John Smith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2016 at 1:16pm:
Because marriage is a traditional ceremony between a man and a woman. They don't qualify.

John Smith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2016 at 1:40pm:


They can already "do what they like to each other".

Why is it they feel the need to pretend to a concept that's not about them being able to live/cohabit/have a relationship together?

It's the same as feminists wanting to break down & gain entry to any "men "only" bastions ....

because they "want" to

then openly have no problem with the formation/opening of women only organisations
& companies advertising positions vacant for women only.

Gnads wrote on Sep 29^th, 2016 at 4:50pm:



except get married

Valkie wrote on Sep 29^th, 2016 at 6:55pm:


It is  now.  It will not be soon.

There are a many unmstated assumptions in the Marriage Act because age-old tradition means that these assumptions are understood by all. Therefore they are not spelled out.

But now there is no shared assumption and everything is up for definitional challenge. Shared, millennial assumptions are swept aside by legalistic demands for definitions. Marriage has been understood, without needing to spell it out, as something a man and a woman enter into. That i now challenged because it has been merely a shared assumption for thousands of years.

The Marriage Act also assumes that marriage is between to people, not more, between two humans, not any other combination, whether two or more.

There is abosolutely nothing in the Marriage Act that says that one of the parties has to be a sentient being, or a human being. 
But is the unspoken assumption of marriage being between a man and a woman needs codifying, when will we codify all the other unspoken assumptions??


A YOUNG Toowoomba man yesterday tied the knot with his best friend - a five-year-old labrador

Who can deny this man's right to marry FOUR labradors???  Only far-right fasciscts, obviously.

John Smith wrote on Sep 29^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:





You seem to be very eager to confuse legal with real. Even if the law says they are married, nobody else will think they are married, only that they are 'married'.

Same sex marriage is a farce, a charade. It's a prank. It's completely not serious.

In a marriage there is a wife and a husband. When two blokes get 'married', which one is the wife? Do they rotate? Can you imagine a woman introducing another woman to you as her 'husband'?

It's a gigantic farce.

If gay marriage is legislated the Muslims will be clamouring for the legislation for 4 wives the next morning. But you could not possible allow a man 4 wives without allowing a woman 4 husbands or 4 lesbian wives.  So immediately, trying to accommodate poor littlwe Muslim minorities, we will be legislating for a homosexual bloke taking four other homosexual blokes as his 'wives'.

This is progressive idiocy in action. And it will happen because there is imply nothing that can stop progressive idiots except stern and ongoing rebuke and defiant and sustained bollocking.

You guys are all mad.

Valkie wrote on Sep 29^th, 2016 at 6:55pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 29^th, 2016 at 8:22pm:



I think it is you who is confused, the whole discussion is about LEGAL RECOGNITION, it's not about wether or not they can screw each other. After all, most of them that decide they want to marry probably don't give a crap what you or anyone else thinks.  I know I didn't stop to consider how you would feel when I got married, just as I doubt you stopped to think about how I would feel when you married (assuming you are married).