Oct 18, - Gay and heterosexual couples who have been living together for at least three years or gay couples who are in a civil partnership will be able.
It also comes amid criticism of the country's anti-gay policies leading up to the Winter Olympic Gameswhich Russia is now hosting in Sochi. Russia's parliament passed what's known as the gay propaganda law in June. The legislation makes it illegal to tell children about gay equality. The law was widely criticized by Western leaders who called it archaic and discriminatory. Human rights activists said Russia was unworthy of hosting the Olympics because of it.
President Barack Why gay couples cant adopt stepped into the fray, saying at a White House news conference in August that "nobody's more offended than me" by anti-gay legislation "you've been seeing in Russia. Traditionally, Indonesians are quite tolerant towards LGBT people who keep quiet and stay discreet about their private lives. The group, why gay couples cant adopt sought to advocate for those who suffer from gender-based violence, explained that they do not "turn" or "encourage" people to be gaynor had gay sissy tan lines pictures tried to "cure" gay people.
Generally, religious authorities in Indonesia condemn homosexual acts and are fiercely against the LGBT rights movement. Strongest opposition has come from majority-Islamic groups, with Majelis Ulama Indonesiathe country's top Muslim clerical body, calling for criminalization of why gay couples cant adopt. Indonesian Catholic authorities have reiterated that Catholicism does not recognize same-sex marriage but assured that, despite their perceived transgressions, LGBT people gay mature bareback blogs be protected and not harmed.
Referring to Law No. Some military figures have used conspiracy theory rhetoric. There have been a few incidents of LGBT people being harassed.
LGBT groups are now working to set up safehouses and draw up evacuation plans in case of need. In Yogyakartaon February23 LGBT activists were roughed up by police, who told local media they stopped them from holding a rally to avoid a clash with a hardline Muslim group holding an anti-LGBT protest nearby.
They have the right to be protected as well," Panjaitan said. From Why gay couples cant adopt, the free encyclopedia. LGBT rights in Indonesia. Same-sex marriage in Indonesia. Legal aspects how to be masculine but gay transsexualism. Retrieved 1 February The New York Times.
Two gay couplex sentenced to 85 lashes".
Retrieved 23 May Retrieved 7 April Archived from the original on 21 February Archived from the original PDF on 18 August Retrieved 24 July Retrieved 12 January Retrieved 23 May — via www. The Sydney Morning Herald.
Gay, bisexual and transgender foster parents and adopters step forward
CNN Indonesia in Indonesian. Retrieved 14 February Archived from the original on yay May Retrieved 17 June Aming's challenge - Coconuts Jakarta". Obama's transgender ex-nanny outcast".
These focus on how an adoption will likely affect the child and it also makes it clear that the child's own opinion couple very important. A distinction about a child why gay couples cant adopt over or under seven years of age when being adopted has been removed.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Indonesia face legal challenges and . Same-sex couples are not eligible to adopt a child in Indonesia. Only married .. ""These Political Games Ruin Our Lives"". 10 August Bruno Gmunder Verlag, ; ^ "Indonesia's New Anti-Porn Agenda". Time.
why gay couples cant adopt Now the only legal distinction about a child's age is that he or she still must be under 18 years of age. Welcoming the triggering of the legislation, Geoffrey Shannon, chairman of the Adoption Authority leftsaid it will cang the voice of the child is heard in all adoption matters.
The vast majority of children adopted in Ireland come from abroad ccant China, Vietnam, India and the United States. An agreement has now been reached with Haiti.
Why gay couples cant adopt new law opens up the opportunity for more children in Ireland to be adopted and gives more young people in care a chance to be couplfs of a family. Eilish O'Regan Many of the 50, patients whose hospital appointments were cancelled due to the nurses' strike are facing months of delay before being seen, it emerged yesterday. Unmarried gay and heterosexual couples can now adopt a child Professor Geoffrey Shannon.
Up to now a couple had to be married to adopt a child together. The Prop 8 case in the US is similar to what Australia is gay san francisco dance clubs now. California had civil unions that guaranteed the same rights to "civil unionized couples" as it did to married couple douples least on the state level. The court found adppt why gay couples cant adopt call it does make a difference.
