So inspiring as a young australian it gives a hell of a lot of hope to see that someone like Magda can find the courage to come out and be applauded and cheered.
She is so beautiful! It's hard enough coming out for some, imagine how hard it would be on national television! I'm proud that she is an Australian icon and she deserves all of her praise.
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
Great interview. It's amazing how costume and make up can make people appear better...and the other way around too. As Sharon she is made to look plain and frumpy, very effectively, where as in real life, she's very attractive. .
I grew up watching your characters, like Lynne, and Chenille from Chenille's Institut de beauté on Fast Forward... crying with laughter. Now I watch you stand on your own two feet and show the country who you are, except now I'm crying with pride. One day... oh god, one day I hope to be as strong as you. Magda, if you ever read this, I said pet, I said love, I said pet, I said love, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. You're an inspiration and an Australian Treasure. xx
Good on her. She is 1 of my fave public Aussie figures. She is such a talented, funny, kind soul that stands up for what she believes in & what is right for everyone in all types of issues that affect society.
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
@@DB-qw6xq What a load of old tosh. (a) that is your fairly narrow version of marriage based on your own upbringing (b) there are plenty of straight married couples who don't have children, are you saying that their marriages are somehow false? (c) marriage is something that has over history been a political manoeuvring tool, or even a transaction (in some cases between a father and the husband), (d) marriage is practised by people of different cultures and religions (or no religion) (e) if you can find a dictionary that defines marriage as "a baby-making arrangement then you need to take that dictionary back for a refund sunshine. Also, I feel like you just didn't understand her serial killer comment. She was saying that a serial killer (at the time) had more legal rights towards marriage than a loving monogamous gay couple. Likewise, a philandering loveless heterosexual relationship had more right towards marriage than a loving monogamous gay couple. There's no way that that makes logical sense.
Good on her. I'm a heterosexual girl who believes in Gay Marriage and Magda proves a valid point about how it's ok for people who've murdered to get married etc but its not legal for gays? The freedom to marry should never be based on religious grounds. I think also that if gay marriage were legalised, it would show the church and society were more accepting toward gays and perhaps less bullying would occur towards gay people at schools, and there would be gay suicide rates would be lower.
I'm 15, straight, supports gay marriage. So proud of Madga, she's such a strong woman, she probably helped a lot of people because of her choice of words. I can see Australia moving forward with marriage especially with Madga on board.
Conservative Catholic countries in South America and Ireland have same sex marriage and the sky did not fall down and the world did not implode. We are living in the 21st Century and Australians still can't decide if all citizens are equal before the law. How shameful and embarrassing.
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
I bloody love how “I’ve never really thought about Magda’s sexuality” burst into completely different footage & topic I.E. giving viewers a hint - then totally avoiding the subject.. UNTIL her interview. Fuck sake.
7:30 okay but i'm not going to have my rights restricted just for the convenience of certain church groups to not have to face conflict, this isn't about the church, this is about people being accepted and protected equally under the law just as everyone else is
Your rights end, where mine begin. If I do not want to serve food at a wedding for people who are rebelling against God, then I should not have to be forced to.
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
Onya Magda!!!! I think the packet of TimTams was worth it. It took guts for you to open that closet door. I know what it took me to do it and I didn't have the media and millions of Aussies watching. And well done at such a time and for speaking out about our right to marry.
@jleo71 I'm very aware of that fact. Regardless, here in the States, as of now, a state cannot compel a church to do something against its religious beliefs if that institution is receiving no public funds. Thus, a church is not required to perform a marriage against its beliefs.
I wish Magda and the others were aware of how the states in the U.S. with gay marriage have handled the "religious" issue. In New York State where I live, there was an religious protection amendment that specifically stated that religious institutions were not compelled to perform marriages that went against their religious views. Civil marriage licenses are approved by the state. The church is separate. I hope Australians are looking at how these states have overcome the religious concerns.
