john howard is at it again:

Mr Howard says he wants to overhaul the Marriage Act to say that marriage could only be between a man and woman, and to stop courts recognising foreign gay unions, to defend traditional families.

"The proposal would be to simply insert a definition in the Marriage Act which gives formal expression to what most people regard to be the case - and that is marriage, as we understand it in Australia, is between a man and woman," Mr Howard said.

click here for the full story
every time george bush does something howard follows suite.

personally i think its a good idea because most gays only get married to be attention whores anyway. it violates religion so they arnt doing it for that reason. good on him

well i have my own personal opinion about gays, but that doesnt mean we should take away there rites.

what they do is there own business, doesn't religon call for tolarence?

last edited by Irhabi at 17:43:14 27/Apr/04

last edited by Irhabi at 17:44:02 27/Apr/04

last edited by Irhabi at 17:49:20 27/Apr/04

it violates religion so they arnt doing it for that reason.

im getting married and its got nothing to do with religion

and

yor an idiot and so is johnny



last edited by Spook at 17:44:22 27/Apr/04

Once again Howard makes the right decision. How lucky are we to have a leader that actually does something rather than f***ing around making policy on the run and never doing anything about it - even if not everything he does is great, at least he has some action to back up his bulls***, unlike 99.9% of other politicians.

last edited by AnaRoT at 17:46:34 27/Apr/04

Exactly..as time passes Marriage has less and less to do with religion.

Homosexual people have just as much right to get married as everyone else.

Also Anarot he said he was thinking about doing something, he never said he was going to.

last edited by Tim Tibbetts at 17:45:40 27/Apr/04

Once again Howard makes the right decision. How lucky are we to have a leader that actually does something rather than f***ing around making policy on the run and never doing anything about it.

so you're saying it a coincidence that bush trys this then howard does?

meh i think i agree with him. marriage should be between a man and a women. i think one of the main reason gay's wanna get married so their relationship is recognised by people. for insurance, banks, centerlink etc. there should be a law passed that recognizeses these relationships without the need for marraige.

so how did marriage come about spook?

the vote will go to the people in end so its not like hes just changing to for the sake of BJ's from dubbya

The vote shouldn't go to the people because people are morons.

"Most gay and lesbian people in long-term relationships demonstrate the same love, respect, commitment and dedication that most heterosexual couples do," Senator Greig said.

"Denying same-sex couples the right to any formal legal recognition of their unions just imposes social, legal and financial discrimination on them and any children they may be raising."

At least someone has a f***ing clue about the situation.

Howard is a complete idiot, he's can't stop copying george dubya. Gays have the same right as every other human being.

Seriously, if they want to be gay, it's there choice... not yours, not anyone elses. The government has no business in denying same sex marriages, that's just plain f***ing stupid.

18:1 And the Lord said to Moses,
18:2 Say to the children of Israel, I am the Lord your God.
18:3 You may not do those things which were done in the land of Egypt where you were living; and you may not do those things which are done in the land of Canaan where I am taking you, or be guided in your behaviour by their rules.
18:4 But you are to be guided by my decisions and keep my rules, and be guided by them: I am the Lord your God.
18:5 So keep my rules and my decisions, which, if a man does them, will be life to him: I am the Lord.
18:6 You may not have sex connection with anyone who is a near relation: I am the Lord.
18:7 You may not have sex relations with your father or your mother: she is your mother, you may not take her.
18:8 And you may not have sex relations with your father's wife: she is your father's.
18:9 You may not take your sister, the daughter of your father or of your mother, wherever her birth took place, among you or in another country.
18:10 You may not have sex relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, for they are part of yourself;
18:11 Or your father's wife's daughter, the child of your father, for she is your sister.
18:12 You may not have sex connection with your father's sister, for she is your father's near relation.
18:13 You may not have sex connection with your mother's sister, for she is your mother's near relation.
18:14 You may not have sex relations with the wife of your father's brother, for she is of your family;
18:15 Or with your daughter-in-law, for she is your son's wife, and you may not take her.
18:16 You may not have sex relations with your brother's wife, for she is your brother's.
18:17 You may not take as wife a woman and her daughter, or her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, for they are of one family: it is an act of shame.
18:18 And you may not take as wife a woman and at the same time her sister, to be in competition with her in her life-time.
18:19 And you may not go near a woman or have sex relations with her when she is unclean, at her regular time.
18:20 And you may not have sex relations with your neighbour's wife, making yourself unclean with her.
18:21 And you may not make any of your children go through the fire as an offering to Molech, and you may not put shame on the name of your God: I am the Lord.


18:22 You may not have sex relations with men, as you do with women: it is a disgusting thing.


18:23 And you may not have sex relations with a beast, making yourself unclean with it; and a woman may not give herself to a beast: it is an unnatural act.
18:24 Do not make yourself unclean in any of these ways; for so have those nations whom I am driving out from before you made themselves unclean:
18:25 And the land itself has become unclean; so that I have sent on it the reward of its wrongdoing, and the land itself puts out those who are living in it.
18:26 So then keep my rules and my decisions, and do not do any of these disgusting things, those of you who are Israelites by birth, or any others who are living with you:
18:27 (For all these disgusting things were done by the men of this country who were there before you, and the land has been made unclean by them;)
18:28 So that the land may not put you out from it, when you make it unclean, as it put out the nations which were there before you.
18:29 For all those who do any of these disgusting things will be cut off from among their people.
18:30 So then, keep my orders, so that you may not do any of these disgusting things which were done before you, or make yourselves unclean through them: I am the Lord your God.

There you got 18:22, dudes dont f*** dudes

8===)(====8

It doesnt fit!


last edited by Astroboy at 17:54:11 27/Apr/04

Religions a load of bulls***. You can believe it if you want, but it isn't "law" nor should it have ANY effect on this situation.

Okay...and I'm not religious so this applies to me how?

marrige, sif.

Astroboy, what ever you beleave is fine, but we live in an open and free society(sp), you have to learn to toarte people, why dont you find the part in the bible that says forgive each other and have a good read of that.
all that matters is that they are human and they have rites under our society, it would be like dienying someone religion because there belefs are different.

thats just ot rite.

Okay...and I'm not religious so this applies to me how?

So you wanna marry/have sex with a dude?

is it addressed to you cock chomp?

marriage and homosezuality are both related to religion

18:23 And you may not have sex relations with a beast, making yourself unclean with it; and a woman may not give herself to a beast: it is an unnatural act.

dam :(

On Laura Schlesinger's radio show recently, she said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response
is an open letter to Dr.Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on
the Internet. It's funny, as well as thought-provoking.


******************************************
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him
myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How
should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just
burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who
sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again
for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Signed,

An adoring fan

Nice work Space Ninja :)

So you wanna marry/have sex with a dude?

I'm not saying that I do, I'm just saying that if I want to get married with a guy I should be able to. The same way if I wanted to get married to a woman I should be able to as well.

And you may not have sex relations with your neighbour's wife, making yourself unclean with her.

WHAT?!? Can i still whack off to girl-next-door porn?

Hahah, good find Space Ninja :)

I am AGAINST allowing gays to marry.

I am, however, FOR allowing legal recognition of a gay relationship, albeit under a different name/law to marriage.

Why not marriage? I don't get it?

The reason 2000+ years ago religion made a big deal about pre marital sex was to reduce the spread of STD's which was a major issue.

For all the religious zealots I respect your right to believe in what you want, but if can't love thy neighbour and get along regardless of what they believe in then you obviously missing the point about your choosen religion.

As for gay marriages, call it something else but allow them the same rights as married people if they enter into a "life" partnership, after all marriage failure rates are approaching 50% so it isn't always forever after.

I am against gays altogether, it isnt natural, good good good i say.

I am against gays altogether, it isnt natural, good good good i say.

How isn't it natural?

The ass should only have one way traffic....out.

I am against gays altogether, it isnt natural, good good good i say.

Actually alot of species exhibit homosexual acts a ways of dominating a lessor, so if that isn't nature what is. e.g. Baboons, dogs, chimps.

hehe, I like threads like these.

Thet always expose the bigoted narrow minded rednecks amongst us (dangles, Astroboy).

last edited by fpot at 18:13:49 27/Apr/04

Thet always expose the biggoted narrow minded rednecks amongst us (dangles, Astroboy).

You idiot, How am i a redneck by saying dick doesnt go in ass?

It doesn't matter if you think it's right or wrong... every human has rights, and the government should be not allowed to tell them who they can and can't marry.

You idiot, How am i a redneck by saying dick doesnt go in ass?

Because, if you are gay, it does.

what are you tasmanian?

Straight guys can have anal you know..and I'm sure there are plenty of gay guys that have never taken it up the ass either.

You idiot, How am i a redneck by saying dick doesnt go in ass?

Learn your anatomy and read up on HIN YIN (hetro headjob technic of the Japanese).

I thought that marriage is actually all based on religion, hence being in a church and by a priest, ect ect.

So then you cant really say that religion has nothing to do with it because marriage is a religious act, is it not?

I agree marriage is stupid.

They need to invent some sort of non-religious marriage, and us people less brainwashed and gays can use that.

I remember going to my nana's funeral, and the whole time the dude doing the eulogy was going on and on about f***ing god, and I felt like telling him to stfu and talk more about the person in the casket.

Pfft who cares? Can anyone take religion seriously today? Just let them get married ffs.

Its a legal act in todays world, allow for the couple to recieve Tax benifits and a whole host of financial benifits associated with the contracted (marriage certificate) union. Try and buy a house as a single, then try as a couple, even if the income is the same (usually both parties are working), health cover, life insurance, all benifit the union of a couple.

Not to mention estate claim in the event of death.

Tim go f*** your boyfreind and shut up, I mean who cares, I certainly don't care if gays can't marry there is no need for them to marry.

