Same Sex Marriage Bill passes

[strongmanmike]

This a momentous day in Australian history and to all those IIS'ers who have been waiting for this day.. sheesh! :eyepop: better late than never, huh? :thumbsup:...heart felt thoughts to you and your loving partners :love2:..now go get married!

Regardless of the difficult, contentious and in many ways unnecessary, dog in a manger, road taken to get to today, t'is a (rare) great day in our democracy :cool:

I am, you are, we are Australian! :2thumbs:

Mike

[OzEclipse]

Well said Mike!

:love2::love::party2::party2: :thanks: :thanks::party: :party: :drink: :drink::jump::jump::cheers::cheers: :tasdevil: :love2::love::party2::party2: :thanks: :thanks::party::party: :drink: :drink: :jump::jump::cheers::cheers: :tasdevil: :love2::love::party2::party2: :thanks: :thanks: :party::party: :drink: :drink::jump::jump: :cheers: :cheers: :tasdevil:

[blink138]

it is great, but i am sick to the eye teeth with it all!
pat

[LewisM]

Can't escape it in Canberra...billboards, truck billboards and public buses...

Whatever makes people happy.

[PeterM]

Well said Mike.

[alan meehan]

if they past other bills as quick as this one we would all be better off not just ones iam sick of hearing about

[xelasnave]

But I did not send my vote in...lost it some place and my rate notice.

This is great news for many reasons but I am really surprised anything was done and expected years more of no action.
Alex

[csb]

Stop the world. I want to get off.

[Steffen]

Spare a thought for the people who voted "no".
http://www.theshovel.com.au/2017/11/15/same-sex-marriage-opponents-enjoying-last-few-moments-before-their-lives-are-dramatically-unchanged/

[csb]

I just realised this means TV content is definitely going to get worse! Aagh, also the commercials! :shrug:

:question: I'll have to eat my breakfast with no TV :sadeyes:

[el_draco]

It's also a day that's enough to make 40%+ of the population want to vomit.... Thought we were supposed to be politics free here? :rolleyes:

[PeterM]

No not political, just a basic human right being applauded here for the many IIS members that now have the same legal right to marry when they love someone. DUN done.

[Tropo-Bob]

:thumbsup:

[LewisM]

What, you mean something is going to change? You obviously haven’t watched the ABC or SBS for the past decade or more.

[csb]

I mainly watch re-runs and old dvd movies.

Who would have thought in some ways those shows would be closer to normal life than real life? :P :lol:

[jenchris]

About time, civilisation has reached the apex in Oz.
I can't believe how long it took to reach a point where we regard love and compassion a basic human right

[Visionary]

You know of course that nothing has changed. Property rights for Gay couples have not changed, the status of de facto relationships is unchanged. All that has changed is that 5% of the population can participate in an increasingly unpopular relationship status, to be legally married.
The Political Elite seem very happy about this maybe that's the big win, they are distracted and maybe they will leave things alone for a while.

[csb]

David, that's a point that was put forward during the campaign. However, if 5% of the population are homosexuals then they are a minority. This vote was actually about giving full equal rights to that minority group.

[bojan]

Yep.. why they should be better off than rest of us? :P

[Visionary]

I failed to comprehend the debate... My friends who were most strongly in the Yes camp were all in defacto relationships. Some who quite bravely supported the No campaign were married yet even within that group some were in de facto relationships.
At the end of the day, Civil Marriage is an anachronistic institution. I am simply amazed at the number of collum inches devoted to the Yes campaign, amongst those proponents Ms Gillard who is quite famously in a de facto relationship.
What new rights are conferred on Gays' who choose to be married? Do they have new property rights etc:? If they had previously chosen to live in a de facto relationship then they have already had conferred upon them every single right and responsibility that can be granted via Civil marriage.
There is no distinction between a Civil Marriage & a De Facto relationship. This debate has made the Political Elite happy, possibly pleased a proportion of the 5% who are Gay, but beyond this, the debate, the vote, was a huge and costly distraction and the entailed most rampant use of Motherhood statements I have seen in an age.
If Civil Marriage was important, then the majority of couples would be getting married and they are clearly not getting married. The Elites are happy, the SMH is happy, therefore we must all be happy.

