Getting our gay marriage on

johnboy said :

http://inourwordsblog.com/2012/08/31/get-over-yourselves-homophobia-doesnt-make-you-an-asshole/

Pretty sure you just supported what I posted.

gooterz said :

Can someone explain the for gay marriage logic:

.

Yes mate I could. You could do it yourself by just reading this thread. But you’ve no interest at all in understanding the issue do you? That would involve more humanity than you’re capable of so stick with your straw-men, stick with your dogma, stick with your hatred. After all, I’m sure it keeps you warm at night.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Deref said :

To those opposing this: what, in your mind, justifies preventing people from doing something that has no effect on you whatsoever and which harms no-one?

The mining projects near the great barrier reef don’t affect people nor do they harm anyone, nor does the carbon tax, nor does having an asylum seeker stay in Australia or being sent to a detention centre overseas. Every decision the government or we as a nation makes affects all of us in some way. This whole gay marriage thing right now is affecting everybody in this country because of the possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars spent of taxpayer money, either fighting or defending it in the courts. How much better off would the homeless be had the money been spent on housing or food?

Sciencerules – “Homosexuality isn’t a fetish. Nor is it a choice. Please explain how “male-female” is in the interests of society. Do you really think that establishing marriage equality will make more gays? How?”
I would say if we made all the speed limits $200km/h, we’d see a whole lot people doing those speeds. If possessing a weapon in public was legal, more likely than not we’d have gun toting folks on the streets like in Texas. Should marijuana be legalised, pot smokers would multiply. Making something legal will ultimately grow greater numbers of people doing it than if prohibition were enforced. That isn’t just my opinion, that’s the science of common sense.
You honestly think homosexuality is not a choice? C’mon, be serious. It’s just a way for ugly people who can’t get a partner of the opposite sex to find somebody else to be friends with.

Just curious, but is it possible for a christian anywhere to attempt to answer a question without employing an irrelevant, nonsensical analogy?

So sexuality isn’t a choice, eh? Well then, show us how much of a choice it is with a quick demonstration. Change your own sexuality for say six months and then I’ll believe you.

And I have to say I’m encouraged by your nasty, hate-filled comments at the end of your post. At least you’re starting to be honest about your motivations now and leaving aside all the other distractions. You just don’t like gay people do you? There, wasn’t so hard now was it? Just say “gay people are icky and I don’t want them to have the same rights as straight people” and I’d at least have a modicum of respect for you.

Why is anyone with a differring opinion or belief called homophobic, there is a huge difference between fearing and loathing?

wildturkeycanoe said :

that’s the science of common sense.

And with that you’ve conclusively proven that you understand neither science nor common sense.

gooterz said :

Can someone explain the for gay marriage logic:

Assumption 1. Marriage isn’t anything special.
Assumption 2. Same sex marriage won’t change anything for hetero couples.
Therefore logically same sex should get married, because it means so much to them.

Why does in the same set of logic that marriage mean so little yet seems to be so wanted by same sex, and if it doesn’t have any effect on hetero’s then what is it going to do for same sex couples.
––––––––––
The only thing that logically makes sense is that hey you have something we don’t have, I can get it so I’m going too make it worthless.

How could we tell this is happening? Only if same sex couples do such a song and dance about it when they get it.

Really it should go to a referendum, if it doesn’t pass then we wait 10 years.

Wow. You really demolished *that* straw man.

:rollseyes:

Turn back the gays, when it is safe to do so.

Where is my secular state? We already have divorce laws which are contrary to the beliefs of the church why can’t we have other legal institutions not bound by the beliefs of the church which I may not be a member.

Why is marriage the only thing the liberal party won’t deregulate?

kumadude said :

There are far more horrible Herero parents than there are gay parents, moron.

…That is an easy statement, based on biology.

I myself do not believe in gay marriage due to it being an attack on economics and societies values.
Economically, there is no increase in productivity in the future due to lack of offspring.
And there is no point in focusing on what Jesus said, he was a soft folk singer. Read the old testament which suggests through the ages that such extreme behavior has a negative impact on society, this is where the concept of ethics and morals is based. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all developed from the lessons learnt during evil times. i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah
Male-female is in the interests of society, whereas all other forms of fetishes are not.
Though I do believe we should have a referendum not a conscious vote on such a matter. Then we hear all of Australia’s opinion.