There's no need for hetero couples to get married either... it's a choice, and there is no difference between straight and gay couples getting married.

better add spoon to the redneck loser list

its a shame that we cant get rid of religion in marriage

its pissing me off massively that i have to get counciling to live with my woman

ive been at it for 10 years, i dont need someone else telling me what i have to do to get along with my woman

Have you even being reading this thread?

Getting married is a religious act, and religion states that it is wrong. As someone said before they are attention seaking whores. They know that they are a couple, what are they trying to prove?

Bolded, just for those who are slow like Astro-I read at a 3rd Grade Level-boy here.

Its a legal act in todays world, allow for the couple to recieve Tax benifits and a whole host of financial benifits associated with the contracted (marriage certificate) union. Try and buy a house as a single, then try as a couple, even if the income is the same (usually both parties are working), health cover, life insurance, all benifit the union of a couple.

I don't think you've been reading this thread. Astroboy

Getting married is not necessarily a religious act, sure it used to be but I know of f***loads of people that have been married and it had NOTHING to do with religion..you just don't have it at a church..f***ing moron.

last edited by Tim Tibbetts at 18:29:49 27/Apr/04

Oh my!

Who does the ceremony?

He is speaking in a no direct way, it does have legal benefits. If it was all legal then you would have a lawyer or a taxation officer doing it

last edited by Astroboy at 18:33:37 27/Apr/04

Someone with a marriage license.

i dont think there was a preist at britanys wedding =)

Astrboy that's a load of cods whallop.

Before you go on about gays getting married to become attention whores to scam the system, why don't you look at heterosexul marriages first.

There is a large percentage of people who get married and have at least 5 kids just to get that extra bit of money.

No government has the right to say yes or no to a persons marriage, no matter if a man is marrying a woman or a man to man marriage or woman to woman marriage. They have no say all together. It is a commitment between the two people not the two people and the government.

Who does the ceromony?

a non denominal celebrant

last edited by Spook at 18:35:16 27/Apr/04

You can be married by a marriage celebrate which is a non religious event, interestingly they are usually a JP (Justice of the Peace) as well, because they need to witness legally binding obligation and documents.

Im going. I do agree everyone can have their own views and mine is that i prefer women. If you guys have different views to that, that is your problem

You liking woman should have NOTHING to do with whether or not you should agree or disagree with gay marriage.

What does come into play is that you're a biggoted mindless s*** head.

Why does one of them have a sex change and become a female it can be done.

I don't hate gays, but I fail to see where the big hip hup is over this thing, and isn't there something where if you have been with a partner for ex amount of time you can get some huge bonuses with centrelink etc etc.

I dont mind a gay couple having the same rights as a married couple but I do think it should have a different term, the word marriage has a history and connetations that dont really relate to a samesex marrige, I dont really want to get into this discussion so I'm not going to bother replying again in this thread ;)

dick in arse doesn't = gay just ask jenna jameson and jodie moore.

spidz's comment is the only important thing to come out of this tread

Get over it vert... great, lets discriminate against gays, now they can't get "married", it has to be something different.

I think its uncomprehensible that johnny (or bush!) can, in this day in age, make such a stupid proposal.

Fact of the matter is, they CAN do it. So let's stop bitching, we can't change it.

Could you expect much more from someone with a sig like that?

dick in arse doesn't = gay just ask jenna jameson and jodie moore

well i was watching this ali g episode where he interviewd jenna and she said shed never done anal =)

^ porn noob

Doesn't the bible say its a sin to watch porn and beat off as well?

Isn't it also a sin to eat bacon cause pigs are unclean?

Isn't it also a sin to do anything on Sunday besides go to church?

Isn't also a sin to do anything fun?

I think the fact that he can even think of implementing this 'law' just shows how barbaric he is being.

He can marry the person he loves, why can't someone else? It is about love and commitment, not dangly bits or the absence of dangly bits. Marriage as such is hardly about religion anymore, but a commitment. So if it isn't about religion anymore, why base who can or can't get married by the bible.

I am sure if HE was gay, he wouldn't bring in this ruling.

I am sick of watching people sit in their little box and ignore that anything else outside it happens, especially that something outside their little life that doesn't affect them actually affects OTHERS

"Denying same-sex couples the right to any formal legal recognition of their unions just imposes social, legal and financial discrimination on them and any children they may be raising."

Easy solution, don't let them have kids.

there should be a law passed that recognizeses these relationships without the need for marraige.

I agree. I'm not a religious wacko who thinks God gave us marriage or somes*** like that, i just think that its something way more profound than just a legal bonding. I'm also against science messing with reproduction, including IVF.

Also, just to be clear one of the above comments was a troll with a little bit of seriousness, and the other was a serious post with a little bit of troll.

Yes, marriage IS something more profound then legal bonding... and that's what the gays want. They share as much love as a hetero couple, why deny them a proper marriage and pass them off with a "poorbo gay, legal couple" contract.

I'm getting some serious de ja vu here.

Haven't all these arguments been done not long ago?

I think the summary last time was call it something else - marriage is a term related with religion

i just think this shows how much of a mindless idiot john howard is, anything bush does howard is sure to follow.

last edited by Irhabi at 19:12:49 27/Apr/04

This is not the simple issue people are making it out to be, there is hypocrisy on both sides.
The way I see it I think gay people should be allowed to marry and have all the legal rights of a male/female couple, however a gay marriage differs from a straight one in that it's not "holy matrimony". This is a religious ceremony tied to the couples intent to bear offspring, and I doubt you'll be seeing two blokes tie the knot in a church anytime soon.
So a gay marriage would be like any other marriage outside of a church as it is not performed "under God", and the ceremony would have to reflect that.
The cause of the problem here is that there would be gay people who are religious as well and want their union to be recognised by the church, but obviously that is never going to happen.

"Denying same-sex couples the right to any formal legal recognition of their unions just imposes social, legal and financial discrimination on them and any children they may be raising."

Gay means dykes as well, and plenty of them have children, and are biologically eqiped for the job as well. I know of 2 gay men that have childern from being married when they where young and confussed about their sexuality and felt compelled by societies morals.

Only those who are insecure with there own sexuality feel threaten by those with a different point of view on the subject.

I think Kat is right on target ...

This is not the simple issue people are making it out to be, there is hypocrisy on both sides.
The way I see it I think gay people should be allowed to marry and have all the legal rights of a male/female couple, however a gay marriage differs from a straight one in that it's not "holy matrimony". This is a religious ceremony tied to the couples intent to bear offspring, and I doubt you'll be seeing two blokes tie the knot in a church anytime soon.
So a gay marriage would be like any other marriage outside of a church as it is not performed "under God", and the ceremony would have to reflect that.
The cause of the problem here is that there would be gay people who are religious as well and want their union to be recognised by the church, but obviously that is never going to happen.

yes but making it leagal or illeagal wont affect how the church see's this type of marriage

marriage is a term related with religion

In who's eyes and for who? Catholics? HA

For me marriage is about a commitment bigger than 'partner' or 'defacto' which isn't as easy to just 'walk away from'. For me marriage is for life and the good, the bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to do with 'god'.

I am sure I am not alone in that thinking

last edited by Kat at 19:21:02 27/Apr/04

thats f***ed, what a wanker, the world is so f***ed lately.

Gay means dykes as well, and plenty of them have children, and are biologically eqiped for the job as well.

Lesbian couples aren't biological equiped for having kids, unless i missed something important about lesbians.

Also, can we keep the f***ing religion out of this thread. Unless god himself decides to post with his views, i think we can safely say its irrelevant.

Lesbian couples aren't biological equiped for having kids, unless i missed something important about lesbians.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/22/MNGHD692EA1.DTL

last edited by Kat at 19:30:03 27/Apr/04

most gays only get married to be attention whores anyway

Oh, right.

most gays only get married to be attention whores anyway

Maybe on your favourite show, Jerry Springer

really, Marriage isn't a right, it's a privledge.
You can't marry your sister (hyuck), but what if you really loved her?

I'm not against gay marriage - in fact governmently speaking there are many benefits (at the moment, gay couples don't need to declare their relationship, thus continue to get full benefits from Centrelink) but, meh, no one needs to get married these days, once as you live with them fgor 6 months you're entitled to half their crap.

No need for anyone to get their panties in a knot..

Grosby, and if someone told you that you couldn't marry Moo? What would you say 'Oh well, I suppose we don't have to anyway'??? I think not

It is easy to 'agree' when it doesn't effect you, isn't it?

No.. I'd pretty much shrug - it's only a boring piece of paper and a change of last name.
We've been living together since we started going out - it's not as if anything will change once as we get hitched.

She would still be in a relationship with him, they can make their own vowes to offer each others love and happieness until they die, it doesn't need to be said in front of a priest/marriage guy.

So why get hitched then?

You then sit here telling gay's that they should just shrug it off when they DON'T have the freedom of choice. Yet you do and even though you think it is just a peice of paper you still chose to get married and are allowed too.

How dare you sit here saying it means nothing to you and yet you still go ahead with it and then turn around saying gay's should just accept it because 'it isn't big deal anyway'.

Easy for you to say missy when you CAN get married even though it means jack to you.

last edited by Kat at 19:48:46 27/Apr/04

Naw, more for the in-laws so that it's 'right' that we start having kiddlios. 9_9
And that it's 'right' that we're living together.

Don't push aside all thsoe people that say it's a religious thing - trust me, it is.

In this scenario, eggs would be surgically removed from each woman, altered and combined in a laboratory dish to produce an embryo that could be implanted in one of the women and carried to term. Each female parent would contribute equally to the child's genetic makeup, and the absence of male chromosomes would result in daughters only.

Yeah good one Kat.

I did say biological equiped, its also possible for a male to take a baby to term, but its got nothing to do with gay marriage.

