Poofta marriages back on the table

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

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?

All of your opinions are wrong.

Ivanna see it now!!!! 🙂

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

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

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!

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

And your point is?

Gee, you truly are Evil. Or at least annoying.

Me neither, and somehow I don’t think me changung my name will solve all your problems 🙂

HE said it —>>>>>

Then it’s up to the doctor. Change your f-king name, Doctor Evil!

I’m not giving mine up!

For FFS! There’s too many evils on riot-act. Somebody change their name!

I don’t have a plan: hell, I don’t even have a clue what you’re on about DMD!

Are you confusing me with that Dr Evill fella again?

My plan is better than yours, Mr Evil.

That’s a top idea skidbladnir.

Does anyone have a copy\scan of it?
Could we createa new standing topic (like the candidate interviews) “RiotAct in Mainstream Media”?

Quoted out of context? By a newspaper? Hmmm…

I’m just glad I have been able to contribute meaningfully. Where in the CT was the article by the lovely Jess?

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

I’d almost gotten bored with this comment but it suddenly occurred to me, it sounds like a good sensible benchmark to apply across the board actually. so let’s ban all past and future the marriages of ugly straights! because christ have you seen the wedding pictures they put in the paper… *gag*

I think Thumper’s comments real sum up most Aussie’s attitudes to same sex couples and civil unions – who gives a shiit? We don’t care what two consenting adults get up to in their bedroom and we don’t care if they want to enter into a civil union.

Jessica the CT does it again. Don’t you know that the term gay is a male term that the lesbians in Sydney objected to in past Mardi Gras because they felt it distracted from their sex? So why does the CT persist in using the term gay in your headlines like today? Why not use homosexual or lesbian? Your paper, like you, just doesn’t get it.

Danman,

Search google for Jessica Wright and “Cellar philosophy”

Oh Jessica. Ever hear of “Rule 7” and the Bruces? Maybe you were just a twinkle in your fathers loins to remember the 60s.

Is that “like” as in man love JB?

yeah, I’m sure the long and abusive email jack Waterford sent me was a figment of my imagination. No tears at all.

And mumsys campaign of abuse and retribution against those who said nasty things about young jess had no meaning at all.

It’s a shame as I really like her dad.

Who is Jess ?

Is she hot ?

Hi Jess!

What, you mean riotact posters might be jealous of people who are employed to spout their opinions, while riotacters spout ’em for free?

Naaah.

Although if you read the history, the Riotact spray at Jess was somewhat deserved – she wrote an unusually vapid piece of nothingness and, well, deserved whatever she got.

Can’t imagine young Jess being reduced to tears by a few comments on a website, I have to say.
Her article said, amongst other things, that a headline that was racially motivated (read: discriminatory) would not fly, so why is a gay-bashing one ok?
Also asked what damage would be dne by allowing gay marriage.

Sounds like a few posters here are jealous of Jess, and wishing they were in her shoes.

BigDave – it seems that you are the one in the minority here, a recent poll by SBS indicated that about 75% of Australians support civil unions.

Stanhope got the first majority government in the history of the Legislative Assembly at the last election, which suggests that his actions are broadly supported in the community.

If you don’t like it, maybe you should “pi-s off” somewhere inhospitable where you won’t be bothered by equal rights for homosexuals, women with the vote and other features of the modern world?

I hear that Amish communities are pretty open to newcomers?

GF. ..

Can you share with us exactly what she had to say?

Good to see she’s still reading after being reduced to tears (I’m told) in the newsroom last time she tangled with us.

“More men marrying each other means more chicks. Nuff said.”

Says DMD, still hopeful of picking up his first root…..

Nice to see that Canberra’s most lightweight (read airheaded) columnist Jessica “My Mum has a fancy restaurant so I got a column in Sundays CT” Wright took a fancy to this thread.

Jess – in future, here are some tips.

1. The title was a wind up. OK, not to everyones taste, but had reference to Sepi’s work on public displays of man-love at Cube last week last week.
2. The majority of readers here could not care less what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes – Tipsy summed it up well “If I was gay I might care. I’m not so I don’t.”
3. VY’s quote has been going on for about 2 years… Anyone who has ever spent more time on this site than on their makeup realises that. Let your ghost writer do some more research…

Love

GF

Lex,

Are you are bear?

🙂

I doubt Rudd is that fussed – or he wouldn’t have put a lesbian in one of the most important and high profile portfolios in Cabinet.

And I’m assuming Pandy is simply going by the usual rule that only someone within a minority should use derogatorary terms about that minority – obviously Pandy is gay rather than being deliberately offensive and repulsive.

