I don't know anybody this would fit.

Note: I don’t give a toss and won’t be participating in the survey (they won’t post the stuff to me anyway).

I have two nieces who are in permanent ss relationships, one has had a child in that relationship, the other has a partner and they share seven kids they produced with their former husbands and took off to the states to “Marry”.

The latter are nasty pieces of work who’ve shafted their former husbands in the worst possible way and are doing everything in their means to emotionally destroy their kids - marriage didn’t do that, nor would it fix the problem.

@dog said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

Has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is a civil contract. No one will force a church to perform a Same Sex Marriage

Not sure about that one Dog… there’s heaps of precedent in other places with ministers being castigated and “anti discrimination” laws being brought to bear. I see no problem with the system used in much of Europe - a legal registration in the courthouse, and a separate “church” marriage which does not have the same legal ramificaitons… that would surely overcome that argument…

Is not about having children.
Will not harm or have any effect on your marriage.
Will not lead to people marrying children or goats.

But what about those people who outside of their control are attracted to children or goats? It is no more a choice than being black or short.

Bait? What bait? :question:

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

Yawing?

It’s just a jump to the left.

And then a step to the right.

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

I see no problem with the system used in much of Europe - a legal registration in the courthouse, and a separate “church” marriage which does not have the same legal ramificaitons… that would surely overcome that argument…

This. :thumbsup:

administrators

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

Note: I don’t give a toss and won’t be participating in the survey (they won’t post the stuff to me anyway).

I have two nieces who are in permanent ss relationships, one has had a child in that relationship, the other has a partner and they share seven kids they produced with their former husbands and took off to the states to “Marry”.

The latter are nasty pieces of work who’ve shafted their former husbands in the worst possible way and are doing everything in their means to emotionally destroy their kids - marriage didn’t do that, nor would it fix the problem.

@dog said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

Has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is a civil contract. No one will force a church to perform a Same Sex Marriage

Not sure about that one Dog… there’s heaps of precedent in other places with ministers being castigated and “anti discrimination” laws being brought to bear. I see no problem with the system used in much of Europe - a legal registration in the courthouse, and a separate “church” marriage which does not have the same legal ramificaitons… that would surely overcome that argument…

Is not about having children.
Will not harm or have any effect on your marriage.
Will not lead to people marrying children or goats.

But what about those people who outside of their control are attracted to children or goats? It is no more a choice than being black or short.

Note: I do give a toss. I care about equality. I think it is unconscionable that groups of people are denied basic human rights.

There are arseholes in this world. Some of the arseholes are LGBTI. Do you think we should ban marriage if an arsehole is involved?

Can you cite an example of a church being forced to marry a gay couple? Religious organisations get plenty of exemptions including being able to discriminate against hiring people of other religions or of no religion. This is unlikely to change.

In any case it is very likely that the legislation regarding same sex marriage will specifically exclude religions from doing something against their religion. Businesses will be forced to treat all people equally. This is as it should be. Again, replace the word ‘Gay’ with ‘Black’ and see how reasonable it is for a business to refuse service.

Currently, marriage in Australia is between two consenting adults. While this has not always been the case where in the not too distant past men have been able to marry 13 a year old. The slippery slope argument is just bullshit.

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

It is no more a choice than being black or short.

But, but but… you are tall & the last time I saw you, you weren’t black.

administrators

@Cliff-Rogers said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

I see no problem with the system used in much of Europe - a legal registration in the courthouse, and a separate “church” marriage which does not have the same legal ramificaitons… that would surely overcome that argument…

This. :thumbsup:

I’d be for this except that all of our laws recognise the marriage not the civil union. It would be a legislative nightmare to change all the laws in all of the states to deal with this.

administrators

I still don’t really understand the argument against. What is the problem with giving another group the same rights that you enjoy? It doesn’t take yours away

The problem is with the true believers in Christianity & marriage in a Church.

administrators

@Cliff-Rogers said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

The problem is with the true believers in Christianity & marriage in a Church.

No one is stopping true believers from getting married in a church.

In Australia, marriage is enacted by the state not by the church.

OK, I’m lost… what is different between getting married in a Church & getting married by a civil ceremony?

administrators

The act of marriage is signing the civil contract which is a function of the state. Whether you have a religious ceremony or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You are not married until you sign the secular contract.

OK, not… I still don’t get it, maybe I haven’t paid enough attention.

which entails tearing out your balls through your wallet…

@bunyip said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

which entails tearing out your balls through your wallet…

Only works once, you soon learn not to keep them there. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

administrators

@Cliff-Rogers said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

OK, not… I still don’t get it, maybe I haven’t paid enough attention.

You cannot get married without signing a marriage contract, that is the marriage license. It does not matter where you hold you ceremony. The act of marriage is simply signing the licence. Marriage is the contract not the ceremony.

As odd as it might seem, I did not get married in a church. I signed a marriage license in front of a qualified witness, which in my case was a civil celebrant. Others have their marriage witnessed by a priest or rabbi or mufti etc. which are also qualified witnesses.

I get that bit… my 2nd marriage (slow learner) was out in a garden by a civil ceremony.
I think I may have missed the point of difference between a civil ceremony & a civil union.

@Cliff-Rogers
Yourl understand one day i’m sure

@Cliff-Rogers said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

OK, I’m lost… what is different between getting married in a Church & getting married by a civil ceremony?

One is in the sight of God, in the other there is no god.

And isn’t that the point?

@dog’s argument waivers between, “equality for all” which should extend to the rights of those who believe something to protect those beliefs, and

“it’d be too hard to fix the legislation”.

The latter is my problem with the whole deal - just patch it all up - use the bits from a different time and then exempt some people from action… maybe, cause a whole lot of grief, instead of just biting the bullet and doing it all fundamentally correctly.

It can’t be too hard to have a wholesale change… they did it with metric conversion after all! :wink:

And no I don’t even care about a “slippery slope” - but why shouldn’t the goat fanciers have equal rights?

administrators

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

@Cliff-Rogers said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

OK, I’m lost… what is different between getting married in a Church & getting married by a civil ceremony?

One is in the sight of God, in the other there is no god.

And isn’t that the point?

@dog’s argument waivers between, “equality for all” which should extend to the rights of those who believe something to protect those beliefs, and

“it’d be too hard to fix the legislation”.

The latter is my problem with the whole deal - just patch it all up - use the bits from a different time and then exempt some people from action… maybe, cause a whole lot of grief, instead of just biting the bullet and doing it all fundamentally correctly.

No, no.no. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with God. You cannot in this country get married without signing the civil contract, the marriage licence. The state issues the licence. Repeat after me. Religion has nothing to do with marriage other than performing the ceremony. The ceremony is NOT the marriage.

It can’t be too hard to have a wholesale change… they did it with metric conversion after all! :wink:

Can you imagine how many pieces of legislation from superannuation, incoherence laws, next of kin, power of attorney that there are in this country? Must be hundreds of not thousands of them. Just a nightmare.

Simply changing the definition of marriage to say ‘Between two people’ stops any of the confusion.

And no I don’t even care about a “slippery slope” - but why shouldn’t the goat fanciers have equal rights?

Because the goat can’t consent. It’s really simple. Children can’t consent, at least not informed consent.

No where in the world has same sex marriage led to marriage between man and goat. It’s just another bullshit argument.

Again, what do you lose by giving others the same rights as you have? How does it materially effect you?

Marriage equality will make a significant difference to those who are penalised by the current laws.

Looks like your connection to The Blokey Shed was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.