Marriage is totally Gay


Actually, here is one;

It was found in favor of the binding death nomination after the trustee (the second wife) decided that this wasn’t to be and paid it to herself instead of the kids from the first marriage.


Oh and one more on what happens if you don’t have a binding death nomination. $294M mistake.

Sorry to hijack. I’ll stop here.


So much for marriage being the foundation of society and all that garbage when half of them end up in divorce.


Abbott’s sister says she loves her brother but does not understand him at all.

Neither do we.


By the way, if anyone wishes to introduce legislation banning marital aids in primary schools, then I’m cough right behind them.

I’ll also back them on banning giraffes as pets, at least without a license, octogenarians suing their parents, and dogs carrying weapons.


I think the affirmative case has an unfair marketing advantage — e.g. on the way home I couldn’t miss a simple A4 sheet on a pole in the colours and the one word YES. The NO case can’t really co-opt that branding.

Also, the YES case has Tony Abbott to mobilise the masses.


Interesting in my day at high school, we were shown how to put condoms on banana’s.


And there hasn’t been a single case of unplanned banana pregnancy since!


I’d reckon with internet, by the time a kid reaches high school they have seen every type of sex imaginable. It’s not like the old days where someone’s older brother brought a pretty tame picture/people mag from the servo. Kids are way more exposed than anyone would like to imagine.


A banana that turned into a ■■■■■. that weird dvd about love.

oh sex ed, how strange you were.


Wouldn’t have a simple “like” been enough?


Abbott’s carelessness with the truth should not come as a surprise. By way of example, the ruling by the British Charities Commission - that discrimination against homosexuals in adoptions was unlawful - was made under the homosexual rights legislation of 2009, which predates English SSM law. And not all adoptions agencies closed.Seems that issue is more relevant to differences between Bishops.


They still do.


Is it fair to say that not letting gays marry is on par with not letting blacks vote or sit wherever they want on the bus?


It depends how you define marriage: if marriage is defined as a committed-sexual-relationship, then “yes, it is fair” to say that. However, if male-and-female-coming-together-with-the-possibility-of-having-children are an inherent part of the definition of marriage, then it’s apples and oranges and the analogy does not hold up.


Can two 80 yo heterosexual people get married? Because I doubt they are doing it to have kids.

Children is a big red herring. Yes married people will often have children but it’s not a condition of marriage


Same sex couples can have children, married or not.


The notion of marriage and children is, in my mind, a sacramental notion espoused by religious groups. The question being asked is one of legislative change and as such a civil matter.


It may be where you live, it is not where I live in NSW and thanks to many people’s fear on what could or might happen if “gay marriage bill” goes through, it is causing a lot of angst in the community.

The equalisation is about the Marriage Act and Defacto Rights not so much about gay marriage. Equal rights under the Defacto part of the Marriage act under Australian Law which is NOT the case right now. None of this was necessary and wouldn’t be happening at all, if John Howard had not changed the Marriage Act in 2004. We didn’t have all this drama then, it just went through without a murmur, hardly anyone knew about it.

Doing this postal survey which is probably not going to accomplish anything was NOT necessary and all it has done is make a lot of people angry and confused and has put the blame for this squarely at the feet of the gay community for wasting a lot of money which could have been used elsewhere. The fallout from this has begun to happen already.


How? (honest question…)