freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:


Well that's by OUR prejudiced racist intolerant definition. Maybe you need to open your mind up to more tolerant equality beliefs. I hear there is a re-education camp you can be sent to. It's right next to the Islamic Jihad..... I mean Islamic Youth Camp, where the sounds of mortars, I mean..celebratory firecrackers can be heard.

Actually, our definition of marriage, under Federal law, is the union of one man and one woman. Might changed under Leftie Rudd, but maybe not.

So your tolerance does not extend to polygamy, but, gay marriage is acceptable.

I will buy that. Two concerns I have however:

(a) gay adoptions, is it *really* in the interests of children to have homosexual parents if adopted? My answer is no - it is better that they have heterosexual parents. Lefties often say how heterosexuals are violent white trash while homosexuals are loving caring parents. Im not sure why that is the case, I guess their own people are people they hate, while, the metrosexual gay guy in a skivvy is more 'cool' like themselves.

(b) spousal support from former straights who come out as gays, letting them 'game' the system. There have been cases where, two gay women live together, and each get the single mother's pension, after having had a turn at being straight.

As for a 'marriage' are gay liasons as likely to be stable as a male and a female marriage? I know its the trendy thing to say yes of course they are you intolerant homophobe...but I'd like to see the stats.

Also, anything that is not 1 male and 1 female, is not a marriage, whatever else it might be. At least not in this country, for now.

Quote:


I'm still undecided on that one. I think it is in the interests of the child to have parents. I doubt it does any harm to them to have gay parents. I doubt a gay couple would treat each other much different to a straight couple, so they'd both set a good example.

Quote:


Plenty of straight women do that when they move onto the next man. They live with their new partner but claim child support from the old one, even though that is supposed to stop (I think) if they remarry, or enter into a defacto relationship.

Quote:


Marriage is a set of rights that applies to two people. No change to those rights is required if the sexes change. This is not some dictionary or abstract definition. This is the actual rights I am talking about. In legal terms, marriage is defined by the legal rights attached to it. That is the only thing that gives it meaning in a legal context.

Quote:


The legal rights attached to marriage have nothing to do with the right to bear children.

Quote:


The legal rights are a reciprocal relationship between two people. That is all the government has to do with it.