@levitzke1 well thats just a little silly i mean considering some women have to divorce their husbands because theyre abusive. but i still feel that gay marriage should be legal. i dont get why it was never legalized. were all people
For me, equal marriage rights are about my family tree being connected to my partner's family tree so that our families, for eternity, can see that we lived and were loved as gay women.
@JupeAma My point is that you want to be part of something that is disriminating against singles and people in de-facto relationships. What makes you better than or more worthy than someone who is single or in a defacto relationship?
im straight and i dont know why the government bothers going through all this? it wont make Australia look bad. itll show that it accepts the rights of gay men and women. same as the Aboriginals and women
@JupeAma I didn't say it was "JUST" a religious thing. If you read my post in its entirety you would have noticed the part where i said it was created out of necessity to better organise social groups. In particular so that the men knew for sure that the babies the woman were carrying was his offspring. My point is that marriage was created not so that 2 people in love could unite, because marriage isn't needed for that. "1100 rights"? Sound like a business partnership.
@creativeengineer actually I prefer the term 'equal marriage' because that's what it is. It is no different from 'conventional' marriage so why should the prefix be 'gay' or as you (rather bluntly) put it 'homosexual'. Also, being gay is in this day and age means being homosexual. Attempting to change the definition back to it's roots is futile and actually slightly offensive to those of us that identify as gay.
@JRtheCREATOR1 Do you think ultra conservative, ultra christian fundamentalist Abbott is going to allow gay marriage? I am disappointed in Julia Gillard though. As it stands, even with the implementation of civil union, homosexual couples still do not have the same legal right as heterosexual couples since they are considered defacto. Hopefully politicians will realise that this is what really matters, not what religion dictates as a marriage, and institute some changes.
Yeah buddy, the pressures of being gay. You know, like having your parents not love you. Like having your family disown. Like being in outcast during your whole childhood. Like being oppressed by the government simply because of who you are. THOSE are the pressures of being gay.
The only part of this I did not like is - she didn't answer the guy's question of: How do you confront the Church that have gay's knocking on their door demanding to be married? Yes, I identify as pansexual, and I would love to be married one day, whether to a man or woman ... but if I were to marry a man, how could I expect the Christian/Catholic church to marry me when it's against their beliefs?
lets support same sex marriage we have the power of democracy and our governments should get out of our lives and let us live the life that we want if we want to marry a man or marry a woman we should be able to do so without someone looking over our shoulders and stopping us from doing it after all gays and lesbians have been around for generations and now its time to relax and start giving them equal rights and freedom to marriage and to have kids and live a life just like straight couples do.
@ronhamelin THis is no different than a Catholic church refusing to marry a couple who were previously married but legally divorced, or, if one in the couple isn't a Catholic, etc. Personally, I hope we never come to the point where we force a religious institution to marry someone if it's against their belief system. This is what makes true separation of church and state.
@JupeAma Well then why would you want to be part of something that discriminates against single people or defacto relationships? I get what you're saying, but im saying that marriage isn't a big deal. And if married couples get benefits single/defacto's don't get, then i think that's something worth fighting to change more so than the right to get married. People that aren't married contribute just as much to society so why should they be given less than married couples?
That's not at all what I was talking about. All of your comments seem to have to do with transgender women. I don't really understand it. I just don't like you disrespecting the gay community with comments like that, and by saying that they have no pressures.
@ronhamelin BUt this must go both ways--they must STOP trying to keep others from marrying in a civil (non-religious) ceremony because it goes against their beliefs when those marrying have no intention of involving that church.
@malanatalia Yeah but this isn't about disrespectful couples not thinking about where they're groping each other. This is about couples who want to commit themselves to each other for life. :P
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
@malanatalia Honestly, I'd feel uncomfy about it, be it gay, lesbian OR straight couples groping each other in public. Even more so if the kids are making comments like them. But I have never really heard kids say that about their parents, be it two daddies, mummies or one of each... in my experience, the break up of any kind of couple is very traumatic for kids, and they never joke about it.