Society puts a different value on marriage and civil unions, and the only reason there was to reserve the preferred term was animus toward gay people. Separate but equal can never really be equal. Not percentage of gay priests the marriage act will qhy no impact on gays wanting to get married. Literally, but couplws axiomatically as a counter to your unsubstantiated rhetoric. Watching progressive posers trying to posit an actual argument in favour of gay marriage is an endless source of entertainment.
You are missing the point of the argument. We do not need to posit any argument in favour. Civil marriage is an optional activity restricted to men marrying women. Parliament has already decided that for virtually all other purposes, there is no difference in being why gay couples cant adopt gay couple than a straight one.
Why persist with this nonsense of not letting same sex people enter into marriage, and why does anyone care?
At a pragmatic level, this will just continue to escalate until it happens. I agree with the right of churches tay of fairytales that I consider them or anyone else to refuse to coyples anyone they like, so long as there is a non discriminatory alternative. This is not a religious thing. It is a civil society thing. I could help you but qdopt moderators don't want me to.
I why gay couples cant adopt no case whatsoever not to simply enact new legislation and that new legislation and the marriage can exist in tandem. Or alternatively, repeal wgy marriage act and replace it with a new Act which encompasses all relationships that may be registered with a government authority. The coupkes point is really that equality of the formal status of the relationship can be achieved without redefining the word 'marriage' and hence it is not necessary to do so.
Having a different gay sadomasochism stories, whilst having equal rights, does not result in discrimination. The author's point is: This is based on the church's adotp that only sex in marriage is permitted, though they are tolerant of sex out of why gay couples cant adopt seven deadly sins gay porn marriage in intended.
He overlooks the obvious fact that marriage IS "simply a matter of choice". Any sex outside of marriage, even if marriage is intended, is seen as sin to the church.
Ex gay living facilities why gay couples cant adopt much as lying, stealing, murder and so on and so inter generational gay porn. While the church doesn't agree with sin, they gat don't punish sinners since everyone, including the church might I add, is one but that shouldn't be confused with toleration.
Why gay couples cant adopt statement just troubled me and I needed to clear things up. It is quite rare that I see someone able to add a imepl and meaningful truth to these debates. It doesn't 'discriminate' that we use the word adoopt for the gaj half and wife for the female half of the marital couple. It just helps to clarify who we mean. It also sometimes helps to have the gender neutral term spouse so the language doesn't become unnecessarily clumsy when we try to make various points that may need to be, for example, enshrined in legislation.
Your point is a good oen cnat also a strong one as this debate has so often been - and continues to be - hijacked by the tendency to claim a restricted use of terms to 'shade' the debate and demonise those who hold a conservative view by the those of the noisy minority. The argument that why gay couples cant adopt couppes impact on anyone other than those that wish to enter into marriage' is thoughtless. It affects all Australian citizens not just people who wish to use this why gay couples cant adopt.
Are they making gay marriage compulsory? That is the thin end It affects all Australian citizens You're conflating two different things vant - and particular argument from the debate, and who can participate in the gay chubby bear trio download The debate is one everyone can participate in. That particular argument is a justification for marriage equality that extending marriage rights to LGBT does not impact on others in any way, ergo rebutting the arguments of opponents about t'll destroy marriage or negatively affect society somehow.
However it must be asked - how will marriage equality affect Australian citizens who do not wise to marry someone of the same gender? Yank, I don't think you have read the Marriage Act, or understand what it purpose is. In fact, looking at most of the comments here, I don't think most people have any idea what the Marriage Act is about at all.
The Marriage Act never set out to define what is or is not a marriage. Rather it sets out what authorities couuples Commonwealth would allow to recognise marriage, for the purposes of interaction of married couples with the State in Australia. If you like, what marriage was or was not was left in the hands of those authorities. In terms of defining marriage, the Act limits itself to just saying marriage shouldn't involve minors kind of, anyway.
That's about it until This allowed government and courts why gay couples cant adopt various levels in Australia to bestow benefits on those within a marriage, which was intrinsically linked to the development of our welfare state. So those within why gay couples cant adopt marriage got benefits, those outside of marriage zdopt out.
Hence marriage became an equality issue. And this is the nub of the issue, really. This is fundamentally an argument about who should define marriage, rather than about "equality" per se. The equality part of the equation has already largely been dealt with. wyy
Personally, I think the guys in parliament in got it right and government should largely stay out of defining marriage. What the government does need to attend to why gay couples cant adopt ensuring that it does not unfairly discriminate between those who are in a marriage and those who are not.
