The Dark Ages ended?

http://news.smh.com.au/no-marriage-in-governments-gay-reforms/20080430-29fg.html

I know this broadcasts my naivety + ignorance far and wide but I didn’t actually believe the law didn’t recognise the marriage of a homosexual couple. I mean, I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it said before but I guess my brain just didn’t accept it since this really took me by surprise.

What the hell is the matter with this country?! I cannot believe that this piece of legislation does make up part of this country’s ‘identity’.

Speaking of the national team and our desire to support them because, in part, of our love for this country; I’m glad there is very little (in my opinion) linking our national teams to this country because the shame that I feel for even being remotely associated with the country would leave me almost incapable of supporting such teams.

Yes I’m aware of the controversial nature of this topic, yes I probably posted it because of that, yes I’m sorry for that, but hey, if you can’t do that in the gentlemen’s club where can you do it?! Am i right?!

Look out! I think I see Glen coming....

(I mean that in a completely non-sexual way)

It's pretty poor, alright.

Trizender wrote:(I mean that in a completely non-sexual way)

Like you've ever meant anything in a non-sexual way... why, you're thinking sexual thoughts right now, aren't you?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/gay-unions-accepted-but-not-symbolism/2008/05/07/1210131061925.html

This is pretty good.

I do agree with the banning of religous weddings though. It's their kooky cult and they can do what they want (I really hate agreeing with Fred Nile though).

The whole thing just adds more credibility to turning this shitty country (oh yes, I went there) into a dictatorship under ME. We'd get a much cooler national anthem as well.

Ban religious weddings... hmmm... yeah, I'd agree to that.

"It's their kooky cult [...]" Not sure what this sentence was meaning, it almost sounded like you were reversing your opinion, but maybe it means they can do what they want but leave the rest of us norms out of it? I'll second that, as well.

Trizender wrote: a dictatorship under ME.

That's what I've been saying! See?! I'd vote for you if I could wear a badge titled: "Yo yo, vote Trizender"

You get me, you really do.

Yes, I'm bagging religion but supporting their view. ( I still, as always hate Fred Nile)
As a homosexual you can't join a cult knowing it's beliefs/rules and then turn around and complain it doesn't support gay marriage.

However this isn't about religion it's about civil marriage so we'll move on.

Ah, I like where this is going.

I think I see what you say. You're saying that you don't think a homosexual should join christianity (lord knows why they would) and then complain about their lack of respect, or whatever, for them. Yeah, I think that's a good point, and I guess it would apply to all groups, though it does perhaps raise the further point of: do we, as a society, have the right to criticise the views, or more significantly the rituals, of a group if we deem them to be unjust and/or immoral? I say yes; we could say that a 'black person' if they joined the KKK shouldn't criticise their overt racism... but I think we would be more inclined to say "screw you KKK, your shit is whacked!", and rightfully so.

But all this may be kind of irrelevant since, as you mentioned, marriage, these days, need no longer carry any christian connotations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/26/california-supreme-court-gay-marriage

Article wrote:California's supreme court has upheld a ban on gay marriage in the state after voters used a referendum to overturn an earlier ruling in favour of recognising homosexual weddings.

[...]

The original vote, known as Proposition 8, imposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" in the state's constitution. It passed in November with 52% of the ballots in favour.

I don't believe this following quote has ever been more apt:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
Thomas Jefferson