[doppler]

Marriage is just an expensive party that a lot of people can't really afford, but do it anyway for tradition.:shrug:

[el_draco]

I dumped the T.V. and the radio months ago. Thought I could escape the whole pathetic farce here... but I guess not. I'll have to be a lot more discriminating in the threads I read. :sadeyes::mad2:

[Varangian]

omg telly? Couldn't think of anything worse!

[csb]

Something worse: the amendments to the Marriage Act that were made yesterday :lol:

[jenchris]

The tax laws, medical responsibility and relationship, heredity taxes and quite a few other corners are different.
De facto is not the same at all.
Try fighting your relations for your husband's or wife's estate..... no chance.

[LewisM]

So long as someone's choices in life does no harm to others, why would anyone have an issue or object?

Live and let live. Give EVERYONE the same rights, FULLSTOP.

[strongmanmike]

No point discussing or arguing about anything now guys..its all over red rover, it is now law, for ever :cool: part of life, aint nutin the vomiters can do about it now :) love it! :thumbsup:...happy days :)

[spiezzy]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thum bsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[LewisM]

The only thing momentous about this whole thing is what a momentous waste of money it was.

It should have been done decades ago, without all the fuss and expense. I don't view it as a monumental day in history, but rather the day stupidity came to an end.

[alan meehan]

Hear hear, LewisM

[LewisM]

Not law until tomorrow Mike.

And NEVER say forever - even Australia's Constitution can be amended.

[jenchris]

Plus one Lewis

[Atmos]

I have always wondered what the results (percentage of Yes/No votes) would have been like if the "Yes Campaign" didn't go out and campaign.... There were a lot of people that felt really disenfranchised by the Yes Campaign and voted No for that reason.

[strongmanmike]

https://www.facebook.com/TheProjectTV/videos/10155147544733441/ .....and at 2min 15 sec of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jQP0Y2T2OQ

:thumbsup: :rockband:

[LewisM]

I really was pi$$ed off by the "Yes" campaigners sending out SMS's - as were a LOT of Australians. They should NOT have done that, as that is intrusive.

"No" campaign? Where? Never saw it even once in CBR.

[Paul Haese]

I voted yes for several reasons but mainly for one of my sisters. I hope she can return to Australia with her partner and their child to live permanently rather than being forced to live in the US because Australia did not have same sex marriage and they could not get a resident visa for her partner. This I see as a great implication and only just. I don't see all the BS about the repercussions of the legislation changing. Does it really affect anyone if people get married? No. Anyway I am glad the legislation passed.

[spiezzy]

Totally agree Paul and I hope your sister and her partner can now finally move home with there little one
cheers Pete

[xelasnave]

Although an important issue as is the citizenship thing whilst we focus on such issues we miss the tax avoidance that seems to be ignored....I presume it is still ignored on the basis I hear zip about the issue in the news.
Alex

[csb]

What Alex?! Normal people can't use marriage as a tax dodge so how can gay people:question: :P

[jenchris]

What sort of a comment is that? "normals and gays"
Them's fightin' words buster

[xelasnave]

I am thinking about the companies who turnover billions and yet pay little tax.
A coal company turning over 30 billion and paying $60 million tax...it is a scandal more so because public attention is diverted to stuff that really a should have been managed with less fuss.
Alex

[Visionary]

Paul, please excuse my ignorance, my question is genuine. Surely the provisions and legal protections afforded by De facto marriage would have provided the necessary legal protections to secure a resident Visa? I would have thought to deny a Visa to a couple protected that enjoyed a Defacto status would be impossible irrespective of sexual status.
Paul, I had no idea that the Marriage Act was relevant re: Visa etc: I thought all of the discrimination between Defacto status and Married status had been swept away in the 1970's
If the passage of the Act has helped your Sister then that a good thing. Cheers

[JA]

That is so true Alex. We should focus just as much investigative and legislative attention on the tax paid by corporations and delve deeply in to matters, corporations and individuals exposed in such investigations as the Paradise Papers and Panama Papers as legal as these arrangements may or may not be.

Best
JA

[LewisM]

https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1/801-

The partner visa has been around for MANY years (since 1997 I believe) and covers defacto (includes same sex relationships). (https://www.border.gov.au/Visas/supporting/Pages/partner/what-de-facto-relationship-is.aspx)

https://www.border.gov.au/about/corporate/information/fact-sheets/35relationship

My wife got a Partner visa 12 years ago (it was much cheaper then), and the forms did specify defacto and same sex as an option. We did it all ourselves (not even remotely daunting or difficult), and the total time from applying for the partner visa and then to her being granted temporary resident was 6 months.