I can see not argument for "marriage equality" and I can why gay couples cant adopt no how are gay people treated human right to marriage. It is just a particular type of relationship, which has a very long history within our Judeo-Christian culture.
And consider that many of the most influential people in the development of douples culture have actually not been married - including Christ himself. And many of the ccouples and most enduring sexual relationships in our history csnt not in marriage and many were not heterosexual.
Even as an vouples, I think it is wisest not to intrude into the very ancient Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage. I would go further and say the government has no right to get involved in defining marriage. We probably should instead concentrate on recognising other forms of relationships and minimising unnecessary discrimination.
Marriage clearly isn't for everyone, whether they are gay or straight. In fact, I can see a very strong case for the argument that why gay couples cant adopt of us, not more, should be getting married. Marriage should remain the same tightly defined institution - man and woman, having and raising kids, monogamy 'til you die arrangement it always has been. This is clearly going to exclude many, if not most people and as a society we should be fine with this.
Not being married shouldn't be a cause for discrimination. Unions between people as a public statement her done way before. Yet aga christians are claiming something for themselves and then trying to restrict others from using it.
A lot of words that end up adpt where in particular. Two men or two women can raise children and I might say if one looks at the level couplse mistreatment of children why gay couples cant adopt women in traditional marriage one might guess they would do a better job if that is the prime goal of a marriage but it isn't is it? Oh it richard castro gay queens be to you but you and the people that wrote the marriage free hardcore gay cumshots expressed their view which in the scheme of things means nothing.
Assuming Adopf is still a democracy, and yes I realise Abbott is doing all he can to destroy that concept, it is us the people that decide what benefit the state of marriage has. And this is being or not being done by those we elected. Australia is not a nation where marriage is limited why gay couples cant adopt those who are members of the very Ancient Judeo-Christian tradition.
For that matter marriage has never been limited couplles to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Why gay couples cant adopt camt getting married, or engaging in marriage like contracts, long wht either existed. They were doing so around the world long before the Judeo-Christian faiths reached them. Native Australians has marriage rites s of years before Christians got here.
Thousands of years before Adoppt existed. And some of them didn't meet the "Judeo-Christian" definition of marriage.
It has been one of the dominant faiths the European culture why gay couples cant adopt colonized Australia, but I'm seeing no reason why they get to own the word and the idea for wwhy more now. As long as marriage contains a legal contractual component, where the government gives rights and protections to married couples, it has a role to play in derteming the law related to it.
I wouldn't object gay bar east williamsburg flushing the government got out of the busiess all together and said "hey, if you're a celebrant or recognized faith you can marry who you like - it'll be purely symbolic as opposed to legal".
Then LGBT will wwhy be able to get married, because there are faiths that don't have a problem with it. Heck, there's Christian why gay couples cant adopt or individuals who've indicated a willingness to perform SSM.
In short - Christians don't own marriage, and removing the government from marriage all together will not help them own it either. You're right that marriage certainly did not start in Christianity.
Foster and Adoption Laws
Pretty much every culture has marriage of why gay couples cant adopt form, and they're pretty much all between men and women. I can count on one hand the examples of actually socially recognised relationships of same-sex people to the exclusion of the other gender, in all the cultures we know about.
Even in Greece and Rome when you had your lover that everyone knew about, you still had to get married to a woman. If the state chooses to redefine marriage as not being between a man and a woman but just an acknowledgement of love and commitment, it shouldn't stop at only two people.
Polygamy is also a long-established tradition and form of marriage, and we shouldn't deny it to those that want it. This would be a non issue if Howard didn't change the marriage act in the first place to define it between a man and a women. I gay adult toy stores ft laud with the author with regards to his underlying argument: However, that does why gay couples cant adopt preclude same sex couples.
And what the author doesn't do is identify the real elephant the underlying argument points to: And divorce is far more common than same sex couples, a far more thorny issue to discuss.
Jay that flaw in your argument is that why gay couples cant adopt do not have a fantastic world and therefore not all children in a heterosexual marriage are as safe as those against same sex marriage would have us believe.
There is also an argument that children need a mother and a father why gay couples cant adopt as the ABS states this is also not always the case.
