# Gay marriage law passed in NZ.



## Dave70 (18/4/13)

I heard this replayed on the way to work this morning.
Shortly after the bill passed, the gallery erupted into a traditional Maori love song.
You'd have be pretty cold if this doesn't wet your eye a little bit. Beautiful stuff.



http://youtu.be/q9pOJ8Bc_-g


----------



## tricache (18/4/13)

Amazing stuff!!


----------



## yum beer (18/4/13)

Thats pretty cool....

C'mon Australia pull your finger out and pass this here....


----------



## benno1973 (18/4/13)

Great stuff!


----------



## Florian (18/4/13)

Not gonna happen here for a long time.


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

Dave70 said:


> You'd have be pretty cold if this doesn't wet your eye a little bit. Beautiful stuff.


i dont think i'm cold as i did cry when molly from a country practice died, but this didnt do anything for me


----------



## bum (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> i dont think i'm cold as i did cry when molly from a country practice died, but this didnt do anything for me


A difficult time like that is bound to have a long-term effect on a bloke.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (18/4/13)

this speech was pretty great


----------



## Florian (18/4/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> this speech was pretty great



Love it!


----------



## punkin (18/4/13)

Gay marriage law passed in NZ.


So you have to be gay to get married there?


----------



## Bribie G (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> i dont think i'm cold as i did cry when molly from a country practice died, but this didnt do anything for me


I never watched ACP and when Molly died I annoyed the shyte out of everyone by going around for a few days singing "Molly's dead, haha".
Then one day I was flicking channels (if you could call five channels flicking) and something on ACP caught my attention, I sat down, and ended up watching every single episode until Cookie and Bob Hatfield got wasted in the Ute blast.

I'm totally in favour of gay marriage as I'm a lesbian myself, I have short stubbly hair and love to wear checked shirts and ogle chix.


----------



## Yob (18/4/13)

Cocko has a wet spot, but I dint think it's his eye


----------



## Mikedub (18/4/13)

a parliament working together towards inclusiveness and respect of its people, - refreshing


----------



## Bribie G (18/4/13)

I've only been to NZ once but was very impressed - just about everything struck me as being ten years ahead of Australia.


----------



## jyo (18/4/13)

That was brilliant! Unfortunately I don't think it will be happening here for quite some time.


----------



## fletcher (18/4/13)

i've long been a supporter of equal marriage rights. this is absolutely amazing. i can't believe how backward-looking we are here. it's a matter of time and then we'll look back in years to come and think...why the **** did it take so long?

if you don't like gay marriage, it's pretty damn simple; don't get gay married. end of story.


----------



## Nick JD (18/4/13)

Marriage within the genus _Homo _is inherently gay.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (18/4/13)

jyo said:


> That was brilliant! Unfortunately I don't think it will be happening here for quite some time.


I guess you will just have to wait for your day to shine princess :lol:
Nev


----------



## hellbent (18/4/13)

Gay marriage?? Wonder who wears the pants in the family??


----------



## QldKev (18/4/13)

Between all the blokes rooting the sheep and now each other, how can they reproduce for future generations?


----------



## manticle (18/4/13)

Good stuff.


----------



## Mikedub (18/4/13)

QldKev said:


> Between all the blokes rooting the sheep and now each other, how can they reproduce for future generations?


dont you worry mate,

http://www.smh.com.a...1696214489.html

I left to have a rest


----------



## Dave70 (18/4/13)

Mikedub said:


> dont you worry mate,
> 
> http://www.smh.com.a...1696214489.html
> 
> I left to have a rest



*They have an average of 20.4 sexual partners, according to a survey by condom-maker Durex*

I tell ya, if they ever shitcan their cheesy 'god this' and 'god that' national anthem and replace it with a Haka, I'm emigrating..

http://youtu.be/3GpTsPNwwms


----------



## bconnery (18/4/13)

Dave70 said:


> *They have an average of 20.4 sexual partners, according to a survey by condom-maker Durex*
> 
> I tell ya, if they ever shitcan their cheesy 'god this' and 'god that' national anthem and replace it with a Haka, I'm emigrating..


You mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBCpPGNDr1U


----------



## WarmBeer (18/4/13)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> I guess you will just have to wait for your day to shine princess :lol:
> Nev





hellbent said:


> Gay marriage?? Wonder who wears the pants in the family??





QldKev said:


> Between all the blokes rooting the sheep and now each other, how can they reproduce for future generations?


... and yet, for some reason, the "WPMO" thread was deleted due to bullying and vilification.


----------



## Bribie G (18/4/13)

Yabbadabba do time, dabba do time, we'll have a gay old time.

Willmaaaaaaa


----------



## Dave70 (18/4/13)

bconnery said:


> You mean like this?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBCpPGNDr1U


Apart from the fact that I seem to have no sound on that clip, there's something odd I just cant quite put my finger on..


