Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

Canberra couple to divorce over gay marriage | SBS News

I actually, after racking my brains for several hours, can't fathom why someones happiness would bother anyone at all. I'm a long time believer in 'if it aint hurting anyone I don't care, go for your life'

This couple must have serious issues if it bothers them that much, dicks

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

"How dare you consider marriage a secular concern, subject to the public's wishes. Don't you know it's MY god's sole decision? I'll cut off my own nose until you follow MY book. And sod that oath I made before my god too."

Personally I think these two should be forcibly divorced today; as too stupid and childish to be allowed to marry in the first place.

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

It's a good time to start a career as a divorce lawyer ....

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

See for me, I'm not sure something like this warrants a vote, it's the right thing to do, so we should just change 'man and woman' to 'two people' I don't see how it's threatening anyone, or undermining anything. I suppose most complaints are on some sort of religious theme, which is why these people can't be reasoned with. Should get Paul the alien to enlighten them all

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

As I have said before, the sanctity of marriage has been long undermined by the likes of Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian who have married purely for publicity.

If same sex couples want to form a recognised and onging legal bond, then they should be allowed.

Recent figures show 68% of the Australian population support marriage reform, yet our homophobic, god bothering halfwit Prime Minister sees fit to deny the wishes of the majority of the population because they don't align with his personal beliefs. It's a disgrace.


S

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

First person to respond with 'the silent majority' wins a prize! :lol:

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

I'll mention The Nazis...


S

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

I would like to see the state get out of the marriage business altogether. By what right do they assume a monopoly to authorise any kind of contract?

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

Err, it's only because of the state that ANY contract has a meaning.

Otherwise you could just walk away, no consequences.

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

I'll wade in here by inventing another phenomenon - that all this bad publicity the Nazis get is not fair on the rightful mention that Pol Pot, Stalin, the Burundis and Tutsis should also get.

The Nazis, utterly terrible that they were, are the poster boys for internet forum debate.

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

Some of the best weddings I've ever been to are gay weddings. UK of course. Bring it on.

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

I know, but none of the others are referenced in Godwins Law...


S

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

True enough, and my employment contract is enforceable under the state's laws. But I don't have to get prior permission to enter into it. That's my point. A contract of marriage between any two people should be enforceable, too - but no prior permission, either by civil licence or by church licence. And therefore, no prohibition of same-sex marriages. The state should not be entitled to license marriage contracts in advance. What do you reckon?

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

:amen:

Re: Let's spice things up by resurrecting the Gay marriage debate
 

OK, but no tax advantages and no legal benefits. Otherwise all contracts, the types of contract, terms, etc. can and are defined by the state - to keep them minimally fair.

Personally I would like MORE limits on marriage, in fact a redefinition of something that causes pain and mayhem across the country on a daily basis is desperately needed. Specifically something like :

• I don't think anyone should be able to enter into a supposed 'lifetime' contract until they are at least 30. Before that, it's temporary only, coz they are too stoopid.
• You have to live together for at least a year first - a nice mirror to having to live apart for a year to get a divorce.
• Two marriages is the tops. You get divorced twice, you don't get to say "till death us do part" again with a straight face.
• Kids is a separate contract. No "you ****ed so you took on a 20 year responsibility" b*llsh*t.
• You get divorced, you take out what you put in.
• Lawyers are banned from divorces
• Religion is banned from marriage.
• In fact, swap their positions.