Ideology lol. Atheism is certainly an ideology. Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
@iTzTehYez I agree with you. Since mankind began male and female of a species have predominantly been 'designed' to reproduce sexually to ensure the continuation of a species, but not only that, fundamentally attracted to the opposite sex in a number of different ways such as physically and mentally. Hence why, in respect to the great debate, it will never be seen that same sex marriages are accepted across the board.
We don’t know what ramifications it’s going to have on kids and if we say yes to gay marriage does it stop there or is there other categories that come with it
@jleo71 The proposal has always been that no church will be forced to marry any couple they do not wish to. No different to a straight couple. A church can (and have) refused to marry straight people before. Seriously, how many gay couples are going to WANT to be married in a church? For those that do want that, there are a number of churches around that are not narrow-minded & judgemental. No church will be forced to marry any couple they don't feel comfortable marrying. No different to now.
@TheTramsmit Equal marriage is a weak term as between a man and woman there can be equality. Convetional marriage could be marrying in a church, so that term is weak. Homosexual is not blunt... it is a fact. Not an offensive term either. Look it up in the dictionary. How can "gay" being "happy" be offensive? It is our language. I am often gay, but I am not a homosexual. Gee, I am proud to be white... now that is offensive... you might think I am a KKK member!
@Neithie i'm just saying what i went though , and when you think about it you might not agree with me but if a straight couple old or young saw two lesbians or two gay guys making out and touching eachother,,, that makes people feel unco ,,,, ofcourse what do u think if those couples had kids like laughing and making funny comments or even saying something like is that girl or guy going to steal mommy and dady or someshit like that ,,, then again its up to those people to educated there kids
Gay people get married all the time, it's just that the law does not and must not validate such a union. Marriage is defined as a sexual and emotional union, between a man and a woman. A bride or wife, is a woman. A groom, or husband, is a man. In order for a marriage to exist, a husband and wife, must be present. Since two women can not be husband and wife, they can not be Married. I have no problem in theory with granting certain rights to people who are coupled in the same fashion as homosexual people are, but those rights would have to extend to ANY two people, regardless of whether they are gay, or not. In other words, if I want to "marry" a male friend, for tax purposes, I should be able to, even if we are not gay. It would be a simple legal partnership, not a marriage.
@ronhamelin You do know that this is only temporary and that one day someone will want their church to marry them and they will sue over it. I am not in favor of this happening but then I am an atheist so it matters not to me. But you can bet that it will happen and the outcome is unpredictable.
i'm sorry but I don't see the difference I get sometimes gay couples go over board when they are making out in public when they first come out and it's all new to them , even straight couples when they make out or something on the streets movies shopping centers / city or whatever it's not pleasant , there is a lot of old people around have some respect just coz most of Australians are straight dosent mean its ok ,,
@halag You don't get it do you? Proud to be white was not literal. I was making a point. I am not proud to be white any more than a black should be proud to be black. Colour is irrelevant. But unfortunately, every one is racist to some extent, some more than others. My racism is miniscule - I mix gaily with all races. I cannot say the same for those who avoid other races or colours. They are missing out.
@LoveLifeBeHappy2012 Wow! Thankyou very much! Just stating what I believe in. Too often I think the News is always full of how people murder or rape or War or Terrorist Attacks or Natural Disasters. Too many horrible things and majority of people promote Love and Peace in the World. If we believe in Love and World Peace why are we denying people the right to declare love for one another?
I say forget about marriage. It's a religious thing and at the end of the day its just a piece of paper. Love who you love, be with who you love and live your life. Why is it so important to get married? Marriage originated out of the necessity to organise social groups so that the men could be certain that the children born were indeed his. It has always been about man and woman conceiving. That's why i say fuck marriage because it was never about love. Just be with who you love and live life.
![[FAST FORWARD] Michelle & Ferrett / Skinhead Etiquette (1)](/img/1.gif)
So inspiring as a young australian it gives a hell of a lot of hope to see that someone like Magda can find the courage to come out and be applauded and cheered.
Is anyone here because they've just read Magda's autobiography?
You love who you love nobody can change that.
She is so beautiful! It's hard enough coming out for some, imagine how hard it would be on national television! I'm proud that she is an Australian icon and she deserves all of her praise.
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
Great interview. It's amazing how costume and make up can make people appear better...and the other way around too. As Sharon she is made to look plain and frumpy, very effectively, where as in real life, she's very attractive.
.
I grew up watching your characters, like Lynne, and Chenille from Chenille's Institut de beauté on Fast Forward... crying with laughter.
Now I watch you stand on your own two feet and show the country who you are, except now I'm crying with pride. One day... oh god, one day I hope to be as strong as you.
Magda, if you ever read this, I said pet, I said love, I said pet, I said love, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. You're an inspiration and an Australian Treasure. xx
The Project was great when Charlie was host.......it has gone to the dogs since. Love Magda, absolute gem of an Aussie. :)
Magda, you are such an inspiration to everyone. thank you for this!
Good on her. She is 1 of my fave public Aussie figures. She is such a talented, funny, kind soul that stands up for what she believes in & what is right for everyone in all types of issues that affect society.
Fucking so proud of you Magda. Thank you! Everything you said was just perfect!!!!!!!! Lots of love. Thumbs up people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
@@DB-qw6xq What a load of old tosh.
(a) that is your fairly narrow version of marriage based on your own upbringing (b) there are plenty of straight married couples who don't have children, are you saying that their marriages are somehow false? (c) marriage is something that has over history been a political manoeuvring tool, or even a transaction (in some cases between a father and the husband), (d) marriage is practised by people of different cultures and religions (or no religion) (e) if you can find a dictionary that defines marriage as "a baby-making arrangement then you need to take that dictionary back for a refund sunshine.
Also, I feel like you just didn't understand her serial killer comment. She was saying that a serial killer (at the time) had more legal rights towards marriage than a loving monogamous gay couple. Likewise, a philandering loveless heterosexual relationship had more right towards marriage than a loving monogamous gay couple. There's no way that that makes logical sense.
Magda is beautiful
Good on her. I'm a heterosexual girl who believes in Gay Marriage and Magda proves a valid point about how it's ok for people who've murdered to get married etc but its not legal for gays? The freedom to marry should never be based on religious grounds. I think also that if gay marriage were legalised, it would show the church and society were more accepting toward gays and perhaps less bullying would occur towards gay people at schools, and there would be gay suicide rates would be lower.
Wow that was ages ago. I watched this uncomfortably with my family over my sholder when I was 14. Now im nearly 19 and still no marriage equality :/
I respect this woman so much - Amazing Australian!
OMG Magda you are an inspiration to people everywhere, straight, gay or bi. Everyone has a right to live how they want, love is love.
How are we 5 years later almost to the day and still no closer to this happening!!
Because there is still a tiny bit of of morality left in the world...
Good on you Magda
I'm 15, straight, supports gay marriage. So proud of Madga, she's such a strong woman, she probably helped a lot of people because of her choice of words. I can see Australia moving forward with marriage especially with Madga on board.
"don't get angry at me i'm just preventing you from having the same rights as me"
theres tears on my face
Conservative Catholic countries in South America and Ireland have same sex marriage and the sky did not fall down and the world did not implode.
We are living in the 21st Century and Australians still can't decide if all citizens are equal before the law.
How shameful and embarrassing.
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
I said pet, i said love, i said pet, i said gay! hahaha. Classic!!
THANK YOU MAGDA !!!!!!!!!
What an awesome woman!!
I bloody love how “I’ve never really thought about Magda’s sexuality” burst into completely different footage & topic I.E. giving viewers a hint - then totally avoiding the subject.. UNTIL her interview. Fuck sake.
beautiful. thank you magda. you're right; this is not ok!
Magda your amazing! Australian icon! XXX
7:30 okay but i'm not going to have my rights restricted just for the convenience of certain church groups to not have to face conflict, this isn't about the church, this is about people being accepted and protected equally under the law just as everyone else is
Your rights end, where mine begin. If I do not want to serve food at a wedding for people who are rebelling against God, then I should not have to be forced to.