----------



## Dave70 (18/4/13)

Bribie G said:


> Yabbadabba do time, dabba do time, we'll have a gay old time.
> 
> Willmaaaaaaa


You know what they say.


----------



## manticle (18/4/13)

Best icecream ever.


----------



## QldKev (18/4/13)

WarmBeer said:


> ... and yet, for some reason, the "WPMO" thread was deleted due to bullying and vilification.


come forward and confess


----------



## Spiesy (18/4/13)

Good on them.

And good on pretty much all of the AHB members responses... for a bunch of blokes who bond over beer, it's pretty cool how liberal everyone is.


----------



## WarmBeer (18/4/13)

QldKev said:


> come forward and confess


Confess that my brother is gay, and that I think he should be able to recognise the partner he has been with for years, in both the eyes of the law and the church?

Why, yes, I confess.

What did you mean?


----------



## QldKev (18/4/13)

WarmBeer said:


> Confess that my brother is gay, and that I think he should be able to recognise the partner he has been with for years, in both the eyes of the law and the church?
> 
> Why, yes, I confess.
> 
> What did you mean?


That was just a tongue in cheek comment.


I know a couple of gay people and treat them no different.


----------



## mikec (18/4/13)

Isn't it interesting that a good 75% of the population support gay marriage.
And yet, there is no political will at the top of our major parties to let it happen.
It's a disgrace.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (18/4/13)

if the leader of the opposition would allow his MPs to have a conscience vote it would be a different story.


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

WarmBeer said:


> Confess that my brother is gay, and that I think he should be able to recognise the partner he has been with for years, in both the eyes of the law and the church?
> 
> Why, yes, I confess.
> 
> What did you mean?


hey dude, lets not make this a debate, but the law has already recognised their rights a long time ago, and rightfully so

as for the church, well i know that marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and that old dusty 2,000 year old manual of the church has plenty of references that indicate what God intended as his sacrement of marriage

I dont believe that people should confuse what marriage is when considering the legal status of a union of two same sex individuals


----------



## WarmBeer (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> hey dude, lets not make this a debate, but the law has already recognised their rights a long time ago, and rightfully so
> 
> as for the church, well i know that marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and that old dusty 2,000 year old manual of the church has plenty of references that indicate what God intended as his sacrement of marriage
> 
> I dont believe that people should confuse what marriage is when considering the legal status of a union of two same sex individuals


Have apologised for my snarky tone via PM.

Let's take it off the table. I'm all good.


----------



## Bribie G (18/4/13)

Worked with quite a few gays in Brisbane, suited me fine, you can be friends with the lesbians in a way that you can't be with other women, and talk shopping / cooking with the guys because nobody has to put on a boofy boy blokey act. Stereotyping maybe, but that's the way I found it. Best mate at work was a 130 kilo dyke with the same dry and cynical sense of humour as myself, used to crack each other up all shift.


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

WarmBeer said:


> Have apologised for my snarky tone via PM.
> 
> Let's take it off the table. I'm all good.


wasn't so much aimed at you, but rather a reminder that God owns the copyright to the sacrament of marriage and people shouldn't use it to lobby their political debates


----------



## manticle (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> hey dude, lets not make this a debate, but the law has already recognised their rights a long time ago, and rightfully so
> 
> as for the church, well i know that marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and that old dusty 2,000 year old manual of the church has plenty of references that indicate what God intended as his sacrement of marriage
> 
> I dont believe that people should confuse what marriage is when considering the legal status of a union of two same sex individuals


Actually marriage exists outside Christian Church parameters.

I don't think churches should be forced to celebrate a marriage they consider agaisnt their doctrines but legislatively marriage should be available to all


----------



## Liam_snorkel (18/4/13)

Not meaning to fan the flames (and I know you weren't the one who raised the church issue) but marriage has been around a lot longer than whichever god you're referring to.

(edit: beaten by mants)


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (18/4/13)

Well this has turned for the worse, cant have fun and mention gays?
Should be asshamed.
Nev


----------



## Liam_snorkel (18/4/13)

SWMBO has started watching this show on foxtel which is all about drag queens, it's piss funny. It's a reality show and each week they have to do a number of challenges (such as sledgeing each other) and the losing contestants have a dance-off at the end of the show. There's this one short and very round queen who's stage name is Jiggly Caliente. Hilarious!


----------



## Dave70 (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> wasn't so much aimed at you, but rather a reminder that God owns the copyright to the sacrament of marriage and people shouldn't use it to lobby their political debates


He also owns the copyright to slavery, among a litany of other barbaric prohibition's and injunctions that are utterly incompatible in any way a harmonious and just society.


