I believe in gay marriage

[husaberg]

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.

That's the most sensable think i have heard since i posted this

Re Ed. Ya meanie i have often found him to say what a lot of people may think but do not speak out.
But back to the subject I must say i was not bothered, no opinion either way really, by the thought of Marriage rights.....
Until it was pointed out what is happening is actually a fundamental change to what the word means.
A word that has meant something for over 20000 years (a Man and a Women)suddenly has to be made to mean something else....

Well sorry even if it puts me in the minority i think that is not right.

red heering alert
Sorry i don't see how it is a basic human right to have everything that hetosexuals have esp when you consider there is already principals in place so as to safeguard the property right's, employments rights religious beliefs etc.

Why does a word meaning (marriage)that was never ever intended to mean anything other than the uniting of a Male and female and had been the case for thousands of years no have to be made to change now to include something else how is that fair.
Indeed do heterosexuals still have rights and need protecting even though they are the majority.

[Virago]

...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.

It has nothing to do with the word - it's the law. Civil union and marriage are two different things in law, which meant property and parenting discrimination. Now the discrimination has been removed.

If you want a "different" word for homosexuals, it needs to have the same meaning in law as marriage. But why bother? I'm personally secure in my own sexuality and relationship that it doesn't bother me.

[MD]

It has nothing to do with the word - it's the law. Civil union and marriage are two different things in law, which meant property and parenting discrimination. Now the discrimination has been removed.

If you want a "different" word for homosexuals, it needs to have the same meaning in law as marriage. But why bother? I'm personally secure in my own sexuality and relationship that it doesn't bother me.

Sorry I disagree. It has everything to do with the 'word' and nothing whatsoever to do with how secure or insecure heterosexuals are, what a lame attempt at diversion.

As you just stated, marriage and civil union are different and the legalities needed tinkering to provide equality. Heter and homo are different, so what's so bloody hard about finding a word that is also 'different' and better describes homosexual relationships, instead of forcing a word that has always described a heter relationship to now describe something it was never intended to describe.

Why can't the pro Marriage amendment Bill people open their eyes to the, oh so simple concept, that if a word has an existing meaning then that is it's meaning. Imagine if the word 'up' was changed to also mean 'down', or green also describes red. Everyone would be up in arms about how stupid that change was. Same principle applies here.

This is the ONLY reason I oppose the Bill.

[Virago]

...Heter and homo are different...

No, they're not. That's where we differ - and that's crucial point in the whole debate.

I don't think it's me that's lame...

[bogan]

Why can't the pro Marriage amendment Bill people open their eyes to the, oh so simple concept, that if a word has an existing meaning then that is it's meaning. Imagine if the word 'up' was changed to also mean 'down', or green also describes red. Everyone would be up in arms about how stupid that change was. Same principle applies here.

This is the ONLY reason I oppose the Bill.

I think you'll find that word's existing meaning has changed a few times already...

[Katman]

Why can't the pro Marriage amendment Bill people open their eyes to the, oh so simple concept, that if a word has an existing meaning then that is it's meaning. Imagine if the word 'up' was changed to also mean 'down', or green also describes red. Everyone would be up in arms about how stupid that change was. Same principle applies here.

This is the ONLY reason I oppose the Bill.

Seriously man, if that's you're biggest gripe you should quietly just get over it.

Busting a vessel over it is only making those on the anti side look silly.

[husaberg]

Seriously man, if that's you're biggest gripe you should quietly just get over it.

Busting a vessel over it is only making those on the anti side look silly.

No ones busting a vessel over it. its a different opinion than yours, which anyone is entitled to aren't they?

[Brett]

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.

Glad someone else gets where I am coming from. The rest have just settled into taking the piss out of me now, not really interested in trying to hear what is being said, rather just being as bigoted as many of the anti-bill individuals are.

[Brett]

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

Must be.

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...

Talk about incorrect extrapolation. This is a very unfair comment on many levels, especially given how I have outlined my views. However, as you appear to be as obtuse and as much a bigot as the anti-bill folk are, I suppose it goes with the territory.

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

maybe it's that I'm a bit feminine.....keep sucking your thumb, you never know what it might produce.


This thread is pointless and this discussion is fruitless (no pun intended).

[Virago]

...Talk about incorrect extrapolation. This is a very unfair comment on many levels, especially given how I have outlined my views. However, as you appear to be as obtuse and as much a bigot as the anti-bill folk are, I suppose it goes with the territory...

Fair enough. I was taking the piss - my apologies.

But personally, I don't see any need to "refer to your marriage as hetero to define it from the now general population". It sounds rather precious, and would come across as rather homophobic.

[Virago]

One ones busting a vessel over it. its a different opinion than yours, which anyone is untitled to aren't they?

Can you translate that to English?

[Kickaha]

Can you translate that to English?

Dont be too mean to him, he's from the West Coast and needs all the help he can get

[husaberg]

Fair enough. I was taking the piss - my apologies.

But personally, I don't see any need to "refer to your marriage as hetero to define it from the now general population". It sounds rather precious, and would come across as rather homophobic.

I think any thing that differentiates any thing can be twisted to be racist sexist elitist or bigoted if someone wants to.
Remove all these sentiments from jokes image how funny any jokes would be. Society has become to precious.
Political correctness is more about politics that correctness.

[husaberg]

Can you translate that to English?

It is English, you don't wish to reply?
I have corrected the one word that was misspelled for you

[Virago]

It is English, you don't wish to reply?
I have corrected the one word that was misspelled for you

Depends on whether I am entitled or untitled to an opinion?