So Politician have gone back to their electorates and discussed gay marriage, so now for a conscious vote.

Should Labor and Liberal Party leaders allow a conscious vote on this human equality issue?



Depriving gay people of marriage 'wicked'

Former High Court justice Michael Kirby says it is "ridiculous and wicked" to deprive same sex couples of the right to marry.

But Mr Kirby, who is openly gay, says he and his long-term partner would not necessarily tie the knot if gay marriage was legalised in Australia.

"We talked about this and I don't think we would get married if it was there in the law because you'd have to be careful of changing the dynamics," he said, in a light-hearted and humorous address at La Trobe University in Melbourne on Monday.

"We've got through 42 years without it and I think we will just toddle along as we are.

"But for those who want and need an affirmation, and need things for parents and families, they should have it and it's ridiculous and it's wicked to deprive fellow citizens of equal rights in my humble opinion.

"We're moving towards that, though our prime minister, an atheist and non-believer and living in sin, doesn't believe that it should be there for two people of the same sex."

Mr Kirby was speaking at the university after being awarded an honorary doctorate.

He said if he had been open about his sexuality earlier in life he may not have had the same opportunities.

"If I revealed my sexuality earlier, there's no way I would have been appointed to various judicial posts, especially I think to the High Court of Australia.

"The country wasn't ready for it then.

"That was just what you were expected to do in those days, don't ask, don't tell."

Mr Kirby retired from the High Court in 2009.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8214268/depriving-gay-people-of-marriage-wicked

How is Bob Browns health today?  We can only hope. :)

http://www.vexnews.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bobbrown450.jpg ::) ::) ::)  8-)

why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something..

and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page.

id like to see that

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 7:11am:

why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something.. and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page. id like to see that

So you would vote against human equality cod?

Is that why the hard right want to dehumanise Refugees ... attack humans so your lot can do horrid things to them?


Until everyone is equal, no one is secure from attack ... not even age pensioners !!!

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 7:16am:

cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:11am: why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something.. and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page. id like to see that So you would vote against human equality cod? Is that why the hard right want to dehumanise Refugees ... attack humans so your lot can do horrid things to them? Until everyone is equal, no one is secure from attack ... not even age pensioners !!!

Amazing how you list everything Brown & Gillard are doing - deliberately engineered refugee crisis, threaten the security of the pensioners, the poor and the homeless with your policies and then turn it back on your critics. :D

Prevailing wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 7:20am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:16am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:11am: why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something.. and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page. id like to see that So you would vote against human equality cod? Is that why the hard right want to dehumanise Refugees ... attack humans so your lot can do horrid things to them? Until everyone is equal, no one is secure from attack ... not even age pensioners !!! Amazing how you list everything Brown & Gillard are doing - deliberately engineered refugee crisis, threaten the security of the pensioners, the poor and the homeless with your policies and then turn it back on your critics. :D

Who voted against Greens Bill to lift Pensioners out of Poverty the first time?

Liberal and Labor

Greens persisted and Liberals crumbled ... then Labor. Pensions where raised because of the commitment of the Greens to lift them above the poverty line.


Greens are the only party pushing to lift the dole so to lift the unemployed and their families out of poverty.

As for Homeless

Financial crisis no excuse for homeless neglect: Greens

The Greens say the Federal Government should not use the financial crisis as an excuse to water down its commitments to homeless people.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2428248.htm


If any political group is attacking the Pensioners, Unemployed (and under employed) and the Homeless, then it is the Hard Right

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 7:16am:

cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:11am: why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something.. and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page. id like to see that So you would vote against human equality cod? Is that why the hard right want to dehumanise Refugees ... attack humans so your lot can do horrid things to them? Until everyone is equal, no one is secure from attack ... not even age pensioners !!!

why do you resume to know how anyone else will vote??...

now you talk about HUMAN equality  what a laugh how many gays in Australia. woody?.. you see this is about Australia got nothing to do with all those other gays round the world.my vote which ever way it goes.. wont affect any other human other than in this country..

so could you try just a weeny bit to be honest and not twist and not assume..

find one thread about gay marriage where I have said NO....

the fact is I couldnt care bloody less..

then you bring in refugees.. another ploy .. and the name calling very childish.

and doesnt do your cause one bit of good.. you certainly faild the how to win them over course didnt you???>.lol

go back to the hardleft school and get it right.. in the mean time may i suggest you dont assume anything!

Prevailing wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 7:07am:

How is Bob Browns health today?  We can only hope. :)

The crazed Eric Abetz is obsessed with Brown and the instigator of a relentless hate campaign.

Is your post some sort of veiled threat? You and Abetz would make a great team - you're both delusional.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 7:41am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:16am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:11am: why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something.. and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page. id like to see that So you would vote against human equality cod? Is that why the hard right want to dehumanise Refugees ... attack humans so your lot can do horrid things to them? Until everyone is equal, no one is secure from attack ... not even age pensioners !!! why do you resume to know how anyone else will vote??... now you talk about HUMAN equality  what a laugh how many gays in Australia. woody?.. you see this is about Australia got nothing to do with all those other gays round the world.my vote which ever way it goes.. wont affect any other human other than in this country.. so could you try just a weeny bit to be honest and not twist and not assume.. find one thread about gay marriage where I have said NO.... the fact is I couldnt care bloody less.. then you bring in refugees.. another ploy .. and the name calling very childish. and doesnt do your cause one bit of good.. you certainly faild the how to win them over course didnt you???>.lol go back to the hardleft school and get it right.. in the mean time may i suggest you dont assume anything!

So you don't oppose a conscious vote on equality within marriage cods?


As for an election issue, I would prefer Greens make a sustained push to allow Australians a choice concerning voluntary euthanasia.

I think this is connected to the human equality issue too.

mantra wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 7:52am:

Prevailing wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:07am: How is Bob Browns health today?  We can only hope. :) The crazed Eric Abetz is obsessed with Brown and the instigator of a relentless hate campaign. Is your post some sort of veiled threat? You and Abetz would make a great team - you're both delusional.

LOL Abetz ,what can you say. ;D ;D ;D
Anyone counted his fingers?

I'm glad the vote is going to be a conscious one.

I have always found people unconscious make terrible decisions.

PS - Thanks for underlining my point about your education woody.

Whoever said Islanders brought up by the state were thick eh?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 8:56am:

I'm glad the vote is going to be a conscious one. I have always found people unconscious make terrible decisions.

12 years of the Howard Government ?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 8:57am:

PS - Thanks for underlining my point about your education woody. Whoever said Islanders brought up by the state were thick eh?

I am happy you find my education level a point of interest Hicks ... yet what has it to do with the topic.

Conscious Verses Party Line Voting.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 8:56am: I'm glad the vote is going to be a conscious one. I have always found people unconscious make terrible decisions. 12 years of the Howard Government ?

We're you in Australia when the Howard Government began.
Given you are not Australian and all mate......
 :)

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 7:33am:

Prevailing wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:20am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:16am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:11am: why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something.. and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page. id like to see that So you would vote against human equality cod? Is that why the hard right want to dehumanise Refugees ... attack humans so your lot can do horrid things to them? Until everyone is equal, no one is secure from attack ... not even age pensioners !!! Amazing how you list everything Brown & Gillard are doing - deliberately engineered refugee crisis, threaten the security of the pensioners, the poor and the homeless with your policies and then turn it back on your critics. :D Who voted against Greens Bill to lift Pensioners out of Poverty the first time? Liberal and Labor Greens persisted and Liberals crumbled ... then Labor. Pensions where raised because of the commitment of the Greens to lift them above the poverty line. Greens are the only party pushing to lift the dole so to lift the unemployed and their families out of poverty. As for Homeless Financial crisis no excuse for homeless neglect: Greens The Greens say the Federal Government should not use the financial crisis as an excuse to water down its commitments to homeless people. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2428248.htm If any political group is attacking the Pensioners, Unemployed (and under employed) and the Homeless, then it is the Hard Right

So why is it the hard right, when you claim they crumbled first?

Another example of Rome burns while the Neros of this country bugger around with useless rubbish.
I wonder who pays woody to sit here all day and spruik his green garbage. Probably the Neolithic Party, no doubt funded by the taxpayer.
Go join the real world woody, get a job and you'll find the average joe doesn't give a toss for your homosexual issues . . .or if he does, it's in the form of negative opinion.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:05am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 8:57am: PS - Thanks for underlining my point about your education woody. Whoever said Islanders brought up by the state were thick eh? I am happy you find my education level a point of interest Hicks ... yet what has it to do with the topic. Conscious Verses Party Line Voting.

BECAUSE ITS CONSCIENCE YOU ILL-EDUCATED RETARD!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:05am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:03am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 8:56am: I'm glad the vote is going to be a conscious one. I have always found people unconscious make terrible decisions. 12 years of the Howard Government ? We're you in Australia when the Howard Government began. Given you are not Australian and all mate......  :)

Migrated to Melbourne in the beginning of 1983, you do the maths.

P.S. we have been through this before ... obviously private education doesn't help memory.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:06am:

BECAUSE ITS CONSCIENCE YOU ILL-EDUCATED RETARD!

Someone who considers themselves as eloquent as you Andrei shouldn't have to resort to abuse.

Your vocabulary is obviously limited.

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:05am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:33am: Prevailing wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:20am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:16am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:11am: why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something.. and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page. id like to see that So you would vote against human equality cod? Is that why the hard right want to dehumanise Refugees ... attack humans so your lot can do horrid things to them? Until everyone is equal, no one is secure from attack ... not even age pensioners !!! Amazing how you list everything Brown & Gillard are doing - deliberately engineered refugee crisis, threaten the security of the pensioners, the poor and the homeless with your policies and then turn it back on your critics. :D Who voted against Greens Bill to lift Pensioners out of Poverty the first time? Liberal and Labor Greens persisted and Liberals crumbled ... then Labor. Pensions where raised because of the commitment of the Greens to lift them above the poverty line. Greens are the only party pushing to lift the dole so to lift the unemployed and their families out of poverty. As for Homeless Financial crisis no excuse for homeless neglect: Greens The Greens say the Federal Government should not use the financial crisis as an excuse to water down its commitments to homeless people. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2428248.htm If any political group is attacking the Pensioners, Unemployed (and under employed) and the Homeless, then it is the Hard Right So why is it the hard right, when you claim they crumbled first?

Hard Right in their political view, not in their ability to see their extremism through to the bitter end.

Have the concious vote and get it over will already.

I would however put one condition on the vote, regardless of which ever way the decision falls, a new vote on the issue should not be allowed to come before parliment for another, say 3 years, maybe even 4.

I dont want it to turn into a crap fight by whoever loses trying to get it back on the floor and tying up time.

I personally want to see one, and see it passed.  What I dont want is whoever didnt get it their way carry on like pork chops trying to change the last decision.  A concious vote is exactly that, and should not be pursuaded after the facts and another vote called for.  People will have to accept the decision which ever way it falls, for its the opinion of the pollies in the house.

Get it done and over with, and lets get on with some more serious matters.

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:06am:

Another example of Rome burns while the Neros of this country bugger around with useless rubbish. I wonder who pays woody to sit here all day and spruik his green garbage. Probably the Neolithic Party, no doubt funded by the taxpayer. Go join the real world woody, get a job and you'll find the average joe doesn't give a toss for your homosexual issues . . .or if he does, it's in the form of negative opinion.

Australians back gay marriage - poll


Most Australians support gay marriage, the latest Nielsen poll shows.

