I believe in gay marriage

[Zedder]

When universities just keep on churning out graduates year in year out and in a small relatively stable population, growing the business requires thinking outside the box!

Kinda makes you wonder, could there have been some other undisclosed shadowy driving force in behind the success of this bill?

Probably not of course but all I mean is it does make one ponder, who really benefits!

Who really benefits? Marriage celebrants, wedding reception venues, florists, vehicle hire companies, etc etc.

[oldrider]

People who yesterday couldnt marry someone and now can?

True!

Can't really dispute that simple fact!

Whether or not they benefit from that experience will be up to the people concerned. (I personally wish them all the best in that)

Of course if it all goes wrong for them the vultures who live off cleaning up the wreckage will now have a much bigger playing field to work on too, won't they!

[Brett]

so you want to discriminate. Fine, I get it. Luckily you dont have the opportunity anymore.

Most times we make a decision we are forced to discriminate in some way. I DO get to discriminate still, I will continue to refer to my marriage as hetero to define it from the now general population. But somehow I get the undertone from you that you'd rather be inflammatory on this particular topic (note my demarcation being to this convo, because usually I find your posts and perspective reasonable) and not allow for the variance in attitude/perspective (and the RIGHT to a varied opinion to yours) that I hold contrary to yours. I am not asking to have my views enforced on anyone else, in fact I believe my previous posts have shown that I seek to avoid this, however I can reserve the right to not agree with something. Beyond having my views and opinions, I have not stood in the way of this Bill or the upholding of civil rights and have not discriminated AGAINST or shown any bigotry or level of condemnation towards gay people, other than the stupid, colloquial use of the terms "gay" and "fag" which is pretty common amongst young people and IS in effect disparaging as it uses a term for someone else as a slur...but of course most of us who have used the terms "gay" and "fag" before do not intend for this to be an affront to gay people.

If I think Honda motorcycles are horrible, I can hold that view. It doesn't mean I am going to prevent anyone else from owning one and riding it around. In effect, you're telling me that I would HAVE to like Honda because I can't have a personal preference...where are my civil liberties in that?

Edit - Honda fans, i happen to think that the CBR1000rr is a fantastic bike...so untie your panties

[jonbuoy]

Umm, two of my grandchildren have two mothers as of last weekend and they seem to feel fine about it. Certainly better than just having a mother and no-one else. FWIW, I feel fine with it too.

No shortage of unwanted children in the world- better to have gay parents than get bounced from foster home/orphanage.

[HenryDorsetCase]

If I think Honda motorcycles are horrible, I can hold that view. It doesn't mean I am going to prevent anyone else from owning one and riding it around. In effect, you're telling me that I would HAVE to like Honda because I can't have a personal preference...where are my civil liberties in that?

You misunderstand the concept at a very basic level. Your analogy is incorrect. This legislation does not say anything about your opinion. or your likes and dislikes. You can hate Hondas all you want. Correction: you hate gay people all you want. This legislation does not affect you one iota. It merely says that someone who likes suzuki can now publicly declare that, and have that recognised by the state in the same way that your misguided like of Kawasaki is recognised. It just doesn't affect you at all, I have no idea why people are worked up about it.

Also, "jokes" about how "gay" Hondas are, are fucking stupid.

[husaberg]

Also, "jokes" about how "gay" Hondas are, are fucking stupid.

ok it Might explain why you meat the nicest guys on them

[_Shrek_]

There was a time in New Zealand when homsexuality was illegal.
Then in the late 1950s and early 1960s it was still illegal, but condoned as long as it was kept private.
Next it was made legal, but with some restrictions like marriage.
10 years ago A marriage like state called civil unions was legalised, and now full marriage is legal.

Its time to leave the country before homosexuality becomes compulsory for everyone.

no leaving the country wont help M

coz when it all turns to shit.... we will have to re-educate the kids that have been lead to believe all the

thats been taught over the last decade of two

[oldrider]

Next! ... Move right along there is nothing more to see or hear here, gay marriage is old hat now!