[csb]

Jenchris, I noticed my mistake after posting. Actually I did edit before you posted. Sorry, just a slip of the wrist :innocent:

[LewisM]

Damn, a limp wrist? :lol: :lol:

You need to strengthen that up lad.

:rofl:

[jenchris]

Craig my petal.
It's the comparison of Gay and normal - GAY IS NORMAL.
It's just a variation that is part of life's rich tapestry.
Ask my wife.

[taminga16]

Short memory Mate. Marriage Amendment Act 2004. ... On 27 May 2004 the then federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock introduced the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 to incorporate a definition of marriage into the Marriage Act 1961 and to outlaw the recognition of same-sex marriages lawfully entered into, all under the guidance of John Howard.
And while I have your attention, could you please explain to the group how the bill is going to impact on your television viewing?
Respectfully, Greg.

[LewisM]

C'mon people, no need to attack Craig over his beliefs - he is entitled to his point of view as much as anyone else.

[csb]

TV will become gayer :zzz2:

[csb]

Thanks Lewis but I don't feel I'm being attacked.

Actually my posts are some cheeky banter.

I didn't vote because I considered it a waste of effort. The world is becoming more and more strange and the law/legislation is being used to push this change. More is certainly to come.

[Camelopardalis]

Last time I checked, about 80% of eligible voters in Australia registered their choice...if you didn't register your opinion, then more fool you...

In the civilised world, we call that democracy in action. You don't have to agree with it, but if you don't participate, you're not in a position of strength to throw rocks at the process.

[csb]

Ok better wording would be abstained. I abstained as did some government ministers. They also participate in the legislation and quite probably the marriage act.

They had their reasons and I told you my reasons.

[MortonH]

I don't see how this will change the world, TV or anything else. It was flagrant discrimination to exclude same-sex couples from the Marriage Act in 2004. What we've done now is not so much granting a right to a minority but ending discrimination against that minority.

Frankly the whole thing was a no brainer. The fact that we had to go through the postal vote first just made Australia look stupid.

What I'm more concerned about is that many people's objections were based on their religious beliefs. I don't want to be governed based on the beliefs of someone like Tony Abbott. I want to be governed based on a fair, equitable system of law.

[strongmanmike]

See original post above! :D

Now read it again :cool: :thumbsup:

Education level and level of intellect correlate very highly with same sex marriage views...fact, not fiction :)

Now...read orginal post again! :hi:

Mike

[LewisM]

Will be interesting to see if certain churches forbid marriage of same sex in their churches. I believe there remains a supposedly inalienable right of the church to deny marriage to whomever they please. I think a same sex couple trying to marry in a Catholic Church would only be trying to make a controversy and a point :lol: (despite the juxtaposition of the Catholic Church in the first place...SMH). There may be some very over-blown court cases against churches now (and GOOD too).

I agree with Morton in that I suspect a great number of no vote was based upon archaic, centuries old religious dogma. Time we changed religion to be updated with humanity as well (like that will ever happen :lol: :lol: :lol:)

[LewisM]

Stop talking to yourself Mike :lol: :lol: :lol:

[strongmanmike]

Please read original post....:rofl:

[Varangian]

Omg someone shoot me and put me out of my misery from reading this thread. Yes I shouldn't have but I did.

[Andy01]

I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to criticise people's beliefs anymore than it is to say what people can/cannot do in their bedrooms... true believers have a conscience too - let's remember to respect that as well.:D

[LewisM]

True that.

[strongmanmike]

By True believers I assume you are referring to believing in the God of Abraham, Jesus of Nazarus, Muhammad etc..?..and not The Labor true believers? :)

This was not about activities in bedrooms (or garages, living rooms or back sheds, for that matter :rolleyes:) and a persons beliefs (what ever that means?) had nil to do with the issue and should never have come in to it in the first place.

People believe in UFO's, Horoscopes and Flat Earths too...and just like religious ones, these "beliefs" certainly have no relevance to the human right of same sex marriage and its legality in Australia.

Mike

[taminga16]

I am turning off now.

[FlashDrive]

What a dreadful thread .....

[The Mekon]

I have kept out of this so far, hoping that the mods would close it.

Col, I could not agree more.

