Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

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, or connect with
157 Responses to
ACT recognises same sex couples
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
vg 3:28 pm 23 May 08

Actually when I see 2 hot chicks together I also think ‘aaaahhhh, a same sex couple……and they’re hot’

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

needlenose 3:22 pm 23 May 08

PS – beg to differ on the “philanthropy” thing, too. “Anthros” = man, and “gynae” = women. “Anthros” has traditionally been used to denote all of humanity in the same way as “man” has – which is grossly sexist, but was the reason for my deliberate choice of the phrase “fellow man”.

Thumper 3:14 pm 23 May 08

vg,

hehehhe

needlenose 3:09 pm 23 May 08

Skidbladnir said :

needlenose said :

…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)

Minor pedantic note: your two examples use “philo\phila” as a prefix.
As a prefix philo\phila is a Greek form of ‘preference for, and affinity with, or a natural love of’.

Hence philosophy (love of wisom), philanthropy (love of their fellow humans, not men), philotechnicon (an appreciator of an art)

As a suffix (-phile,-philia, -philic) it implies a kind of attraction which is unnatural or overenthusiastic.

eg: Necrophile, coprophilia, haemophilia, technophile, paedophile.

True, Skidbladnir, my examples were poorly chosen perhaps – I’ll borrow your “technophile” and add examples like “bibliophile” and “francophile” – I agree that the suffix denotes excessive and perhaps even unnatural preference, but I don’t agree that that includes a sexual component, which is why I consider the suffix misused in words like “paedophile”, “coprophiliac” etc – especially given that for the former, at least, there is a perfectly good word using the correct suffix (“Paederast”).

I’m a bibliophile, but do not wish to copulate with books, and I suppose I moved here because I’m cryophilic – ie I have a strong preference for cold weather. I’m pretty confident my friend the haemophiliac harbours no erotic thoughts of the sanguinary.

In any event, to return to the point: even if the “homo” part of “homophobic” is not quite right, the “phobic” part denotes hatred, either instead of or in addition to fear.

vg 3:04 pm 23 May 08

I started recognising same sex couples a long time ago. I would see 2 men walking down the street and I would think to myself ‘aaaahhhh……..a same sex couple’

Absent Diane 2:12 pm 23 May 08

yeah i know i was just pointing it out..:)

tap 2:10 pm 23 May 08

The word predominantly should have been in there too.

tap 2:10 pm 23 May 08

Does anyone know how long humans have been monogamous?

Mælinar 2:03 pm 23 May 08

We could get into semantics, but the basis of religion has so many holes in it we’d be up to our necks in theological debate worthy of recognition by the pope.

AD – can I leave it with a statement that yes, you are right, but we’re not quite talking about that kind of thing at the moment ?

Absent Diane 1:58 pm 23 May 08

“The judeo-christian religion forms the moral basis our society is founded on” that is actually incorrect our morals developed out of nessecity (you do bad things, its not good for the gene pool or its progression – boot your out) – religion just tacked onto the morals thing – trying to say here we are moral so let us control your meek arse’s. So our society is actually based on morals developed via biology, evolution therefore nessecity. However some people like to think that morals come from religion and then say incorrect things such as blah blah religion is the moral basis for blah. completely wrong.

Mælinar 1:56 pm 23 May 08

I’d hold similar views if anybody wanted to hog any word for their own purposes, to the detriment of the inventor.

Using perjury as an example, if the word was coined to explain lying under oath by the church, but the American football association wanted to use it to explain a tricky backpass that the halfback does but still looks like he’s holding the ball (I’m flying on hypothesy here), but the church found that an inappropriate use of their word, I think I’d back the church. Make up your own damn words people.

I’d also like to disclaim that I am not religious, and I really don’t give a stuff what anybody does in their bedroom – as long as it remains in the privacy of their own home, and there’s no expectation for me to tow the line as it were.

Skidbladnir 1:45 pm 23 May 08

needlenose said :

…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)

Minor pedantic note: your two examples use “philo\phila” as a prefix.
As a prefix philo\phila is a Greek form of ‘preference for, and affinity with, or a natural love of’.

Hence philosophy (love of wisom), philanthropy (love of their fellow humans, not men), philotechnicon (an appreciator of an art)

As a suffix (-phile,-philia, -philic) it implies a kind of attraction which is unnatural or overenthusiastic.

eg: Necrophile, coprophilia, haemophilia, technophile, paedophile.

Mr_Shab 1:28 pm 23 May 08

Mael – the chuch (pick one!) doesn’t own the patent on marriage. By your logic they own the rights to murder laws, theft laws, perjury laws and not-coveting-your-neighbors-ass laws. I’m sure you’ll agree those laws should be kept in the ream of the secular.

The judeo-christian religion forms the moral basis our society is founded on (though not necessarily bound by). If we decided to allow gay marriage we wouldn’t be turning our back on our whole moral code, just the bit that’s no longer relevant.

I guess you could build a “Gay unions act” that gave all the same rights and responsibilities as the Marriage Act, but was separate. It just sounds a little..y’know…Jim Crow for my liking.

Mælinar 12:12 pm 23 May 08

Aye Mr Shab – the problem herein is when the good old pollies of yore were conceiving of such a topic, they simply went ‘Here’s an existing system, lets copy theirs’ – of the church process.

No transfer of ownership, merely a carbon copy. You will also note the registrar wedding – aka a wedding without a church is simply the government process minus the church overtones.

So what we are talking about here is a couple of freds want to tie the knot, so they head on into this process – the wedding without a church, on account of the church not recognising it as their ‘marriage’ on account of it not being a fruit productive venture as it were, however the church is still the basis from which this process was drawn from.

If they called it anything else, but marriage, the church would quite rightly be told in no short terms to f**k off (its now a government process, with a government recognised name rather than a church process, with a church recognised name). A lot of pissing on walls would then be done by the church, at least the overzealous ones, but they’ll always be there.

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’.

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.

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.

Are Inuits Eskimoriginal?

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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site