The Old Testament is not a historical record.

Whar we do have historical record of is the mongols raping and murdering half the world away. Do you consider that evil? Because history shows us civilisation would be a very different thing to what we know now if they never left the steppes.

You cannot say stuff like people learnt values from evil things(and evil is subjective, is it not?), when evil has clearly benefited how we live today.

milkman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

22Years said :

Adoption is the issue that many people struggle with about Gay Marriage – including myself. Gay Marriage is not an issue unless you make it one due to your own preferences and or beliefs – in my view it is fine if that is what any two people want to do. But adoption is an issue that should not be assumed (a right) or ignored (politically incorrect) or avoided (touchy). This is because it has a huge impact on someone’s life who is not and cannot be involved in the decision. And if you do not think that there is a difference and that there will not be a difference in their lives, then you are very wrong. And yes, there are bad Mum/Dad parents, but that is not the issue.

There are far more horrible Herero parents than there are gay parents, moron.

Evidence of this? Or is it just because there are more hetero parents?

Irrelevant. I’m just stating facts.

Deref said :

To those opposing this: what, in your mind, justifies preventing people from doing something that has no effect on you whatsoever and which harms no-one?

The mining projects near the great barrier reef don’t affect people nor do they harm anyone, nor does the carbon tax, nor does having an asylum seeker stay in Australia or being sent to a detention centre overseas. Every decision the government or we as a nation makes affects all of us in some way. This whole gay marriage thing right now is affecting everybody in this country because of the possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars spent of taxpayer money, either fighting or defending it in the courts. How much better off would the homeless be had the money been spent on housing or food?

Sciencerules – “Homosexuality isn’t a fetish. Nor is it a choice. Please explain how “male-female” is in the interests of society. Do you really think that establishing marriage equality will make more gays? How?”
I would say if we made all the speed limits $200km/h, we’d see a whole lot people doing those speeds. If possessing a weapon in public was legal, more likely than not we’d have gun toting folks on the streets like in Texas. Should marijuana be legalised, pot smokers would multiply. Making something legal will ultimately grow greater numbers of people doing it than if prohibition were enforced. That isn’t just my opinion, that’s the science of common sense.
You honestly think homosexuality is not a choice? C’mon, be serious. It’s just a way for ugly people who can’t get a partner of the opposite sex to find somebody else to be friends with.

Pork Hunt said :

PantsMan said :

And on Thursday the High Court will declare this over. Next.

PantsMan said :

And on Thursday the High Court will declare this over. Next.

With a bit of luck, Michael Kirby will have made an influence on his mates who remain at the High Court while he was there.

Kirby had very limited influence on his colleagues, indeed by the time he concluded his term he was a habitual lone dissenter and had given up trying to convince other to join his lines of reasoning. Institutionally the place was very backwards too, he had to push his colleagues very hard to support his bid for the judicial pension to be granted to his partner. And when the ComCar scandal broke, things got very messy between the justices, Gaudron (a long time antagonist of Kirby) was among his only supporters curiously.

gooterz said :

Can someone explain the for gay marriage logic:

Assumption 1. Marriage isn’t anything special.
Assumption 2. Same sex marriage won’t change anything for hetero couples.
Therefore logically same sex should get married, because it means so much to them.

Why does in the same set of logic that marriage mean so little yet seems to be so wanted by same sex, and if it doesn’t have any effect on hetero’s then what is it going to do for same sex couples.
––––––––––
The only thing that logically makes sense is that hey you have something we don’t have, I can get it so I’m going too make it worthless.

How could we tell this is happening? Only if same sex couples do such a song and dance about it when they get it.

Really it should go to a referendum, if it doesn’t pass then we wait 10 years.

Where have we heard this kind of talk before? Oh that right, Constitutional Conventions in the 1800s, some colonies had divorce laws that were deemed too liberal and threatened the institutional of marriage.

High divorce rates and the legal extension of the rights of traditional married couples to heterosexual de facto couples have already done a fine job dispelling the importance of marriage as an institution. Social attitudes have done the rest; a lot of hetero people don’t care about marriage, don’t place a high value on it, or are happy enough to try it and leave it as one would do with a consumer product rather than supposedly sacred vows.