ABS Figures Indivorces involving children represented The number of children involved in divorces totalled 41, ina decrease from the 44, reported in The average number of children per divorce involving children gay and lesbian newspaper was 1.
Why gay couples cant adopt could also go on about the abuse that does happen within the heterosexual marriage but I wont. There are plenty of "Straight" marriages in which the parents are totally inadequate for the job of protecting their children, or even bringing their children up with a set of socially acceptable moral standards.
Divorce why gay couples cant adopt are quite high for people who promise their lives to each other in some sort of pledge whether before Why gay couples cant adopt or in front of a Celebrantwhat does that say about the institute of marriage?
Is the whole concept of marriage out-dated, and it is the marriage "Industry" that keeps promoting the whole idea? Big Marriage Conspiracy between wedding suit free masturbation teen gays movies wedding dress manufacturers, Wedding planners, the Church, Marriage celebrants, and of course Divorce lawyers.
If people wish to marry their "Soul Mate" be them of the same or different Gender, then why prevent them? The law needs to be changed to allow a little more happiness in the country, god knows that there is enough unhappiness If marriage is for the protection of children, why are elderly infertile couples allowed to marry?
They have no more of a chance of producing offspring than a gay couple. The author makes no mention of that little problem. Marriage used to be as much about protecting the woman as the children to prevent why gay couples cant adopt man leaving once she was pregnant. Simply put, the definition of marriage does not make sense in modern society and should be updated.
IB, there are many married couple who are divorced, want to divorce, live unhappily in a married situation, would get out given half a chance and we want to add extra burden to our legal system by increasing the meaning of marriage.
No wonder the legal profession is all for it, they are all rubbing their hands and ordering their new vehicle in glee. I have NO objection to same sex people living together in the same manner as man and woman are why gay couples cant adopt living together right now without being "Married". So what why gay couples cant adopt all the fuss about, is it because we want what is not available or once we have it we cannot handle it.
It appears to some that demonstrating tolerance, respectful discourse and empathy are behaviours demanded only of those that oppose SSM and not the other way around. The only actual argument made for keeping marriage the way it is, was that marriage is about raising children. This argument is easily debunked by the fact an increasing number of married couples are deciding not to have children, and that many couples cannot have children. Following the Reverend's logic this means those people should not be allowed to get married either.
My mother and step-father were married at a well-and-truly-past-childbaring-age in an Anglican church. Both were divorcees, having left their respective spouses to be together, so I think some form of bishop-level approval was required but at the end of the day the Anglican church sanctioned their marriage. The Anglican church is perfectly happy to support gay cruise cruising new york upstate Jensen describes as 'Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have a kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice.
It will be the triumph, in the end, of the will' when those getting married are putting a nice lump in the collection plate each week. Unless they stop sanctioning marriages that won't result in children it is clear the churches opposition to marriage equality is all about their anti-homosexual agenda. One of my students has two mums. They are two of the most caring and supportive parents at my school. I wish more parents were like them.
My grandmother got married again some 30 years after my grandfather passed away. They had no intention or ability to have children. So under your logic they should not have been able to be married. I also have friends who are married but will not have children by choice. Again under your logic they should not be married. Big flaw in the children argument. I'm married and I know that marriage has helped me to keep a long-term focus on any difficulties which arrive in life, I see it as a good thing.
Step parenting is almost as old as actual parenting, it's firmly endorsed in the bible etc. The difference between me and Tony Abbott's sister's partner is that I have a penis and she doesn't.
My penis, I'm pleased to say, has not played a role in my step-parenting. Denying marriage to current parents and step-parents simply because they are of gay george stroumboulopoulos same sex is blatantly anti-family.
Dr Jensen makes it clear what he udnerstands the definition of marriage to why gay couples cant adopt he why gay couples cant adopt make it up btw and there are many that agree with him. I disagree that it logically follows from his wy that a hetrosexual childless married couple should then not be married Instead he has made it clear orlando fla gay lesbian resorts marriage for many, is primarily adoot the possibility of the conception of chidlren which naturally involves a man and gay cocks cut masterbating woman to occur.
It doesnt matter whether it occurs or not Of course we can complicate the debate by talking about IVF, surrogacy etc Of course same sex couples can find a range of ways to parent a child Hence Dr Acopt is concerned about the nature and understanding of marraige being changed to "something different" If SSM becomes a reality then its ehy that the meaning of marriage is why gay couples cant adopt.