The poll, published on Monday in Fairfax newspapers, found nearly 60 per cent of people support same-sex marriage, with 37 per cent against.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8145152/australians-back-gay-marriage-poll

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:10am:

Have the concious vote and get it over will already. I would however put one condition on the vote, regardless of which ever way the decision falls, a new vote on the issue should not be allowed to come before parliment for another, say 3 years, maybe even 4. I dont want it to turn into a crap fight by whoever loses trying to get it back on the floor and tying up time. I personally want to see one, and see it passed.  What I dont want is whoever didnt get it their way carry on like pork chops trying to change the last decision.  A concious vote is exactly that, and should not be pursuaded after the facts and another vote called for.  People will have to accept the decision which ever way it falls, for its the opinion of the pollies in the house. Get it done and over with, and lets get on with some more serious matters.

Agree 100%

It's a waste of time, they are the same under the law now as far as benefits, wills are concerned.
They only want to walk down an isle to a priest to rub the churches nose in it.
A commitment ceremony is enough & legal, 1000's of couples choose it over churches every year because they don't want to be hypocrites or make a political point  as they don't believe in God.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:06am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:05am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 8:57am: PS - Thanks for underlining my point about your education woody. Whoever said Islanders brought up by the state were thick eh? I am happy you find my education level a point of interest Hicks ... yet what has it to do with the topic. Conscious Verses Party Line Voting. BECAUSE ITS CONSCIENCE YOU ILL-EDUCATED RETARD!

Spelling incorrectly doesn't weaken the underlining issue here ... until all are equal under the law, no one is really protected from inequality.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:18am:

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:06am: Another example of Rome burns while the Neros of this country bugger around with useless rubbish. I wonder who pays woody to sit here all day and spruik his green garbage. Probably the Neolithic Party, no doubt funded by the taxpayer. Go join the real world woody, get a job and you'll find the average joe doesn't give a toss for your homosexual issues . . .or if he does, it's in the form of negative opinion. Australians back gay marriage - poll Most Australians support gay marriage, the latest Nielsen poll shows. The poll, published on Monday in Fairfax newspapers, found nearly 60 per cent of people support same-sex marriage, with 37 per cent against. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8145152/australians-back-gay-marriage-poll

Was the question do you support or do you care?

For me it is just one of simple morals.

I don't want a pair of fellas to get married. It's just wrong.

I also do not want them able to adopt or look after children, for the sake of the child.
I do not want children to grow up thinking it is normal. It is not.

Now I have no issue at all with gays per se. They seem alright individually and I speak as I find. Much like the Irish or French, alright individually but annoying in groups of them.

So if they want to live together fine, if they want to be 'partners' or whatever fine.
I am also fine with them having the same legal rights as de-facto normal couple.

But let's not make them equal on marriage. It's silly and it doesn't need to be done.

Let them register their relationship if they like and enjoy legal rights.

Let's just keep a bit of social morality and dignity and no go all silly and start pretending two fellas is a marriage.
God only knows what our grandparents era would have made of it all....

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:19am:

Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:10am: Have the concious vote and get it over will already. I would however put one condition on the vote, regardless of which ever way the decision falls, a new vote on the issue should not be allowed to come before parliment for another, say 3 years, maybe even 4. I dont want it to turn into a crap fight by whoever loses trying to get it back on the floor and tying up time. I personally want to see one, and see it passed.  What I dont want is whoever didnt get it their way carry on like pork chops trying to change the last decision.  A concious vote is exactly that, and should not be pursuaded after the facts and another vote called for.  People will have to accept the decision which ever way it falls, for its the opinion of the pollies in the house. Get it done and over with, and lets get on with some more serious matters. Agree 100% It's a waste of time, they are the same under the law now as far as benefits, wills are concerned. They only want to walk down an isle to a priest to rub the churches nose in it. A commitment ceremony is enough & legal, 1000's of couples choose it over churches every year because they don't want to be hypocrites or make a political point  as they don't believe in God.

Exactly.  I think out of the weddings we have attended in the last 5 years, ours was the only one in a church performed by a minister.

That said, our decision to do was less based on actual religion, rather tradition.

Those who want marriage may not necessarily be able to marry in a Church anyway.  Churches still hold the right to discriminate if they choose.  I did like Father Bob last week saying he would happily hold commitment cermonies in gardens, but would withhold from the word marriage, and would not do it in the church.

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:19am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:10am: Have the concious vote and get it over will already. I would however put one condition on the vote, regardless of which ever way the decision falls, a new vote on the issue should not be allowed to come before parliment for another, say 3 years, maybe even 4. I dont want it to turn into a crap fight by whoever loses trying to get it back on the floor and tying up time. I personally want to see one, and see it passed.  What I dont want is whoever didnt get it their way carry on like pork chops trying to change the last decision.  A concious vote is exactly that, and should not be pursuaded after the facts and another vote called for.  People will have to accept the decision which ever way it falls, for its the opinion of the pollies in the house. Get it done and over with, and lets get on with some more serious matters. Agree 100% It's a waste of time, they are the same under the law now as far as benefits, wills are concerned. They only want to walk down an isle to a priest to rub the churches nose in it. A commitment ceremony is enough & legal, 1000's of couples choose it over churches every year because they don't want to be hypocrites or make a political point  as they don't believe in God. Exactly.  I think out of the weddings we have attended in the last 5 years, ours was the only one in a church performed by a minister. That said, our decision to do was less based on actual religion, rather tradition. Those who want marriage may not necessarily be able to marry in a Church anyway.  Churches still hold the right to discriminate if they choose.  I did like Father Bob last week saying he would happily hold commitment cermonies in gardens, but would withhold from the word marriage, and would not do it in the church.

That's more the norm these days.

Out of the last 6 weddings I went to, 2 were in Churches and the others were all civil outdoors ones.
Both of the 2 were Catholic as well, not sure if thats a trend.

Anyway, I think for a lot of the "no's" its more like me, more a social morality issue than religion.
My religion (Christian C of E) has nothing to do with my stance.

andrei's first three points are right on the money! Those are exactly right at the nub of it!
As to registration, let them go to the vet and get a certificate and they can be chipped at the same time.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:22am:

For me it is just one of simple morals. I don't want a pair of fellas to get married. It's just wrong. I also do not want them able to adopt or look after children, for the sake of the child. I do not want children to grow up thinking it is normal. It is not. Now I have no issue at all with gays per se. They seem alright individually and I speak as I find. Much like the Irish or French, alright individually but annoying in groups of them. So if they want to live together fine, if they want to be 'partners' or whatever fine. I am also fine with them having the same legal rights as de-facto normal couple. But let's not make them equal on marriage. It's silly and it doesn't need to be done. Let them register their relationship if they like and enjoy legal rights. Let's just keep a bit of social morality and dignity and no go all silly and start pretending two fellas is a marriage. God only knows what our grandparents era would have made of it all....

Morality is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)


Right and Wrong is a three dimensional reality concept, not a God concept.

So cut trying to play the moral card.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:22am:

For me it is just one of simple morals. I don't want a pair of fellas to get married. It's just wrong. I also do not want them able to adopt or look after children, for the sake of the child. I do not want children to grow up thinking it is normal. It is not. Now I have no issue at all with gays per se. They seem alright individually and I speak as I find. Much like the Irish or French, alright individually but annoying in groups of them. So if they want to live together fine, if they want to be 'partners' or whatever fine. I am also fine with them having the same legal rights as de-facto normal couple. But let's not make them equal on marriage. It's silly and it doesn't need to be done. Let them register their relationship if they like and enjoy legal rights. Let's just keep a bit of social morality and dignity and no go all silly and start pretending two fellas is a marriage. God only knows what our grandparents era would have made of it all....

Thats the beautiful thing about a conscious vote.  People get to vote based upon their own personal views.

Then it just comes down to a numbers game of whos views outnumber others.

As an example Andre, I will refer to your side being anti gay marriage, and my side being the pro.  I think its fair that if the number of people voting with your side is more than mine then it not proceed.  Should there be more one mine than yours then it should.

You dont have to like the decision which ever way it falls, but I think with a conscious vote we all should respect it.

Did you cut & paste that from wikipedia woody?

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:19am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:10am: Have the concious vote and get it over will already. I would however put one condition on the vote, regardless of which ever way the decision falls, a new vote on the issue should not be allowed to come before parliment for another, say 3 years, maybe even 4. I dont want it to turn into a crap fight by whoever loses trying to get it back on the floor and tying up time. I personally want to see one, and see it passed.  What I dont want is whoever didnt get it their way carry on like pork chops trying to change the last decision.  A concious vote is exactly that, and should not be pursuaded after the facts and another vote called for.  People will have to accept the decision which ever way it falls, for its the opinion of the pollies in the house. Get it done and over with, and lets get on with some more serious matters. Agree 100% It's a waste of time, they are the same under the law now as far as benefits, wills are concerned. They only want to walk down an isle to a priest to rub the churches nose in it. A commitment ceremony is enough & legal, 1000's of couples choose it over churches every year because they don't want to be hypocrites or make a political point  as they don't believe in God. Exactly.  I think out of the weddings we have attended in the last 5 years, ours was the only one in a church performed by a minister. That said, our decision to do was less based on actual religion, rather tradition. Those who want marriage may not necessarily be able to marry in a Church anyway.  Churches still hold the right to discriminate if they choose.  I did like Father Bob last week saying he would happily hold commitment cermonies in gardens, but would withhold from the word marriage, and would not do it in the church.

And what of the churches that do not witch hunt Gays, should they be banned from wedding Gays if all involved are willing and happy to marry in side a church?

>As an example Andre, I will refer to your side being anti gay marriage, and my side being the pro.  I think its fair that if the number of people voting with your side is more than mine then it not proceed.  Should there be more one mine than yours then it should.>

Crap. On your logic it was OK to accept Hitler because the German people voted him in.

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:29am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:22am: For me it is just one of simple morals. I don't want a pair of fellas to get married. It's just wrong. I also do not want them able to adopt or look after children, for the sake of the child. I do not want children to grow up thinking it is normal. It is not. Now I have no issue at all with gays per se. They seem alright individually and I speak as I find. Much like the Irish or French, alright individually but annoying in groups of them. So if they want to live together fine, if they want to be 'partners' or whatever fine. I am also fine with them having the same legal rights as de-facto normal couple. But let's not make them equal on marriage. It's silly and it doesn't need to be done. Let them register their relationship if they like and enjoy legal rights. Let's just keep a bit of social morality and dignity and no go all silly and start pretending two fellas is a marriage. God only knows what our grandparents era would have made of it all.... Thats the beautiful thing about a conscious vote.  People get to vote based upon their own personal views. Then it just comes down to a numbers game of whos views outnumber others. As an example Andre, I will refer to your side being anti gay marriage, and my side being the pro.  I think its fair that if the number of people voting with your side is more than mine then it not proceed.  Should there be more one mine than yours then it should. You dont have to like the decision which ever way it falls, but I think with a conscious vote we all should respect it.

I don't disagree.
I don't think this is a political party thing.
There will be people traditionally who vote the same way as me on other areas, not in agreement with my view.
There will also be people who would never vote the same way as me on parties, in agreement with me.

My wife's uncle for example in Townsville. Has voted for the ALP his entire life, former Queensland Rail Union man etc etc, never in a month of sundays would he and I ever vote the same way politically but on the issue of gay marriage he feels the same as me, it's simply wrong in his mind.

Like with fox hunting in the UK, me being against it often put me in direct opposition to many in the Conservative Party - who usually grabbed my vote.

I prefer this style of vote on issues of social morality.

What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times.

They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party.

Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised.

To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union?

I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.  

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:29am:

Did you cut & paste that from wikipedia woody?

Yes, and apologies for forgetting to put my source

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:31am:

>As an example Andre, I will refer to your side being anti gay marriage, and my side being the pro.  I think its fair that if the number of people voting with your side is more than mine then it not proceed.  Should there be more one mine than yours then it should.> Crap. On your logic it was OK to accept Hitler because the German people voted him in.

