Australian opposition introduces bill to legalise same-sex marriage

“It doesn’t change the institution of marriage at all, the institution of marriage still remains being about two people committing to each other, hopefully for life, and that being legally recognised by our government,” she told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

And why is "being legally recognised by our government" necessary in the first place?

And why is "being legally recognised by our government" necessary in the first place?

For the legal benefits and rights that go along with marriage.

This has spoil Abbott's plans to use this issue as ones of reform policy at the next election. It is a sure vote winner in the present political climate in Australian politics This is the main reason why none of his party’s libertarian wing seconded the Bill. It is a political move by Labour and It has no chance of getting the number to pass in the lower house The next election is only 13 months away and Labour will using the outcome of the bill as a negative tactic against the Government, all the way to the next election.

The bill likely won't go anywhere, for the time being at least

Lets face it, this war is over and the haters have lost. If Ireland can reject the mother church to support civil rights for gays then Australia will do the same. No one cares about this issue any longer in the USA, its over. The right wing types need to find another stupid battle to fight, they have lost this one.

StrangerlandJUN. 01, 2015 - 02:15PM JST And why is "being legally recognised by our government" necessary in the first place?

For the legal benefits and rights that go along with marriage

.....and civil union is not the same minus the married terminology?

Lets face it, this war is over and the haters have lost.

How convenient for you that everything is in black and white? If homosexuals have the urge to "marry", I think it's reasonable that they accept a civil union. Such unions also exist for those who wish to marry their pets, or just about anything they wish. I don't hate gays, but I value the institution of marriage

.....and civil union is not the same minus the married terminology?

If they are the same, then there is no reason to not call it marriage.

If homosexuals have the urge to "marry", I think it's reasonable that they accept a civil union.

How would you feel if you were told "If heterosexuals have the urge to "marry", it's reasonable that they accept a civil union"?

I don't hate gays, but I value the institution of marriage

The institution of marriage is not hurt by homosexual marriage, and in many cases will be strengthened by it. And that ignores the fact that there is no 'institution of marriage', as there is no single definition to it that exists around the world.

How would you feel if you were told "If heterosexuals have the urge to "marry", it's reasonable that they accept a civil union"?

Because that's the way nature intended.

The institution of marriage is not hurt by homosexual marriage, and in many cases will be strengthened by it.

Strengthened by it? Not a chance.

Given the divorce rate among heterosexual couples marriage is not strong at all.

Way to easy to get married and divorced if you don't like it. Remember that divorce is a fairly new concept in Christianity, or do the words " till death do us part " no longer apply.

Because that's the way nature intended.

Nature has no intentions. It's like imagining the intention of a rock. A rock doesn't intend to do or not do anything, it just is.

Strengthened by it? Not a chance.

Definitely a chance. The institute of marriage has been ruined by heterosexuals. Divorce rates are huge, infidelity is rampant. Offer marriage to homosexuals, who aren't as likely to take it for granted as homosexuals do, and it's very likely that the institution will be strengthened.

The institute of marriage has been ruined by heterosexuals. Divorce rates are huge,

Likewise among homosexual couples in countries where gay marriage has been legalised.

infidelity is rampant.

As above

Offer marriage to homosexuals, who aren't as likely to take it for granted as homosexuals do

I fail to see your point. You're comparing homosexuals with other homosexuals? How will that strengthen the institution of marriage? The only way is honesty and transparency. Meanwhile, food for thought.

http://morningmail.org/gay/

I wonder if soon getting married will become a "gay" thing? Heterosexual men will have another reason to avoid it.

It is like someone has a plan to humiliate the once noble traditions that made solid communities.

I guess next married homosexual men will be adopting young boys to love and cuddle. Imagine being raised by a pair of homosexual men. Child abuse on a grand scale and being condoned by all those who support homosexual marriage. For shame.

There is not a heterosexual man alive who would leave their own son in the care of two homosexual men. But as long as it is not their son, that's fine.

Agreed, regarding the last point