John

[strongmanmike]

The mods can delete posts that are personal or nasty etc, otherwise it is as legitimate to discus as many others that have propgated on this site in the past...:shrug:

Mike

[strongmanmike]

On second thoughts :question: the discussion is both political and religious....fair enough lock it if you want but....please read the original post one more time :lol: :hi:

...sorry :P

Mike

[Andy01]

+1^

[xelasnave]

Can't we be sensible respectful and polite and not have to go running to the teacher.

All can hold views without judging others.

Before you post ask if your post meets the standards of polite conversation.

Alex

[csb]

That is so easy to show as pure fiction.

Government ministers, religious leaders, professionals and academics are against SSM.

Usually it's the No camp who have been using false facts and illogical reasoning to back their view. I suppose not all Yes people have high level of intellect ;)

[csb]

Further, you possibly equate being against SSM with bigotry.

Being against SSM (having a view that SSM is wrong) does not mean the person is against homosexual people or lifestyles. It is having the view that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Often this view is based on religious beliefs - this demonstrates that the person is using evidence, the writings and tenets of their religion, to conclude that SSM is wrong. I am not sure how those people that don't adhere to a religious belief conclude that SSM is wrong.

Many people are anti-religion and don't see it as legitimate source. To some extent this view is correct. A religious source is only acceptable evidence if you happen to believe in that religion.

So being against SSM is actually a thought through process for many who have looked at the evidence and concluded that it is wrong.

Note: I have not been using my religious beliefs in this debate to state SSM is wrong but I do have that view due to my beliefs. It is not possible for me to actually reason using a source that many people here do not believe.

[AstralTraveller]

Sorry Craig but this is fiction. I don't what metric Mike is using for intellect so I'll leave that aside, however the correlation between highest educational level and voting intention was clearly evident in those surveys that correctly predicted the overall result. Of course there is a lot of scatter and even downright outliers but the overall pattern is clear.

You speak of 'government ministers, religious leaders, professionals and academics' as if they were a homogeneous entity - they all think alike. I don't think a detailed rebuttal of that idea is necessary :rolleyes:. However let's look at the groups.

Government ministers: I think it's known that most voted 'yes'.

Religious leaders: I expect that most were opposed to SSM but obviously a minority, possibly a significant minority, are supportive.

Professionals: Sorry, but who or what are professionals? AFAIK everyone who gets paid to do their job is a professional.

Academics: Here I can speak with some authority. I have known a lot of academics quite well over the past 20 years. In general they hold small 'l' liberal views. I know one religious academic who I think it is fair to say is more accepting of SSM than totally thrilled. Everyone else I know is totally supportive. That's in the sciences and they are typically more conservative than the arts.

I don't know where you picked up that statement but I think you should mark the source as 'not to be trusted'.

[Atmos]

I am going to start this by saying that I am not a Catholic just so that there is no bias :P

I do believe that it would be wrong for anyone to have a go at the Catholic Church for not marrying same sex couples and the reason I say this is because some of them have always had a strict stance on who they marry, it’s nothing new. One partner is not a Catholic, or a Prodistant or a Greek Orthidox (pick your church ect.) then they won’t marry you. Been divorced, no marriage here. If the priest or whoever thought a young couple was rushing into things or weren’t a good fit, no marriage in this chapel.

I have no warmth towards the Catholic Church at all but there is no arguement that they are being equal. They have a set of guidelines for marriage under their roof that hasn’t changed for a long long time, going after them now for this particular thing I believe is going against what the whole equality movement is about. Just like gender and race quotas, you cannot inequality by being unequal.

[doppler]

Marriage is a license issued by the government, the religious/civil side is the ceremony. It seems all the attention is focused on the party and not the contract. :shrug:

[casstony]

You didn't have to look at the thread Matt :)

Gay marriage has zero impact on my day to day life and it reduces stress for others so why not. Just relax and worry about something worthwhile people, such as polar bears starving because we're melting the ice they once hunted on.

[csb]

You are correct David. My comment was flawed.

Mike put forward the level of intellect into the argumhent which I am sure is nonsense.

My point being that we need to use credible and verifiable evidence in debates. A waste of words to make things up or provide distorted data.

[xelasnave]

Facts will not alter beliefs nor will beliefs alter facts.
Alex

[Deeno]

Not to much has changed.
Self professed intellectuals with opposing views always has made for toxic
browsing....