As a straight man I have to say I am so proud Magda!!
Come on J Gil. It's TIME!!!
Is that the woman from Babe?
Yep, she played Mrs Hoggett in the movie Babe
"Imagine the church having to confront prejudice! Wowww."
Best thing Hughesy's ever said.
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
I love her so much, what an amazing woman
2015 and still nothing 😔
2017.
And counting.
Love you, Magda!
well said Magda!!
Go Magda! Good on you for being true to yourself.
It's at times like this that I wish the 'Like' button had infinite likes.
Onya Magda!!!! I think the packet of TimTams was worth it. It took guts for you to open that closet door. I know what it took me to do it and I didn't have the media and millions of Aussies watching. And well done at such a time and for speaking out about our right to marry.
LOVE LOVE LOVE MAGDA !!! GO BABE !!!
@jleo71 I'm very aware of that fact. Regardless, here in the States, as of now, a state cannot compel a church to do something against its religious beliefs if that institution is receiving no public funds. Thus, a church is not required to perform a marriage against its beliefs.
I wish Magda and the others were aware of how the states in the U.S. with gay marriage have handled the "religious" issue. In New York State where I live, there was an religious protection amendment that specifically stated that religious institutions were not compelled to perform marriages that went against their religious views. Civil marriage licenses are approved by the state. The church is separate. I hope Australians are looking at how these states have overcome the religious concerns.
You have to take into account that Australia is a smaller country and there are alot of gay men and women. Particularly in Sydney and Melbourne
2016 and still no marriage equality
Thanks Magda...keep on darlin keep on!
@levitzke1 well thats just a little silly i mean considering some women have to divorce their husbands because theyre abusive. but i still feel that gay marriage should be legal. i dont get why it was never legalized. were all people
@Ttoby89 Not quite. Marriage overlaps into religion, actually. Matthew Chapter 19 Verse 6.
Love you Mags!!!!!
For me, equal marriage rights are about my family tree being connected to my partner's family tree so that our families, for eternity, can see that we lived and were loved as gay women.
Love her... shame she didn't do it earlier though...♥
@JupeAma My point is that you want to be part of something that is disriminating against singles and people in de-facto relationships. What makes you better than or more worthy than someone who is single or in a defacto relationship?
@endodaze I don't thinks it's necessarily fair to bag others opinions. It is their right to speak freely of their opinion without condemnation.
Well said Magda
im straight and i dont know why the government bothers going through all this? it wont make Australia look bad. itll show that it accepts the rights of gay men and women. same as the Aboriginals and women
This woman is my hero
@JupeAma I didn't say it was "JUST" a religious thing. If you read my post in its entirety you would have noticed the part where i said it was created out of necessity to better organise social groups. In particular so that the men knew for sure that the babies the woman were carrying was his offspring. My point is that marriage was created not so that 2 people in love could unite, because marriage isn't needed for that. "1100 rights"? Sound like a business partnership.
3:55 Dramatic Zoom!
@creativeengineer actually I prefer the term 'equal marriage' because that's what it is. It is no different from 'conventional' marriage so why should the prefix be 'gay' or as you (rather bluntly) put it 'homosexual'. Also, being gay is in this day and age means being homosexual. Attempting to change the definition back to it's roots is futile and actually slightly offensive to those of us that identify as gay.
Good on ya magda. I'm 100% with gay marriage as i am lesbian myself. I agree with everything she had said.
@halag So if no-one cares, why did you reply?
YAY MAGDA U MY HERO!!!!!!!!!!
@TheTramsmit here here :)
@JRtheCREATOR1 Do you think ultra conservative, ultra christian fundamentalist Abbott is going to allow gay marriage? I am disappointed in Julia Gillard though. As it stands, even with the implementation of civil union, homosexual couples still do not have the same legal right as heterosexual couples since they are considered defacto.
Hopefully politicians will realise that this is what really matters, not what religion dictates as a marriage, and institute some changes.
Yeah buddy, the pressures of being gay. You know, like having your parents not love you. Like having your family disown. Like being in outcast during your whole childhood. Like being oppressed by the government simply because of who you are. THOSE are the pressures of being gay.
This woman is amazing. She should be president if the freaking world!
The only part of this I did not like is - she didn't answer the guy's question of: How do you confront the Church that have gay's knocking on their door demanding to be married?
Yes, I identify as pansexual, and I would love to be married one day, whether to a man or woman ... but if I were to marry a man, how could I expect the Christian/Catholic church to marry me when it's against their beliefs?
@creativeengineer Must have been really bored.
Go Magda!
lets support same sex marriage we have the power of democracy and our governments should get out of our lives and let us live the life that we want if we want to marry a man or marry a woman we should be able to do so without someone looking over our shoulders and stopping us from doing it after all gays and lesbians have been around for generations and now its time to relax and start giving them equal rights and freedom to marriage and to have kids and live a life just like straight couples do.
@BassGoesBoom1 then you have not been lisenting or observing the people around you.
@ronhamelin THis is no different than a Catholic church refusing to marry a couple who were previously married but legally divorced, or, if one in the couple isn't a Catholic, etc. Personally, I hope we never come to the point where we force a religious institution to marry someone if it's against their belief system. This is what makes true separation of church and state.
@JupeAma Well then why would you want to be part of something that discriminates against single people or defacto relationships? I get what you're saying, but im saying that marriage isn't a big deal. And if married couples get benefits single/defacto's don't get, then i think that's something worth fighting to change more so than the right to get married. People that aren't married contribute just as much to society so why should they be given less than married couples?
That's not at all what I was talking about. All of your comments seem to have to do with transgender women. I don't really understand it. I just don't like you disrespecting the gay community with comments like that, and by saying that they have no pressures.
You just don't get it do you......
@ronhamelin BUt this must go both ways--they must STOP trying to keep others from marrying in a civil (non-religious) ceremony because it goes against their beliefs when those marrying have no intention of involving that church.
"I think we should just try to make heterosexual divorce illegal."
@malanatalia Yeah but this isn't about disrespectful couples not thinking about where they're groping each other. This is about couples who want to commit themselves to each other for life. :P
Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,
such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
@malanatalia Honestly, I'd feel uncomfy about it, be it gay, lesbian OR straight couples groping each other in public. Even more so if the kids are making comments like them. But I have never really heard kids say that about their parents, be it two daddies, mummies or one of each... in my experience, the break up of any kind of couple is very traumatic for kids, and they never joke about it.
@MrWiseburger I Agree, it's all about love and happiness.
Marriage was going on around the world long before any religious ideology got involved.
Ideology lol. Atheism is certainly an ideology. Her analogy with serial killers is actually flawed. The essence of marriage is not a union for sexual hedonism to be sealed (i.e. where people (gay or straight) use each other's bodies to release sexual tension and satisfy the natural urges of lust. The natural fruit of marriage and its sexual union is life-giving (creative), and not just a bit of fun. Also, the insidious slogan "love is Love" may be appealing, but it is meaningless and deceptive. Words have to mean something. If “love is love” includes both slurping ice cream cones and gay sex, it means nothing at all. This is why to use the word "Love" to mean "lust" (which is the basis of non-creative sex), is just contradictory. Eros (erotic) needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide not just fleeting pleasure, and so a "marriage" of two people who cannot by virtue of their natural selves create anything (i.e. new life,) is just null and void. All that has happened in widening the law so that it does not discriminate, is just a politically correct act made by people who have denied reality (of the true nature of marriage), and in doing so have actually weakened the very structure that gives stability to our world and its new life. "Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, such shaping fantasies, that apprehend, more than cool reason ever comprehends (A Midsummer Night's Dream).
My god, Magda's single? I wish I was a girl right now :'( And I'm basically gay.
Agreed...as it should be.
