(Not as much as blokes taking it up arse though

It certainly is unnecessary. With the enactment of the Marriage Amendment Act 2004, the then Prime Minister, John Howard, added the following definition: "marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life" without a perceived need to consult the population via plebiscite first. There is no reason to delete it without one. And may Lord Penzance's 1866 opinion: "I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others" be placed where it belongs: In the drawer where all other opinions on legal matters that are not actually based on any law gather dust.devogue wrote:I think that the plebiscite is disgusting and demeaning.
(Not as much as blokes taking it up arse though)
Sure, but the majority of straight couples in Oz at the moment have non-religious marriage ceremonies (as my son and his partner will do next year), and the % will be even higher for the gay crowd when it is finally possible by law. (although the lefty United Church will no doubt marry quite a few...)Feck wrote:Asking me to 'vote' on marriage is about as useful as asking me about changes to the official rules of golf .
I'd like to see the institution banned in favour of civil partnerships, Fighting for gay people to have the right to marriage is silly
Those religions that sanction marriage almost all contain doctrine saying gay people should be killed .
But we can prove that ours works consistently for anybody with a brain in their head, unlike the god-botherers...NineBerry wrote:Uhm. But the mathematicians also insist that only their version of how to add numbers is taught in schools and used in courts!!!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests