First Australian gay couples to legal...

First Australian gay couples to legally marry

There are 1725 comments on the Chambersburg Public Opinion story from Dec 5, 2013, titled First Australian gay couples to legally marry. In it, Chambersburg Public Opinion reports that:

A state lawmaker and his partner plan to fly 3,500 kilometers across Australia to become one of the nation's first same-sex couples to legally marry at an after-midnight ceremony in the Australian capital.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chambersburg Public Opinion.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#840 Jan 3, 2014
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't mind the circus......it's that freak show known as the gay mardigras I hate!
Your favorite activity, no doubt.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#841 Jan 3, 2014
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't mind the circus......it's that freak show known as the gay mardigras I hate!
Sooo...why do you watch it so much?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#844 Jan 3, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You're looking at Civil Marriage as an end in itself, and in a way it is. Really, though, it is part of a larger struggle for Equal Access, Equal Protection and Equal Rights under the Law ... AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. I am not really acquainted with Australian Law. In the U.S. there are over 1200 legal prerogatives AND responsibilities that are entailed automatically to the signature on the Civil Marriage contract. As a Free and Equal Citizen I am fully entitled to, yet denied, them all. Our inclusion within those parameters protects us from discrimination by the elegance of simple inclusion.
Changing "husband" and "wife", two extremely medieval concepts (look up their etymologies, you'll be shocked) that impact all people, to "spouse" (from the Latin for "committed person") is really not much of a change in the terminology; and one which more reflects the central concept with which Government may at all rightly concern itself. It removes from the relationship the implication of ownership of one person by another.
Women's Rights to Suffrage, Contract and Private ownership were once denied in Law by virtue of the definition of Womanhood. The anachronistic practice of the Father of the Bride "giving" her away to her "husband" is a vestigial artifact of this time of the unequal regard in which women were held, and of her lack of Right of property, even of her own self.
I have no problem with the term "spouse" and, as a woman, neither should you. Only a Free and Equal person can be a party to the legal contract of Civil Marriage.
If you prefer being chattel, and prefer being "husbanded" like one of a man's horses, cows, farm and other resources, that's your problem ... and I certainly DO think it's a problem. And one doesn't need to "hate men" to utterly reject any such inequality.
Consider, again ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =qASo2EQjfusXX
Ah, straight (oxymoron) from the gay twirl book.

So two men deserve 'equal' access, protection and rights originally derived for women and children? That's sad, snyper, really sad. And sick.

The words husband and wife are medieval? Yeah, that's why they still throw those 'insults' into wedding vows.

Oh, and how's that Latin coming? You may want to work on it a little more, I'd suggest you NOT use the gay sites. Smile.

Now for those property exchanges... I've been to more weddings then most people, probably because I've officiated a number. Not one dad ever looked on his daughter as property from my observation... And I suspect in cultures where dowries were given, they hardly represented fair exchange in the father's eyes. Go ahead, ask a father. Smirk.

Just wondering, how did you miss the weddings where love was the prevailing influence, if not mating behavior?

But the more important question is, if marriage has such a disgusting history to you, why in hell would gays want to mimic one???

Had a good laugh over that idiocy snyper...
Pudendal Cleft

Australia

#848 Jan 3, 2014
Yep :) Thing is these deviated perverts that go by the Ghey tag male or female are usually rabid LEFTIES what may have never dawned on the idiots is that the filth they have been a party to will not be tolerated by Australia/s future foreign MASTERS you know the ones they've got out on parade in support of! LOL signed off on their own demise without ever seeing it! TOO LATE NOW!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#849 Jan 3, 2014
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't 'watch it' you old d*ke or whatever it is that you are, it gets force fed to us by the so called media, by the way, get a life!
Poor BooBoo!

Only one channel come in through your foil hat antenna ?