That same extension of legal-rights included extensions of rights to same-sex couples. And for homosexuals the same views of marriage exist; many don’t care about whether same-sex marriage exists or not, many don’t place a high value on the notion of marriage and won’t make use of it if it is introduced.

Same-sex marriage will have no practical effect for same-sex couples, but for that segment who do value the institution of marriage, like that segment of heterosexuals who do, it will mean something… spiritually I guess one could say.

PantsMan said :

And on Thursday the High Court will declare this over. Next.

No it will just keep the debate going until the federal government changes the law in 5,10 or 20+ years time. It has been legalised in many countries and the fear people keep sprouting has not occurred there. It might take another labor government though so prob 6 years until everyone realises again the libs lie just as much as labor and vote them out.

Those against this have no valid arguments, other than their own fears and beliefs, used to control them by their relevant church or belief system. Polygamy and bestiality are illegal so there is no need to fear those wanting marriage, i don’t think they will be legalised any time soon or ever. Far more likely of aliens arriving and people wanting to marry aliens, thats how crazy this bestiality marriage ideas used by religious groups are.

Can someone explain the for gay marriage logic:

Assumption 1. Marriage isn’t anything special.
Assumption 2. Same sex marriage won’t change anything for hetero couples.
Therefore logically same sex should get married, because it means so much to them.

Why does in the same set of logic that marriage mean so little yet seems to be so wanted by same sex, and if it doesn’t have any effect on hetero’s then what is it going to do for same sex couples.
––––––––––
The only thing that logically makes sense is that hey you have something we don’t have, I can get it so I’m going too make it worthless.

How could we tell this is happening? Only if same sex couples do such a song and dance about it when they get it.

Really it should go to a referendum, if it doesn’t pass then we wait 10 years.

PantsMan said :

And on Thursday the High Court will declare this over. Next.

PantsMan said :

And on Thursday the High Court will declare this over. Next.

With a bit of luck, Michael Kirby will have made an influence on his mates who remain at the High Court while he was there.

PantsMan said :

And on Thursday the High Court will declare this over. Next.

That is very unlikely.

My prediction is they will actually allow it, say a 50% chance.

40% chance I give it that they strike the current law, but word a judgement in such a way that it’s basically a redraft of the law that will let it be passed again per the court’s decision.

I’d say only a 10% chance they’ll deny it outright.

And on Thursday the High Court will declare this over. Next.

poetix said :

kumadude said :

There are far more horrible Herero parents than there are gay parents, moron.

…That is an easy statement, based on biology.

I myself do not believe in gay marriage due to it being an attack on economics and societies values.
Economically, there is no increase in productivity in the future due to lack of offspring.
And there is no point in focusing on what Jesus said, he was a soft folk singer. Read the old testament which suggests through the ages that such extreme behavior has a negative impact on society, this is where the concept of ethics and morals is based. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all developed from the lessons learnt during evil times. i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah
Male-female is in the interests of society, whereas all other forms of fetishes are not.
Though I do believe we should have a referendum not a conscious vote on such a matter. Then we hear all of Australia’s opinion.

Jesus as a folk singer. Ah yes, I forgot the Book of Dylan. That’s where he plugs in his guitar and everyone yells out ‘Judas’.

The gospel shows it was a very valuable guitar…
http://media.canberratimes.com.au/national/selections/bob-dylans-guitar-breaks-auction-record-4989471.html

kumadude said :

There are far more horrible Herero parents than there are gay parents, moron.

…That is an easy statement, based on biology.

I myself do not believe in gay marriage due to it being an attack on economics and societies values.
Economically, there is no increase in productivity in the future due to lack of offspring.
And there is no point in focusing on what Jesus said, he was a soft folk singer. Read the old testament which suggests through the ages that such extreme behavior has a negative impact on society, this is where the concept of ethics and morals is based. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all developed from the lessons learnt during evil times. i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah
Male-female is in the interests of society, whereas all other forms of fetishes are not.
Though I do believe we should have a referendum not a conscious vote on such a matter. Then we hear all of Australia’s opinion.

Jesus as a folk singer. Ah yes, I forgot the Book of Dylan. That’s where he plugs in his guitar and everyone yells out ‘Judas’.

kumadude said :

There are far more horrible Herero parents than there are gay parents, moron.

…That is an easy statement, based on biology.

