Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

ACT recognises same sex couples

By Thumper - 22 May 2008 157

Ironically, the lifestyle section of the SMH is reporting that a number of same-sex couples in Canberra have applied to have their partnership legally recognised after new laws came into effect in the ACT.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said civil partnership registrations were now possible following the official commencement of the territory government’s Civil Partnerships Act.

The civil partnership laws passed the Legislative Assembly in the early hours of May 9.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
157 Responses to
ACT recognises same sex couples
31
VYBerlinaV8_the_one_ 10:12 am
23 May 08
#

Given that it’s a free country, and people are free to have whatever sexual orientation they choose, why shouldn’t others have have the freedom to say “I disagree with their choice” without getting shouted down…?

Report this comment

32
justbands 10:23 am
23 May 08
#

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Given that it’s a free country, and people are free to have whatever sexual orientation they choose, why shouldn’t others have have the freedom to say “I disagree with their choice” without getting shouted down…?

Who’s asking them to agree?

Report this comment

33
gun street girl 10:29 am
23 May 08
#

…And who’s saying that sexual orientation is a choice?

Report this comment

34
captainwhorebags 10:40 am
23 May 08
#

Does it either have to be either a choice for all or not? Can it be a choice for some people and for others be something innate?

Report this comment

35
Absent Diane 10:46 am
23 May 08
#

Given that it’s a free country, and people are free to have whatever sexual orientation they choose, why shouldn’t others have have the freedom to say “I disagree with their choice” without getting shouted down…?

whats the point what does it achieve other than christian bigotry?

Report this comment

36
tap 10:50 am
23 May 08
#

VY: And what shouting down? Thats not happening, just people explaining why their homophobic views are backwards, anti social and generally abhorrent. Which is fair given this is a free country.

and yeah the word ‘choice’ was in that sentence a lot wasn’t it…

Report this comment

37
tap 10:52 am
23 May 08
#

CaptainWhorebags: Im just interested in who you think would choose homosexuality over heterosexuality? Being looked down on, the chance of being beaten and generally hated go up, the chance of having a family, if you choose, goes down, etc. It just doesn’t sound like something a person would want to choose? Where are the pros?

Report this comment

38
VYBerlinaV8_the_one_ 10:57 am
23 May 08
#

What’s with ‘homophobic’ anyway – is anyone genuinely scared of gay people? Lots of people are willing to paste the homophobe label on someone because they disagree with a lifestyle choice or opinion – I would argue these people are as bad as those who discriminate based on sexual orientation. Bear in mind that there is a subtle but clear difference between what we think and how we act. It’s possible to disagree with something someone does without discriminating against them as a person.

Report this comment

39
VYBerlinaV8_the_one_ 10:59 am
23 May 08
#

And TAP – I take your point about everyone having a right to defend or attack a particular view, I just find it strange that those who often profess to be ‘open minded’ are the first to attack the views of others.

Report this comment

40
caf 11:18 am
23 May 08
#

Deadmandrinking: you might, or might not, be interested to know that referrring to Inuits as “Eskimos” is an insulting term roughly equivalent to “Abbos” – or so I’m told.

Report this comment

41
Mælinar 11:25 am
23 May 08
#

Ouch VY – they might get that insult in a few months when comprehension dawns.

As I have long said, the term ‘marriage’ was invented by the church – which ultimately means they determine, or at least affect, how the term is used in common language.

Having several dozen freddy mercury’s coming along and attempting to superimpose their will onto the church is akin to pissing on the great wall of china, trying to make a hole in it.

As I have also long said, come up with a word for it yourself. Call it whatever you like. The definition of a mano el mano or femo el femo relationship that is locked down is ….

Watch the blank spaces. It is easily apparent that their motive continues to be pissing on walls in china, because that’s what they are into. I’ve got ready-prepared steriotypes, all ready to insert.

Report this comment

42
VYBerlinaV8_the_one_ 11:25 am
23 May 08
#

Are Inuits Eskimoriginal?

Report this comment

43
needlenose 11:45 am
23 May 08
#

VY – “phobia” means “fear or hatred” – so “homophobic” I think is used to mean hatred of homosexuals more often than it refers to fear.

However, “homo” simply means “man”, not “homosexual man”, so it’s one of those stupid neologisms which got trendy somewhere and now it’s too late retrieve it just because it doesn’t mean what everyone uses it to mean. Like the use of the suffix “-phile” to indicate sexual attraction when in fact it indicates platonic affection (as in “philosophy”, or love of knowledge, or “philanthropy”, love of one’s fellow man), and we should be using the word “paederast” where we generally use “paedophile” (“eros” being the word for sexual – erotic – attraction). Or for that matter, words like “workaholic” (because the suffix is not “-aholic”, it’s just “-ic” – otherwise we’d have the word “alcoholoholic”).

Sorry about that diversion – I now return you to a discussion of matters substantive.

Report this comment

44
Mr_Shab 11:57 am
23 May 08
#

Mael – marriage might have been a religious thing originally; but it was happening long before there was any division between religious and secular life. Marriage is a common-law thing now.

I think gays should be able to marry under the law; but it’s up to each church or organisation to decide if they’re prepared to officiate. If you’re a pair of Jainists, I doubt Father O’Leary from the local Mick parish is going to let you get hitched in St Christopher’s unless you convert first – and rightly so. But let’s not confuse the legal and religious issues here. The church doesn’t have a direct stake in the legality of marriage. Surely it’s a matter for the parliament.

Report this comment

45
toriness 12:12 pm
23 May 08
#

if the church wants to make marriage something exclusive and discriminatory then fine. but government is secular and not everyone in society is beholden to the institution of religion so that means removing the reference to ‘marriage’ from all our legislation and replacing it with another word (because it IS just a @*&)*&! word!) that encompasses everyone equally. because not even every straight couple is a religious freak who believes they are being married ‘under god’.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site