Since: Jan 12

Where The Wild Things Grow

#851 Jan 3, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You're looking at Civil Marriage as an end in itself, and in a way it is. Really, though, it is part of a larger struggle for Equal Access, Equal Protection and Equal Rights under the Law ... AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. I am not really acquainted with Australian Law. In the U.S. there are over 1200 legal prerogatives AND responsibilities that are entailed automatically to the signature on the Civil Marriage contract. As a Free and Equal Citizen I am fully entitled to, yet denied, them all. Our inclusion within those parameters protects us from discrimination by the elegance of simple inclusion.
Changing "husband" and "wife", two extremely medieval concepts (look up their etymologies, you'll be shocked) that impact all people, to "spouse" (from the Latin for "committed person") is really not much of a change in the terminology; and one which more reflects the central concept with which Government may at all rightly concern itself. It removes from the relationship the implication of ownership of one person by another.
Women's Rights to Suffrage, Contract and Private ownership were once denied in Law by virtue of the definition of Womanhood. The anachronistic practice of the Father of the Bride "giving" her away to her "husband" is a vestigial artifact of this time of the unequal regard in which women were held, and of her lack of Right of property, even of her own self.
I have no problem with the term "spouse" and, as a woman, neither should you. Only a Free and Equal person can be a party to the legal contract of Civil Marriage.
If you prefer being chattel, and prefer being "husbanded" like one of a man's horses, cows, farm and other resources, that's your problem ... and I certainly DO think it's a problem. And one doesn't need to "hate men" to utterly reject any such inequality.
Consider, again ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =qASo2EQjfusXX
Like many other 'traditions', marriage has past elements which are not acceptable today - I doubt anyone would think a wife should promise to 'obey' her husband, though until quite recently that was included in the marriage vows and, as for fathers giving away their daughters - this no longer carries any sense of ownership. Traditions evolve as does language and are practised and enjoyed long after their original purpose has ceased - how many quite non-religious people celebrate Christmas - and do we really consider the origins of the Christmas tree when we decorate it?
I certainly have a problem with 'wife' and 'husband' being changed to 'spouse' or 'committed partner' or whatever else the new-age PC dogma has in store - being someone's wife would not make me feel like a 'chattel' in the least because it is no longer implicit or implied in that word.
Must we all be reduced to a mediocre denominator in order to appease all groups and be inclusive of all groups?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#852 Jan 3, 2014
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
No f*ggot, I've got plenty of channels, it's just that news services all seem to be on at pretty much the same time and it's a bit hard to find a news service that doesn't cover the f*ggot circus, because it's actually seen as light entertainment for the masses, LOL.
They all talk to each other when you're not looking?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#853 Jan 3, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
Like many other 'traditions', marriage has past elements which are not acceptable today - I doubt anyone would think a wife should promise to 'obey' her husband, though until quite recently that was included in the marriage vows and, as for fathers giving away their daughters - this no longer carries any sense of ownership. Traditions evolve as does language and are practised and enjoyed long after their original purpose has ceased - how many quite non-religious people celebrate Christmas - and do we really consider the origins of the Christmas tree when we decorate it?
I certainly have a problem with 'wife' and 'husband' being changed to 'spouse' or 'committed partner' or whatever else the new-age PC dogma has in store - being someone's wife would not make me feel like a 'chattel' in the least because it is no longer implicit or implied in that word.
Must we all be reduced to a mediocre denominator in order to appease all groups and be inclusive of all groups?
What are the Spanish words for "husband" and "wife" ?

Since: Jan 12

Where The Wild Things Grow

#854 Jan 4, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
What are the Spanish words for "husband" and "wife" ?
Marido and mujer - why?
Pudendal Cleft

Australia

#855 Jan 4, 2014
Wog Lingo!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#857 Jan 4, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
Marido and mujer - why?
"Esposo" e "Esposa"

Since: Jan 12

Where The Wild Things Grow

#859 Jan 4, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Esposo" "Esposa"
That is the more formal way of saying' marido' and 'mujer'- but note that it still indicates masculine or feminine, as in the Italian,'marito' and 'moglie' or 'sposo' and 'sposa'. Why would you want to have indications of masculine and feminine removed?

