*OneontheBeach*

Unfortunately, there is in this case from memory, and again without looking too closely, a distinct difference between the common use meaning of discrimination and the legal meaning as it is within the Act to which you refered.

Thereafter, if at some point gays etc are afforded the same status as everyone else visa vi marriage, that does not mean you have to participate in it.

Having said that, I suspect that the rules pertaining to defactos may already apply, but don't quote me on that one.

But you see, in the UnHoly alliance between the political churches and the genocidal crown, in turn for locking up stolen children and stealing babies amongst other "satanic" perversions, they have been afforded political favours such as the protection of their ill gotten gains from legal claim, the right to lie about what they have learned in the "confessional" and a situation today where you have to remain separated for a full year with no chance of future resolution before divorce will be granted.

It's a joke, but the unfortunate reality is that the majority of Australians continue to fail to demonstrate that they have the wherewithal to provide sufficient political impetus to have the situation rectified. Of course, I do not entirely blame people for that as they have not been adequately educated to enable them to get their heads around the broader picture so to speak.

All the way to characters like Bazza Obama who in his jocularity visa vi "ear bashing" when he was last here demonstrate that indeed, for most people seeing is believing and largely what goes in is what comes out.

Thus here, the place is full of slime who want to hide everything and gag you with punitive retaliatory measures for speaking out.

Still, just because you can take advantage of people does not mean that one should.

Dream On,

Just how could a priest lie about what he had heard in the confessional if he refuses to say what he had heard?

DreamOn, "there is in this case from memory, and again without looking too closely, a distinct difference between the common use meaning of discrimination and the legal meaning as it is within the Act to which you refered"

No. That would be having your cake and eating it too. The Act is comprehensive. It is the law. The Gillard government was adamant, emphatic, that it had, through passage of many changes to laws, got rid of ALL, not just some, discrimination. Are activists saying that activists like Nicola Roxon et al with all of the power available to them as the government, were liars for saying so?

DreamOn, "Thereafter, if at some point gays etc are afforded the same status as everyone else visa vi marriage, that does not mean you have to participate in it"

No. You have no choice whatsoever because whatever relationship or arrangements you and your partner/s might prefer, the family law and marriage provisions will always apply and are superior.

You may have noticed that family law can and does over-rule any arrangement that is perceived as competing with its provisions or frustrating it. The court may penalise you too for that.

We know that under the seal of the confessional, priests are not permitted to divulge what they have heard.

Absolution is conditional. It is valid only when the penitent is truly sorry for his sin and determines never to sin again; this also means removing himself from any circumstances of temptation.

With serial offenders, any credibility as to their sincerity becomes increasingly doubtful. I personally believe that in this situation the priest should not be bound by the seal of the confessional. To invoke the latter under these circumstances , is to my thinking, close to, if not, collusion.

The results of gay marriage laws on a democratic society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZXzUpzHLkA

Currently it is Gay Pride lobbying Governments with the claim they are being discriminated against by their relationship not being considered equal to the marriage of a man and woman.

The biggest groups in Christian societies for change of marriage definition are the non Christian religious polygamists the Muslims and Mormons. Muslims will claim they are not allowed to practice their religious rights of multiple wives and child brides; the Mormons their rights of multiple marriages to both wives and husbands as was practiced by their founders.

This then leads to how we define marriage. Communities practicing free love could be registered as all married to each other. This would mean terms like adultery, pedophilia etc would be outlawed as discriminatory. Perhaps some religious would already see these terms as discriminatory; with the cry "Stay out of my bedroom you Christian bigots".