[FlashDrive]

:lol: :rofl: ROTFL

[LewisM]

The moment Mike dropped in that "intellect required" bomb of BS is the second this whole talk became a farce. It's stupid attitudes like that and a self-grandiosing superiority complex of "my choice was right nar ne nar ne nar nar" that just nullifies everything said to nothing but background hiss and noise.

Anyone with even half a neuron knew the second it was announced what the result would be. Australia was making it's decisions well before the politicians decided to find out. But oh no, we needed to turn it into an expensive circus and drama event.

Topic over IMHO, at least from me.

{edit: OK, I lied}

[rrussell1962]

Hours of fun researching correlation and causation and learning a lot. Apart from that very little to be gained from this thread. Will somebody please put it out of its misery.

[multiweb]

... running out of popcorn.

[FlashDrive]

:lol::thumbsup::lol: .... it's ' Intermission ' ... canteens open ...get some more ...

[xelasnave]

Mikes assertion can be rebutted so very easily but I will not say a thing for there is no need...but I will say a section of the community has been recognised as being part of our society and that is a wonderful thing and irrespective of how you feel about the matter just hold that thought as it is the only one worthy of mention.
Being judgemental is so easy to do but it is a trap best avoided.
Alex

[AndrewJ]

Gday Alex


Fully agree re being recognised, but i strongly doubt they will be accepted by all.
I see the problem now is a numerically larger ( but still small ) section of society has effectively been told ( in their eyes ) that their beliefs dont matter. That groups beliefs are ( mainly ) based on religion, so no amount of telling em "its over, get over it" will change them, just as no amount of telling the gays to come up with a new word that could be legislated to cover the "legal equality" of a union would satisfy them.
Many of those who voted probably dont care.(me)
Those who voted Yes because it benefitted them will be happy
Those who voted no on belief will probably be less tolerant in future.
( Lets hope the last one doesnt come true )
Andrew

[casstony]

Fuddy duddy generation dies eventually, younger generation takes over, ideas change. It will all be a non-issue as time moves on.

[strongmanmike]

Sorry if my words are annoying to you guys, no harm intended, truly but..and as there is for smoking, belief in conspiracy theories (like the moon landing, 9/11 etc) and conservative voting tendencies in general... there is indeed very credible research and data analysis to back it all up, it is not pure fiction or BS.

In the case for the recent SSM debate in Oz... Here (https://theconversation.com/cognitive-ability-plays-a-role-in-attitudes-to-equal-rights-for-same-sex-couples-84276?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20 Conversation%20for%20September%2026 %202017%20-%2084016921&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20C onversation%20for%20September%2026% 202017%20-%2084016921+CID_8988fea20b4b3621ee1 45142c742c588&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Cognitive%20ability%20play s%20a%20role%20in%20attitudes%20to% 20equal%20rights%20for%20same-sex%20couples) is a one nice summary of some highly relevant data :)

If you can't be bothered reading it all here is the crux of the findings of the analysis:

The findings do not mean that all who intend to vote “no” in the marriage ballot have a low level of cognitive ability. Nor do they mean that all those who intend to vote “yes” have a high level.

Yet the results suggest that, on average, people who stand against equal rights for same-sex couples are less likely to have cognitive resources that are important to participating in meaningful debate.

Here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22222219) is another relevant paper and there are plenty more out there....it really isn't controversial at all guys :shrug: :)

Mike :)

[csb]

This thread does not breach ToS which requires members to be civil and respectful. There has been some slight tension and even immaturity but nothing that breaches the ToS.

The topic, along with politics and religion, does not breach ToS, but I wouldn't encourage starting a thread on any other volatile subjects.

[FlashDrive]

Are you talking to me .... :P

Senior Citizen

[csb]

Thanks Mike, that's what was needed, some data to support your argument.

However, throwing out your statement about a correlation with intellect doesn't seem to have any purpose to back your argument but seems designed to cause antagonism and upset or was issued out of frustration/annoyance. If this is not so then please continue to explain your point.

[strongmanmike]

Craig I have done the wide reading, I am quite confident that what I have asserted is based in solid psychological and sociological research. I just can't be bothered detailing it all here. Truly, if you doubt me then do your own research, find out for yourself if what I have suggested is valid or not. If you have a good level of mental action and a process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses...you will find it all and very easily :thumbsup:

Mike

[AndrewJ]

Gday Tony


But the basis of a religion doesnt. Just ask the romans :-)

Andrew

[xelasnave]

Mike you certainly did not annoy me its just that I can rebut your claim re intelligence but I won't cause it would cause all hell to break loose.
Alex

[Deeno]

Can't believe some the elitist, lefty garbage that is being exhibited here.
At least some are showing their true colours.

