Marriage is totally Gay


The ‘Yes Arena’?


So finish this sentence for me:

I should not be forced to serve you a beer in my pub if your choices for your life go against my ________ ?


Freudian slip? :slight_smile:


Nope, I am always on a program for betterment.


You don’t think its possible somebody might want to just to shyt-stir or see an opportunity to get publicity maybe even a lawsuit? What if the little Catholic church down the road is a beautiful building where your parents were married & you believe you should be able to marry there too? What if I want to marry Baccusfox (he’s had a bad record with women) & I choose Lakemba Mosque as my venue of choice? I have no idea what legislation already exists or whats proposed with these changes but a clear position on the rights of churches will be needed.


Then we have one hell of a role for Hugh Grant. Maybe bill nighy as bacchus?

Thought experiment only, I don’t think anyone’s going to impose anything on churches, for any number of reasons.


fkg lol


We’ll have to disagree on that one. Only a matter of time I think.

Your casting choices aren’t too bad but Hugh’s a bit old to play me, maybe someone like Jude Law :wink:


It took 20-25 years to get a royal commissions into kiddie fiddling, the Catholic Church in particular still wields a huge amount of power. Heavily intertwined in public services.
This supposed persecution of the Catholic Church is extremely far fetched.


There are extensive exemptions from discrimination under the Marriage Act and Sex Discrimination Act already available to religious institutions in regard to who they choose to marry , among othe things. They can be easily found on

They are already permitted to refuse to marry people and they do all the time. To the best of my recollection, that black letter law has never been challenged. There are no proposals to take away those legal rights.
Among other things, proposals cover an extension of existing discriminatory legal rights to cover more commercial aspects, unconnected to canon law , such as refusing access to hire church venues for wedding receptions.
Beware attempts to turn SSM into a second class status by extending discrimination beyond the actual marriage.


There’s more than 1 religion. As for child sex abuse I think its fair to say thats been swept under the carpet for a long time from many institutions in many countries. I have absolutely no desire to defend the Catholic church or any religion for that matter but I think its very likely that we will see existing laws tested & more pressure brought on churches.


Link came back as “file not found” lol

The fear, rightly or wrongly is that changing the marriage act may impact those exemptions. I’m not suggesting this is my fear but until the bill is enacted its probably not as relevant to talk about what the existing laws state.




Oh come on, you cant keep this act up forever. It’s not a fear, it’s a strawman.


Actually from.what I understand being married in a mosque is not particularly popular for Muslims. They often just exchange their wedding vows in private/or even in a secular venue.

Maybe some fellow bomber brothers could confirm.


They’ve got God on their side so they should be able to handle it.


Dear Mr J Bomber,

Excuse me, but what the fark is your definition of a bad record?

I have a great record with Women; married 3 times, many other meaningful relationships, many unmeaningful relationships and always on the lookout for the next opportunity. If they gave awards in this matter, then I may have won a Brownlow and certainly a Coleman.

And unlike some others, I have no regrets in my life. And all my ex-Wives have won a house and at least one car from their good fortune at being married to me.

So stick to your boring, conservative life and let some of us enjoy ourselves.

Yours sincerely

Mr B Fox


JBomber: The Smith Bill did not come out of nowhere. There was a Select Parliamentary Committee, an exposure draft identifying issues and potential inconsistencies between the Marriage Act and Sex Discrimination and other Acts, extensive consultations and submissions.
It is all up there on the APH site.
While there may be differences of degree and emphasis, my take is that Smith would never have submitted his bill and agreement by Parliament to consider the Bill if there had not been bipartisan ( or even pluri partisan) agreement that all concerns had been fully considered and reflected in the bill. Existing legislation is always relevant when considering amending legislation.



Pity Margaret Court didn’t show the courage of her convictions in the mid 70’s, and join the 9 brave women who set up what is today the WTA - Seeing she was the leading women’s player at the time it was an abrogation of responsibility.