I love that woman...she's my hero
@iTzTehYez I agree with you. Since mankind began male and female of a species have predominantly been 'designed' to reproduce sexually to ensure the continuation of a species, but not only that, fundamentally attracted to the opposite sex in a number of different ways such as physically and mentally. Hence why, in respect to the great debate, it will never be seen that same sex marriages are accepted across the board.
Go Magda equal rights for all you rock chicky babe!!!! 21st century Australia it time get this bill through already xo
1 in 10 sonds too high to me...
We don’t know what ramifications it’s going to have on kids and if we say yes to gay marriage does it stop there or is there other categories that come with it
@jleo71 The proposal has always been that no church will be forced to marry any couple they do not wish to. No different to a straight couple. A church can (and have) refused to marry straight people before. Seriously, how many gay couples are going to WANT to be married in a church? For those that do want that, there are a number of churches around that are not narrow-minded & judgemental. No church will be forced to marry any couple they don't feel comfortable marrying. No different to now.
people are suprised? its a poorly kept secret guys
@Neithie then again some people dont educated there kids until a certan ages when it comes to these things
@TheTramsmit Equal marriage is a weak term as between a man and woman there can be equality. Convetional marriage could be marrying in a church, so that term is weak. Homosexual is not blunt... it is a fact. Not an offensive term either. Look it up in the dictionary. How can "gay" being "happy" be offensive? It is our language. I am often gay, but I am not a homosexual. Gee, I am proud to be white... now that is offensive... you might think I am a KKK member!
@Neithie i'm just saying what i went though , and when you think about it you might not agree with me but if a straight couple old or young saw two lesbians or two gay guys making out and touching eachother,,, that makes people feel unco ,,,, ofcourse what do u think if those couples had kids like laughing and making funny comments or even saying something like is that girl or guy going to steal mommy and dady or someshit like that ,,, then again its up to those people to educated there kids
Gay people get married all the time, it's just that the law does not and must not validate such a union. Marriage is defined as a sexual and emotional union, between a man and a woman. A bride or wife, is a woman. A groom, or husband, is a man. In order for a marriage to exist, a husband and wife, must be present. Since two women can not be husband and wife, they can not be Married. I have no problem in theory with granting certain rights to people who are coupled in the same fashion as homosexual people are, but those rights would have to extend to ANY two people, regardless of whether they are gay, or not. In other words, if I want to "marry" a male friend, for tax purposes, I should be able to, even if we are not gay. It would be a simple legal partnership, not a marriage.
@ronhamelin You do know that this is only temporary and that one day someone will want their church to marry them and they will sue over it. I am not in favor of this happening but then I am an atheist so it matters not to me. But you can bet that it will happen and the outcome is unpredictable.
i'm sorry but I don't see the difference I get sometimes gay couples go over board when they are making out in public when they first come out and it's all new to them , even straight couples when they make out or something on the streets movies shopping centers / city or whatever it's not pleasant , there is a lot of old people around have some respect just coz most of Australians are straight dosent mean its ok ,,
Support for gay marriage at only 62%?Well Nobody asked me! Im pretty sure its closer to 90%. I'm not gay but 100% in favour of gay marriage :)
@halag You don't get it do you? Proud to be white was not literal. I was making a point. I am not proud to be white any more than a black should be proud to be black. Colour is irrelevant. But unfortunately, every one is racist to some extent, some more than others. My racism is miniscule - I mix gaily with all races. I cannot say the same for those who avoid other races or colours. They are missing out.
@LoveLifeBeHappy2012 Wow! Thankyou very much! Just stating what I believe in. Too often I think the News is always full of how people murder or rape or War or Terrorist Attacks or Natural Disasters. Too many horrible things and majority of people promote Love and Peace in the World. If we believe in Love and World Peace why are we denying people the right to declare love for one another?
Marry me Magda! :)
I say forget about marriage. It's a religious thing and at the end of the day its just a piece of paper. Love who you love, be with who you love and live your life. Why is it so important to get married? Marriage originated out of the necessity to organise social groups so that the men could be certain that the children born were indeed his. It has always been about man and woman conceiving. That's why i say fuck marriage because it was never about love. Just be with who you love and live life.