I myself do not believe in gay marriage due to it being an attack on economics and societies values.
Economically, there is no increase in productivity in the future due to lack of offspring.
And there is no point in focusing on what Jesus said, he was a soft folk singer. Read the old testament which suggests through the ages that such extreme behavior has a negative impact on society, this is where the concept of ethics and morals is based. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all developed from the lessons learnt during evil times. i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah
Male-female is in the interests of society, whereas all other forms of fetishes are not.
Though I do believe we should have a referendum not a conscious vote on such a matter. Then we hear all of Australia’s opinion.

I’ll try and use small words…

Marriage isn’t a commercial arrangement. Infertile people marry, older people marry and gay people can now marry. As well as people who just don’t want to have children. Married or not, people will have exactly the same number of kids.

No, we won’t be using your barbaric nonsense to make the rules for society today. Sorry, perhaps Saudi Arabia might be more to your taste.

Homosexuality isn’t a fetish. Nor is it a choice. Please explain how “male-female” is in the interests of society. Do you really think that establishing marriage equality will make more gays? How?

We don’t need a referendum for every law or policy change. I’m pretty sure you’d only demand it relating to things you don’t approve of anyway.

You may think I’m mocking you, but I’m not really. You’re afraid and you’ve no reason to be. Marriage equality won’t effect your marriage or mine. It just means that two homosexual people who love each other can now get married. Relax. Have a nice glass of wine.

kumadude said :

There are far more horrible Herero parents than there are gay parents, moron.

…That is an easy statement, based on biology.

I myself do not believe in gay marriage due to it being an attack on economics and societies values.
Economically, there is no increase in productivity in the future due to lack of offspring.
And there is no point in focusing on what Jesus said, he was a soft folk singer. Read the old testament which suggests through the ages that such extreme behavior has a negative impact on society, this is where the concept of ethics and morals is based. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all developed from the lessons learnt during evil times. i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah
Male-female is in the interests of society, whereas all other forms of fetishes are not.
Though I do believe we should have a referendum not a conscious vote on such a matter. Then we hear all of Australia’s opinion.

Conscience.

There are far more horrible Herero parents than there are gay parents, moron.

…That is an easy statement, based on biology.

I myself do not believe in gay marriage due to it being an attack on economics and societies values.
Economically, there is no increase in productivity in the future due to lack of offspring.
And there is no point in focusing on what Jesus said, he was a soft folk singer. Read the old testament which suggests through the ages that such extreme behavior has a negative impact on society, this is where the concept of ethics and morals is based. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all developed from the lessons learnt during evil times. i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah
Male-female is in the interests of society, whereas all other forms of fetishes are not.
Though I do believe we should have a referendum not a conscious vote on such a matter. Then we hear all of Australia’s opinion.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

22Years said :

Adoption is the issue that many people struggle with about Gay Marriage – including myself. Gay Marriage is not an issue unless you make it one due to your own preferences and or beliefs – in my view it is fine if that is what any two people want to do. But adoption is an issue that should not be assumed (a right) or ignored (politically incorrect) or avoided (touchy). This is because it has a huge impact on someone’s life who is not and cannot be involved in the decision. And if you do not think that there is a difference and that there will not be a difference in their lives, then you are very wrong. And yes, there are bad Mum/Dad parents, but that is not the issue.

There are far more horrible Herero parents than there are gay parents, moron.

Evidence of this? Or is it just because there are more hetero parents?

gooterz said :

Deref said :

To those opposing this: what, in your mind, justifies preventing people from doing something that has no effect on you whatsoever and which harms no-one?

So your not against the Tiananmen Square massacre? Because it has no effect on you what so ever.

Ps these changes affect everyone ability to homosexual marriage. So it does actually effect everyone rights.

The polygamists are already looking for their equality.

There was an interesting article about polyamory and lobbying recently on CNN.

gooterz said :

Deref said :

To those opposing this: what, in your mind, justifies preventing people from doing something that has no effect on you whatsoever and which harms no-one?

So your not against the Tiananmen Square massacre? Because it has no effect on you what so ever.

Ps these changes affect everyone ability to homosexual marriage. So it does actually effect everyone rights.

The polygamists are already looking for their equality.

