John Smith wrote on Sep 30^th, 2016 at 8:08am:


OK
The crux of the matter is the LEGALITY of being a couple.

I understand this and wholeheartedly agree that they must be accepted as a couple and that they must have equal rights.
Anything other than this is not acceptable.

What I disagree with is the term Marriage.
Marriage is a joining of a man and a woman in the legal and religious rights of holy matrimony.

No Bible, Koran, Tora or any other religious teaching advocated the joining of a man and a man or a woman a and woman.
In fact they generally oppose it.

Therefore, why could not the gays accept another term for the joining of two same sex couples?
Why does it have to be marriage?
Are they simply trying to rub religions nose in it?
Why would they want to use a term opposed to what they are?
It makes no sense.

Call it Birriage or Gayarriage or some such, just leave the word Marriage alone.

Valkie wrote on Sep 30^th, 2016 at 11:21am:



marriage was around before any of those religions, and will continue to be around after they are forgotten. They simply hijacked marriage to be a religious event because it gave them another way to control the peasants.

John Smith wrote on Sep 30^th, 2016 at 1:21pm:



Then why not just call it something else for gay couples?
If it means so little?


Bump back

Valkie wrote on Sep 30^th, 2016 at 5:06pm:




I dont think there is anything stopping you call it what you like.......gays are like aborigines to me.. as soon as they get one thing they find something else to whinge about...

anyone would think a piece of paper makes the slightest difference to ....well........ being happy and making a relationship work.....if you look at Brad and Angie you know full well it can be the death knell...

they will then have to go through all the agro of a divorce..which can be quite unpleasant from what we read.......lets hope we get it out of the way before much longer....its basically stopping the country from moving on..

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 30^th, 2016 at 5:45pm:


Yes I get it.

John Smith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2016 at 9:16am:


So its better to upset and alinate the MAJORITY of the population so a MINORITY feels a little bit more justified?

Makes sense.?............not

John Smith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2016 at 11:41am:



If that's the case why are the gays so worried about the plebiscite?

Ill tell you why, because the MAJORITY are opposed to it.

Keep it behind closed doors where it belongs

Valkie wrote on Oct 1^st, 2016 at 1:33pm:



because it's not binding. 

Why waste $160 m for an opinion poll that several ministers have already said they will ignore the result off  anyway? If they don't care about the result of the pleb, it's a waste of money and we should scrap it and give the ministers a conscience vote. You realise the pleb costs more than what it costs to pay all our unemployed their benefits for a year? It's madness.