I f***ing rofled when kat said HOW DARE YOU hahaahhahhAHHAHA

I f***ing rofled when kat said HOW DARE YOU hahaahhahhAHHAHA

It was the "missy" comment that got me giggling :D

Naw, more for the in-laws so that it's 'right' that we start having kiddlios. 9_9
And that it's 'right' that we're living together.

Oh so we should be letting people like you, who do it to please other people, get married instead of people who actually love each other and want to get married, but happen to have two grooms?

Right, how silly of me

http://godd.no-ip.org/-=pics=-/forum/yapyapyap.gif

Never said I do'nt love the guy, but as I said, getting married won't change anything - again it's not a right of anyone.

Stop bitching, she has an oppinion and so do you, both are validated. No need to push yours onto grosby Kat.

Grosby, I never said you didn't love him, I said you are getting married for the wrong reasons and yet you still seem to think it is okay to get married EVEN though it 'doesn't change anything' and yet when speaking of gay couples getting married you expect them to just accept it doesn't mean anything and get over it.

You have the choice, they don't. It doesn't 'change' anything in yor eyes and yet you still get married.
Don't you see how selfish and hypocritical your stance is?

'I can but don't have to so I will. They want to, but can't HA HA they should just get over it'

Oh so we should be letting people like you, who do it to please other people, get married instead of people who actually love each other and want to get married, but happen to have two grooms?

2 grooms? So what there is 3 guys now or 4? I thought we were talking about gay marriages, not polyhomogymous ones.

What are the right reasons to get married?

Rofl its not as if she is getting married to rub the gays face in it, as you point it out to be, she has said why she is getting married.

Build a f***ing bridge and get over it, and like I said in previous post both points are validated so push yours on someone who doesn't agree.

nF, will you marry me?

haha nice pic grosby - oh and I don't think single mother should be able get married either :P

I am willing to carry a baby to the third trimester for anyone if they want. [Kat science]

I've got two female freinds in the other room trying to make babies at the moment, they read that kat said they were biologically equipped, they may be there for a while.

I'll come over with an industrial sized bag of popcorn and some warm olive oil..

And supervise.

Umm guys, I didn't say anything, I posted a link, nothing more.

I guess this means all you fags will have to get married before he brings in this new law :p

What was your point to posting it then?

What was your point to posting it then?

You said two 'lesbians' i.e. females can't have a child, I posted a link which proves that two females (of a specific species) can, what the f*** is your point?

He said they wern't biologically equipped he didn't say they couldn't have children.

Kat, still waiting on you to enlighten me as to the right reasons to get married..

Honestly, who gives a f*** about the rights of homosexual men. When there are ppl dying of starvation in the world!?

As far as I'm concerned once you stick your penis in another mans anus and call it 'love' you have no crediblitly anyway.

I said biologically equiped. No matter how long two lesbians spend fingering, 69ing or going down on each other neither of them will ever get pregnant. When i say biologically equiped i generally mean something that happens, say in a bedroom, kitchen or perhaps public toilet. Generally I don't mean a laboratory, with a large crew of reproductive scientists, microscopes and whatnot.

But, hey, you've probably tried it.

As far as I'm concerned once you stick your penis in another mans anus and call it 'love' you have no crediblitly anyway.

But if a man sticks his in a females arse, his credibility goes up to shots instead of beer...right?

A man only does that to protest the lack of legal gay marriages.

Kat you got some catching up to do, answer some of grosbys posts please, I would also like to see what you think the right reasons for marrying are.

No I dont agree that men give each other credit if they stiff their gf's up the clacker. As far as I'm concerned your arsehole isnt for sex for either man or woman. It's unhygenic and disgusting.

Needless to say I wouldn't want to be stuck anywhere remote with any bloke who does his missus in the cake-hole!

spoon: well it sure aint to please the grandmother so you can hump your 'husband's' brains out and have it be 'okay' because you are married.

I know MY reasons for getting married and I am not about to preach to others why they should or should not get married.

My point to Grosby was not WHY she is getting married, but that she says there is no point because it doesn't change anything and gay's should accept that, however she get's married anyways and leaves the gay couples without the choice and freedom that she has.

No, I was saying that getting married isn't a right, and it's no biggie. Then you said something about not getting married for the right reasons and I would like to hear those reasons.

Gays shoudl accept it, just like taswegians (sp) should.

It's not a right. I have nothing about homosexuality what so ever, but I don't understand the big deal getting married.

Kat brings out the old "I'm not gonna preach" story whenever she has nothing to say. Actually that's a good thing :p

My point to Grosby was not WHY she is getting married, but that she says there is no point because it doesn't change anything and gay's should accept that, however she get's married anyways and leaves the gay couples without the choice and freedom that she has.

Sure sucks to be gay then doesn't it.

I don't have the sense of fashion and style or the appreciation for the arts that a gay guy has, do you hear me complaining?

but I don't understand the big deal getting married.

Says you who is getting married.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/qgl/20.gif

poo pushing is bad mmm k ?

People who do not have the equipment to create babies themselves should not have a child.

(ie man + women.)

I say let them be gay, but dont bring children into it.

oh yeah and marriage is for man + women. Gays need something else, FFS, they wanna be different, so why not get some other form of official bonding for gays.

Marriage is clearly just like Cartman World then.

Says you who is getting married.

And I explained why. *shrug*
of COURSE you get married for other people - marriage is all about acceptance.

Grosby: omg, you have NO idea what point I am trying to make do you Nikki?

Wow, you are REALLY slow

No, it is you who cannot get the points.

It's getting tired Kat, just admit it that you don't have a substanial argument.

Your point is that she has the chance to get married etc while gays do not, she says she would shrug it off if she didn't have the right to marry.

Perhaps it is YOU who is the slow one?

Vote 1 Grosby

thank you, thank you. See me next taking on Duston Diamond :D

This thread is worthless with out lesbian spoot.

But if a man sticks his in a females arse, his credibility goes up to shots instead of beer...right?

if its a random its ok, but not if its his gf or wife :P

http://members.optushome.com.au/alocin/Pictures/taylor-little05.jpg
There you go.
Making babies, biologically.

the way i see it - kat had a go at Grosby for getting married when she claims it not to be that bigger deal, Grosby told here the reasons she was getting married, Kat said they weren't the right reasons and now Grosby wants to know why her reasons for making the choice to get married aren't good enough for Kat.

now the key word there was choice. Kat makes a decent point because Grosby says she makes the choice to be married cause it makes her lifestyle more acceptable to elderly relatives - well I'd hate to see how hard it would be for you to make your lifestyle acceptable to said relatives if yuo were gay. At least you have the choice....

still Kat is skirting the questions which isn't cricket.

Grosby you porn freak :)

ok don't get me wrong here i will be reading the whole thread (am cooking atm so in and out) but i have just one thing to say and its about this

The proposal would be to simply insert a definition in the Marriage Act which gives formal expression to what most people regard to be the case - and that is marriage, as we understand it in Australia, is between a man and woman," Mr Howard said

Now i don't know about anyone else but considering we live in one of the most culturly diverse countries in the world i would say that australia is also one of the most tolerent and open countries. My point is his idea of what most ppl regard are probley from some upperclass snobs in a wine club not the common ppl. If this goes in expect johnny to be out next election and to be lynched 5 minutes later

I'm glad I don't fit Little Johnny's idea of most people.

People should be able to marry anyone over the age of consent regardless of their sexual preference. Howard's bias against a minority group to which he doesn't belong doesn't justify legal discrimination.

Can't wait to vote him out at the next election.

Sadly the grannies of the nation think he is cute

I'd vote for Johnny over lefty.

How can someone be anti war, yet try break some taxi drivers arm cause he said something to him.

I have a lot more respect for Johnny even if i don't like him, probably because he isn't struggling to be liked and being a whore to everyone.

Then again, i'll probably informal vote next election.

hhmmm..

the point is that the gov. would have to provide all the services to the gay married couples which hetero married couples already get..

some of these services (i.e. ivf) costs tons of money and was introduced for married couples who are down on their luck having kids..

if the heathly gay girls get ivf for just having kids willy nilly because they can/want to, then the families with the real health problems will get pushed back in the line and get less and less services..

there is a number of other services which are not really made for or suitable for gay married couples..
(go and search for them, you might learn something..)

if they are going to recognise gay couples then the gov needs to change a lot of rules and this will be seen as discrimination agaisnt gays big time..

when i mean big time, i mean big time money and lots of it.. sue.. sue.. sue..

don't fool yourselves, this is all about money and the gov is already streached thin on the money part..

me? i really don't give a s*** if gay couples marry or not, i have more important things to think/worry about..

he isn't struggling to be liked and being a whore to everyone.

Just George, but that is okay


Ih yes and if you hadn't noticed, IVF and Marriage are two totally different topics

last edited by Kat at 21:55:10 27/Apr/04

grosby's got nothing on necra, c'mon necra your skills are needed here :)

yes, but they really are totally related as well..

always look at the big picture.. ;)

If you keep looking at the 'big picture' you usually end up missing the point

LOL..

necra is scary but grosby will smack me when i next see her if i say anything wrong hehe

I think people should have the choice to burn in hell.

IVF is related because as has been said before lesbians can't have their own biological kids.

Adoption is also related cause gays can't have kids either, and some lesbians might take this route too. (heh, i said route).

Adoption is a hot point, cause there is already a huge backorder on new borns. And no grown kid is going to want to get adopted by Mr and Mr Smith.

http://images.google.com/images?q=lesbians&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

Kat's right, Grosby says what she is saying now, but watch her explode if her right... no no PRIVLEDGE of marriage was taken away from her.