Without wanting to go down this track mate, in 1933 Adolf Hitler did have the right to govern Germany.
It was what he did following the death of Hindenburg where he began to act outside of the wishes of the vast majority of Germans.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:33am:

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:29am: Did you cut & paste that from wikipedia woody? Yes, and apologies for forgetting to put my source

It's ok, it was quite easy to guess it wasn't your own words.

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:33am:

What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times. They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party. Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised. To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union? I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.

I found it quite funny that last year my sister - one of the most ardent homophobic people I know - was invited to a civil ceremony of her gay work colleague Fred with his partner Keith!!

;D

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:33am:

What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times. They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party. Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised. To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union? I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.

If the title of civil union is acceptable to you, then why don't we just dump the title of 'marriage' for everyone and call all legailised relationships 'Civil Unions'

That will get around your opposition to Gays being 'Married'

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:30am:

Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:24am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:19am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:10am: Have the concious vote and get it over will already. I would however put one condition on the vote, regardless of which ever way the decision falls, a new vote on the issue should not be allowed to come before parliment for another, say 3 years, maybe even 4. I dont want it to turn into a crap fight by whoever loses trying to get it back on the floor and tying up time. I personally want to see one, and see it passed.  What I dont want is whoever didnt get it their way carry on like pork chops trying to change the last decision.  A concious vote is exactly that, and should not be pursuaded after the facts and another vote called for.  People will have to accept the decision which ever way it falls, for its the opinion of the pollies in the house. Get it done and over with, and lets get on with some more serious matters. Agree 100% It's a waste of time, they are the same under the law now as far as benefits, wills are concerned. They only want to walk down an isle to a priest to rub the churches nose in it. A commitment ceremony is enough & legal, 1000's of couples choose it over churches every year because they don't want to be hypocrites or make a political point  as they don't believe in God. Exactly.  I think out of the weddings we have attended in the last 5 years, ours was the only one in a church performed by a minister. That said, our decision to do was less based on actual religion, rather tradition. Those who want marriage may not necessarily be able to marry in a Church anyway.  Churches still hold the right to discriminate if they choose.  I did like Father Bob last week saying he would happily hold commitment cermonies in gardens, but would withhold from the word marriage, and would not do it in the church. And what of the churches that do not witch hunt Gays, should they be banned from wedding Gays if all involved are willing and happy to marry in side a church?

Im not really sure exactly what you are trying to say here, however if a Church as a whole decides to not allow gay weddings there, then that is their choice.  It is their house remember, and I think its wrong of you to demand to be able to marry there.  Remember Catholics have been able to not disallow weddings of hetros in the past too for a range of reasons.

Why would you want to get married in a Church that doesnt want to do it anyway?  

I think its great that Priests have come out and said they will respect the Churches view and not perform them there, but will do so outside of the church for people.  

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:37am:

Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:33am: What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times. They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party. Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised. To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union? I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.   If the title of civil union is acceptable to you, then why don't we just dump the title of 'marriage' for everyone and call all legailised relationships 'Civil Unions' That will get around your opposition to Gays being 'Married'

Im not against it you idiot.  Im for it.

What I also am is a realist.  I would rather see the term civil union make it through and you have the same legal rights as the rest of us, then stamp your feet and say we want the word marriage and you end up with nothing.

There is already many who have said they will back the word civil union, however strong believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and a wife.

So its it about legal equality, or just being able to turn your nose up at those that oppose it?

Would it be acceptable for a church to refuse to marry a couple based on skin colour?


If not, why not?

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 8:03am:

cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:41am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:16am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:11am: why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something.. and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page. id like to see that So you would vote against human equality cod? Is that why the hard right want to dehumanise Refugees ... attack humans so your lot can do horrid things to them? Until everyone is equal, no one is secure from attack ... not even age pensioners !!! why do you resume to know how anyone else will vote??... now you talk about HUMAN equality  what a laugh how many gays in Australia. woody?.. you see this is about Australia got nothing to do with all those other gays round the world.my vote which ever way it goes.. wont affect any other human other than in this country.. so could you try just a weeny bit to be honest and not twist and not assume.. find one thread about gay marriage where I have said NO.... the fact is I couldnt care bloody less.. then you bring in refugees.. another ploy .. and the name calling very childish. and doesnt do your cause one bit of good.. you certainly faild the how to win them over course didnt you???>.lol go back to the hardleft school and get it right.. in the mean time may i suggest you dont assume anything! So you don't oppose a conscious vote on equality within marriage cods? As for an election issue, I would prefer Greens make a sustained push to allow Australians a choice concerning voluntary euthanasia. I think this is connected to the human equality issue too.

NO I DONT OPPOSE.. and I never have so there..get your opinions right next time..

so there you have whilst we have a push for euthansia.. then make it a push for Carbon Tax as well to keep the bastards honest..

I am sick to death of HUGE important issues like this not going to the people she had the opportunity 6 months ago and so did brown we cant ignore him

6 months ago whilst he signed his party votes over to labor very proudly.. dont kid me he didnt know this was going to happen because nothing will convince me..

they are both liars and cheats we have been dudded and its time we turned on these people once and for all..

at the ballot box its okay to have a say.. but by then so much damage is done its criminal in some cases.. NSW power comes to mind.

we need to have a mechanism that can halt a govt in its tracks for being so deceitfull..

if this had happened half way the term though it would still be iffy but at least times can change in that time.. in 6 months.. come on.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:31am:

>As an example Andre, I will refer to your side being anti gay marriage, and my side being the pro.  I think its fair that if the number of people voting with your side is more than mine then it not proceed.  Should there be more one mine than yours then it should.> Crap. On your logic it was OK to accept Hitler because the German people voted him in.

However in Oz we are far more democratic, open and transparent arent we.

I would rather see a decision made, and it be left alone after that time for a period.

You would only be worried about my proposition if you didnt think you are going to win.

I for one would accept the decision which ever way it fell.

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:37am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:33am: What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times. They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party. Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised. To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union? I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.   If the title of civil union is acceptable to you, then why don't we just dump the title of 'marriage' for everyone and call all legailised relationships 'Civil Unions' That will get around your opposition to Gays being 'Married' Im not against it you idiot.  Im for it. What I also am is a realist.  I would rather see the term civil union make it through and you have the same legal rights as the rest of us, then stamp your feet and say we want the word marriage and you end up with nothing. There is already many who have said they will back the word civil union, however strong believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and a wife. So its it about legal equality, or just being able to turn your nose up at those that oppose it?

as basic as I can put it ...
Civil Unions V Marriage = a way of keeping the entrenched inequality.

Marriage is seen as a form of superiority.

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:33am:

I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.

He'd "be happy to look at it" - as he put it
NON-COMITTAL

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:31am: >As an example Andre, I will refer to your side being anti gay marriage, and my side being the pro.  I think its fair that if the number of people voting with your side is more than mine then it not proceed.  Should there be more one mine than yours then it should.> Crap. On your logic it was OK to accept Hitler because the German people voted him in. However in Oz we are far more democratic, open and transparent arent we. I would rather see a decision made, and it be left alone after that time for a period. You would only be worried about my proposition if you didnt think you are going to win. I for one would accept the decision which ever way it fell.

Problem is does it go the same way as the Republic vote?

Where the question is asked, answered - and the side that lost then spends the next decade pestering for it to be asked again???

That's like something we see in Nigeria - where we have a vote and the Government cancels the vote because they don't like the result!

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:41am:

Would it be acceptable for a church to refuse to marry a couple based on skin colour? If not, why not?

I think it is.

Also, if they didnt like them, thought they had body odour or if their parents had you out of wedlock.

For no other reason it is a private institution.

I dont have to agree with the Church on their decisions, however I still believe people should have the right to discriminate within their own organisations if they see fit.

If you want to have a mens only club, CEO's only Club, Cleaners only club or under 25's only club, go for it and enjoy.

I dont think anyone should have the right to tell you who you should let into your own front door.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:41am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 8:03am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:41am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:16am: cods wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 7:11am: why not make it an election issue...then it wil really mean something.. and whilst this miserable excuse for a govt is at it.. make the CARBON TAX and issue.. let the greens go to the polls with both issues right on the front page. id like to see that So you would vote against human equality cod? Is that why the hard right want to dehumanise Refugees ... attack humans so your lot can do horrid things to them? Until everyone is equal, no one is secure from attack ... not even age pensioners !!! why do you resume to know how anyone else will vote??... now you talk about HUMAN equality  what a laugh how many gays in Australia. woody?.. you see this is about Australia got nothing to do with all those other gays round the world.my vote which ever way it goes.. wont affect any other human other than in this country.. so could you try just a weeny bit to be honest and not twist and not assume.. find one thread about gay marriage where I have said NO.... the fact is I couldnt care bloody less.. then you bring in refugees.. another ploy .. and the name calling very childish. and doesnt do your cause one bit of good.. you certainly faild the how to win them over course didnt you???>.lol go back to the hardleft school and get it right.. in the mean time may i suggest you dont assume anything! So you don't oppose a conscious vote on equality within marriage cods? As for an election issue, I would prefer Greens make a sustained push to allow Australians a choice concerning voluntary euthanasia. I think this is connected to the human equality issue too. NO I DONT OPPOSE.. and I never have so there..get your opinions right next time.. so there you have whilst we have a push for euthansia.. then make it a push for Carbon Tax as well to keep the bastards honest.. I am sick to death of HUGE important issues like this not going to the people she had the opportunity 6 months ago and so did brown we cant ignore him 6 months ago whilst he signed his party votes over to labor very proudly.. dont kid me he didnt know this was going to happen because nothing will convince me.. they are both liars and cheats we have been dudded and its time we turned on these people once and for all.. at the ballot box its okay to have a say.. but by then so much damage is done its criminal in some cases.. NSW power comes to mind. we need to have a mechanism that can halt a govt in its tracks for being so deceitfull.. if this had happened half way the term though it would still be iffy but at least times can change in that time.. in 6 months.. come on.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greens didn't sign their votes over to Labor, they backed supply for a Labor Government.

Why not simply have gay people allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony?

I think that is a workable compromise.

People such as me would have no issue with that.

Same legal rights, recognition of the status of the relationship, registered on record etc.

All pretty much the same as a marriage without being one.

Seems the way to go.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:44am:

Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:40am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:37am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:33am: What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times. They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party. Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised. To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union? I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.   If the title of civil union is acceptable to you, then why don't we just dump the title of 'marriage' for everyone and call all legailised relationships 'Civil Unions' That will get around your opposition to Gays being 'Married' Im not against it you idiot.  Im for it. What I also am is a realist.  I would rather see the term civil union make it through and you have the same legal rights as the rest of us, then stamp your feet and say we want the word marriage and you end up with nothing. There is already many who have said they will back the word civil union, however strong believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and a wife. So its it about legal equality, or just being able to turn your nose up at those that oppose it? as basic as I can put it ... Civil Unions V Marriage = a way of keeping the entrenched inequality. Marriage is seen as a form of superiority.

I dont think it is.

One is in reference to a tradition.

Do you want legal equality or not?

Why are you so determined to tramp all over peoples values and you wont stop until you get it?  You dont want real legal equality, you want to be able to thumb your nose at people and say "we got this too".

Do you want to be treated the same under the law or not.  Using the word marriage will never make you equal in the eyes of the people who oppose you using the word, and will afford you no more rights under the law.

So would you vote against it unless you could use the word marriage?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:49am:

Why not simply have gay people allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony? I think that is a workable compromise. People such as me would have no issue with that. Same legal rights, recognition of the status of the relationship, registered on record etc. All pretty much the same as a marriage without being one. Seems the way to go.

Woody, this man is precisly the people I am talking about.

They have no problems with giving you the same rights under the law, however believe the word marriage is a traditional term with a traditional meaning, and believe it should be retained.