Mike, if you could have lifted something the size of your own head, you may have actually succeeded....;):eyepop::rofl::rofl: :rofl::sadeyes::shrug::question::qu estion::screwy::prey::prey::prey::2 thumbs::2thumbs::poke::nerd::rockba nd::xmas::astron::sunny::scared2::c onfused::confused::lol2::ship1::shi p1::ship1::ship1::ship1::confuse3:: party::jump2::thanks::thanks::rundo g::cheers::clap::tasdevil::cloudy:: juggle::juggle::abduct::abduct::abd uct::bashcomp:

[casstony]

You old fuddy duddy Col. Hope I'm fortunate enough to become a fuddy duddy one day :) I wonder what my grandchildren will get up to for me to complain about? Probably not much, I've had the redneck beaten out of me by a lady from Sanfrancisco :)

[FlashDrive]

Stick around it'll happen .... ;)

[csb]

Mike, you showed the evidence for your statement and I read one of the articles - it certainly seemed credible.

Butt what is the point you were trying to make.

It certainly appears that you are just implying that people who are against SSM are a bit dim. If so then that hardly forwards a debate.

[marc4darkskies]

You do surprise me sometimes Mike! :lol: Here's an interesting article by Prof William Briggs (Cornell University) more or less rebutting Gordon Hodson's "paper": http://wmbriggs.com/post/5118/

BTW, I apologise in advance ... I have "conservative voting tendancies". :screwy: Alas, that means I could only understand / pronounce every 2nd word in the articles .... :P :shrug: I definitely don't have the intellect to google articles that support my own ideology & dogmas. ;) :P

[MortonH]

Smart people can be incredibly dim when it comes to certain topics that they don't understand, can't understand or have been told they shouldn't understand.

[strongmanmike]

Yes you do..you just did :D and good on ya, you are one of the smart ones :lol: ..unlike Deeno, at least you are thinking :thumbsup:

I can see this going aroud in circles, missing the point and getting scrambled...tis what it tis no hard feelings. Glad the bill passed, thats the main thing :thumbsup:

Mike

[xelasnave]

This was not my rebuttal but in an effort to inject humour.

Anyone who wants to get married certainly could have their intelligence called into question as well as their sanity.
Alex

[strongmanmike]

Nah that's funny Alex :lol:.......can hardly hold my head up....:P

On ya :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Husband..."I was so stupid to marry you"
Wife...."I was in love I did not realise then that you were stupid"

[csb]

Thanks Alex for diverting Mike away from his belittling commentary. He seems to have run out of any constructive discourse quite a few posts back.

No hard feelings Mike :thumbsup:
Unfortunately, I've done the same on this site several times :sadeyes:

[strongmanmike]

Actually it all makes me laugh and smile :), the angst aint in me, very comfortable in my own skin, very comfortable...:thumbsup:

Against the narrow minded conservative odds, more beautiful people have equal rights now, whats not to rejoice about? :)

Mike

[geolindon]

Mike,
I luv reading n re-reading your original post :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

aaah well, at least the "fundamentalists" don't still persecute us . . . . . . . . . . . . . for looking at the Galilean moons.
L

[xelasnave]

Hi Craig
It was not only Mike I was hoping to cause to lighten up.
This should not be something where two sides form ...
Let's forget everything up to this point.
On the bright side its getting darker each night.

Perhaps you could contribute a joke and help make anyone who reads the thread and gets to this point feel cheerful rather than resentful.
Could you help me out please.
Alex

[xelasnave]

And Flash you are terrific with jokes how about a Santa joke?
Alex

[xelasnave]

And all please stop the little digs.
Alex

[doppler]

Marriage is too complicated, defacto is simple and requires no gov approval or license. You just move in together, no one's business just yours, and if it doesn't work out...

"To officially end your de facto relationship, you need to inform your ex-partner.
You do not have to:


apply to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
fill in any forms
receive a separation certificate."

[strongmanmike]

Awww come'on Alex, this isn't the ancient Agora, its IIS :lol: Im as light as :hi:

I just wanna go to some same sex marriages!..bring'em on!