Grosby, I never said you didn't love him, I said you are getting married for the wrong reasons and yet you still seem to think it is okay to get married EVEN though it 'doesn't change anything' and yet when speaking of gay couples getting married you expect them to just accept it doesn't mean anything and get over it.

kat HOW DARE YOU dictate to anyone what is the rite reason to get married people get married for there own reasons, and its none of your business, nor is it your rite to tell them that they are getting married for the wrong reason.

also i agree wih Grosby, marrage dont change a thing. all it is, is a peice of paper and alot of money, at the end of the day, she will still be living with her man, she will still love him the same, and nothing will be diferent.

last edited by Irhabi at 22:20:27 27/Apr/04

last edited by Irhabi at 22:23:21 27/Apr/04

last edited by Irhabi at 22:24:57 27/Apr/04

kat HOW DEAR YOU

hehe if you want to make a good impact, spell it right

hehe, and he even edited it and the mistake is still there.

better luck next time buddy.

meh new to english, also i couldn't care less

last edited by Irhabi at 22:25:57 27/Apr/04

so has kat been flamed yet or what?

the only problem i have with it is that its going to continue snowballing. it wasnt to long ago that gays were looked upon similar to leppers. now they have concerts tv shows and nuclear warheads. where will it end?

jonny will still be pm cause despite a few minor issues such as this he is still the best candidate for PM and is the leader of the party with by far and away the best policies.

oh and kat you havent answerd my question yet, what gives you the rite to tell people that they are getting married for the wrong reason(if there is a spelling mistake i dont give a rats.)

jonny will still be pm cause despite a few minor issues such as this he is still the best candidate for PM and is the leader of the party with by far and away the best policies.

yaeh the copy lets George W bush policie.

last edited by Irhabi at 22:41:45 27/Apr/04

the use of your double copy there just blew my mind

men shouldn't marry eachother

gg howard

Irhabi: Well hey, to me getting married so the older people in your family feel comfortable with you porking is wrong, VERY VERY WRONG *shudder*. Call me crazy.

What gives me the right? I give myself that right to express my view's to which no one has proven me wrong, other than flames, with no actual arguemets.

This is a forum, we exchange views and opinions. You can sit here and go 'thats bs' or flame all you like, but until you actually bring a point to the discussion and destruct my arguement outside of your poor english and flaming skills, you are just another 'voice in the crowd'.

With valid points and break downs of her post, Nikki didn't even bother to think outside her square. She has blinkers on and ignorance is easier for her to deal with and if that suits her then more power to her.

Make a valid point and you may get me to think outside my square, but I have yet to see that happen

the use of your double copy there just blew my mind

yeah well you got a small mind then.

What gives me the right? I give myself that right to express my view's

express your views, well then how about you back them up, you tell her she is doing it for the wrong reason, then when asked you say you dont wanna preach about it, well you alread have, so either give reasons or dont post your views.

Irhabi: Well hey, to me getting married so the older people in your family feel comfortable with you porking is wrong, VERY VERY WRONG *shudder*. Call me crazy.

explain that cause it makes no sense

last edited by Irhabi at 22:46:59 27/Apr/04

last edited by Irhabi at 22:50:21 27/Apr/04

what blinkers?
I'm waiting for valid arguments from you - and for you to back up what you've said.

I didn't say it was so the 'older members' of the family accept us porking. I said it was so the in-laws (note: In-laws aren't always older. Just more religious) and others are accepting of our relationship and of our future choices to start a family.

Also, as I said, marriage is about acceptance - think about it, if you didn't need to be 'accepted' as a couple, you wouldn't need to get married. What's the point of getting married other than the big white frock and the holiday :D

Get it right Kat. I am in no way homophobic, in fact I do lead most arguments against homophobia with friends, I just don't see what the big deal is about getting married. Hell, if they love each other that much, why not just opt for the whole commitment ceremony - it's the same s***, different smell.

express your views, well then who about you back them up, you tell her she is doing it for the wrong reason, then when asked you say you dont wanna preach about it, well you alread have, so either give reasons or dont post your views.

Dude f***ing learn to type or at least MAKE SENSE.

My issues about her getting married for the 'right reasons' only came about due to her saying gay's have no 'need' to get married and should just accept that it isn't any special. While she is getting married to plese elderly people in their families (or so she says), all while saying that marriage isn't a big deal, but getting married anyways.

If it isn't a big deal then why say gay's shouldn't get married because it doesn't change anything, while getting married yourself, only to please others.

I don't claim that people shouldn't drive cars, because all it do is polute the enviroment and then hop in my car and drive away, now do I?


Nikki, please read what you are typing

I said it was so the in-laws (note: In-laws aren't always older. Just more religious) and others are accepting of our relationship.....

then you say

I just don't see what the big deal is about getting married. Hell, if they love each other that much, why not just opt for the whole commitment ceremony -

Why can YOU get married for ANY reason, but they can't?


last edited by Kat at 22:54:03 27/Apr/04

I don't claim that people shouldn't drive cars, because all it do is polute the enviroment and then hop in my car and drive away, now do I?

i dont know, never spoke to you bout car polution, nor do i know if you own a car. pluss thats diferent

last edited by Irhabi at 22:53:47 27/Apr/04

i dont know, never spoke to you bout car polution, nor do i know if you own a car. pluss thats diferent

It is NO different.

claiming that people shouldn't drive cars, because all it do is polute the enviroment and then hop in your car and drive away is practically the same as saying gay people shouldn't have to get married because it doesn't change anything because it is just a peice of paper and then go ahead and get your hetrosexual self married so that peice of paper pleases your inlaws.

fook gay marriages off. They're token marriages and cheapen real marriages.

why do you have a problem with her reason for getting married its none of your business.
if thats why she wanted to do then whats it to you.


last edited by Irhabi at 23:02:30 27/Apr/04

fook gay marriages off. They're token marriages and cheapen real marriages.

Marriages to prove a point to in laws cheapens REAL marriages.
Marriages based on materialistic things and money cheapen REAL marriages.

I don't sit here and claim that these things won't happen with gay marriages, but trying to sit here and make your so called 'real' marriages of the hetro kind as pure and perfect is just stupid.

why do you have a problem with her reason for getting married its none of your business.
if thats why she wantd to do then whats it to you.

I couldn't care less why SHE is getting married. My issue is with her saying gay's shouldn't get married because it doesn't mean anything, then getting married herself to make it 'mean something'. If it didn't mean anything then SHE wouldn't be getting married herself. Double standards, but only when it doesn't effect her.

All she is saying is they shouldnt be making a big stink over it. its not a big deal.

All she is saying is they shouldnt be making a big stink over it. its not a big deal.

DING DING DING
ANd the one who's new to english understands!

Sorry I didn't realise you were a lesbian kat. Got pics?

last edited by Stez at 23:17:37 27/Apr/04

claiming that people shouldn't drive cars, because all it do is polute the enviroment and then hop in your car and drive away is practically the same as saying gay people shouldn't have to get married because it doesn't change anything because it is just a peice of paper and then go ahead and get your hetrosexual self married so that peice of paper pleases your inlaws.

That's a long sentance. Have you tried puntuating? What does 'all it do' mean?

last edited by möoby at 23:27:24 27/Apr/04

Just say NO to gay marriages. I want a Guantamano Gay, and send all the gay people there. Cept the Fab 5 coz they give cool stuffs to straight ppl.

I think we should all take a step back and consider the anti terrorist implications.

yaeh the copy lets George W bush policie.

last edited by Irhabi at 22:41:45 27/Apr/04

What exactly did you fix in that edit?

Hah, I read the first page of this thread then I read tha last page. Spastics.


Also, Im against gay marriages.

I dont think homosexuality is the natural order of things, and I beleive marriage is an institution made to preserve the natural order of things.

I dont have a problem with gay people at all, taking a long one in the wrong one pales in comparison to the f***ed up s*** ive seen on the internet...

http://www.1077thebone.com/jocks/lnt/goofy/images/lesbians.jpg

^ Would you like to be raised by these people?

Especially that butch chick up the back in the police uniform, whats going on there.

hehe nf

Don't push aside all thsoe people that say it's a religious thing - trust me, it is.

It is for religious people. It isn’t for people who are not religious.

I think men should be able to get marry so Obes could finally fulfilled his fantasy of wearing a white wedding dress and publicly displayed his flamboyant homosexuality.

last edited by Opec at 00:54:06 28/Apr/04

Irhabis a homo

Irhabi: Well hey, to me getting married so the older people in your family feel comfortable with you porking is wrong, VERY VERY WRONG *shudder*.

why maybe what the people think is important to here and she respects their views and seeing its no big deal to her its a nice gesture to make someone else happy.

Dude f***ing learn to type or at least MAKE SENSE.

the guys is new to english he has stated that, now give him a break or try talking in whatever his language is.

With valid points and break downs of her post, Nikki didn't even bother to think outside her square. She has blinkers on and ignorance is easier for her to deal with and if that suits her then more power to her.

she has made her point several times and and asked you a question several times which you are still yet to address.


oh and can someone pls point me to the policies Howard copies from Bush - I mean political campaign policies here ppl.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Oh also, didn't stop Dennis Rodman did it Opec?

the beginning of the newest testament

00:00 Do not follow the ways of the elders, for they have been made unclean: I am the cluepon.

Last page of the bible: "Haha, fooled you stupid f***s."

Haha Gays are f*****s, f*****s don't marry other f*****s, they just take it up the ass.

I think that by saying that gays cannot marry you're basically setting a precedent for something higher up.

You're basically saying that gay relationships don't have a place in society, and you're belittling them. Once this starts, then we're all f***ed.

Also, explain to me how saying that gays can't marry is any different to so many years ago it was illegal for a white and a black person to get married? It isn't black people were considered "lesser" than white (same as gays), basically saying that gay people can't marry is going to confirm that on a legal level as well.

ok, im also adding primal to the losers list

i would add paradong, but hes been there from teh start

marriage should be about love and commitment

i cant see no reason y any 2 people cant manage that (regardless of their sex)

call it something different if you want (if thers a non religious option, ill sign up myself) but i hardly think thats necessary

jeez, once again qgl saddens me with all the sad f***s and their backwards attitudes

What i don't get is, every churchie i've talked to has said that 'god has planned out everyones life' <- so their life to be gay was also planned out. Also science has shown that authentic homosexuals don't really have much of a choice.