Why are you so determined to take the word marriage if it means the failure of the the vote?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:49am:

Why not simply have gay people allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony? I think that is a workable compromise. People such as me would have no issue with that. Same legal rights, recognition of the status of the relationship, registered on record etc. All pretty much the same as a marriage without being one. Seems the way to go.

I would agree to this if it applied to everyone. Hicks, would you accept your relationship be renamed a civil union?

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:53am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:49am: Why not simply have gay people allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony? I think that is a workable compromise. People such as me would have no issue with that. Same legal rights, recognition of the status of the relationship, registered on record etc. All pretty much the same as a marriage without being one. Seems the way to go. I would agree to this if it applied to everyone. Hicks, would you accept your relationship be renamed a civil union?

No because my relationship is a marriage of a man and a woman.

If I was interested in fellas, then I would have a civil union with a fella etc etc.

Why do we have couples live all their lives as de-facto partners?
Why not call them married as well? It's the same thing.

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:50am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:44am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:40am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:37am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:33am: What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times. They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party. Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised. To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union? I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.   If the title of civil union is acceptable to you, then why don't we just dump the title of 'marriage' for everyone and call all legailised relationships 'Civil Unions' That will get around your opposition to Gays being 'Married' Im not against it you idiot.  Im for it. What I also am is a realist.  I would rather see the term civil union make it through and you have the same legal rights as the rest of us, then stamp your feet and say we want the word marriage and you end up with nothing. There is already many who have said they will back the word civil union, however strong believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and a wife. So its it about legal equality, or just being able to turn your nose up at those that oppose it? as basic as I can put it ... Civil Unions V Marriage = a way of keeping the entrenched inequality. Marriage is seen as a form of superiority. I dont think it is. One is in reference to a tradition. Do you want legal equality or not? Why are you so determined to tramp all over peoples values and you wont stop until you get it?  You dont want real legal equality, you want to be able to thumb your nose at people and say "we got this too". Do you want to be treated the same under the law or not.  Using the word marriage will never make you equal in the eyes of the people who oppose you using the word, and will afford you no more rights under the law. So would you vote against it unless you could use the word marriage?

Equality is Equality ... anything else is inequality.

If the term Marriage is the sticking point, lets rename all relationships civil unions.

Would currently people accept their marriage be renamed a civil union ... or is this a downgrading of their relationship?

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:53am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:49am: Why not simply have gay people allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony? I think that is a workable compromise. People such as me would have no issue with that. Same legal rights, recognition of the status of the relationship, registered on record etc. All pretty much the same as a marriage without being one. Seems the way to go. I would agree to this if it applied to everyone. Hicks, would you accept your relationship be renamed a civil union?

So you are determined to take the word as well.

You know woody I have back Gay marriage for some time now.

After seeing however with extremeists like yourself though its not about equality under the law, its about taking the traditions of those most against it and rubbing their nose in it.

You dont want Gays to have the same rights.  You want to be able to thumb your nose at those who sit on the opposite side of the fence and say "see, and we got this too".

Thats the problem with extremists, they have an all of nothing approach.  As a result, I dont see you getting anything.  Its not about equality at all.

You dont want to be treated the same for legal reasons at all.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:56am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:53am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:49am: Why not simply have gay people allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony? I think that is a workable compromise. People such as me would have no issue with that. Same legal rights, recognition of the status of the relationship, registered on record etc. All pretty much the same as a marriage without being one. Seems the way to go. I would agree to this if it applied to everyone. Hicks, would you accept your relationship be renamed a civil union? No because my relationship is a marriage of a man and a woman. If I was interested in fellas, then I would have a civil union with a fella etc etc. Why do we have couples live all their lives as de-facto partners? Why not call them married as well? It's the same thing.

Incorrect, man to man, women to women marriages exists in 10 countries already.

Same sex marriages already exist in Australia.

Marriage is not exclusive to a man women relationship.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:56am:

Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:50am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:44am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:40am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:37am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:33am: What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times. They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party. Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised. To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union? I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.   If the title of civil union is acceptable to you, then why don't we just dump the title of 'marriage' for everyone and call all legailised relationships 'Civil Unions' That will get around your opposition to Gays being 'Married' Im not against it you idiot.  Im for it. What I also am is a realist.  I would rather see the term civil union make it through and you have the same legal rights as the rest of us, then stamp your feet and say we want the word marriage and you end up with nothing. There is already many who have said they will back the word civil union, however strong believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and a wife. So its it about legal equality, or just being able to turn your nose up at those that oppose it? as basic as I can put it ... Civil Unions V Marriage = a way of keeping the entrenched inequality. Marriage is seen as a form of superiority. I dont think it is. One is in reference to a tradition. Do you want legal equality or not? Why are you so determined to tramp all over peoples values and you wont stop until you get it?  You dont want real legal equality, you want to be able to thumb your nose at people and say "we got this too". Do you want to be treated the same under the law or not.  Using the word marriage will never make you equal in the eyes of the people who oppose you using the word, and will afford you no more rights under the law. So would you vote against it unless you could use the word marriage? Equality is Equality ... anything else is inequality. If the term Marriage is the sticking point, lets rename all relationships civil unions. Would currently people accept their marriage be renamed a civil union ... or is this a downgrading of their relationship?

Why are you determined to take a word that tradtion defines as applying to a man and a woman?

As much as you want to push on, there is a difference between a traditional definition and a scientific one.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:59am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:56am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:53am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:49am: Why not simply have gay people allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony? I think that is a workable compromise. People such as me would have no issue with that. Same legal rights, recognition of the status of the relationship, registered on record etc. All pretty much the same as a marriage without being one. Seems the way to go. I would agree to this if it applied to everyone. Hicks, would you accept your relationship be renamed a civil union? No because my relationship is a marriage of a man and a woman. If I was interested in fellas, then I would have a civil union with a fella etc etc. Why do we have couples live all their lives as de-facto partners? Why not call them married as well? It's the same thing. Incorrect, man to man, women to women marriages exists in 10 countries already. Same sex marriages already exist in Australia. Marriage is not exclusive to a man women relationship.

It's also legal to marry an 8 year old in some countries, adultery is punishable by burying a woman to her waist and stoning her death as well.

I am not sure the 'other countries' route is a path to tread.

Same sex marriage by law do not exist in Australia.

Couple of simple questions for you woody to make it easier for me to see where you stand?

1 - would you accept/respect the conscious vote if it was no to gay marriage?
2 - would you accept/respect the conscious vote if ti was yes to civil unions, with the word marriage excluded.

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 9:58am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:53am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:49am: Why not simply have gay people allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony? I think that is a workable compromise. People such as me would have no issue with that. Same legal rights, recognition of the status of the relationship, registered on record etc. All pretty much the same as a marriage without being one. Seems the way to go. I would agree to this if it applied to everyone. Hicks, would you accept your relationship be renamed a civil union? So you are determined to take the word as well. You know woody I have back Gay marriage for some time now. After seeing however with extremeists like yourself though its not about equality under the law, its about taking the traditions of those most against it and rubbing their nose in it. You dont want Gays to have the same rights.  You want to be able to thumb your nose at those who sit on the opposite side of the fence and say "see, and we got this too". Thats the problem with extremists, they have an all of nothing approach.  As a result, I dont see you getting anything.  Its not about equality at all. You dont want to be treated the same for legal reasons at all.

The issue is those that want to exclude certain couples from marriage. Are you unable to see this is an attempt to keep a form of inequality within the law.

This inequality is what is undermining the gay community and causing a high proportion of gay/bi oriented children to attempt suicide. This is not just about the church, there are wider issues here.

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:00am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:56am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:50am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:44am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:40am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:37am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:33am: What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times. They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party. Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised. To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union? I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.   If the title of civil union is acceptable to you, then why don't we just dump the title of 'marriage' for everyone and call all legailised relationships 'Civil Unions' That will get around your opposition to Gays being 'Married' Im not against it you idiot.  Im for it. What I also am is a realist.  I would rather see the term civil union make it through and you have the same legal rights as the rest of us, then stamp your feet and say we want the word marriage and you end up with nothing. There is already many who have said they will back the word civil union, however strong believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and a wife. So its it about legal equality, or just being able to turn your nose up at those that oppose it? as basic as I can put it ... Civil Unions V Marriage = a way of keeping the entrenched inequality. Marriage is seen as a form of superiority. I dont think it is. One is in reference to a tradition. Do you want legal equality or not? Why are you so determined to tramp all over peoples values and you wont stop until you get it?  You dont want real legal equality, you want to be able to thumb your nose at people and say "we got this too". Do you want to be treated the same under the law or not.  Using the word marriage will never make you equal in the eyes of the people who oppose you using the word, and will afford you no more rights under the law. So would you vote against it unless you could use the word marriage? Equality is Equality ... anything else is inequality. If the term Marriage is the sticking point, lets rename all relationships civil unions. Would currently people accept their marriage be renamed a civil union ... or is this a downgrading of their relationship? Why are you determined to take a word that tradtion defines as applying to a man and a woman? As much as you want to push on, there is a difference between a traditional definition and a scientific one.

tradition is not fixed, it is flexible.

Marriage has not been fixed and has evolved. For example, there was a time when mixed marriages were not accepted, why did this change if it was traditional?

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

Couple of simple questions for you woody to make it easier for me to see where you stand? 1 - would you accept/respect the conscious vote if it was no to gay marriage? 2 - would you accept/respect the conscious vote if ti was yes to civil unions, with the word marriage excluded.

Of course I would accept the outcome of the vote. I would also continue to push for change after wards.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 10:00am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:56am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:50am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:44am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:40am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:37am: Verge wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 9:33am: What I find interesting is I know quite a few gays who have had committment cermonies performed by celebrants in recent times. They get all their friends together, have their cermony in a garden, then kick back for a party. Its already happening, the only thing is its not legally recognised. To the greens supporters, I have to ask (more so woody on this), are you demanding the use of the word marriage, or are you asking for equality under the law with the rights that are currently avaliable.  Would you accept the term civil union? I remember Abbott on the issue saying he wouldnt back gay marriage, however he would accept gay civil union.   If the title of civil union is acceptable to you, then why don't we just dump the title of 'marriage' for everyone and call all legailised relationships 'Civil Unions' That will get around your opposition to Gays being 'Married' Im not against it you idiot.  Im for it. What I also am is a realist.  I would rather see the term civil union make it through and you have the same legal rights as the rest of us, then stamp your feet and say we want the word marriage and you end up with nothing. There is already many who have said they will back the word civil union, however strong believe the word marriage should be reserved for a man and a wife. So its it about legal equality, or just being able to turn your nose up at those that oppose it? as basic as I can put it ... Civil Unions V Marriage = a way of keeping the entrenched inequality. Marriage is seen as a form of superiority. I dont think it is. One is in reference to a tradition. Do you want legal equality or not? Why are you so determined to tramp all over peoples values and you wont stop until you get it?  You dont want real legal equality, you want to be able to thumb your nose at people and say "we got this too". Do you want to be treated the same under the law or not.  Using the word marriage will never make you equal in the eyes of the people who oppose you using the word, and will afford you no more rights under the law. So would you vote against it unless you could use the word marriage? Equality is Equality ... anything else is inequality. If the term Marriage is the sticking point, lets rename all relationships civil unions. Would currently people accept their marriage be renamed a civil union ... or is this a downgrading of their relationship? Why are you determined to take a word that tradtion defines as applying to a man and a woman? As much as you want to push on, there is a difference between a traditional definition and a scientific one. tradition is not fixed, it is flexible. Marriage has not been fixed and has evolved. For example, there was a time when mixed marriages were not accepted, why did this change if it was traditional?

It changed as the people were ready for that change.

I personally am not confident that this country is ready to hand over the word marriage just yet, however will allow for a civil union.