Um, the Tiananmen massacre ACTUALLY hurt some people. You will not be run over by a tank because someone gets married.
On the other hand, polygamy has its own rewards, two (or more) mothers-in-law…

22Years said :

Adoption is the issue that many people struggle with about Gay Marriage – including myself. Gay Marriage is not an issue unless you make it one due to your own preferences and or beliefs – in my view it is fine if that is what any two people want to do. But adoption is an issue that should not be assumed (a right) or ignored (politically incorrect) or avoided (touchy). This is because it has a huge impact on someone’s life who is not and cannot be involved in the decision. And if you do not think that there is a difference and that there will not be a difference in their lives, then you are very wrong. And yes, there are bad Mum/Dad parents, but that is not the issue.

There are far more horrible Herero parents than there are gay parents, moron.

Deref said :

To those opposing this: what, in your mind, justifies preventing people from doing something that has no effect on you whatsoever and which harms no-one?

So your not against the Tiananmen Square massacre? Because it has no effect on you what so ever.

Ps these changes affect everyone ability to homosexual marriage. So it does actually effect everyone rights.

The polygamists are already looking for their equality.

Pork Hunt said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

…

Where in the history of this argument has anyone sought to marry their guinea pig (or any other beast)?
WRT the custody dispute, Ripley’s believe it or not, this shit already happens when heterosexual couples split up.
The only thing I ask is that there be gay divorce as well, otherwise we’ll have to go through this sh1t fight again when they want to untie the knot…

Fundies have always wheeled rubbish like this out because they have no actual, rational position to defend. Hence they make stuff up. I think the technical term is “lying for Jesus”.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Well, I have been absent for a while, so sorry to anyone who missed me.
Whilst in absence, THIS happened!!!! Crikey!
Well, I still have to sit in the minority regardless of what my wife thinks and say this hay marriage thing is ridiculous.
If it simply to get equal recognition in front of the “law”, then fine, be done with it and have your legal rights stripped away when you split up. I don’t care an iota.
Calling it marriage is what bugs me. Civil union, no problem. Poetix uses biblical quotations to try and persuade us, but even that little bit quoted does not prove gay marriage condoned. Love is love, in whatever form. I can love a guinea pig, but it doesn’t mean that i can live as a husband and wife with that guinea pig. Neither can a father and daughter, that is still frowned upon. Traditionally it is husband and wife and regardless of whether it is a woman/woman or man/man relationship I still stick to tradition as determining what constitutes marriage.
If these laws are passed, what is stopping a father and son from having a gay relationship and then having their assets split when one dies? Why not have a three way marriage as well, or even more if you really want to. Split the winnings when the relationship falls apart. What if there are like 21 children involved, some adopted, and the three women raising them then go to court to try and gain custody of the ones who will earn them the most child support? This is just the start people, the beginning of a long road to some serious implications in the future. Bah humbug! Yes I’m old fashioned.

Where in the history of this argument has anyone sought to marry their guinea pig (or any other beast)?
WRT the custody dispute, Ripley’s believe it or not, this shit already happens when heterosexual couples split up.
The only thing I ask is that there be gay divorce as well, otherwise we’ll have to go through this sh1t fight again when they want to untie the knot…

22Years said :

Adoption is the issue that many people struggle with about Gay Marriage – including myself. Gay Marriage is not an issue unless you make it one due to your own preferences and or beliefs – in my view it is fine if that is what any two people want to do. But adoption is an issue that should not be assumed (a right) or ignored (politically incorrect) or avoided (touchy). This is because it has a huge impact on someone’s life who is not and cannot be involved in the decision. And if you do not think that there is a difference and that there will not be a difference in their lives, then you are very wrong. And yes, there are bad Mum/Dad parents, but that is not the issue.

Perhaps you could share with us what you think the is issue actually is?