[blue rider]

.........I DO get to discriminate still, I will continue to refer to my marriage as hetero to define it from the now general population

......

This statement has me scratching my head......, if you are married to the opposite sex, your marriage is of a heterosexual nature - no? Why do you have to refer to your marriage as such then?

[Madness]

......

This statement has me scratching my head......, if you are married to the opposite sex, your marriage is of a heterosexual nature - no? Why do you have to refer to your marriage as such then?

Maybe Brett is struggling to cope with feelings coming from deep down in his trousers and an attraction to rainbows & pink things?

[Virago]

This statement has me scratching my head......, if you are married to the opposite sex, your marriage is of a heterosexual nature - no? Why do you have to refer to your marriage as such then?

I suspect it's because he doesn't want anyone to think he might be gay - which is has to be a display of the most insecure homophobia I've seen yet.

Marriage was the last safe bastion from which homophobes could display their unquestionable heterosexuality. Now it has gone...

[bogan]

I suspect it's because he doesn't want anyone to think he might be gay - which is has to be a display of the most insecure homophobia I've seen yet.

Marriage was the last safe bastion from which homophobes could display their unquestionable heterosexuality. Now it has gone...

Maybe his wife is a bit butch, so he's just removing the ambiguity that has been introduced with the law change.

[husaberg]

I suspect it's because he doesn't want anyone to think he might be gay - which is has to be a display of the most insecure homophobia I've seen yet.

Marriage was the last safe bastion from which homophobes could display their unquestionable heterosexuality. Now it has gone...

Yeah like Elton John, Rock Hudson, Oscar Wilde etc..lol

[Virago]

Yeah like Elton John, Rock Hudson, Oscar Wilde etc..lol

Ah, yes - back in the good old days where gay people pretended to be straight.

[MD]

My issue with the marriage equality bill has nothing to do with my religion etc. but has more to do with my objection of the use of the word "marriage" when describing two same sex individuals together in a marriage type union. Let me explain, it would be incorrect of me to describe myself as being in a homosexual relationship with my wife because, quite simply it cannot be that way. She is F, I am M. To me, by its very definition, marriage is the union between a male and a female. There should be another name for the union between a man/man or woman/woman that has equal grounding in law etc. so that homosexual people have an equally appropriate title for their relationship as marriage, but also allows for a clear distinction from heterosexual "marriage" - not because their relationship is "cheaper" or anything, but simply because it is not the same as mine. Liken it to a diesel vs a petrol motor...they are both equally useful at different things, but they are never going to be the same.

Best post award material right there.
I am not opposed to homosexuality or prejudice in any way towards them.
Homosexuals have the right to choose their own sexuality.
Homosexuals have the right to have their love, commitment and union with each other recognised in law with all the same protection a marriage offers husbands and wives
THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE HISTORICAL AND COMMON USE MEANING OF A WORD, ANY WORD, IN THIS CASE IT HAPPENS TO BE THE WORD MARRIAGE
I oppose this bill simply on the grounds of vocabulary abuse. I married to become husband to my wife.

First they hijacked the word gay to advance their cause. Now it is the word marriage they have hijacked, twisting it's meaning to somehow try and add some credibility to their choice of sexuality. Can't it stand on it's own merits? Are homosexuals totally devoid of any original thought? Can't they create a pleasant new word to celebrate their sexuality?

I dislike the word nigger for it's historical link to racial hatred. BUT, that doesn't mean anyone can retrospectively rewrite history and the dictionaries of the world to change the words meaning to a type of fish. It is was it is.

There are supporters on here like HDC, who's opinion I usually respect, who are so blinded by their 'anyone opposed must be a hater of homos' that they can't see how bigoted they have become themselves. Why should a minority rights be held higher than the majorities.

FFS, give homosexuals equal rights, if they don't like to call it a civil union then show some balls and intelligence and dream up a great new word you all like that celebrates the wonderful uniqueness of homosexual relationships.