I would rather see someone have the same rights under the law and use the term civil union, then to have nothing and miss out all together.

To me, its about equality having the same rights under the law, the word marriage or civil union is not the issue at heart.

If the word marriage is included anywhere in a same-sex relationship, I would vote NO.

If the suggestion is for same legal rights and the registering of the relationship, if push comes to shove it would get my luke-warm acceptance.

So the current form of Marriage is not traditional or fixed.

Thanks Hicks for verifying this point.

Marriage is evolving and now includes same sex people in Australia.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:19am:

Marriage is evolving and now includes same sex people in Australia.

Marriage does not include same sex people in Australia mate, that is a legal non-compromising point.
Same sex people in Australia are not married, nor are they able to be.

It's not subjective, it's law.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:19am:

So the current form of Marriage is not traditional or fixed. Thanks Hicks for verifying this point. Marriage is evolving and now includes same sex people in Australia.

Gee, talk about sufferring from premature policy ejaculation.

You've shot before the event mate.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 10:19am: Marriage is evolving and now includes same sex people in Australia. Marriage does not include same sex people in Australia mate, that is a legal non-compromising point. Same sex people in Australia are not married, nor are they able to be. It's not subjective, it's law.

Incorrect, when a person within a marriage has a sex change, so the couple becomes a same sex relationship, their marriage remains in tacked.


Same Sex Marriages do exist in Australia.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:26am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 10:22am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 10:19am: Marriage is evolving and now includes same sex people in Australia. Marriage does not include same sex people in Australia mate, that is a legal non-compromising point. Same sex people in Australia are not married, nor are they able to be. It's not subjective, it's law. Incorrect, when a person within a marriage has a sex change, so the couple becomes a same sex relationship, their marriage remains in tacked. Same Sex Marriages do exist in Australia.

You are stepping into a whole new realm mate that is playing semantics.

This is a whole new debate you are creating here, however as the law stands from memory a marriage stays legally binding until it is terminated by one or both parties.  Those both parties at the time of the marriage were male and female.

The mariage in its original form was a correct one, and as the law stands a sex change is not a legal reason to distinguish a legally binding marriage.

Where the law stands on whether someone is male or female, even after a sex change operation is a whole thing most here would never have looked at.

That said, I think you are apply a 0.0000001% of cases a reason to change legislation.

I would be more interested to see a couple who is unmarried try and get one if one had already had the sex change operation.

Is this really the path you want to go down as justification?

why on earth is this topic once again more important than TRUTH IN POLITICS seems to be..

I find this gay thing to be the most unimportant issue in the world of today.. sorry woody I wonder what the gays will do with themselves when they get the go ahead for this.. I see already where gay couples that split expect to be treated diffently from the norm with the children involved.. wait till they go through the acrimonious divorce.. will they bleat about that  being unfair..

Verge wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:32am:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 10:26am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 10:22am: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 10:19am: Marriage is evolving and now includes same sex people in Australia. Marriage does not include same sex people in Australia mate, that is a legal non-compromising point. Same sex people in Australia are not married, nor are they able to be. It's not subjective, it's law. Incorrect, when a person within a marriage has a sex change, so the couple becomes a same sex relationship, their marriage remains in tacked. Same Sex Marriages do exist in Australia. You are stepping into a whole new realm mate that is playing semantics. This is a whole new debate you are creating here, however as the law stands from memory a marriage stays legally binding until it is terminated by one or both parties.  Those both parties at the time of the marriage were male and female. The mariage in its original form was a correct one, and as the law stands a sex change is not a legal reason to distinguish a legally binding marriage. Where the law stands on whether someone is male or female, even after a sex change operation is a whole thing most here would never have looked at. That said, I think you are apply a 0.0000001% of cases a reason to change legislation. I would be more interested to see a couple who is unmarried try and get one if one had already had the sex change operation. Is this really the path you want to go down as justification?

It reveals that the position of marriage being only being between a man and a woman is not correct.

Julia Gillard/ Tony Abbott have used this argument yet same sex marriages do exist in Australia.

Also for those that are pushing for same sex relationships to be called civil unions, what of these sex change same sex marriages, should they remain as marriages or be changed to civil unions.

If you can change some current marriages to civil unions, all marriages can be changed to civil unions.

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

why on earth is this topic once again more important than TRUTH IN POLITICS seems to be.. I find this gay thing to be the most unimportant issue in the world of today.. sorry woody I wonder what the gays will do with themselves when they get the go ahead for this.. I see already where gay couples that split expect to be treated diffently from the norm with the children involved.. wait till they go through the acrimonious divorce.. will they bleat about that  being unfair..

When current same sex marriage in Australia is expanded to include all same sex couples, then the focus then can be turned to other issues like equality of pay so women are paid the same as men, lifting Aboriginal Australia, attaining better standards for the disabled, better policies to help the homeless off the streets etc etc etc .

People who oppose equality, oppose equality to more than just same sex people.

woody you have genuinely left me speechless with your sex-change line of argument.

That's an achievement because, like with Bill Crany and Lastnail, I usually build in an additional percentage of 'off the reservation' ideology from you.

Clearly my % expectation build-in was not enough.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 10:54am:

woody you have genuinely left me speechless with your sex-change line of argument. That's an achievement because, like with Bill Crany and Lastnail, I usually build in an additional percentage of 'off the reservation' ideology from you. Clearly my % expectation build-in was not enough.

Once again you reveal 'private education' lets you down at critical times.


Same Sex Marriage already exists in Australia ... so marriage in Australia is not exclusively man ~ women domain.

The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one.

So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not.

... wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not.

Are you Gay or Hetero?

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 12:28pm:

... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero?

A majority of Gays are not in favor of these elitist Marriage and adoption agendas of the social engineers anyway, read the papers. :)

Prevailing wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 12:42pm:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero? A majority of Gays are not in favor of these elitist Marriage and adoption agendas of the social engineers anyway, read the papers. :)

What papers?

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 12:28pm:

... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero?

What do you reckon?

... wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 1:02pm:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero? What do you reckon?

As camp as a row of tents.
;)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 1:05pm:

... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:02pm: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero? What do you reckon? As camp as a row of tents. ;)

Gays dont want Gay marriage or the state interfering in their lives either. ::) ::) ::)

... wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 1:02pm:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero? What do you reckon?

Knackered

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:

... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:02pm: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero? What do you reckon? Knackered

What does that mean?

... wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 1:20pm:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:10pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:02pm: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero? What do you reckon? Knackered What does that mean?

tired, considering you are unable to answer a basic question.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 1:24pm:

... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:20pm: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:10pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:02pm: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero? What do you reckon? Knackered What does that mean? tired, considering you are unable to answer a basic question.

I'm quite able to, but the answer is so obvious, I don't need to.

... wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 1:26pm:

____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:24pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:20pm: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:10pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:02pm: ____ wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:28pm: ... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 12:16pm: The current marriage laws do promotoe inequality, but that is not a bad thing, because a homoseuxal relationship IS unequal to a heterosexual one. So, I would accept civil unions, but not marriage.  It clashes with my morals to recognise as equal something that is not. Are you Gay or Hetero? What do you reckon? Knackered What does that mean? tired, considering you are unable to answer a basic question. I'm quite able to, but the answer is so obvious, I don't need to.

So you being Gay, you will accept Civil Unions.

Has anyone told you you're an idiot today?

... wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

Has anyone told you you're an idiot today?

Being Gay, you are suppose to be "Gay"

Get that chip off your shoulder.

Originally "marriage" was a private, binding contract between clans (families) to form an alliance, thereby increasing the clan's chances for survival in war against rival clans. A "dowry" was given by each clan to "seal the deal". Marriage was contractual, considered a passing of "property" between clans as a symbol of intention to honor the agreement being made. Property took many forms: cattle, land, children, whatever was considered to be of great value at the time. In the United Kingdom, a requirement for a public announcement in a Christian parish (banns of marriage) was introduced by the Roman Catholic Church in 1215. This set the precident for marriage as is recognized by the Christian community.

Therefore, if the word “marriage” has no original terms or foundation based on religion, then why is it so morally or ethically wrong for gay people not to be married.

Marriage is an antiquate celebration, and today its more about who can achieve the grandest wedding and receive the most presents. If people want to continue with that garbage, then does it really matter whether what sexuality they are.

culldav wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 1:57pm:

Originally "marriage" was a private, binding contract between clans (families) to form an alliance, thereby increasing the clan's chances for survival in war against rival clans. A "dowry" was given by each clan to "seal the deal". Marriage was contractual, considered a passing of "property" between clans as a symbol of intention to honor the agreement being made. Property took many forms: cattle, land, children, whatever was considered to be of great value at the time. In the United Kingdom, a requirement for a public announcement in a Christian parish (banns of marriage) was introduced by the Roman Catholic Church in 1215. This set the precident for marriage as is recognized by the Christian community. Therefore, if the word “marriage” has no original terms or foundation based on religion, then why is it so morally or ethically wrong for gay people not to be married. Marriage is an antiquate celebration, and today its more about who can achieve the grandest wedding and receive the most presents. If people want to continue with that garbage, then does it really matter whether what sexuality they are.

It is true that religion was not the basis of marriage - the basis was the creation of a family.  Since gays cannot fulfil this prime function, there is little point in calling their unions a marriage.

"two jokers and a cocker spaniel don't make a family"

... wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:

culldav wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:57pm: Originally "marriage" was a private, binding contract between clans (families) to form an alliance, thereby increasing the clan's chances for survival in war against rival clans. A "dowry" was given by each clan to "seal the deal". Marriage was contractual, considered a passing of "property" between clans as a symbol of intention to honor the agreement being made. Property took many forms: cattle, land, children, whatever was considered to be of great value at the time. In the United Kingdom, a requirement for a public announcement in a Christian parish (banns of marriage) was introduced by the Roman Catholic Church in 1215. This set the precident for marriage as is recognized by the Christian community. Therefore, if the word “marriage” has no original terms or foundation based on religion, then why is it so morally or ethically wrong for gay people not to be married. Marriage is an antiquate celebration, and today its more about who can achieve the grandest wedding and receive the most presents. If people want to continue with that garbage, then does it really matter whether what sexuality they are. It is true that religion was not the basis of marriage - the basis was the creation of a family.  Since gays cannot fulfil this prime function, there is little point in calling their unions a marriage. "two jokers and a cocker spaniel don't make a family"

Then why do we allow infertile couples to marry even if we KNOW they will never have children?

Vanessa wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 4:41pm:

... wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 2:10pm: culldav wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 1:57pm: Originally "marriage" was a private, binding contract between clans (families) to form an alliance, thereby increasing the clan's chances for survival in war against rival clans. A "dowry" was given by each clan to "seal the deal". Marriage was contractual, considered a passing of "property" between clans as a symbol of intention to honor the agreement being made. Property took many forms: cattle, land, children, whatever was considered to be of great value at the time. In the United Kingdom, a requirement for a public announcement in a Christian parish (banns of marriage) was introduced by the Roman Catholic Church in 1215. This set the precident for marriage as is recognized by the Christian community. Therefore, if the word “marriage” has no original terms or foundation based on religion, then why is it so morally or ethically wrong for gay people not to be married. Marriage is an antiquate celebration, and today its more about who can achieve the grandest wedding and receive the most presents. If people want to continue with that garbage, then does it really matter whether what sexuality they are. It is true that religion was not the basis of marriage - the basis was the creation of a family.  Since gays cannot fulfil this prime function, there is little point in calling their unions a marriage. "two jokers and a cocker spaniel don't make a family" Then why do we allow infertile couples to marry even if we KNOW they will never have children?

Because there is always a chance, and it would be impossible to enforce anyway.

Because Vanessa, a man and a woman are entitled to marry.

That should always be the case.

