (May '14) May '14 NSW is full of fa... 3
News Australian PM defends non-curtsy (Oct '11) Dec '13 ken 49
News Expert Warns Australia May Lose Influence in As... (Nov '13) Nov '13 too right 60
News Australia's first woman leader surprised by sexism (Sep '13) Sep '13 Ahomana 7
More from around the web