Adoption is the issue that many people struggle with about Gay Marriage – including myself. Gay Marriage is not an issue unless you make it one due to your own preferences and or beliefs – in my view it is fine if that is what any two people want to do. But adoption is an issue that should not be assumed (a right) or ignored (politically incorrect) or avoided (touchy). This is because it has a huge impact on someone’s life who is not and cannot be involved in the decision. And if you do not think that there is a difference and that there will not be a difference in their lives, then you are very wrong. And yes, there are bad Mum/Dad parents, but that is not the issue.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Well, I have been absent for a while, so sorry to anyone who missed me.
Whilst in absence, THIS happened!!!! Crikey!
Well, I still have to sit in the minority regardless of what my wife thinks and say this hay marriage thing is ridiculous.
If it simply to get equal recognition in front of the “law”, then fine, be done with it and have your legal rights stripped away when you split up. I don’t care an iota.
Calling it marriage is what bugs me. Civil union, no problem. Poetix uses biblical quotations to try and persuade us, but even that little bit quoted does not prove gay marriage condoned. Love is love, in whatever form. I can love a guinea pig, but it doesn’t mean that i can live as a husband and wife with that guinea pig. Neither can a father and daughter, that is still frowned upon. Traditionally it is husband and wife and regardless of whether it is a woman/woman or man/man relationship I still stick to tradition as determining what constitutes marriage.
If these laws are passed, what is stopping a father and son from having a gay relationship and then having their assets split when one dies? Why not have a three way marriage as well, or even more if you really want to. Split the winnings when the relationship falls apart. What if there are like 21 children involved, some adopted, and the three women raising them then go to court to try and gain custody of the ones who will earn them the most child support? This is just the start people, the beginning of a long road to some serious implications in the future. Bah humbug! Yes I’m old fashioned.

No, you’re not old fashioned. You’re just an idiot.

Dads and sons? Polyigamy? Really? Is that what you actually think this is about? Why is it so hard to accept that gay adults can love and be married just like straight adults. See if you can answer that without your crap analogies or misdirection.

To those opposing this: what, in your mind, justifies preventing people from doing something that has no effect on you whatsoever and which harms no-one?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Well, I have been absent for a while, so sorry to anyone who missed me.
Whilst in absence, THIS happened!!!! Crikey!
Well, I still have to sit in the minority regardless of what my wife thinks and say this hay marriage thing is ridiculous.
If it simply to get equal recognition in front of the “law”, then fine, be done with it and have your legal rights stripped away when you split up. I don’t care an iota.
Calling it marriage is what bugs me. Civil union, no problem. Poetix uses biblical quotations to try and persuade us, but even that little bit quoted does not prove gay marriage condoned. Love is love, in whatever form. I can love a guinea pig, but it doesn’t mean that i can live as a husband and wife with that guinea pig. Neither can a father and daughter, that is still frowned upon. Traditionally it is husband and wife and regardless of whether it is a woman/woman or man/man relationship I still stick to tradition as determining what constitutes marriage.
If these laws are passed, what is stopping a father and son from having a gay relationship and then having their assets split when one dies? Why not have a three way marriage as well, or even more if you really want to. Split the winnings when the relationship falls apart. What if there are like 21 children involved, some adopted, and the three women raising them then go to court to try and gain custody of the ones who will earn them the most child support? This is just the start people, the beginning of a long road to some serious implications in the future. Bah humbug! Yes I’m old fashioned.

21 children?…I think you are confusing people with your guinea pigs.

Well, I have been absent for a while, so sorry to anyone who missed me.
Whilst in absence, THIS happened!!!! Crikey!
Well, I still have to sit in the minority regardless of what my wife thinks and say this hay marriage thing is ridiculous.
If it simply to get equal recognition in front of the “law”, then fine, be done with it and have your legal rights stripped away when you split up. I don’t care an iota.
Calling it marriage is what bugs me. Civil union, no problem. Poetix uses biblical quotations to try and persuade us, but even that little bit quoted does not prove gay marriage condoned. Love is love, in whatever form. I can love a guinea pig, but it doesn’t mean that i can live as a husband and wife with that guinea pig. Neither can a father and daughter, that is still frowned upon. Traditionally it is husband and wife and regardless of whether it is a woman/woman or man/man relationship I still stick to tradition as determining what constitutes marriage.
If these laws are passed, what is stopping a father and son from having a gay relationship and then having their assets split when one dies? Why not have a three way marriage as well, or even more if you really want to. Split the winnings when the relationship falls apart. What if there are like 21 children involved, some adopted, and the three women raising them then go to court to try and gain custody of the ones who will earn them the most child support? This is just the start people, the beginning of a long road to some serious implications in the future. Bah humbug! Yes I’m old fashioned.

simsim said :

damien haas said :

simsim said :

damien haas said :

I dont understand why they are performing this ceremony at Parliament House – surely it should be at the Assembly if they are using it as a political point.