I really cannot see why in 2007 we are still having this conversation – if two people want to commit their lives to each other so be it…..

Get it done, move on to other debates that matter….

I agree with every comment made about some of the inappropriate language here. I hope the ACT passes the legislation and that it doesn’t get squashed, because it does no harm to anyone. I take my religion reasonably seriously, but I find it difficult to accept that God in any form really gives a rat’s about the sexuality of a few carbon-based life forms.

non-Christians like Jews, Muslims and Aetheists have been around for a long, long time and not hiding in a closet is probably why it has extended to encompass them. The fundamental rule of getting married in Jewland, Muslimland and Aethist Land is still one man + one woman = married though, as dictated by the church.

I agree sepi.

Admins: Can you please put sepi’s comments in the moderation queue from now on, as I find them offensive.

Rudd is hardly going to do this as his first act as PM while he is attracting a lot of media attention.

Rudd doesn’t have to ‘do’ anything. He just has to let the territory make its own laws without overturning them.

I agree with caf. He’ll state he’s against the laws but let them go through to show he supports the ACT’s independence.

I’ve always wondered why it’s perfectly acceptable for non-Christians like Jews, Muslims, and especially Atheists to get married, but not gays. After all, it is a Christian institution, and that’s why Howard and co want to protect it…

Tell them to piss off someplace else if they want to get married. Like the North Pole or somewhere equally inhospitable. Typical of that twat Stanhope to try to get this pile of tripe through again. Why doesn’t he get some things done that the public actually want?? I’d like to punch him in that four-eyed face of his.

That is what I think Rudd will say.

Let them come up with their own word for it. Marriage is taken – it’s a church word.

Yeah and we had a glowing account of frolick in CUBE. By whom?

I can’t see what’s the harm in letting homosexual couples marry? If you have to define marriage is 1 man and 1 woman for the purposes of breeding, there’s an awful lot of “normal” marriages that wouldn’t qualify.

It hurts no one to let them marry if they want. Let ’em get married.

I think Stanhope / Corbell should wait a tiny bit. Rudd is hardly going to do this as his first act as PM while he is attracting a lot of media attention.

I also think this site should be moderated so as not to be offensive.

As long as the legislation gets passed, that’s all I care about.

Rudd will always be better than Howard.

DMD, my bet is that he’ll theatrically roll his eyes, declare that as an upstanding Christian he’s against this sort of thing, but that it’s really up to the godless commies who live in Canberra to decide their own rules to live by.

Well, I’m not here to discuss my little turn-on’s, but it definatley draws an eye. But I hardly think married lesbian couples will be gettin’ it on in public. Do straight married couple’s do that? They barely do it in bed! Even more rarely with each other.

Regardless, I wish Simon Corbell luck. This is important legislation as it will take us out of the stone age and into a more tolerant era. I will be keeping an eye on Rudd for this one.

The chicks can be lesbians. Unless you like that sort of thing 😉

More men marrying each other means more chicks. Nuff said.

“Not supporting” these kinds of arrangements (and it’d be nice to see a source quoted so we could see exactly what the PM said) doesn’t necessarily imply actively overturning territory legislation.

Pansy Pandy,
Dont worry the homosexuals don’t like you either.

I don’t see why I should be concerned about other people’s relationships. Perhaps those who claim it threatens the sanctity of marriage are secretly worried that their own partner will ditch them for a civil union with someone else?

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

Didn’t even see that one coming! 🙂

Geez is Stanhope that naive that he thinks that PM Rudd will side with him because they are both ALP. After a short time of living here Rudd will work out like the rest of us what a complete f-wit he is.

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

Easy on the title there tiger.

Can not believe this made it past mods with current terminology.

I am not asking you to like homosexuals but it would be nice if you referred to them as that.

If I was gay I might care. I’m not so I don’t.

Krudd will probably let them have their way now he’s in. Just another backflip. And it will be a sop to pacify the ACT comrades for dropping Lundy and McMullan.

While simon the sad plays with this piece of useless pandering to minorities, the potholes get deeper and the vacancies on the court benches are still there – but the mayor’s taken charge of that apparently.

Holy smoke…Pandy, you will upset the precious Gungahlin Al again with such comments 🙂

As Big Kev made an election promise as part of his More-Centre-Than-Left pitch that he wouldn’t support the queer unions, this may be (yet\just)another tilt at a windmill from Corbell.
Unless that turns out to be a non-core promise.

Why is what two people do consensually with each other everyone else’s problem?

Sancitity of marriage? Pfffft! Look at the divorce rate.

‘Working Families’ are idiots if they think this concerned them.