However we cannot allow two people of the same sex to marry, or in my opinion raise children.

I am fine with registering relationships and equal legal rights etc - but not marriage and not children.
It is morally wrong.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 4:45pm:

Because Vanessa, a man and a woman are entitled to marry. That should always be the case. However we cannot allow two people of the same sex to marry, or in my opinion raise children. I am fine with registering relationships and equal legal rights etc - but not marriage and not children. It is morally wrong.

IMO it is immoral to deny a loving couple the right to wed, and we also do not have the right to force our morals on others - especially when no one can prove that gay marriage would prove detrimental to society.

Vanessa wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 4:45pm: Because Vanessa, a man and a woman are entitled to marry. That should always be the case. However we cannot allow two people of the same sex to marry, or in my opinion raise children. I am fine with registering relationships and equal legal rights etc - but not marriage and not children. It is morally wrong. IMO it is immoral to deny a loving couple the right to wed, and we also do not have the right to force our morals on others - especially when no one can prove that gay marriage would prove detrimental to society.

And what about respect for a tradition dating back thousands of years?

Doesn't matter, so long as you get what you want?

... wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 4:53pm:

Vanessa wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 4:50pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 4:45pm: Because Vanessa, a man and a woman are entitled to marry. That should always be the case. However we cannot allow two people of the same sex to marry, or in my opinion raise children. I am fine with registering relationships and equal legal rights etc - but not marriage and not children. It is morally wrong. IMO it is immoral to deny a loving couple the right to wed, and we also do not have the right to force our morals on others - especially when no one can prove that gay marriage would prove detrimental to society. And what about respect for a tradition dating back thousands of years? Doesn't matter, so long as you get what you want?

We would then be saying that every single generation before us has been wrong.

Pretty arrogant in anyone's book.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 4:45pm:

Because Vanessa, a man and a woman are entitled to marry. That should always be the case. However we cannot allow two people of the same sex to marry, or in my opinion raise children. I am fine with registering relationships and equal legal rights etc - but not marriage and not children. It is morally wrong.

So the only reason you oppose it, is because of the name.

Shift every married couple into a civil union and problem solved. Level playing field.

____ wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 28th, 2011 at 4:45pm: Because Vanessa, a man and a woman are entitled to marry. That should always be the case. However we cannot allow two people of the same sex to marry, or in my opinion raise children. I am fine with registering relationships and equal legal rights etc - but not marriage and not children. It is morally wrong. So the only reason you oppose it, is because of the name. Shift every married couple into a civil union and problem solved. Level playing field.

You're an idiot.

These days, ALL marriages are civil unions - since the state is involved in the registration process!

In Oz, 'marriage' in a Church ceremony alone is no longer legally-binding - there must be formal lodgment of the duly signed and witnessed documentation with the State...

I reckon that it is time that the State changed Marriage Certificates to Civil Union Certificates - with Commemorative Marriage Certificates issued in the same way that Commemorative Birth Certificates are...

Equitist wrote on Feb 28^th, 2011 at 5:33pm:

These days, ALL marriages are civil unions - since the state is involved in the registration process! In Oz, 'marriage' in a Church ceremony alone is no longer legally-binding - there must be formal lodgment of the duly signed and witnessed documentation with the State... I reckon that it is time that the State changed Marriage Certificates to Civil Union Certificates - with Commemorative Marriage Certificates issued in the same way that Commemorative Birth Certificates are...

Uhuh.  Why?

Gay 'marriage' is ridiculous. There is a word aleady for same sex relationhips: friendship. The added 'benefit' of making their orifices availble to each other does not make a friendhip into marriage.

Being 'gay' is about who you bugger.  That's all they see in marriage because that's all that matters in their relationship that paroies marriage.
By contrast, marriage is a social institution that provides the bridge between the dead, the living and the not-yet-born. Pillow biting, however exclusive, does not form such a bridge.

One of China’s largest and most popular news websites has stirred a nasty debate about gay marriage in a nation where homosexuality still remains a social taboo.

Professor Li Yinhe, China’s long time same-sex marriage advocate, was invited to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage on the NetEase website, but claims made in a response by Li Tie, the editor of southern China’s influential The Times Weekly, against gay marriage have triggered strong emotions.

While Li Tie’s opinion piece acknowledges that gay people have the right to love and live together, his statements appear homophobic, hypocritical and narrow-minded.

“Exercising caution on legalizing same-sex marriage is not an act of discrimination,” begins the editor. “Conditions usually apply when protecting minorities’ rights.”

“The impacts of same-sex marriage include the ‘domino effect’ that it may bring upon the marriage system,” he warns. “Once same-sex marriage is legalized, it may lead to the debates on legalizing ‘multi-partner marriage’ and ‘human-animal marriage’.

“If the law recognizes same-sex marriage, what about the ‘rights’ to adultery, incest or pedophilia? Does this bring a challenge to the bottom line of civilization?”

The writer also misquoted since-debunked studies suggesting same-sex couples were more likely to abuse children. No scientific research has ever provided such evidence.

Comments underneath Li Tie’s article varied between harsh criticism of the writer, and extreme homophobia.

“Gays should be buried alive so that their gay disease won’t infect more people,” typed one hatemonger.

Another comment blasted the write-up: “Please the author do your homework well before you start to write an article like this as people will see how ignorant you are. And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, as the attempt to represent a far vaster group with some extreme cases is clearly an act of discrimination.”

It’s interesting to see this debate going in Chinese media and good to find that increasing numbers of people believe the rights of GLBT community need to be protected, but it’s upsetting to see homophobia in a public forum.



http://www.samesame.com.au/news/international/6499/Chinas-gay-marriage-war-of-words.htm

It's not upsetting to me, but then I'm not a faggot lover like you.

One of the best things about the rise of China is that their challenge and illiberal ideology will put an end to people like you having any influence.

It is no surprise that Greens Win loves homosexuals because he is in fact a homosexual. Perhaps a more appropriate term would be homosexual luster.

Quote:

And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again,

Yes, pwease don't, because the homosexual lobby has never been able to refute it.  Every time you bring it up, it reminds them how weak their argument for gay marriage really is.

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 9:59am:

Quote: And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, Yes, pwease don't, because the homosexual lobby has never been able to refute it.  Every time you bring it up, it reminds them how weak their argument for gay marriage really is.

Refute what, that incest, bestiality and polygamy is illegal and the law protects us from this. That these crimes are unrelated considering same sex relations are not illegal in Australia.


The major reason gay marriage has been a sticking point is because this is a wider front for Australian Human Equity. Should Secular Australians be dictated to by Islamic Laws, in the same way Australians have been dictated to by Christian Law.

Time for Australia to decide, are we secular, or are we secular?

I actually dont get what the big issue is with polgamy.  If someone wants more than one wife/husband then good luck to them.  Its not different to them being married and still having a "+one" anyway living in every which way except for the peice of paper.

I personally if you are able to take on more than one wife you are paying the ultimate sacrifice anyway, you get more than one mother in law.

Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony.

No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple.

That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 8:21am:

“The impacts of same-sex marriage include the ‘domino effect’ that it may bring upon the marriage system,” he warns. “Once same-sex marriage is legalized, it may lead to the debates on legalizing ‘multi-partner marriage’ and ‘human-animal marriage’. “If the law recognizes same-sex marriage, what about the ‘rights’ to adultery, incest or pedophilia? Does this bring a challenge to the bottom line of civilization?” Another comment blasted the write-up: “Please the author do your homework well before you start to write an article like this as people will see how ignorant you are. And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, as the attempt to represent a far vaster group with some extreme cases is clearly an act of discrimination.” http://www.samesame.com.au/news/international/6499/Chinas-gay-marriage-war-of-words.htm

Once standards begin to decline, it would be quite difficult to knock back the next minority group who want their share of 'equal' rights.
It's all about the thin edge of the wedge.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:42am:

Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up.

Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about.

Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia.

Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected.

Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law?

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:29am:

... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 9:59am: Quote: And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, Yes, pwease don't, because the homosexual lobby has never been able to refute it.  Every time you bring it up, it reminds them how weak their argument for gay marriage really is. Refute what, that incest, bestiality and polygamy is illegal and the law protects us from this. That these crimes are unrelated considering same sex relations are not illegal in Australia. The major reason gay marriage has been a sticking point is because this is a wider front for Australian Human Equity. Should Secular Australians be dictated to by Islamic Laws, in the same way Australians have been dictated to by Christian Law. Time for Australia to decide, are we secular, or are we secular?

Same as gay marriage eh greeny?  Doesn't stop you from complaining it's an unjust law, it's your 'right'....so why would it stop the paedos and bestialists?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:42am:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 8:21am: “The impacts of same-sex marriage include the ‘domino effect’ that it may bring upon the marriage system,” he warns. “Once same-sex marriage is legalized, it may lead to the debates on legalizing ‘multi-partner marriage’ and ‘human-animal marriage’. “If the law recognizes same-sex marriage, what about the ‘rights’ to adultery, incest or pedophilia? Does this bring a challenge to the bottom line of civilization?” Another comment blasted the write-up: “Please the author do your homework well before you start to write an article like this as people will see how ignorant you are. And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, as the attempt to represent a far vaster group with some extreme cases is clearly an act of discrimination.” http://www.samesame.com.au/news/international/6499/Chinas-gay-marriage-war-of-words.htm Once standards begin to decline, it would be quite difficult to knock back the next minority group who want their share of 'equal' rights. It's all about the thin edge of the wedge.

That's your best argument, we must start opening to have Islamic Law in the future because Christian Law is law now.

Which direction is the decline ... equality or Islamic/Christian theology?

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:50am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law?

Where has Hicks said anything about christanity in his post, he isnt the one making it about religion Woody you are.

Its his belief and his position, ultimatley he doesnt have to explain himself to you at all.

Note the use of his words, using "I".

His vote counts just as much as yours Woody.

... wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:29am: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 9:59am: Quote: And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, Yes, pwease don't, because the homosexual lobby has never been able to refute it.  Every time you bring it up, it reminds them how weak their argument for gay marriage really is. Refute what, that incest, bestiality and polygamy is illegal and the law protects us from this. That these crimes are unrelated considering same sex relations are not illegal in Australia. The major reason gay marriage has been a sticking point is because this is a wider front for Australian Human Equity. Should Secular Australians be dictated to by Islamic Laws, in the same way Australians have been dictated to by Christian Law. Time for Australia to decide, are we secular, or are we secular? Same as gay marriage eh greeny?  Doesn't stop you from complaining it's an unjust law, it's your 'right'....so why would it stop the paedos and bestialists?

Because laws based around paedophillia and bestiality are secular laws, not theocratic laws.

Australia being a secular governed country, theocratic laws require challenging to see if they are of secular thinking. Gay Marriage is a secular issue, not a religious one.

Would Christian Theocrat Posters accept Islamic Law controlling your life?

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:53am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 8:21am: “The impacts of same-sex marriage include the ‘domino effect’ that it may bring upon the marriage system,” he warns. “Once same-sex marriage is legalized, it may lead to the debates on legalizing ‘multi-partner marriage’ and ‘human-animal marriage’. “If the law recognizes same-sex marriage, what about the ‘rights’ to adultery, incest or pedophilia? Does this bring a challenge to the bottom line of civilization?” Another comment blasted the write-up: “Please the author do your homework well before you start to write an article like this as people will see how ignorant you are. And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, as the attempt to represent a far vaster group with some extreme cases is clearly an act of discrimination.” http://www.samesame.com.au/news/international/6499/Chinas-gay-marriage-war-of-words.htm Once standards begin to decline, it would be quite difficult to knock back the next minority group who want their share of 'equal' rights. It's all about the thin edge of the wedge. That's your best argument, we must start opening to have Islamic Law in the future because Christian Law is law now. Which direction is the decline ... equality or Islamic/Christian theology?