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#860 Jan 4, 2014
lowprofile wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't 'watch it' you old d*ke or whatever it is that you are, it gets force fed to us by the so called media, by the way, get a life!
Thanks for that, Croweater. I have a great life already.
Mojo

Australia

#862 Jan 4, 2014
Mojo wrote:
<quoted text>a great life eating shit straight out of the anus! HA HA HA Unatural abomination.
*unnatural

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#863 Jan 4, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
Like many other 'traditions', marriage has past elements which are not acceptable today - I doubt anyone would think a wife should promise to 'obey' her husband, though until quite recently that was included in the marriage vows and, as for fathers giving away their daughters - this no longer carries any sense of ownership. Traditions evolve as does language and are practised and enjoyed long after their original purpose has ceased - how many quite non-religious people celebrate Christmas - and do we really consider the origins of the Christmas tree when we decorate it?
I certainly have a problem with 'wife' and 'husband' being changed to 'spouse' or 'committed partner' or whatever else the new-age PC dogma has in store - being someone's wife would not make me feel like a 'chattel' in the least because it is no longer implicit or implied in that word.
Must we all be reduced to a mediocre denominator in order to appease all groups and be inclusive of all groups?
Who's asking for such a change, husband and husband, wife and wife are perfectly acceptable descriptors.

As to giving the bride to another man, you'd be very wrong in a great many parts of the world. It's actually fairly common as are parent selected husbands or wives with the couples involved having absolutely no say in the matter.

As to western standards, things change and life moves on otherwise we would all be pulled around by horse and buggy.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#864 Jan 4, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the more formal way of saying' marido' and 'mujer'- but note that it still indicates masculine or feminine, as in the Italian,'marito' and 'moglie' or 'sposo' and 'sposa'. Why would you want to have indications of masculine and feminine removed?
Because I don't need to know the sex of a chair before I sit on it.

Since: Jan 12

Where The Wild Things Grow

#865 Jan 4, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's asking for such a change, husband and husband, wife and wife are perfectly acceptable descriptors.
As to giving the bride to another man, you'd be very wrong in a great many parts of the world. It's actually fairly common as are parent selected husbands or wives with the couples involved having absolutely no say in the matter.
As to western standards, things change and life moves on otherwise we would all be pulled around by horse and buggy.
Husband and wife are acceptable to most people but there are some who wish to change that to wording which is non-gender specific. Re your comments about arranged marriages - yes, very backward, but I am only discussing western standards.

Since: Jan 12

Where The Wild Things Grow

#866 Jan 4, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I don't need to know the sex of a chair before I sit on it.
I do not understand your answer - could you please explain the correlation between a person to whom one is married and a chair?

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

Juárez, Mexico

#867 Jan 4, 2014
sairla wrote:
<quoted text>
Husband and wife are acceptable to most people but there are some who wish to change that to wording which is non-gender specific. Re your comments about arranged marriages - yes, very backward, but I am only discussing western standards.
All contract forms that call for signatures of husband and wife need to be gender neutral.
Rosa Winkel

Wiley Park, Australia

#868 Jan 4, 2014
Mojo wrote:
<quoted text>*unnatural
Hi Mr Coprophage. Why don't you come to Sydney and I know a few boys who'll teach you a few lessons in morality.

In fact I know one person who is a moral standard representative of Australia in lore.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same... 5 hr Willis 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 10 hr cpeter1313 8,405
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 14 hr huh 32,016
News ACT's first same sex newlyweds worry postal sur... 15 hr Carmine 1
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... Sat Tex- 19
News UK's first lesbian interfaith wedding Fri Wholly Silicon Wafer 3
News Archbishop enters gay marriage debate Fri Wholly Silicon Wafer 2
More from around the web