Thread: Same sex marriage

...^frighteningly enlightened...

Blame the Romans who invented indoor plumbing but forgot to install a bum gun. So much for civilisation

Originally Posted by Switch

Blame the Romans who invented indoor plumbing but forgot to install a bum gun

...the wealthy did, however, have bum slaves for the same function...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...^frighteningly enlightened...

Thank you for that, I think'.
But IMO it is not enlightened , simply putting two and two together and coming out with four.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

I don't think it is homophobic, that IMO is also a knee jerk reaction.

You could be right, and if so, mea culpa. Excuse me for the kneejerk, though, because homophobia is still rampant and often hides behind faux tolerance, hinted at every now and then when the closet homophobe lets slip some of his bias.
"I'm not homophobic, I have a friend who is gay. He can do what he likes in the privacy of his own home... but yuckety yuck if I see two men kissing in public! They need to tone it down and keep it off the streets. I've no problem with a man and a woman kissing in public..."
Or, "They can do what they like, I have no problem with homosexuality, but marriage is for heterosexuals only..."

Fook me Bra, 2 hairy backed fukers exchanging their spit in the public arena makes most punters hurl spew. That's unless one is orientated towards the art of faggotry and arse exploration.

Keep it in the Bath house for fuk sakes eh.

On the other hand 2 lovely lesbians Goin hard in lumping park gives me massive hornage eh.

Just saying like eh .

They got a be lovely lookin though and not ugly man hating fat slags who should be offed.

I'm a very fair kunto eh.

You have such a way with words Tez. Maybe with such a rich vocabulary, you could nominate for Bill Shortens job. Labor might finally get over the line.

Nope, the labor party are living breathing scum who steal from the rich to give to the kuntos sponging from the public purse.

I fukin dispise them, they tried their hardest to fuk Australia by letting all the boat people sail in and go on our welfare system. Fookin never forgive them for that and then they picked that front bum wranger as head kunto eh.

Then they fooked her off and put in that other pin headed coont then fooked him off and put the red headed slags back in ??????

Na, the labor party was good when Hawk and Keeting ran the show but after that it stalled into a fetid bag of shit.

And that my friend is why they where so thoroughly humiliated and defeated last week.

Stock market loved it as well so all us fukos with Super have made some nice dollars.

Love ya Sco-Mo. The Donalds mate he is eh.

A marriage licence is nothing more than a legal document which both parties sign. Makes no diff what sexual preference, religion or gender they are.

Originally Posted by Norton

A marriage licence is nothing more than a legal document which both parties sign. Makes no diff what sexual preference, religion or gender they are.

Exactly. I don't know why David48 can't see this.

The problem in the UK is that those of the batty persuasion now have more rights than straights. As in they have the choice of a civil partnership or marriage but a civil partnership is denied to straights. So either get rid of civil partnerships or make them available to straights then no issue with batty marriage.

^ Ignore Buffy, hes behind the curve and living in a fantasy world as per usual.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The problem in the UK is that those of the batty persuasion now have more rights than straights. As in they have the choice of a civil partnership or marriage but a civil partnership is denied to straights. So either get rid of civil partnerships or make them available to straights then no issue with batty marriage.

BB not entirely true. There are many instances of straight couples living together, splitting and the lady going after her chunk of change as if it were a relationship tied to a marriage/partnership - get fuk'd all ends up even without kids. I know three blokes its happened to.

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

BB not entirely true. There are many instances of straight couples living together, splitting and the lady going after her chunk of change as if it were a relationship tied to a marriage/partnership - get fuk'd all ends up even without kids. I know three blokes its happened to.

You're missing the point, a civil partnership is a legal document if you want to refer to it that way that is only available to same sex couples. So they have the choice of a civil partnership or marriage if want to tie the knot where the option of civil partnership if not available to opposite sex couples. So either get rid of civil partnerships which they should as no point to them now same sex marriage is legal or make civil partnerships available to all.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

get rid of civil partnerships

Done thanks to EU. In process.

https://www.leathesprior.co.uk/news/...il-partnership

No, i'm saying in the eyes of the law people who've been living together can be assumed to have a relationship where the parties are treated legally as if they are married or in a civil partnership .

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

No, i'm saying in the eyes of the law people who've been living together can be assumed to have a relationship where the parties are treated legally as if they are married or in a civil partnership .

Varies by country but yes it's referred to as Common Law. In the US can apply to same sex relationships.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

You're missing the point, a civil partnership is a legal document if you want to refer to it that way that is only available to same sex couples. So they have the choice of a civil partnership or marriage if want to tie the knot where the option of civil partnership if not available to opposite sex couples.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Australia doesn't have a Marriage Visa or a Visa based on Marriage ... are they also wrong?

What visa is applied for to bring in spouses or partners?

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

But our side tends to also go extreme sometimes IMO, and immediately play the "Homophobe" card whenever people in the opposition offer objections . IMO it is unfortunate , because it places people in a defencive posture.

I take your point and thank you. You're right and I'll follow your advice.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

I assume that, because I don't agree with you ... I'm wrong

I suppose next that the political party I voted for or the colour of the car I drive is also wrong?

Australia doesn't have a Marriage Visa or a Visa based on Marriage ... are they also wrong?

Is it possible that in this instance you are wrong simply because you are wrong and for no other reason? Haven't you be wrong before? we all have. Then why can't you be wrong now.
But assuming that you are not wrong, why don't you explain why you are not and how we are.
Why can't we call it "Marriage" Why does the relationship of two homosexuals that truly love each other and want to make life together deserves a second class status?

Originally Posted by David48atTD

I assume that, because I don't agree with you ... I'm wrong

Bad assumption. You're wrong because the prevailing ethics of Western society include equality for all and you want to deny equality to a group of people. You're disagreeing with a well-established rule of civilised society.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

I suppose next that the political party I voted for or the colour of the car I drive is also wrong?

That's a bit silly!

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Australia doesn't have a Marriage Visa or a Visa based on Marriage ... are they also wrong?

Assuming you're right, why would that be wrong? I don't follow you're rationale in asking that.
You have not answered my question: If law xyz does not affect you in any way whatsoever but benefits some people, why would you object to it?

Originally Posted by happynz

What visa is applied for to bring in spouses or partners?

At a guess, I think because they recognise established common law partnerships they do not use the word "marriage". Similar in NZ I think.