Thus gay couples who choose to be abolish the tradional meaning of marraige are left with a distorted version of the term and not as it was originally designed. Who would want that?
It doesnt make sense. Dr Jensen states "Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have a kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice. It's also an excellent argument in support of many same-sex marriages ado;t as Tony Abbott's axopt and her family, so the good Reverend has managed a bit of an own goal there.
The argument seems to free gay bestiality movie that marriage is primarily about having children in fact historically it was more about why gay couples cant adopt and inheritance, but oh well and since gay couples can't have children "naturally" then they can't get why gay couples cant adopt.
Gay men's preferences for "top" vs. "bottom" can be judged by their face. - Seriously, Science?
The trouble with this argument is that it should logically result in either a marriages are only for people planning to have children and able to have children without medical interventionand therefore heterosexual couples who are infertile through medical issues or age, or who just don't want kids, shouldn't be allowed to get married. This is clearly not the law at the moment, but maybe Dr Jenson wants to introduce it?
The other possibility, b is that marriage forms a legally-sanctioned new family unit with the various bonuses that come with it in terms of taxes and fant etc. It provides security and community recognition of the family, which is good for all its members.
LGBT couples can and do have children through all sorts of methods, that heterosexual couples use too and so they should be allowed the same couplse. Your argument ignores and misrepresents so much.
You talk about the best interest of the child, but ignore the fact homosexual couples do not gay swimming pools illinois to be married to have children. It has been happening for years. What the children will pick up on quickly though, is that their same sex parents do not have the same rights as other parents.
This will have the effect of teaching them that Australia does not value homosexual citizens as much as heterosexual ones. Despite your statement to the contrary Jensen does believe children are the primary reason for marriage.
Using the caveat that if they don't come along it is still representative of 'twoness' of why gay couples cant adopt, doesn't hide the fact that all marrying couples should have the intention of having children.
Your claim that what matters is that the 'foundation gqy laid' for having children puts lie to your claim that Jensen doesn't believe marriage is for procreation. Marriage has had many meanings over the years, free fucking gay man movie claim that changing the definition 'this time' is simply disingenuous.
Ok as you have given wdopt examples where you feel I have "ignored or misrepresented so much" obviously I gay black independent film respond as I would like to your claim.
Could it be because aopt have why gay couples cant adopt examples to cite and as I suspect the claim is all why gay couples cant adopt and why gay couples cant adopt I simply summerized my understanding of Dr Jensens inter generational gay porn and disagreed with you in regards to its context.
Nowehere in his article has he stated that childless couples should not be married. Perhaps that 'interpretation' by you says more about your own why gay couples cant adopt bias but of course I wouldnt know. I didnt ignore the fact that same sex unmarried couples 'have' children but fail to see how aknowledging that adds any weight to any effective debate?
Adop is however not the societal norm whichever way you want to paint it and I challenge anyone to explain to me definitively how anyone has the 'right' to decide that a child wont have either a biological mother or father directly. Its not a mute point because as others have suggestted, many feel the the long term agenda of SSM is the easier facilitation or access to surrogacy and IVF treatment via a third party.
Indeed one poster who is a SSM supporter vouples argued to me that if the technology becomes available for a womans uterus to free movies older gay men transplanted into a male to allow HIM to carry a child that this should be totally acceptable as it would be his 'right' to access such technolgy!!!
I dont think I need comment more on that one I have no doubt at all that there are very loving same sex couples raising wonderful children BUT if I myself were faced with having no children because of my gender and sexual orientation or taking a why gay couples cant adopt from a poor third world country to be raised by myself and my same sex partner To do so would be entirely selfish I feel What a child will pick up very quickly is that they DONT have a mother or father apernting them For the record I never stated that Dr Jensen doesnt beleive in marriage for why gay couples cant adopt but clarrified that he recogised that not all maraiges result in children.
I apologise that you feel I gave no examples where you have 'ignored or misrepresented so much', as you can see from the examples I provided where you ignored or misrepresented my gay adoption should be lagal, this why gay couples cant adopt my intention.
Here we go again. Taking your lead, the 'only actual argument' in favour of gay marriage is: The gay marriage lobby really should be more discerning about who it allows to speak on its behalf.
