Talk:Marriage in Australia

Neutrality

The section on Same-sex marriage isn't written from a neutral point of view and is clearly propaganda from anti-marriage equality with their reasons clearly aired with no counter material to balance. We are not trying specifically to get same-sex marriage legalised. All our attempts have been to remove discrimination from the Marriage Act. Same-sex does not include intersex people and it takes transgender people very cruelly back to their birth sex which they have had to fight against suicide to reconcile. Using same-sex marriage instead of marriage equality is either naivety or political objection to the use of the word equality, neither of which should determine Wiki content.Ericglare (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. More bias is creeping in. The section presents some arguments against same-sex marriage but not for. It makes predictions about a loss of freedom of religion but doesn't explain how as well as suggesting same-sex marriage will nullify parts of the English language. It uses the inappropriate phrase "It has been said". It goes off-topic with details about school funding. It is also referencing opinion pieces. In short it emphasises the main (but very weak) arguments against changes while providing few details of the alternate view. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

After reading the the section at issue I feel it would be more accurate to label it Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage. Michael Glass (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC) As such, it is clearly not written from a neutral point of view, and apart from stating that same sex marriage is not currently permitted, it is irrelevant at this location. Michael Glass (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This section has been split out and moved to Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Religious_and_lobby_groups as it is more relevant to the information about the debate there. Given this is a general article about marriage rather than the same-sex marriage debate, this removes the undue weight previously given to the Arguments Against section here. Goldcactus (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What is missing?

I think there should be more on the ceremony, typical venues and traditions followed here. Any notable state requirement, possibly a controversial quote, maybe mentioning Julia Gillard was the first unmarried Prime Minister, something about the church's role and secularism's influence and at least one demographic map, maybe this one, should be included. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would delete the section. There is a whole page on the subject. The short paragraph under societal changes is enough with the link to the same sex discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.120.152 (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

one-sided

Why is there a significant "Arguments against same sex marriage" when there is not a corresponding "Arguments for same sex marriage" section??? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marriage in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140329005746/http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=1&pageno=4 to http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=1&pageno=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)