'We' don't have to do anything at all green.
If the Islamics or the Gay lobby or any other peculiar odd and morally bereft minority group doesn't approve of this countries long standing laws and standards, they can accept another fine Australian law and thats the one that gives these people the right to leave this country and go to a country that will.
So, off to Canada green.
A man can marry his dog, stubby, pet rock or ute in Canada if he has the cash.
No standards at all over there.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:02am:

... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:53am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:29am: ... wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 9:59am: Quote: And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, Yes, pwease don't, because the homosexual lobby has never been able to refute it.  Every time you bring it up, it reminds them how weak their argument for gay marriage really is. Refute what, that incest, bestiality and polygamy is illegal and the law protects us from this. That these crimes are unrelated considering same sex relations are not illegal in Australia. The major reason gay marriage has been a sticking point is because this is a wider front for Australian Human Equity. Should Secular Australians be dictated to by Islamic Laws, in the same way Australians have been dictated to by Christian Law. Time for Australia to decide, are we secular, or are we secular? Same as gay marriage eh greeny?  Doesn't stop you from complaining it's an unjust law, it's your 'right'....so why would it stop the paedos and bestialists? Because laws based around paedophillia and bestiality are secular laws, not theocratic laws. Australia being a secular governed country, theocratic laws require challenging to see if they are of secular thinking. Gay Marriage is a secular issue, not a religious one. Would Christian Theocrat Posters accept Islamic Law controlling your life?

For the 10 millionth time - marriage is NOT a religious construct. It predates all known religions.
Eliminate that 'argument' from your repertoire - it is faulty.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:50am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law?

I'm not talking about Islam or Christianity.
What I am talking about is modern law.

De-facto couples are legally not married.
Homosexual couples can (and should) have the same legal rights and be allowed to register their relationship.

They do NOT need to be married.

None of that view is religion based. I am a Christian (C of E) but this view is completely separate to the institution. I don't need to speak for them and they don't need to speak for me.

Verge wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 10:55am:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law? Where has Hicks said anything about christanity in his post, he isnt the one making it about religion Woody you are. Its his belief and his position, ultimatley he doesnt have to explain himself to you at all. Note the use of his words, using "I". His vote counts just as much as yours Woody.

Anti Australian Equity Groups oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, not secular.

Opposing can only be due to supporting religious law over secular law.

By opposing Secular Australia, you are inviting laws like Islamic Law to make women wear a veil.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:09am:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law? I'm not talking about Islam or Christianity. What I am talking about is modern law. De-facto couples are legally not married. Homosexual couples can (and should) have the same legal rights and be allowed to register their relationship. They do NOT need to be married. None of that view is religion based. I am a Christian (C of E) but this view is completely separate to the institution. I don't need to speak for them and they don't need to speak for me.

The bases of gay hate is religious based. The Christian Church has waged a witchhunt on gays and the law against equality is anti secular.

Without someone to hate, the cults will collapse. This is Hate Christianities last stand.


Equality Ends Hate Christianity.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:09am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law? I'm not talking about Islam or Christianity. What I am talking about is modern law. De-facto couples are legally not married. Homosexual couples can (and should) have the same legal rights and be allowed to register their relationship. They do NOT need to be married. None of that view is religion based. I am a Christian (C of E) but this view is completely separate to the institution. I don't need to speak for them and they don't need to speak for me. The bases of gay hate is religious based. The Christian Church has waged a witchhunt on gays and the law against equality is anti secular. Without someone to hate, the cults will collapse. This is Hate Christianities last stand. Equality Ends Hate Christianity.

I'll say again, just on its own this time.

My view is not remotely a religious based one.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:16am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:09am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law? I'm not talking about Islam or Christianity. What I am talking about is modern law. De-facto couples are legally not married. Homosexual couples can (and should) have the same legal rights and be allowed to register their relationship. They do NOT need to be married. None of that view is religion based. I am a Christian (C of E) but this view is completely separate to the institution. I don't need to speak for them and they don't need to speak for me. The bases of gay hate is religious based. The Christian Church has waged a witchhunt on gays and the law against equality is anti secular. Without someone to hate, the cults will collapse. This is Hate Christianities last stand. Equality Ends Hate Christianity.

Thats crap, absolute crap.  There is those that are christians that support gay marriage, and those that are not christans who dont support it.

Just get over it mate, not everyone agrees with it.  Its a personal view.

People are entitled to a person view.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:12am:

Verge wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:55am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law? Where has Hicks said anything about christanity in his post, he isnt the one making it about religion Woody you are. Its his belief and his position, ultimatley he doesnt have to explain himself to you at all. Note the use of his words, using "I". His vote counts just as much as yours Woody. Anti Australian Equity Groups oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, not secular. Opposing can only be due to supporting religious law over secular law. By opposing Secular Australia, you are inviting laws like Islamic Law to make women wear a veil.

Well since I don't belong to any "Anti Australian Equity Groups"  nor to any religion, I guess that doesn't apply to me hey?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:05am:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:53am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 8:21am: “The impacts of same-sex marriage include the ‘domino effect’ that it may bring upon the marriage system,” he warns. “Once same-sex marriage is legalized, it may lead to the debates on legalizing ‘multi-partner marriage’ and ‘human-animal marriage’. “If the law recognizes same-sex marriage, what about the ‘rights’ to adultery, incest or pedophilia? Does this bring a challenge to the bottom line of civilization?” Another comment blasted the write-up: “Please the author do your homework well before you start to write an article like this as people will see how ignorant you are. And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, as the attempt to represent a far vaster group with some extreme cases is clearly an act of discrimination.” http://www.samesame.com.au/news/international/6499/Chinas-gay-marriage-war-of-words.htm Once standards begin to decline, it would be quite difficult to knock back the next minority group who want their share of 'equal' rights. It's all about the thin edge of the wedge. That's your best argument, we must start opening to have Islamic Law in the future because Christian Law is law now. Which direction is the decline ... equality or Islamic/Christian theology? 'We' don't have to do anything at all green. If the Islamics or the Gay lobby or any other peculiar odd and morally bereft minority group doesn't approve of this countries long standing laws and standards, they can accept another fine Australian law and thats the one that gives these people the right to leave this country and go to a country that will. So, off to Canada green. A man can marry his dog, stubby, pet rock or ute in Canada if he has the cash. No standards at all over there.

Yet in time Islamic Law could replace Christian Law ... all because Australians wouldn't protect their secular government by removing and protecting from religious laws.


Will you follow muslim law?

Verge wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:19am:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:16am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:09am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law? I'm not talking about Islam or Christianity. What I am talking about is modern law. De-facto couples are legally not married. Homosexual couples can (and should) have the same legal rights and be allowed to register their relationship. They do NOT need to be married. None of that view is religion based. I am a Christian (C of E) but this view is completely separate to the institution. I don't need to speak for them and they don't need to speak for me. The bases of gay hate is religious based. The Christian Church has waged a witchhunt on gays and the law against equality is anti secular. Without someone to hate, the cults will collapse. This is Hate Christianities last stand. Equality Ends Hate Christianity. Thats crap, absolute crap.  There is those that are christians that support gay marriage, and those that are not christans who dont support it. Just get over it mate, not everyone agrees with it.  Its a personal view. People are entitled to a person view.

Yes, there are hate christians, as there are christians who's faith is based around a loving God.

This unequal marriage law is hate christian law.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:17am:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:16am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:09am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law? I'm not talking about Islam or Christianity. What I am talking about is modern law. De-facto couples are legally not married. Homosexual couples can (and should) have the same legal rights and be allowed to register their relationship. They do NOT need to be married. None of that view is religion based. I am a Christian (C of E) but this view is completely separate to the institution. I don't need to speak for them and they don't need to speak for me. The bases of gay hate is religious based. The Christian Church has waged a witchhunt on gays and the law against equality is anti secular. Without someone to hate, the cults will collapse. This is Hate Christianities last stand. Equality Ends Hate Christianity. I'll say again, just on its own this time. My view is not remotely a religious based one.

Subconsciously it is, since you have had hate christianity brain washing as a child.

The only way you could of been taught to hate a section of the population without any logic to this hate.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:05am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:53am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 8:21am: “The impacts of same-sex marriage include the ‘domino effect’ that it may bring upon the marriage system,” he warns. “Once same-sex marriage is legalized, it may lead to the debates on legalizing ‘multi-partner marriage’ and ‘human-animal marriage’. “If the law recognizes same-sex marriage, what about the ‘rights’ to adultery, incest or pedophilia? Does this bring a challenge to the bottom line of civilization?” Another comment blasted the write-up: “Please the author do your homework well before you start to write an article like this as people will see how ignorant you are. And don’t bring up those “human-animal” or “three-people marriage” or stories of incest again, as the attempt to represent a far vaster group with some extreme cases is clearly an act of discrimination.” http://www.samesame.com.au/news/international/6499/Chinas-gay-marriage-war-of-words.htm Once standards begin to decline, it would be quite difficult to knock back the next minority group who want their share of 'equal' rights. It's all about the thin edge of the wedge. That's your best argument, we must start opening to have Islamic Law in the future because Christian Law is law now. Which direction is the decline ... equality or Islamic/Christian theology? 'We' don't have to do anything at all green. If the Islamics or the Gay lobby or any other peculiar odd and morally bereft minority group doesn't approve of this countries long standing laws and standards, they can accept another fine Australian law and thats the one that gives these people the right to leave this country and go to a country that will. So, off to Canada green. A man can marry his dog, stubby, pet rock or ute in Canada if he has the cash. No standards at all over there. Yet in time Islamic Law could replace Christian Law ... all because Australians wouldn't protect their secular government by removing and protecting from religious laws. Will you follow muslim law?

It's all science fiction green, and this country is a long way from us turning into a minority group within our own country.
For your sake, your lot and straights wouldn't want anything to do with Islamic law anyway.
You know that if your not willing to convert, your kaput.
No room for the kaffir in their society.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:34am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:17am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:16am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:09am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law? I'm not talking about Islam or Christianity. What I am talking about is modern law. De-facto couples are legally not married. Homosexual couples can (and should) have the same legal rights and be allowed to register their relationship. They do NOT need to be married. None of that view is religion based. I am a Christian (C of E) but this view is completely separate to the institution. I don't need to speak for them and they don't need to speak for me. The bases of gay hate is religious based. The Christian Church has waged a witchhunt on gays and the law against equality is anti secular. Without someone to hate, the cults will collapse. This is Hate Christianities last stand. Equality Ends Hate Christianity. I'll say again, just on its own this time. My view is not remotely a religious based one. Subconsciously it is, since you have had hate christianity brain washing as a child. The only way you could of been taught to hate a section of the population without any logic to this hate.

So how do you explain someone like me that supports Gay marriage then Woody?

How do you explain the Preists that support Gay Marriage?

Homo Marriage is anti-social which the public simply do not support and never will.  Its political suicide for any politician to vote for it - they will lose their preselection. :)

Prevailing wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

Homo Marriage is anti-social which the public simply do not support and never will.  Its political suicide for any politician to vote for it - they will lose their preselection. :)

Same Sex Marriage is already recognised in Australia and there are some same sex couples already married.

When a person has a sex change within a marriage, the marriage then becomes a same sex marriage. These marriages are recognised in Australian Law. Why are some sex marriages recognised, while others are ignored.

