Hi.I'm a college student doing a research on whether homosexual couples enjoy the same privilages as heterosexual couples in the Australian law.I think that homosexual couples do not gain as much recognition as heterosexual couples and are not as protected by the federal law because:

1) They aren't allowed to get married legally.

2) Homosexuals are not allowed to access reproductive technologies.

3) There are no specific federal legislations preventing homosexuals from being discriminated in the whole of Australia. (not synchronised)

4) They can not make vital medical decisions for an incapacited partner.

5) Lack financial privilages in federal law when compared to heterosexual couples.
eg. tax consessions.

yes, they are discriminated against. note the 'against'- perhaps english is not your first language?

this is simply a fact. do you have a political/legal proposal of action to make, or are you hoping someone will write your entire paper?

It seems to me you have already made up your mind. Are you looking for people to confirm your predjucies?

Yes Runner has a point Chelle. The issues you raise are obviously controversial but you don't acknowledge that. The opinions I have seen expressed in here range from people stating that homosexuals are perverts to Christian ethical teachings applied to the topic to the view that not allowing 'gay marriage' is a discrimination violating basic human rights.

You are clearly squarely in the latter camp.

You fully know that marriage is not allowed between people of the same gender. This has direct consequences including the need to get a power of attorney to make medical decisions, tax consequences, and an inability to adopt children.

You cite further issues that I was unaware of so chances are you know more about the details then the people you are asking.

Framed from your perspective then the answer is obvious. Framed from the opposite perspective the question is pointless.

Perhaps there is something further you want to know or perhaps you want to commence a debate? Please advise.

Thanks

OK Challe89, for subjective research, case studies or grounded research, it is better to avoid putting in your own opinion to gather data. This colours the responses that you need. Be careful with the questions, some of them sound a little undergraduate. It sounds like you are studying law and you want to make a difference. You also study ethics in studying law.

You ask:

1) They aren't allowed to get married legally.

Passive tense?

You don't offer the alternative of civil union which is "marriage" under the law, not "marriage" under the Church or God. In reality, marriage has a religious connotation. Equality does not need to be intrusive between conflicts of interest.

2) Homosexuals are not allowed to access reproductive technologies.

Passive tense?

You are asking for trouble with this one. Reproductive technologies are advancing and turning into "Frankenstein" possibilities. Particularly DNA design technology. This is an artificial process, not a matter for equality.

3) There are no specific federal legislations preventing homosexuals from being discriminated in the whole of Australia. (not synchronised)

Do you mean we don't have a general Bill or Charter of Rights in Australia? The word "sychronised" is confusing. Do you mean "consistency"

4) They can not make vital medical decisions for an incapacited partner.

Do you mean rights of "next of kin"?

5) Lack financial privilages in federal law when compared to heterosexual couples.
eg. tax consessions.

I understand that one.

Check you’re spelling by spell check: I found 3 errors. OK, I make mistakes in OLO. My grammar is really bad, for example, in my thread "Torchwood", and I even put my own OLO adress as a linking reference. Don't you wish we all had portable proofing machines?

Yes, they are. We are currently living in a highly discriminatory environment.

Gays should be Married. Civil unions are a step, but a scornful gesture at best.

If someone plays the fallacious marriage is sacred card, you can tell them that rampant divorce and adultery among heterosexuals (and religious people themselves) has damaged the sacredness. The vows are now hollow.

Aside from that fallacy, Homosexual marriage will have no impact on other people. It's just that most Australians think that dictating to others what they can and can't do is democracy. It isn't.