Also, just because religion says it shouldnt be done, how many people f***ing believe in any of that bulls***? its ok for people to have their rights taken away just because the religion says so?

1 f***ed up thing i've seen, i know some people who are fully into their religion (mormons :/) and they say 'every f***** should be taken out to a field and shot' <- i thought it said in the bible that no one should kill... how religious are they now? I thought it also said in the bible that you shouldnt steal - does that make it okay to steal peoples rights?

Grosby, It is obviously clear that you can't grasp that some people get married because they want to commit to a life long partnership through marriage. Your 'stance' would be feesable if others didn't hold marriage as anything more than 'keeping the in laws happy'.

Some people deeply love each other and want others to recognise that LOVE (not ability to have kids and it be okay by the man upstairs like you) and commitment and yet they can't in your eyes because they are gay, but people like you who make a mockary of marriage and what it stands for can get married in any wedding chapel anyday of the week and it be okay.

Marriage is about commitment, trust, and love. More straight people get married without these feelings and 'offerings' these days, so in essence you are saying people who don't give a s*** about marriage should be able to marry, but those who love each other and fight for the right, can't, simply because they are homosexual?

It you were homosexual and your choice (even if you never chose to make it) was taken away, YOU would not be 'shurgging it off'

But you can have commitment, love and trust without being married.

Again, marriage is about being accepted as a couple - not much to do with being together at all, and I agree that gay people should have the choice to get married, however it's not a right and it's not a big deal.

Sheesh!!

A wise person once said (one of you, in another one of the gay related threads)
something like this

for every 2 gay guys there are, there are 2 more chicks we/i can score with

Credits to who ever said it, i just can't find the thread coz the QGL Search is so damn dodgy!

i don't personally have anything against gays but i do have a problem with recognising the value of their relationships to society as being equal to heterosexual families.

they cannot bear children and cannot sustain the population.

i know i have previously referred to the breakdown of established institutions due to evolving industry and culture e.g. religion - why do people still quote the bible!? this outdtaes many of the notions stated in the bible as people devalue its relevance.

sure the gays probably do love each other blah blah but society must have basic standards. i think johnny is just saying what is on every middle australian's mind.

sure let the gays have their fun but don't for a second let them think their union is as respected as a proper family.

as for the adoption/IVF argument - well i wasn't going to comment last time but this time i will: if they can't have their own through conventional means why let them have children alternatively.

fertility treatment and adoption are remedies for couples who BUT FOR their medical complication would have had children - not for couples who are unable to have children by biolgical design!

IVF and Gay Marriages are two totally different topics.

Will you guys stop trying to 'look at the big picture' when most gay couples who want to get married don't want to 'raise a family' they just *gasp* WANT TO GET MARRIED

By your logic, Male and Female couples who can't procreate shouldn't be able to get married either...pfft

last edited by Kat at 08:36:07 28/Apr/04

first define love:

the chemical attraction between two human beings allowing them to procreate and continue the human speicies.


8==> <==8

it doesnt work f***heads

also kat why do you whinge about getting flamed then go and dig your own grave with your sensless ramblings in touchy threads like this one?

aawww... spook i am hurt.. NOT!!

:P

i am not saying that i am agaisnt it, all i am saying is that there are a whole stack of other considerations to think about when passing a law like this..

welcome to the world of politics..

they cannot bear children and cannot sustain the population.

Personally, I don't see anything cosmically noble about having children. Blah blah blah overpopulation blah unemployment blah end of the world as we know it.

Irhabis a homo

you a f***ing idiot

well i have my own personal opinion about gays, but that doesnt mean we should take away there rites.

290: read the thread before you post you idiot.
just becuase im saying that they are still human and shouldn't have there rites infringed on, dont make me a homo. get a f***ing clue.

last edited by Irhabi at 11:26:52 28/Apr/04

It you were homosexual and your choice (even if you never chose to make it) was taken away, YOU would not be 'shurgging it off'

It's been stated again and again. No one is taking anything away from same sex couples. They were never allowed to get married befor, and they aren't now. If you want to get technicle, they have the same rights to marry as everyone else in this country.

This is not just a matter for gays, this effects "straight" people as well. If same sex marriage was allowed then that would be a right for heterosexuals as well, and apparently we don't want that right extended to us.

the chemical attraction between two human beings allowing them to procreate and continue the human speicies.


8==> <==8

it doesnt work f***heads

So you don't love your father,grandfather and brothers?

Also if love means sexual and reproduction how about your mom,grandmother and sisters?

Love is not sexual.

Personaly, I think marriage should be reserved ONLY for couples wishing to create a family unit. It should be this (marriage license) and this alone which grants human the PRIVILEDGE (no, I don't think it's a right as some people sure as s*** don't deserve to) to breed. Any pregnancies that happen outside of wedlock, should be just terminated. So, if your not willing to breed an obtain a license to do so, then you shouldn't be allowed to marry.

woah I look forward to kats response to that post^^^

LOL at nazi hermi..

population control at that level will prolly be introduced in aus many, many years from now, china has already got some form of it..

fags dont deserve rites.

besides, getting married is for suckers.

population control at that level will prolly be introduced in aus many, many years from now, china has already got some form of it..

China are dirty commy bastards, we're a democracy, population control to the extent of forced abortions will never happen in Australia. Infact the only reason we have a positive population growth is due to imagration, because the older population is dying off faster then babies are being born. Why do you think there are so many benifits given to families. If the government want to slow down the population growth of this country all they have to do is cut down the number of immigrants that are given citizenship each year.

LOL at nazi hermi..

I don't think that I'm a nazi, err, well they did have cooler looking uniforms than the allies, does that count??

Anyway...
The term "married" should be reserved for couples committed (heh, oh the irony *committed*) to raising a family (yes breeding). I do think that their should be regulations in place that prevent any human from just breeding indiscriminately. There are far too many people out there with no means to support their kids either morally or financially). Marriage should then only be permitted to couples who have proven themselves capable of at least providing some quality of life to the offspring (relying on a single parents pension is NOT worthwhile means if this is to be the sole source of income). Marriage comes with financial benefits (differing tax rates etc) an so it should. Same sex marriages are not about creating a family unit as such an so they don't deserve the right for it to be awarded that title. Call it something else, I know, how about "DeFacto" !! Theres a title that comes with all of the legalities of marriage an just as much headache when splitting up.

Like I said, I personally think that Marriage should be associated to a couple that are willing to committ to the raising of a family, an not for some "I want some too cause I should be able to do anything I want and I'm being victimised cause I'm gay" political correctness BULLs***

woah I look forward to kats response to that post^^^

Do you have any other purpose on this forum other than to s*** stir?

A response means it is directed at you and it wasn't directed at me.



last edited by Kat at 14:03:51 28/Apr/04

hahaha - I wasn't stirring s***.

and you seem to respond to alot of posts that are not directed at you so why stop now?

mabe you should look up on the term: in many, many years..

the population of this and every country on this whole earth will increase to a point of self destruction..

we are already using up (and fighting over) the earths resources and will come to the stage of reaching the zen point of death and/or getting off this planet to populate other worlds with human masses..

we will be terraformers, terraforming all the suitable planets to our needs, also mining unsuitable living planets, using up a major amount of resources as we go..

we will be the universes very own form of cancer..

unless our whole planet gets wiped out before any of this happens..

now that is settled, back to topic..

Killing a fetus without the parents consent is defined as murder in many western societies. Hermitech is advocating murder.

It should be this (marriage license) and this alone which grants human the PRIVILEDGE (no, I don't think it's a right as some people sure as s*** don't deserve to) to breed

When it comes to priviledges and rights, they are clearly defined in our society. What you "think", is utterly irrelevant.

Maybe you should look up the term: will never happen.

Industry is driven by war, there is a lot of money to be made and wars will be a continuous part of our world development.

Eventually war will slip out of control of those in power and lead to actual weapons of mass destruction being used, real ones not the kind in Sadams arsenal.

Nuclear war will break out, followed by a nuclear winter.

The few survivors left will live deep underground to escape the radiation, only to emerge generations latter with forgotten knowledge of technology and a primitive concept of society.

Unless a plague wipes us out first.

Hermitech is advocating murder.

I was speaking of a society in which a license to breed was required, this wouldn't be legally murder

As to abortions (side tracking greatly here), I have given my consent for my partner (at that time) to have an abortion when she fell pregnant and neither of us where in a position to care/nurture/support the child at any forseeable time. I would have no hesitation to do so again should the situation warrant it. To that end, I take steps to ensure that conception doesn't occurr. Not that this (my bit) has anything to do with the discussion on same sex marriage. To me, I think that marriage is an outdated concept, however, I still feel that it should be reserved solely for those with the committment to raising a family, an not for some politically correct bulls***.

Surprised no one else has said it. Short time ago Johnny said he wouldnt recognise them cos "its against the institution of the species" ... which is so true

Marriage promotes offspring which promotes human evolution

Gay marriages do not.

What's so intrinsically good about human evolution and the continuance of the species?

I think your words are insane and that of a madman Hermi.

Continuation of the species requires reproduction a biological activity that has nothing to do with emotion, life long commitment is about emotional attatchment each other. As stated previously many Lesbian couple reproduce using donor sperm, or even finding a willing participant (every mans fantasy 3rd cog in a threesome).