And if they’re not using it as a political point, if they’re using Parliament house because, like hundreds of straight couples who got married at parliament house, they think it’s a pretty location to get married at, are they allowed to use it then?

Wait, the bookings at Parliament house are organised by the Parliament House Booking Agency. They get to decide who gets married there. Do you work there? If not, your opinion on the matter is pretty much meaningless.

So only people who work at parliament house have meaningful opinions?

On the specific matter of “who gets booked in to have a marriage there and who doesn’t”… well, you’re entitled to have any opinion you like about it, but that opinion doesn’t have any affect on the outcome. And opinions that don’t have any affect tend to qualify in my books as meaningless. Why would you feel different?

I’m not trying to affect anything.

This is not has never been and will never be news. Anyone or anything stupid enough to want to get married should be allowed to do so. If you disagree you are wrong.

I find all this to be rather sad and hollow and reminiscent of the story of Cinderella. The fairies appear and tell Cinderella she can go to the ball and she has her fun but it all turns into a pumpkin at midnight. In this case midnight is Thursday when the High Court will can the whole gay marriage thing.

Canberroid said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

According to the bible, the definition of marriage used to include multiple wives and slaves, and women being forced to marry their rapists. Marriage is whatever a society defines it to be, and soon when enough old bigots like yourself die off the definition of marriage will be blind to gender.

Age has nothing to do with it. Being old doesn’t make you a homophobic bigot and being young doesn’t prevent you from being one.

But yes – I was going to ask Mr G whose definition he was using. It’s certainly not the biblical one.

CraigT said :

Canberroid said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

According to the bible, the definition of marriage used to include multiple wives and slaves, and women being forced to marry their rapists. Marriage is whatever a society defines it to be, and soon when enough old bigots like yourself die off the definition of marriage will be blind to gender.

Sex, not gender.

And no, there is no good reason to redefine the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples. Completely pointless.

Would you also say that marriage between hetero couples is also completely pointless? No, didn’t think so. Just love that special privelage, eh?

Yawn. Are we still banging on about this?
Marry or don’t marry, just get on with it please. I, like many other people, are so far over this issue and ridiculous amounts of time and money that are being wasted on it.

Is it possible for these couples to just get married quietly now – like everyone else, instead of constantly trying to make a gigantic point of it?

Canberroid said :

According to the bible, the definition of marriage used to include multiple wives and slaves, and women being forced to marry their rapists. Marriage is whatever a society defines it to be, and soon when enough old bigots like yourself die off the definition of marriage will be blind to gender.

Indeed, and the news should not be giving any airtime to religious leaders. Last time I looked the Commonwealth of Australia was secular, which means religion and government don’t mix.

If certain religious groups object, then fine it’s their right to, but they should be preaching this to their flock, not trying to enforce their views on the rest of the country, especially as the government is secular.

Written and spoken by a happily married heterosexual, who believes that everyone should be given the choice to make their own decisions and not have bigoted views foisted upon us in law by religious sects. (read the Catholic Church in particular)

Canberroid said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

According to the bible, the definition of marriage used to include multiple wives and slaves, and women being forced to marry their rapists. Marriage is whatever a society defines it to be, and soon when enough old bigots like yourself die off the definition of marriage will be blind to gender.

Sex, not gender.

And no, there is no good reason to redefine the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples. Completely pointless.

Canberroid said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

According to the bible, the definition of marriage used to include multiple wives and slaves, and women being forced to marry their rapists. Marriage is whatever a society defines it to be, and soon when enough old bigots like yourself die off the definition of marriage will be blind to gender.

Thank you canberraoid, you’ve saved me the trouble.

damien haas said :

simsim said :

damien haas said :

I dont understand why they are performing this ceremony at Parliament House – surely it should be at the Assembly if they are using it as a political point.

And if they’re not using it as a political point, if they’re using Parliament house because, like hundreds of straight couples who got married at parliament house, they think it’s a pretty location to get married at, are they allowed to use it then?

Wait, the bookings at Parliament house are organised by the Parliament House Booking Agency. They get to decide who gets married there. Do you work there? If not, your opinion on the matter is pretty much meaningless.

So only people who work at parliament house have meaningful opinions?