Mike

[LewisM]

THIS is the kind of inexcusable and flagrant misuse of public money I am talking about (and see my bus photo earlier):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-17/act-chief-minister-pushes-publicly-funded-same-sex-yes-campaign/8816478

and

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/08/17/19/45/marriage-equality-canberra-act-government

And yet the roads in the ACT are absolutely in need of major repair and MUCH MUCH MUCH more important things than swaying opinion. Despicable, unnecessary expenditure.

Don't worry Mike, I am SURE Andrew Barr will invite you to his marriage...even pay for you to be there as protection :lol: :lol: :lol:

[strongmanmike]

Oi...yes, you lied...me thinks you will not like being in a scietifically strong electorate Lewis :lol:

Welcome to the Canberra region, one of the top three places to live on the World :D surrounded by lots of smart and intellectual people THANK GOD :hi:
Luv ya :)

Mike

[MortonH]

"Surrounded by" but not populated by? ;)

[xelasnave]

I know that Mike but to proceed otherwise would make me seem one sided.
It is not easy trying to establish a neutral ground.
I have to show I am giving recognition to everyone's position.
Alex

[strongmanmike]

Ya wanna come live here Morto? :thumbsup: really a fabulously progressive well educated place to live, lots of love and equality too, very little narrow minded, shallow thinking :thumbsup:

:)

[csb]

What has the government relocated? R:lol:

[strongmanmike]

You see?...there you go, the ACT is self governed dude, tut tut, nuttin to do with the federal guys, yet another lack of understanding exposed..sigh..:whistle:

[MortonH]

I went to Canberra on the Easter weekend about 10 years ago. It was closed.

[strongmanmike]

Nup never closed...not even to the closed minded :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

I am a bit down on marriages generally having spent time in the Commonwealth Attorney Generals Family Law Division.
I am not sure of current divorce figures but 1 in 3 or 4 eventually fail I believe.
Anyways working there you of course only see the marriages that go wrong.
And it is so sad how folk who are so in love ,I assume, when they get married become such bitter humans all because of marriage gone wrong.
But even before that the nonsence of weddings is hard to fathom.
The pledging of one human to another seems odd driven by insecurity, a mere method to hold off any change the future may hold.
And the reception I call a waste of money, and everything must be just right, flowers decorations, all dictated by whatever whimsical fashion is the current flavour.
The one upmanship is sad reflecting the most base displays of human pride.

But then failure sees each partner intent on dragging out the agony of the split up out far past anything that could be seem as normal human behaviour.
Each wanting to hurt the other and a mere licence of marriage becomes aicience to hate.
And where does marriage come from..from times where it was used to join family fortunes or to bring peace between waring enemies.
I don't care who wants to get married I see it as a terrible institution binding insecure folk in relationships that are somewhat simply not normal in fitting with human behaviour.
Alex

[strongmanmike]

:question:....:love:

[jenchris]

Ah Akex. If you are truly in love the adds ons aren't important. There were only 4 people at my wedding and it cost 100us. The reception was lunch at a restaurant for the four of us and we went back to work after.
That was 37 years ago. We're still together and happy.

[xelasnave]

That is reasonable.
But I am sure you know the type of thing I am thinking about.

I know what its like to be in love...
I have had dogs so I know all about it...and a cat.
In fact I am with the cat now, the one that near took my hand off.
The little devil went straight thru the netting in his cat room and got out.
Just as they go away for the concert.
So for hours I look for him and when I found him had the good sense not to pick him up..left the door open and eventually he came back in.
IG that is not love I don't know what is.
Alex

[casstony]

Yes, we need to do away with the wedding 'industry'. It's way too stressful and expensive and youngsters get sucked into the commercial nature of it all.

A ceremony in a nice garden/forest followed by a backyard barbeque for the reception is my preference; use the cash saved to put towards a home or holiday.

Our own wedding ceremony took place in a foggy Redwood grove.

[xelasnave]

Why not arranged marriages given the parents know better than the kids.
Alex

[casstony]

As a parent with an 18yo daughter I think that's a great idea; it's painful watching them make the same mistakes we made. She's a bit lukewarm on the idea though :)

[xelasnave]

One certainly needs to let them choose.
So it would be best to present a group of suitable prospects from whom they can choose.
Alex

[LewisM]

Touche Morton :lol:

Luv ya too Mike, but you know, in the platonic way. Oh hang on, Plato swung both ways...Hmmmm...either way, so long as you don't grope me....or even frisk me.... and NO MAFIA KISSES EITHER! :rofl:

[The_bluester]

Sounds a bit like ours.