Verge wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:51am:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:34am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:17am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:16am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:09am: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 10:42am: Like I said before Woody - no issue from me at all in gay people being allowed to register their relationship in a civil ceremony. No issue at all with them having same legal rights as a de-facto couple. That is enough. Compromise - it is something unfortunately the vocal minority need to look up. Would you live under Australian Islamic Law Hicks, because this is what this is about. Secular Verses Islamic Theocratic government in Australia. Soon the majority in Australia will be of Asian Heritage, giving a rise to increasing Islamic Australia's population. Once they hold critical mass, Islamic Law will be erected. Now do we draw the line here and ban all religious law as far as government is concerned. Do you support or oppose secular law? I'm not talking about Islam or Christianity. What I am talking about is modern law. De-facto couples are legally not married. Homosexual couples can (and should) have the same legal rights and be allowed to register their relationship. They do NOT need to be married. None of that view is religion based. I am a Christian (C of E) but this view is completely separate to the institution. I don't need to speak for them and they don't need to speak for me. The bases of gay hate is religious based. The Christian Church has waged a witchhunt on gays and the law against equality is anti secular. Without someone to hate, the cults will collapse. This is Hate Christianities last stand. Equality Ends Hate Christianity. I'll say again, just on its own this time. My view is not remotely a religious based one. Subconsciously it is, since you have had hate christianity brain washing as a child. The only way you could of been taught to hate a section of the population without any logic to this hate. So how do you explain someone like me that supports Gay marriage then Woody? How do you explain the Preists that support Gay Marriage?

That yourself and those Priests believe in a Loving God. Correct?

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:24pm:

Prevailing wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Homo Marriage is anti-social which the public simply do not support and never will.  Its political suicide for any politician to vote for it - they will lose their preselection. :) Same Sex Marriage is already recognised in Australia and there are some same sex couples already married. When a person has a sex change within a marriage, the marriage then becomes a same sex marriage. These marriages are recognised in Australian Law. Why are some sex marriages recognised, while others are ignored.

Because when you are allowed to have a sex change and people start calling you Mrs instead or Mr, you are just being humoured, indulged. That's what a tolerant society does. Nobody actually thinks that you have become a woman. You just had you d!ck and balls cut off and they pumped you full of hormones and they let you play act.

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:33pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:24pm: Prevailing wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Homo Marriage is anti-social which the public simply do not support and never will.  Its political suicide for any politician to vote for it - they will lose their preselection. :) Same Sex Marriage is already recognised in Australia and there are some same sex couples already married. When a person has a sex change within a marriage, the marriage then becomes a same sex marriage. These marriages are recognised in Australian Law. Why are some sex marriages recognised, while others are ignored. Because when you are allowed to have a sex change and people start calling you Mrs instead or Mr, you are just being humoured, indulged. That's what a tolerant society does. Nobody actually thinks that you have become a woman. You just had you d!ck and balls cut off and they pumped you full of hormones and they let you play act.

Yes they do. Same Sex Marriages already exist in Australia yet Gillard and Abbott claim a marriage is between a man and a women. Gillard and Abbott have been proven wrong.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 11:28am:

Yet in time Islamic Law could replace Christian Law ... all because Australians wouldn't protect their secular government by removing and protecting from religious laws. Will you follow muslim law?

SO now it's 'united we mince against sharia'?

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:36pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:33pm: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:24pm: Prevailing wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Homo Marriage is anti-social which the public simply do not support and never will.  Its political suicide for any politician to vote for it - they will lose their preselection. :) Same Sex Marriage is already recognised in Australia and there are some same sex couples already married. When a person has a sex change within a marriage, the marriage then becomes a same sex marriage. These marriages are recognised in Australian Law. Why are some sex marriages recognised, while others are ignored. Because when you are allowed to have a sex change and people start calling you Mrs instead or Mr, you are just being humoured, indulged. That's what a tolerant society does. Nobody actually thinks that you have become a woman. You just had you d!ck and balls cut off and they pumped you full of hormones and they let you play act. Yes they do. Same Sex Marriages already exist in Australia yet Gillard and Abbott claim a marriage is between a man and a women. Gillard and Abbott have been proven wrong.

Just because a man wears females clothes and has had an operation doesn't make him a woman, and visa versa.
Just the same as if you were born in a stable green, I wouldn't be calling you Mr Ed.
As a matter of interest, how long do you think these 'same sex marriages' of yours last once the partner finds out about the lying and betrayal that has occurred over a long period of time.
And that's before the kids find out.
And the 'claim' that Gillard and Abbott say that marriage is between a man and a woman is no claim.
The Marriage Act makes it the Law green.

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:37pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:28am: Yet in time Islamic Law could replace Christian Law ... all because Australians wouldn't protect their secular government by removing and protecting from religious laws. Will you follow muslim law? SO now it's 'united we mince against sharia'?

Having religious law in a time when soon, Asian heritage Australians will be the biggest group within Australia's population. A section of these being muslim. So it is not a choice of Christian Law, it's Religious Law that could come from anywhere.

Time we reinforce our secular government by enshrining it within our Bill of Rights

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:33pm: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:24pm: Prevailing wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Homo Marriage is anti-social which the public simply do not support and never will.  Its political suicide for any politician to vote for it - they will lose their preselection. :) Same Sex Marriage is already recognised in Australia and there are some same sex couples already married. When a person has a sex change within a marriage, the marriage then becomes a same sex marriage. These marriages are recognised in Australian Law. Why are some sex marriages recognised, while others are ignored. Because when you are allowed to have a sex change and people start calling you Mrs instead or Mr, you are just being humoured, indulged. That's what a tolerant society does. Nobody actually thinks that you have become a woman. You just had you d!ck and balls cut off and they pumped you full of hormones and they let you play act. Yes they do. Same Sex Marriages already exist in Australia yet Gillard and Abbott claim a marriage is between a man and a women. Gillard and Abbott have been proven wrong. Just because a man wears females clothes and has had an operation doesn't make him a woman, and visa versa. Just the same as if you were born in a stable green, I wouldn't be calling you Mr Ed. As a matter of interest, how long do you think these 'same sex marriages' of yours last once the partner finds out about the lying and betrayal that has occurred over a long period of time. And that's before the kids find out. And the 'claim' that Gillard and Abbott say that marriage is between a man and a woman is no claim. The Marriage Act makes it the Law green.

Yet as I have pointed out and you chose to glaze over, there are marriages where one of have had a sex change. A Sex Change recognised by law. This means it is a same sex marriage.

Already existing In Australia ... No outcry, no collapse of civilization.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:48pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:37pm: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 11:28am: Yet in time Islamic Law could replace Christian Law ... all because Australians wouldn't protect their secular government by removing and protecting from religious laws. Will you follow muslim law? SO now it's 'united we mince against sharia'? Having religious law in a time when soon, Asian heritage Australians will be the biggest group within Australia's population. A section of these being muslim. So it is not a choice of Christian Law, it's Religious Law that could come from anywhere. Time we reinforce our secular government by enshrining it within our Bill of Rights

No enlightened secular society can function on a rational or economic basis indulging Homosexual delusions. ::)

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:52pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:46pm: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:33pm: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:24pm: Prevailing wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Homo Marriage is anti-social which the public simply do not support and never will.  Its political suicide for any politician to vote for it - they will lose their preselection. :) Same Sex Marriage is already recognised in Australia and there are some same sex couples already married. When a person has a sex change within a marriage, the marriage then becomes a same sex marriage. These marriages are recognised in Australian Law. Why are some sex marriages recognised, while others are ignored. Because when you are allowed to have a sex change and people start calling you Mrs instead or Mr, you are just being humoured, indulged. That's what a tolerant society does. Nobody actually thinks that you have become a woman. You just had you d!ck and balls cut off and they pumped you full of hormones and they let you play act. Yes they do. Same Sex Marriages already exist in Australia yet Gillard and Abbott claim a marriage is between a man and a women. Gillard and Abbott have been proven wrong. Just because a man wears females clothes and has had an operation doesn't make him a woman, and visa versa. Just the same as if you were born in a stable green, I wouldn't be calling you Mr Ed. As a matter of interest, how long do you think these 'same sex marriages' of yours last once the partner finds out about the lying and betrayal that has occurred over a long period of time. And that's before the kids find out. And the 'claim' that Gillard and Abbott say that marriage is between a man and a woman is no claim. The Marriage Act makes it the Law green. Yet as I have pointed out and you chose to glaze over, there are marriages where one of have had a sex change. A Sex Change recognised by law. This means it is a same sex marriage. Already existing In Australia ... No outcry, no collapse of civilization.

I thought that was what I was responding too.
Anyway, I wouldn't expect the two or three sex change marriages to cause any outcry or collapse of civilisation.

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 12:36pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:33pm: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:24pm: Prevailing wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Homo Marriage is anti-social which the public simply do not support and never will.  Its political suicide for any politician to vote for it - they will lose their preselection. :) Same Sex Marriage is already recognised in Australia and there are some same sex couples already married. When a person has a sex change within a marriage, the marriage then becomes a same sex marriage. These marriages are recognised in Australian Law. Why are some sex marriages recognised, while others are ignored. Because when you are allowed to have a sex change and people start calling you Mrs instead or Mr, you are just being humoured, indulged. That's what a tolerant society does. Nobody actually thinks that you have become a woman. You just had you d!ck and balls cut off and they pumped you full of hormones and they let you play act. Yes they do. Same Sex Marriages already exist in Australia yet Gillard and Abbott claim a marriage is between a man and a women. Gillard and Abbott have been proven wrong.

Changing someones anotomy doesnt not make them the opposite sex.

You cant change chromosomes Woody, so your argument is null and void.

Verge wrote on Mar 4^th, 2011 at 2:36pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:33pm: ____ wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:24pm: Prevailing wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 12:05pm: Homo Marriage is anti-social which the public simply do not support and never will.  Its political suicide for any politician to vote for it - they will lose their preselection. :) Same Sex Marriage is already recognised in Australia and there are some same sex couples already married. When a person has a sex change within a marriage, the marriage then becomes a same sex marriage. These marriages are recognised in Australian Law. Why are some sex marriages recognised, while others are ignored. Because when you are allowed to have a sex change and people start calling you Mrs instead or Mr, you are just being humoured, indulged. That's what a tolerant society does. Nobody actually thinks that you have become a woman. You just had you d!ck and balls cut off and they pumped you full of hormones and they let you play act. Yes they do. Same Sex Marriages already exist in Australia yet Gillard and Abbott claim a marriage is between a man and a women. Gillard and Abbott have been proven wrong. Changing someones anotomy doesnt not make them the opposite sex. You cant change chromosomes Woody, so your argument is null and void.

Correct.
It's not a woman. It's just a bloke who has cut his balls off.

I personally don't get gay people I never have, I don't know why a fella would want to dress as a woman and start knocking off other fellas - but thats me personally.

If that's their go then fine.

They just cannot get married. That's all.

Interesting find here Woody.

Same-sex commitment ceremony
Subsection 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 defines marriage as ‘...the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.’ Accordingly, it is not possible for same-sex couples to marry under Australian law and same-sex marriages entered into under the laws of another country are also not recognised in Australia.

It is not illegal to conduct a commitment ceremony for same-sex couples, though, provided that ceremony does not purport to be a legal marriage.

Change of gender
In his decision in the case of Re Kevin, Chisholm J of the Family Court decided that a post-operative transsexual female to male person is a ‘man’ for the purposes of the Marriage Act and was able to enter into a valid marriage with a woman.  On 21 February 2003, the Full Court of the Family Court upheld the original decision.  

The decision of the Full Family Court to uphold the original decision does not affect the definition of marriage in Australia as ‘...the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life’.  The parties to a valid marriage must be a man and a woman.  The issue in this case was the status to be assigned to ‘Kevin’ who had undergone sexual reassignment surgery and who had been issued with a new birth certificate reflecting his gender as a male.  The decision is only applicable to post-operative transsexuals.

This decision means that a person who has undergone gender re-assignment surgery can  marry as their reassigned gender as long as they fall within the parameters set down in the decision in Re Kevin.

Seems like your ones that change sex are no longer in a valid marriage if it becomes MM or FF.  Also, if they change sex to make it MF then they can legally marry.