As we are smarter than all other lifeforms on this planet, be are capable of resisting biological instincts, like chocking some dumb s*** to death because he doesn't have a clue of the life experiences to know better, as it is excepted as unsocial behavior, so we are capable of controlling our biologicl urges.

gumby people are talking about marriage for love ok? obviously there are different types of love. the love i defined is the relevent one. dont even start about marrying relations or whatever, thats not love, thats attatchment.

Marriage promotes offspring which promotes human evolution

Gay marriages do not.

agreed

Then where are my weapons of mass destruction?

Nah, not mad, just a personal view that works for me. I don't want kids an I don't want to get married either an I'm not Gay.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that "Gay Marriages" is just the latest bandwagon for the politically correct to jump on an is a load of s***e an I for one have had enough of all this politically correct, don't discriminate against me, can't take responsibility for their own action cause it happened to me as a child or cause I'm part of a minority group" bulls***. You want a minority group? Watch the looks on people when you try explaining to them that you aren't interested in their babies pictures, their telephone calls to their kids on speakerphones so that the whole office can hear. You tell people that you don't want to marry and you don't want to have kids, yet they can assure you (as they know everything) that you will change your mind down the track. Yeah right.. I don't want use an 10 grit electric sander on my nipples right now, but I will change my mind later...

I still however stand by my point that marriage should be reserved solely for those couples committed to raising a family unit with the moral & financial resources that such an important decision an responsibility entails.

jmr how is love different for gays?

Who old are you?

And how does your homophobic redneck arse even know of the gay community apart from your redneck sterotype ideals?

Love is an emotion, it can be felt between men and men and women and women, your precious bible talks about it all the f***en time, Jesus loved all men... he must have been a raving homo.

Again I ask the question, does this mean that male and female hetrosexual couples, who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to get married and should be put in the same 'outcast box' as homosexual couples?

Honestly, who the f*** cares about this s***?

People should just care less. Who cares if gays get married. Who cares if it "cheapens" real marriage.

Do you people honestly care about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry? It won't affect me in the slightest, nor do I really care.

Chub, the point is that just because it doesn't EFFECT YOU doesn't mean it won't effect someone.

God how narrow minded are you?

However if it DID effect you (i.e. you were gay and wanted to marry) you WOULD be passionate about it.

The world today has become to selfish, put yourself in other peoples shoes before judging and making 'should be's'. Just because it doesn't effect you doesn't mean it doesn't effect someone.

God how narrow minded are you?

sif marrige
sif religioin
sif gay
sif john howard

Hey jmr, are you asking god if it's narrow minded?

Kat, I was arguing for gay marriages, like I have the whole post.

I was pointing out that people should "care less" about gays getting married. People are on here, having a huge cry and whinging... for what reason? Do they really feel the need to stop gays getting married?

I'm saying gay marriages won't affect me or anyone else... nor should anyone care, it's none of there business whether or not gays want to get married.

actually i was just testing my html skills seing as tho thread will die soon

i dont beleive in religion and am opposed to people forcing their opinions about it onto other people

i didnt mean to offend you gumby, please dont take my opinion as an attack on your sexuality. also im not a redneck, i have know alot of gays. i dont hate them, and accept them. good luck to you and your relationships

last edited by jmr at 16:36:06 28/Apr/04

ppl are missing the point - nobody is saying they can't get married, they are simply saying that same sex marriage won't be recognised by the govt, just as it isn't recognised by the church.

so whatever your reasons are for marriage, whether you are homo or hetero you can still get married and make the committment or please the folks etc and have the celebration, it just won't be recognised by a large majority of ppl (or minority if you want to argue the point) but who the hell cares what those ppl think.

Yeah that is great

Take two couples

Male and Female & Female and Female.

Male and Female marry been married for 4 years. Male joins the army, dies in battle. Wife gets recognised and gets a pension for pain and suffering.

Female and Female marry. Been married for 10 years. Female one joins the army, dies in battle. Female two gets NOTHING.

and tell me THAT is fair

(note the 'money' issue is not what I want you to concentrate on, I am talking about why one is recognised and one isn't when they are THE SAME)

well i guess that will teach her for leaving the kitchen

have u got any proof to back that statement up kat?

She could have been a cook in the Army

What's so intrinsically good about human evolution and the continuance of the species?

Hopefully, less f***s like you.

Female and Female marry. Been married for 10 years. Female one joins the army, dies in battle. Female two gets NOTHING.

I think thats an extreme example, generally a defacto relationship is treated the same in loads of things now days.

if society is a system, what is the function of the institution of marriage?

it is the formalisation of a union between a man and a woman who wish to eventually have a family.

now what is the reason for two ppl of the same gender to marry. legal recognition of various interests and that is it. they won't be hacving children etc.

all those forms of legal rights can be conferred by wills, trusts and endowments.

to think that gays can consider themselves even in the same boat as procreators (which they make fun of) is an insult.

they want all the tax breaks govt benefits etc without the risks and hardship of raising a family. well i won't vote for it. they can enjoy the "legal" benefits of marriage throgh other means.

I see no one has answered my question yet!

Again I ask the question, does this mean that male and female hetrosexual couples, who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to get married and should be put in the same 'outcast box' as homosexual couples?

to think that gays can consider themselves even in the same boat as procreators (which they make fun of) is an insult.

Uh.. an insult to who, exactly? Why would you even care?

they want all the tax breaks govt benefits etc without the risks and hardship of raising a family. well i won't vote for it. they can enjoy the "legal" benefits of marriage throgh other means.

Yawn. You see, I say yawn, because when I actually yawn, you can't see it.

Personally, I reckon the LESS people out there making babies, the better off we are. Bring on pregnacy licenses!

In my opinion, the government not recognising gay marriages is the same as the government not recognising normal marriages. The government should be all like, "whatever", and stuff. Anything else just seems to be pandering to those stupid redneck bible bashers that can't stop living in the past.

(edit: no offence to any rednecks or bible bashers, you guys are great! really)

last edited by trog at 21:30:23 28/Apr/04

to think that gays can consider themselves even in the same boat as procreators (which they make fun of) is an insult.

I know I am not insulted. Maybe you need to revaluate how comfortable you are in your 'heterosexuality' role

Again I ask the question, does this mean that male and female hetrosexual couples, who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to get married and should be put in the same 'outcast box' as homosexual couples?

Ok, ill have a crack at your questions kat. This is my opinion and it breaks down like this.

1. A gay marriage has NO chance of consiving offspring by natural means. This means if the couple wants a child it requires resources. No, where do these resources come from? Adopting takes alot of money. Its not like buying a dog, parents have to be fit to raise a child. Who decides who is fit? The state at tax payers money.

Now, you could argue that two druggo teenagers could have an unwanted child. Sure, point granted. But that is ALOT harder to inforce via law. That is and should be a seperate argument.

2. Again, if two females want a couple then again it requires resources. Do sperm donators want their child going to a same sex marraige? If they know same sex couples are getting thier sperm, will this decrease donations?

3. Rember the history of mankind spreads some 10,000's of years. It is INANT that children expect a mother and father figure. Development of all of us has come from both our parents. It is way too soon to understand what effects on the child a same sex marraige will have.

There are alot of variables outside of our control in the family model, but same sex marriage is one we can and should control.

Maybe you need to revaluate how comfortable you are in your 'heterosexuality' role

I think you believe that ones feeling towards hemo or hetro sexuality is something the individual can control, similar to a TV via a remote. Well, its not. I feel discusted if i see two men kiss. This is a feeling that i believe is inate to me. Just like 1000's of years of eveloution has told me that eating fatty foods tastes good, so in the hunter/survival aspect of life i will have enough energy supplies to survive.

I ask you this: If four children where raised by themselves say from the age of 7 with no external influences, would they be homo or hetra sexual?

I feel discusted if i see two men kiss. This is a feeling that i believe is inate to me.

Well good for you. I don't find the picture or site of two man kissing very appealing at all, but I can look past my own nose and realise that just because *I* don't think it is very 'cosmetic' that it should be banned.
Ever considered the site of heterosexuals kissing gives them the same grossed out feeling? No of course you haven't, you can't think outside your square.

If four children where raised by themselves say from the age of 7 with no external influences, would they be homo or hetra sexual?

Anyone who even tries to answer that question is stupid. NO ONE can tell you that.

However Nature vs. Nurture is a VERY BIG debate and there is strong evidence to support both sides. Doesn't make one WRONG and one RIGHT.

What evidence exists to say there is a Nuture side to homosexuality?

My N vs N comment was about N vs N in general.

Homosexuality isn't "wrong", so it shouldn't really matter.

you enlightened socialists don't get it - kat, trog. this is what middle australia is thinking and johnny is being their voice.

that's what is politics is believe it or not. the avergae joe does not want gay marriage.

the labour party dare not go there. cos they are ruled by the unions and minority lefty interest groups. the greens and democrats even endorse gays!!

thank god someone has the balls to stand up for the average taxpayer that's all i can say.

gays can have their little fantasy that they are the same but they are not. it's basic! get with the program. they can their lives with no interference but they should never expect the government's support.

i suppose if we get a labor federal government they will though. won't the enlightended socialists have a field day then !!

Well said Chub. They are 'just like us' They bleed like us, they cry like us, they get angry like us, they get hurt like us, they get embarrased like us, they get picked on like us, they get isolated and ridiculed just like us.

Trying to make them 'different' or 'wrong' are the words of people too scared to admit they are just like YOU.

inifnex: You really think that it is the majority that think this way? HA

for sure. do you think johnny would run with it if it weren't. u seriously don't have a clue. i know the way his advisors run. they have done their research and aus. don't like gay marriage.

it aint just oxford street and fortitutde valley that vote u know.

they can have all the civil rights in the world but marriage is additional and an institution. as i said before all the leagl rights and benefits they are seeking from marriage can be conferred through other legal instruments.

australia won't cope it nor should they.

last edited by infiNex at 22:10:56 28/Apr/04

Kat, but the question you answered wasn't.

they get picked on like us, they get isolated and ridiculed just like us.