On the specific matter of “who gets booked in to have a marriage there and who doesn’t”… well, you’re entitled to have any opinion you like about it, but that opinion doesn’t have any affect on the outcome. And opinions that don’t have any affect tend to qualify in my books as meaningless. Why would you feel different?

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

You got a source on that one, g?

Canberroid said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

According to the bible, the definition of marriage used to include multiple wives and slaves, and women being forced to marry their rapists. Marriage is whatever a society defines it to be, and soon when enough old bigots like yourself die off the definition of marriage will be blind to gender.

Buuuuuurn.

I’ve lived in Canberra for nearly a decade now. Never really liked it.

I’ve never liked it more than I did on Saturday – I’ve never been so proud to live anywhere.

Is it just me, or is the body language in a couple of those photos a bit odd? I mean, they’re kissing each other after just getting married, but they both have one hand jammed into their pockets and they seem to be turning away from each other.

This is fantastic, but when the feds tear it down, I hope everyone points the finger of blame in the right direction, that being Corbell and co for what was a blatant piece of politicking….

Then again, maybe the feds won’t tear it down. One can hope….

Its not ‘the feds’, its ‘the courts’.

simsim said :

damien haas said :

I dont understand why they are performing this ceremony at Parliament House – surely it should be at the Assembly if they are using it as a political point.

And if they’re not using it as a political point, if they’re using Parliament house because, like hundreds of straight couples who got married at parliament house, they think it’s a pretty location to get married at, are they allowed to use it then?

Wait, the bookings at Parliament house are organised by the Parliament House Booking Agency. They get to decide who gets married there. Do you work there? If not, your opinion on the matter is pretty much meaningless.

So only people who work at parliament house have meaningful opinions?

Canberroid said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

According to the bible, the definition of marriage used to include multiple wives and slaves, and women being forced to marry their rapists. Marriage is whatever a society defines it to be, and soon when enough old bigots like yourself die off the definition of marriage will be blind to gender.

On the other hand:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/children-removed-after-generations-of-incest-20131206-2ywrt.html

The mothers of these kids don’t have any issues with their lovers. If love is the only requirement of marriage?

But more to the point is 1 John 4:

16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

That is just a prescription for love, without any silly restrictions. Whereas people who object to gay marriage are fearful:

18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

And there are some who object who are just insecure or hateful sad cases, of course.

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

According to the bible, the definition of marriage used to include multiple wives and slaves, and women being forced to marry their rapists. Marriage is whatever a society defines it to be, and soon when enough old bigots like yourself die off the definition of marriage will be blind to gender.

Saves money getting a wedding photographer ay!

Glad to see two people getting married because they love each other, and not because they are making a political statement.

Isn’t that like going on a hunger strike to show how much you love not eating?

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

What about if someone wanted to marry a life-like Erin Molan model made out of illegally obtained plastic shopping bags and used tissues: would that be okay by you, Mr G?

Mr Gillespie said :

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

Is this the real Mr G? There are NO WORDS randomly capitalised. I SMELL an impostor.

Gay “marriage”? What an oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. Ever heard of a male “bride”??? Tellya what, this student-run “state” has really gone whacko

damien haas said :

I dont understand why they are performing this ceremony at Parliament House – surely it should be at the Assembly if they are using it as a political point.

And if they’re not using it as a political point, if they’re using Parliament house because, like hundreds of straight couples who got married at parliament house, they think it’s a pretty location to get married at, are they allowed to use it then?

Wait, the bookings at Parliament house are organised by the Parliament House Booking Agency. They get to decide who gets married there. Do you work there? If not, your opinion on the matter is pretty much meaningless.

Congratulations and welcome to married life guys and girls.

I’m pleased that you now have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us! Careful what you wish for!

Seriously though…It’s about bloody time this inequity was righted.

Well done to all involved.

I hope they have a very long and happy marriage.

I dont understand why they are performing this ceremony at Parliament House – surely it should be at the Assembly if they are using it as a political point.

fabforty said :

ScienceRules said :

Congratulations to the happy couple and bravo to everyone involved. Great days indeed…

+ 1

+ 2

😀 Woohoo!

Heartiest congratulations to them!

Going to be a right mess if the gowns tear down that legislation.

ScienceRules said :

Congratulations to the happy couple and bravo to everyone involved. Great days indeed…

+ 1

Congratulations to the happy couple and bravo to everyone involved. Great days indeed…