We were married on our property, in front of a large rock that is a memorial to my father, under leafy trees, with the other participants being the celebrant, my mother and my wife's parents (Both now deceased)

We then proceeded to have a nice lunch at a local cafe and jumped on the ferry to Tassie, texting everyone with what we had done just before we went out of mobile range after going out of Port Phillip Bay through the heads (Something that is probably a thing of the past, there may be phone coverage on the ferry now?)

The only people who knew beforehand why we were having a lunch that day were my wife and I and the celebrant, plus my mother the day before as she chipped a tooth and was threatening to go to the dentist. She worked it out when we insisted she had to be there.

We spent easily ten times as much on our honeymoon trip around Tassie than on the wedding and that was only a handful of thousands for a week or so.

[LewisM]

4? That's a lot :lol: - I stopped the car one day. Turned to my then fiancee, and said let's get married NOW. Went to the courthouse. Told us we had to wait 3 days, and needed 2 witnesses (1 for the groom, one for the bride). So, we hustled up some friends, bought 2 wedding rings, went to the court house (with my wife in a sun dress) 3 days later and literally had a shotgun wedding. Went to the RSL and had some cake with the friends, then drove 5 hours to my grandparents for our impromptu honeymoon (for the first time, I got my Grandmother completely drunk, which was funny!). Cost? Dunno - whatever registering with the court was back then - $60 by memory. I did not even invite my mother :lol: (don't ask!), but told her AFTER. (she didn't forgive us for a couple years). My father lived in Singapore then, so couldn't come either.

Did it all over again a year later surrounded by 100 people, ceremony on the lake, proper reception and honeymoon (eventually). Didn't cost us a cent either, as not only did my inlaws pay for EVERYTHING including the airfares, but we were given cash as wedding presents (people knew we couldn't take stuff home easily), so went home with $7K.

11 years, 2 kids and counting and still very much in love (besides the ear bashings I get for buying stuff)

[N1]

Spot on Alex. Arranging my own right now, and not leaving it to the kids. Don't want Bat or Spiderman on the guest list :P

[jenchris]

You didn't buy a wedding ring did you? - I found mine while scuba diving (Bermuda).
I did go somewhere quiet before I tried it on in case I disappeared.... my prrrecciousss <gollum>

[strongmanmike]

Please read original post again and again....aaaaand again :lol:... HAPPY DAYS it is now the law :cool:

Mike

[jenchris]

I am so glad it is just your thought.
I'd hate ro think it disturbed your sleep.

[xelasnave]

Hey Blindman,
Don't watch porn.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Blindman if you think the movement is over the top consider this.
They have been treated badly for a real long time and treated unjustly.
The pendulum may seem to have swung too far and even if it did can you really hold it against them.
As Mike says be happy.
Alex

[LewisM]

Alex is right - it makes you go blind.

Oh...oooooooppss!

[blindman]

Trying to be happy, but but but consequences of that new law will be disastreous.

[FlashDrive]

How do you know that .... :whistle:

Poppy ... :lol:

[blindman]

Probably I would, because I do not attend daily NASA Church
:rofl:

[casstony]

Trolling or in the closet?

[blindman]

trolling...trolling
come on!

[PCH]

Whatever the arguments for or against Mike, you do seem to display an unusually enthusiastic level of pleasure that the bill was passed and I’d be really interested to know why.

For most people, they might have a preference one way or the other, often influenced by an affected member of their family, but your excitement eclipses that by miles. Why does this result please you so much?

[csb]

6He's just trolling. And got the reaction he wanted - although he's probably hoped for stronger responses so he revived the thread..

On internet he can show such exuberance due to anonymity. I bet he isn't so gay about it at work or in person. He'd come off as a complete tosser.

[PeterM]

As Mike keeps reposting...reread his first post.
To all LGBT members of IIS my congratulations on having your rights put into LAW by the majority vote.

[bobson]

Sorry mate, but above comment rather describes you.

You obviously don't know who Mike is. It would be really hard for him even now when he's older to hide anywhere :)

Cheers

Bob

[xelasnave]

If you gave him a telegraph pole or a large truck tire you could well be right.

Alex

[PCH]

Well, it was a politely worded question with no hidden agenda. I was just curious that’s all. No matter, all is well :)