Just like you, maybe.

last edited by nF at 22:14:51 28/Apr/04

you enlightened socialists don't get it - kat, trog. this is what middle australia is thinking and johnny is being their voice.

...but why do we need a voice? What's so threatening about gay couples getting married and expressing there love for eachother? It's none of our business, and we have no right to step in and deny them marriage.

Seriously, what are you's all scared of? Are gay marriages going to significantly alter your life or something?

aus. don't like gay marriage.

yer, thats true

i reckon old people shouldnt be allowed to vote

they also shouldnt be allowed to drive

come to think of it
old people are pretty much wrong/crap all the time

im pretty sure its old people that keep day light savings out of qld also

hah.

just go onto a construction site where people without IT degrees actually do manual labour. you might learn how the other half think.

and btw they all earn over $60K a year. talk to people other than from your own stinky pond and learn how australia is thinking.

johnny does it well. that's why his finger is on the pulse. you can't win if you don't have 50% + 1.

ou enlightened socialists don't get it - kat, trog. this is what middle australia is thinking and johnny is being their voice.

Oh, ok - so we should just accept what the bigoted masses want without trying to change them for the better?

gays can have their little fantasy that they are the same but they are not. it's basic! get with the program. they can their lives with no interference but they should never expect the government's support.

I love this quote! What about disabled people? They're not the same either. Should they live their lives with no interference and never expect the government's support because they're different?

Hmm, what about single mothers - they're not a heterosexual couple.

As far as I'm concerned, the instant you stop same-sex couples from marrying, it becomes something else - its OBVIOUSLY no longer about love (which, well, I'd like to think that's what marriage is all about), but instead its about laws and regulations and money. If its not about love, a couple can just form a trust or a company or one of the other billion entities that let them dodge tax anyway. That's why accountants were invented.

I don't want a government that is going to go BACKWARDS and start locking down this crap, any more than I want a government that is going to stop stem cell research or stop abortion because of a loud-mouthed religious minority. The only way to go forwards, in my humble opinion, is to just STOP WELL TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF like its SUCH a BIG DEAL. Oh, you're a guy, and you're a guy, and you want to get married? Whatever, fine, here's your certificate, I'm going back to bed.

Some other comments:

2. Again, if two females want a couple then again it requires resources. Do sperm donators want their child going to a same sex marraige? If they know same sex couples are getting thier sperm, will this decrease donations?

As someone with an excess of sperm, anyone that wants it is more than welcome to it and they can do whatever they want with it, including breeding trog-spawned supercreatures from hell to take over the world. Who else except religious FANATICS - I'm talking the sort of people that strap explosives to themselves and kill kids and women on buses - would actually care about that?

3. Rember the history of mankind spreads some 10,000's of years. It is INANT that children expect a mother and father figure. Development of all of us has come from both our parents. It is way too soon to understand what effects on the child a same sex marraige will have.

I think 10,000's of years is a bit of an overstatement :) Not only that - its really only the last few thousand years that we've stopped painting on cave walls and managed to build societies based on something other than who has the sharpest flint on their spears (although sadly that still seems to be pretty important).

Honestly, I find it seriously depressing that my tax dollars are going towards such pathetic, useless, and uninteresting questions as "should same sex couples be able to marry". I'd like to get up in the morning and hear our government say "massive government funding towards cancer research", "r&d grants to local biotech companies", "australian government enters race to land on Mars", and stuff like that.

Honestly, I find it seriously depressing that my tax dollars are going towards such pathetic, useless, and uninteresting questions as "should same sex couples be able to marry". I'd like to get up in the morning and hear our government say "massive government funding towards cancer research", "r&d grants to local biotech companies", "australian government enters race to land on Mars", and stuff like that.

i agree with trog, the money that is wasted on this sort of non-sence, could go to research and develpoment, could go to shchools and alot of other places where it could be usefull.

Honestly though, does anyone here actually care (I mean seriously) if gay people get married?

Well good for you. I don't find the picture or site of two man kissing very appealing at all, but I can look past my own nose and realise that just because *I* don't think it is very 'cosmetic' that it should be banned.
Ever considered the site of heterosexuals kissing gives them the same grossed out feeling? No of course you haven't, you can't think outside your square.

I now see why alot of people here dont like you. You know nothing about me, or my education, or what i have considered. My statement was to counter yours. You claim feelings are able to be turned on and off like a switch. But they are not, they are inant. So YES, I DID CONSIDER THAT BUT DID NOT SITE IT. I assumed you would derive my meaning from my comments. Im not jumping on some bandwagon like you seem to be doing.

for sure. do you think johnny would run with it if it weren't. u seriously don't have a clue. i know the way his advisors run. they have done their research and aus. don't like gay marriage.

it aint just oxford street and fortitutde valley that vote u know.

they can have all the civil rights in the world but marriage is additional and an institution. as i said before all the leagl rights and benefits they are seeking from marriage can be conferred through other legal instruments.

australia won't cop it nor should they.

this is a very good point - jonny wouldn't do it if the masses of australians didn't agree, hell millions out there who agree probably wouldn't admit it, in fact I'd go as far as to say that a very large % of people who are against this policy already don't vote liberal anyway.

I'm not saying I"m against gay marriages, hell I think they deserve the same rights as anyone, but in a democracy majority rules! and even so I'll still vote for jonny if this goes through because labor have given me no decent reason to do otherwise.

I don't want a government that is going to go BACKWARDS and start locking down this crap, any more than I want a government that is going to stop stem cell research or stop abortion because of a loud-mouthed religious minority.

you still don't get it. the govt is not locking down anything. this is a new right seeking to be conferred by a minority it was never intended for.

marriage was never intended for gays. comprende?

so Infi do i take your decleration above as you saying that you are related to or are one of john howards advisers yourself? becuase if your not then you are makeing big assumptions on something you can't know. I for one pay my taxes and what i would consider a average middle class aussie, I don't think gays should be stopped getting married and i do not like someone infering that i do. How about you go out and poll queen street mall and show us the results of it. also don't forget to show just how often you got smacked in the mouth for being such a retard for saying thats what most ppl want.

Wow!

There are some pretty stupid people with really dumb opinions around here... and it really shows in this thread.

Well done guys.

I think ill keep my opinion to myself.

3. Rember the history of mankind spreads some 10,000's of years. It is INANT that children expect a mother and father figure.

I understand the point you're making about parent figures but it should be pointed out that children are raised by a community and not just parents. In more primitive times children were raised by the elderly while the women gathered and the men hunted. Today with so many families where both parents work children spend a large portion of their time in childcare centres from as early as 1. Basically having two mothers or two fathers might not impact upon a child as greatly as everyone seems to simply beleive.

just go onto a construction site where people without IT degrees actually do manual labour. you might learn how the other half think.

What the f*** is your point here? It seems like you are suggesting that where there is a lack of IT degrees, there is manual labour to be found and in these areas of manual labour dubbed by you as 'construction sites' there is a general lack of higher education which seems to me to be an insinuation that these areas harbour a generaly lower standard of intelligence. Then I get the feeling that you're suggesting that these poor simple folk of the peaceful yet productive 'construction site' would support Howard in his belifes due to their general lack of intelligence and labourious work regimes and vice versa for the, what was the term you used earlier, ah yes, 'enlightened' IT degree toting portion of the population.

Then you claim, assuming that you beleive that we all have IT degrees, which point of fact, I do, that the other half is the strange simple assiduous folk of the 'construction site'. We now have two halves, ID (IT Degrees) and CS (construction site), in the context of the argument, I take it that the sum of these halves is the voting population of Australia. Since you didn't specify anyother figures I'll have to assume that the halves were equal in proportion.

So basically your point here is that one half of australia is made up of idiots that agree with Howard and the other half is made up of intelligent people that disagree with him, this is your point by the way not mine, and since you agree with him you fall under the half of the population that have to physically remind themselves not to choke on their own druel and since I have an IT degree I obviously have to high an education to agree with Howard. Since I'm trapped with in my half due to my degree I obviously can't make my own independant decision on the issue and since you're such a blithering idiot that you don't have an IT degree, you obviously can't muster the brain cells required for the decision to pull away from the herd and have a contradictory belife to that of Howard.

Assuming that is your point, then I'd have to say that I would disagree with you on that one.

Edit: Yes I know, I went too far.

last edited by Deadly-Fly at 00:50:56 29/Apr/04

I think what he is trying to say deadly fly, is simply that you are out of touch with the average Australian, and that this is what the majority of Australians want.

Which is just silly really. The majority don't care, but theres a percentage who feel the law should be clarified, so some po-dunk minimum wage f***wit doesn't just start handing out marriage liscences to all comers thereby single handedly deciding policy that should be implemented by the courts or the elected officials. Which is exactly what Howard is doing. You want same sex marriage? Great, fine, but thats a seperate issue, one that I'm sure Howard will be happy to reap some extra votes for when he addreses it... seperately.

the greens and democrats even endorse gays!!

OH NOS, DIRTY GAYS!@#

too much gay in this thread, you're all band.

^ it just got a whole lot gayer ^

Just like you, maybe.

That is where you are wrong. To pretend you have never been picked on by society or one of, is just someone in denial.

Honestly though, does anyone here actually care (I mean seriously) if gay people get married?

Yes I do. They have the same rights as us. Plus what do you honestly think is next?

jonny wouldn't do it if the masses of australians didn't agree,

And when DID it become an issue? You think pver the last 3 years it has become common tea time talk across Australian dinner tables? NO, he brought it up because his buddy George did.

you are out of touch with the average Australian,

What like Pete and Tina out of the hothouse? or Lisa-Marie out of Bigbrother? *snort* Give me a break, THEY are not 'AVERAGE' Australians. 'Average Australians' are the ones you DON'T hear from. The Average Australians are the silent minority and Johnnie does NOT speak for them


edit: They allow people from other countries into Australia and then let them break the laws in all kinds of ways because they won't intrude on their religion or way of life. I would prefer married gay couples dancing through Kings Cross once a year to gang rapes, stabbings, and beatings.


last edited by Kat at 07:35:30 29/Apr/04

deadly fly: i employ construction workers and i am very good friends with construction workers. i never suggsted they are not intelligent. i did suggest that they have a completely different view on these things and it would help for the university-sheltered lefties to get out there and learn what other people think.

to the "enlightened folk" here. it appears that by suggesting we should confer this right to gays that we are being a civilised society. well if that is ur point of view u can keep it.

gays want to marry to get the legal benefits of marriage i.e. supernannation, deceased estates, real estate ownership etc. all these matters can be dealt with via other means.

marriage was never intended for gays. again i have nothing against gays but gay marriage can not be permitted because children should be raised by a mother and father as was originally intended.

and kat: as for the infertility argument there is a BIG difference between a hetero couples (the gays sarcastically call them "breeders") who cannot become pregnant due to some medical condition or complication and gays who cannot have children by design!

Honestly though, does anyone here actually care (I mean seriously) if gay people get married?

Huh? Sounds familar.

Yes I do. They have the same rights as us. Plus what do you honestly think is next?

FFS Kat, are you really that thick...

Honestly, who the f*** cares about this s***?

Uhh, do you think you could catch on yet?

Chub, the point is that just because it doesn't EFFECT YOU doesn't mean it won't effect someone.

Like I've already stated

Kat, I was arguing for gay marriages, like I have the whole post.

I was pointing out that people should "care less" about gays getting married. People are on here, having a huge cry and whinging... for what reason? Do they really feel the need to stop gays getting married?

I'm saying gay marriages won't affect me or anyone else... nor should anyone care, it's none of there business whether or not gays want to get married.

Bloody hell, is there anything inisde that head?


last edited by CHUB at 08:11:04 29/Apr/04

i havent read any of this thread,




your all gay

and kat: as for the infertility argument there is a BIG difference between a hetero couples (the gays sarcastically call them "breeders") who cannot become pregnant due to some medical condition or complication and gays who cannot have children by design!

Not when the arguement is that marriage is ONLY for those who want to 'breed'!

oh and Chub, we are fighting the same fight. I get your point and mine was not in your 'Why do you care' but 'why you care about if they get banned' :)

I just can't understand, how someone can go out of there way, to speak/act out against gay marriages? Do these people have anything better to do with there time? Or are they just whingers?

I believe the majority of this forum is aruging against gay marriages for the sake of it (plus it's something to do). Though if they did become a reality, I doubt any of you's would stand up/protest and do something about it.

What evidence exists to say there is a Nuture side to homosexuality?

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

You can even study it.
http://canis.tamu.edu/wfscCourses/Supplements/Courses.html

ANTH 689. The Great Apes. Fall 2001. This course will provide students with an in- depth examination of the biology and behavior of our closest living relatives. We will begin the class with a review of primate taxonomy, emphasizing the taxonomic relationship between the great apes and humans. Fossil and molecular evidence supporting the close relationship of chimpanzees and humans will be reviewed. The course will then consider the use of the great apes as models for understanding hominid behavior, whether or not the great apes exhibit culture and their language capacities. Additional topics to be covered include the hunting practices of chimpanzees, tool-use abilities and practices, self-medication, parental care patterns, homosexual behavior of the pygmy chimpanzees, forced sexual intercourse among orangutans, and grouping patterns, as well as the conservation status of all the Great Ape species." For more information, please see Dr. Gursky's bio at http://www.tamu.edu/anthropology/faculty.html#Gursky or contact her directly at gursky@tamu.edu.

gays want to marry to get the legal benefits of marriage i.e. supernannation, deceased estates, real estate ownership etc. all these matters can be dealt with via other means.

marriage was never intended for gays. again i have nothing against gays but gay marriage can not be permitted because children should be raised by a mother and father as was originally intended.

You seem to be good at saying what marriage isn't for and who it isn't for - who exactly IS it for then?

I'm no expert on the history of marriage, but most of what I know seems to indicate that it had its origins in arranging things for what were, ultimately, legal reasons - alliances between families, power, money, etc. Today, marriage is basically just a contract between a couple - one that can be terminated at the stroke of a pen.

You say, marriage was never intended for gays - I say, marriage is, and always has been, intended for two people who want to form a formal relationship between themselves (or have it forged for them by a third party :) If its for reasons of love, great. If its for reasons of political or business expedience, then whoopdeedoo.

Marriage is not even particularly christian or religious, all those saying what marriage is/isn't for forget that most of cultures around the world ahve marraige.

And when DID it become an issue? You think pver the last 3 years it has become common tea time talk across Australian dinner tables? NO, he brought it up because his buddy George did.

hahha you are so naive, that or you are trolling cause thats close t the most retarded thing I have heard in this thread.

from a little bit of google searching I have found that marriage doesn't have religious origins but was developed in mesapatopian (sp?) times or some s*** and was adopted by the church at a later date. However, everywhere I read about the history of marriage and its intentions it refers to a man and a woman. Now I'm not against marriage but I can see where ppl are coming from, marriage and its origins weren't intended for same sex couple and therefore ppl believe they shouldn't partake in it which is a fair viewpoint. A few certain people have taken extreme examples on here no here comes mine - ANZAC day is a celebration of the ANZACS, intedned for Aussies and Kiwis to remember those that gave their lives. Now if the poms decided they would like to celebrate ANZAC day and call it that what your viewpoint be? I mean plenty of poms died at Gallipoli and its their right to celebrate what they want - but was it really intended for them to celebrate? Pretty extreeme example I know - but I thought I stay within the retarded levels of the thread so far.

Man and woman .... then you obviously never looked at early mormans or muslims ... poligamy etc etc

Basically its a couple thing. If fags want to get married let them, how does it affect me?

Marriage being for love between a man and a woman is a relatively new concept. Arranged marriages were far more common, and still are in some parts of the world.

And its not even a religous thing. ie. Italy, a hugely religous country (compared to us for sure) requires a civil marriage thing at a government office, then they go off and do the big thing at the church.

Article providing examples and illustrations of same sex marraiges dating back to accient egypt.

last edited by imitation at 12:52:58 29/Apr/04

Australian marriage has always been a hetero thing. What the Egyptians got up to is hardly relevant when the topic is regarding existing Australian marriage laws.

Uhh but the arguement put forward has been that marriage is historically about a man and women and thats what makes it wrong. Historically Australians shot aboriginals and didn't regard them as people or citizens of the country, wow we shouldn't have changed our law because those were the existing Australian laws of the time. You are an idiot clipto.

Uhh but the arguement put forward has been that marriage is historically about a man and women and thats what makes it wrong.

So you would sooner bring up Ancient Egyptian culture rather than point out the irrelevancy of it all?

Historically Australians shot aboriginals and didn't regard them as people or citizens of the country, wow we shouldn't have changed our law because those were the existing Australian laws of the time.

Why are you directing this at me? I have not advocated anything one way or the other in this thread, except perhaps that we stay on topic. Maybe you should use one of your crayons to print the topic of the thread onto the top of your monitor, you might be able to remember easier that way.

Nice story, needs Dragqueens.. errr Dragons

They allow people from other countries into Australia and then let them break the laws in all kinds of ways because they won't intrude on their religion or way of life. I would prefer married gay couples dancing through Kings Cross once a year to gang rapes, stabbings, and beatings.

HAHAHA. You really are a gem. Truely a fountain of tolerance and open-mindedness.

Historically Australians shot aboriginals and didn't regard them as people or citizens of the country, wow we shouldn't have changed our law because those were the existing Australian laws of the time.

My great-grandfather (or possibly great-great), was killed by an aboriginie with a spear. True story. I'm thinking of going on a princess bride/kill bill kinda rampage.

sometimes the nF posting experience is just great!

You seem to be good at saying what marriage isn't for and who it isn't for - who exactly IS it for then?

Easy: man and woman. Children are best raised by a mother and father. If we do not position society to reproduce in a functional framework civilisation will perish.

A government which wants society to survive gains no benefit from endorsing legal unions which cannot produce children.

It's all about utilitarianism in the end. Gay marriage does not benefit society because gay marriages cannot yield children. They have no purpose.

Children are best raised by a mother and father. If we do not position society to reproduce in a functional framework civilisation will perish.

Doesn't matter if that mother and father are worse parents than a gay couple? Or is the ONLY thing required to be a parent that you are a male and a female???

not love, compassion, understanding, patience, commitment, and money?

Wow, no wonder out society is as f***ed up as it is now, they have been people like you who say that a mother and a father are the only ones who should be a parent and not those who can actually be one, no matter what the sex or sexuality

It's all about utilitarianism in the end. Gay marriage does not benefit society because gay marriages cannot yield children. They have no purpose.

Accept for the whole, fulfilling someones sexual, emotional, and spiritual desires in life.



Bigots with your heads stuck up your arses, that's what you are all showing yourselves to be

last edited by Kat at 07:52:54 30/Apr/04

Contrasted to your fantasy world where society doesn't actually have to consider whether it is condoning practices which will ultimately lead to its own demise.

Doesn't matter if that mother and father are worse parents than a gay couple? Or is the ONLY thing required to be a parent that you are a male and a female???

Kat, where do you think babies come from - now I KNOW you know this one?

Kat, where do you think babies come from - now I KNOW you know this one?

I do know how a baby is made. I am not talking about 'making a baby' I am talking bout being a 'parent' two TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Conception is one thing, parenting is another.

Gay couples may not be able to conceive but they are still able to be parents. In today's society there is no shortage of kids in need of parents.

last edited by Kat at 09:25:24 30/Apr/04