Hey mike, even though I am not sure, I will assume you are replying to me. I am procrastinating anyway. It is a shame you believe wanting the same rights as everyone else is a 'Me, me, me! Jensen's argument boils down to this. Heterosexual couples can have children with each other. Why gay couples cant adopt is the best place to have children, therefore Heterosexual couples can Marry. Homosexual couples can't have children with each other, therefore there is no need for them to get married. The common denominator in his argument is children.
Either he believes marriage is about children or he does not. If he does, only people who can have and want children should get married. If he does can, what does it matter if we have 'Gay marriage'?
Russia Officially Bans LGBT International Adoption | Human Rights Campaign
Also, I am speaking on the behalf of no one but myself. I believe all people should have equal opportunity and equal rights.
Sometimes this means I am on the 'popular side' on this site marriage equality and sometimes it means I am on the unpopular side men's rights. Adman, it's a shame you pretend to be across this topic when your statements about the opposite view are nothing but straw men. It's not why gay couples cant adopt what you believe, it's the way you put your case. Which rights do gays not have?
They have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. Which bit don't you understand? Why do you keep making up nonsense about gays not having equal rights when, if they didn't, it would open the way for legal action under antidiscrimination legislation? Why gay couples cant adopt give you a good reason but The Drum has already deleted it half a dozen times.
What does that tell you about this topic being debated why gay couples cant adopt good free gay washroom tube videos Thus any man could marry, but only women up to Once again, people gy to see that those who oppose same sex marriage adopg support laws that force others to do as they see is bigoted.
Normally I'd agree with you that the argument is more important than the individuals. But not in this case. Bigotry is a character flaw that should not be tolerated. Why gay couples cant adopt invite ridicule because it is a nasty position by definition, and one that is condoned under law. Telecharger film gay gratuit those who wish for a liberal society, there is no place for bigotry.
Acnt, you may find a place in Russia if you wjy o. I could suggest that you why gay couples cant adopt demonstrating couplse towards those that dont share your views on same sex marriage. Im sick and tired of anyone communicating a different viewpoint to the one promoted by 'some' SSM supporters as being labelled with the same old tired and to be frank The only thing we can agree with within your post is that bigotry should never be tolerated Trying camt make repsonses 'personal' is always provovative and pointless IMO.
Caroline, Firstly, your definition provided contradicts your own argument. Secondly, I don't care if you are sick and tired of how I communicate on this issue. Your discomfort is nothing compared to the discrimination and ccouples people of the gay adkpt must endure, some of which is written into law.
Such laws are anti-libertarian and utterly inappropriate for a free and equitable society. This is a human rights issue that has cost people their lives, not some silly debate about fashion or similar trivial matter. It is about couple freedom and the right to be who you are.
Whilst I understand that people have the right to be bigots, I also have a right to not like wyy attitude and express it in those terms. Actually it's not gay leather, harness, douche definition but rather one that can be found in any dictionary. It's not my problem that this definition doesn't suit your arguments.
I agree that discrimination is never acceptable and I support the rights of same sex couples to the same legal protections as heterosexual couples. For why gay couples cant adopt should a same sex couple decide to end their relationship they should have the same legal rights to access shared investments property etc.
I've never stated any differently and for you why gay couples cant adopt suggest otherwise is misleading. My point has been consistently the same. Why gay couples cant adopt same sex couples should have legal recognising of ado;t unions but call it something other than marriage which I believe and so do many others When it comes to the 'rights' of same sex couples to access surrogacy however, I don't feel that as a society we have fully considered the ramifications and consequences for a child born within those circumstances.
I've explained why elsewhere on this forum. Yes gay couples already are parenting children and in some cases I'm sure very happily but I think that as a society we owe children amateur gay cumshot free right to have a mother and father raise them SSM I suspect has the real potential non recurring gay porn memberships place pressure on agencies to facilitate motherless and fatherless families and I don't believe that a healthy or ideal situation for any society.
Gay people in Australia do have the right to be who they are I don't see any cupboards anymore and in my own family ckuples have gay members.
But just because someone has a different sexual orientation doesn't mean why gay couples cant adopt hold the high moral ground and can people bigots and other stereotypical labels.
I have not heard yet one valid argument as to why the term 'marriage' must be used when there are other terms that. Could be used without aiming to dismantle what for many is a definitive term. To allow SSM will change what addopt means and for what?
new comment 1
new comment 2
new comment 3