Poofta marriages back on the table

Pandy 30 November 2007 81

(Yeah yeah sepi. The highjacking of the word ‘gay’ is offensive too. So what about the dykes? (on or off bikes) should they not be allowed to marry?)

So Simon Corbell hopes that the new Rudd government will not block his legislation to allow gay marriages.

Anyone want to lay bets that rudd will not allow the term marriages to be used becasue it would be offensive to his core “working families”? “Union” is my bet on being a more acceptable term to Rudd.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
81 Responses to Poofta marriages back on the table
« Previous 1 3 4 5
Pandy Pandy 6:14 pm 06 Dec 07

There has been no villiesfillication in this thread Sepi. Back under your rock now.

sepi sepi 4:26 pm 06 Dec 07
sepi sepi 3:45 pm 06 Dec 07

They also want to be able to be recognised as each other’s next of kin. Currently they are kept out of hospital rooms etc when it is ‘close family only’ for visits.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 2:44 pm 06 Dec 07

Because they want more than to just facto eachother, they want to turn their relationships into mere on-paper formalities.

VYBerlinaV8 VYBerlinaV8 2:41 pm 06 Dec 07

If that’s all it’s about then why don’t we just call what they have a same sex de facto, or something?

Mælinar Mælinar 1:38 pm 06 Dec 07

Felix its so they can access their spouses superannuation. Lets not be so unrealistic to discount gay lovers from the vices of stabbing their partner in the back to get a hold of a nice juicy pot of cash.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 10:15 am 06 Dec 07

sorry, that should have said “can’t see”!

Mr Evil Mr Evil 10:14 am 06 Dec 07

I was going to comment, but I can see very well through my canvas hood…….

Thumper Thumper 10:08 am 06 Dec 07

I was going to comment but I was to afraid that Jessica may have misquoted me….

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 10:00 am 06 Dec 07

I assumed it was some kind of peudoboganism for maximal offense and media attention. Which worked out brilliantly.

VYBerlinaV8 VYBerlinaV8 9:57 am 06 Dec 07

I was re-reading this thread, and all of a sudden felt disgusted with us all. Surely it’s spelt ‘poofter’? How did we get this far without the spelling police stepping in?

Pandy Pandy 7:10 am 06 Dec 07

Pussy, there are many Federals laws that will not apply to same sex relationships becasue they are not married defacto or otherwise.

Felix the Cat Felix the Cat 7:00 am 06 Dec 07

What is the big deal with gays needing to get married for ‘legal’ reasons? I thought if you lived de-facto with somebody for a certain amount of time that legally it was as good as being married to them?

p1 p1 4:14 pm 04 Dec 07

All of your opinions are wrong.

Thumper Thumper 12:25 pm 04 Dec 07

Patience, that is Mr Jazz 😉

Mr Evil Mr Evil 11:21 am 04 Dec 07

Ivanna see it now!!!! 🙂

Jazz Jazz 11:00 am 04 Dec 07

patients grasshopper. Johnboy has scanned it and will be putting it up with his thoughts on the article shortly.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 9:28 am 04 Dec 07

scan or copy the article, man! (or woman!)

VYBerlinaV8 VYBerlinaV8 6:59 am 04 Dec 07

I checked the article – wow, what a load of absolutely nothing! I mean, it’s kinda funny that I got quoted and all, but the article didn’t actually say anything! If that’s the standard it takes to get published in the CT, I think I’ve discovered a good retirement job!

Elvis Las Canberras Elvis Las Canberras 11:46 pm 03 Dec 07

How did Jess “the turtle” make it into this discussion?

« Previous 1 3 4 5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site