----------



## Byran (18/4/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> this speech was pretty great


**** that guy is amazing!
What a public speaker.
Also, me not giving a shit about what God one believes in, and the fact that anyone can believe whatever they please.....
I always thought that "marriage" from outside the church perspective was merely a contractual agreement between two people which makes them bound as a couple in order for them to gain the rights of unity that are bestowed upon said two people, in the eyes of the government, law of state and when children are involved, from a previous relationship or by adoption. Such as when you are married by a celebrant. They are licensed by the government. Not the church to do so. And when you sign that marriage document at the end of the party......... the ball and chain is firmly fastened.
So as long as the people involved are humans...then its the same thing for me. Unless someone wanted to go marry a goat or something. Thats just ridiculous!


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> Not meaning to fan the flames (and I know you weren't the one who raised the church issue) but marriage has been around a lot longer than whichever god you're referring to.
> 
> (edit: beaten by mants)


the God i was thinking of was the one that created adam and eve, he's da man


might start a poll, creation or evolution


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

Dave70 said:


> He also owns the copyright to slavery, among a litany of other barbaric prohibition's and injunctions that are utterly incompatible in any way a harmonious and just society.


yet still exist in today's unharmonious and unjust society, albeit cleverly disguised

i see many parallels in modern society that show slavery still exists


----------



## Feldon (18/4/13)

When you get past all the emotional hyperbole of this issue, and the politics, it come down to this.

Any homosexual couple who feel they are in anyway diminished by not having a legal Certificate of Marriage do not have a problem with the Marriage Act, they have a problem with their relationship.

And the same goes for hetrosexual couples.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> might start a poll, creation or evolution


 :lol:


----------



## manticle (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> the God i was thinking of was the one that created adam and eve, he's da man


And he doesn't have a monopoly on marriage - whether historically, legally or ethically


----------



## Yob (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> the God i was thinking of was the one that created adam and eve, he's da man
> 
> 
> might start a poll, creation or evolution


no poll will be taken seriously without a scientology option

"ZOLTAN"

FTW..

sorry.. completely :icon_offtopic:


----------



## Phillo (18/4/13)

:lol:


----------



## Bribie G (18/4/13)

Evolution is God's method of creation.

In Morocco on a train I sat behind a guy with his three wives. Poor bastard was the most miserable henpecked specimen I've ever seen and he couldn't even have a drink to lighten the load.

edit: imagine having three mothers in law :blink:


----------



## Edak (18/4/13)

...or three husbands..... :blink:


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (18/4/13)

Yes but he was probably off his dial on some or Gods kick arse hash :icon_drool2:
What did the Romans give us ? :lol:
Nev


----------



## Yob (18/4/13)

The aquaducts....


----------



## Bribie G (18/4/13)

Pederasty (from the Greeks of course)

When I was studying Classics at UNE one of the final year subjects was Greek and Latin erotic poetry, I had a look at the exam paper and it was full of questions like:

"oh lad with the looks of a lass, how long have I stalked thee"... discuss
"I long to spurt my seed across thy golden hair" .. render this in Classical Latin...

don't worry, Tony will sort out all that nonsense


----------



## Edak (18/4/13)

To all those young'ans and innocent people around, by 'seed' he meant 'grain', so they had some infected bottles which spurt everywhere upon opening....


----------



## seamad (18/4/13)

Churches can opt out of marrying gays if they wish without facing any discrimination problems, probably one of the reasons it got through.


OT, of course evolution Vs creation can only be an opinion poll because one is scientifically viable and the the other a (misguided ) opinion.
Whatever happened to Intelligent design ?


----------



## bum (18/4/13)

You guys are THE WORST.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (18/4/13)

haha


----------



## sillyboybrybry (18/4/13)

I think it is great. It means you can marry your best mate. Doesn't have to mean you are gay - you don't have sex after marriage.


----------



## Dave70 (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> might start a poll, creation or evolution


Cool idea DB.
I was going to suggest a debate, but I think the other board members will grow weary of me pasting endless links to evidence based evolutionary science and you replying with 'oh, yeah, well how do you get something from nothing'.


----------



## Toper (18/4/13)

Byran said:


> **** that guy is amazing!
> What a public speaker.
> Also, me not giving a shit about what God one believes in, and the fact that anyone can believe whatever they please.....
> I always thought that "marriage" from outside the church perspective was merely a contractual agreement between two people which makes them bound as a couple in order for them to gain the rights of unity that are bestowed upon said two people, in the eyes of the government, law of state and when children are involved, from a previous relationship or by adoption. Such as when you are married by a celebrant. They are licensed by the government. Not the church to do so. And when you sign that marriage document at the end of the party......... the ball and chain is firmly fastened.
> So as long as the people involved are humans...then its the same thing for me. Unless someone wanted to go marry a goat or something. Thats just ridiculous!


http://naijagists.com/update-on-sudanese-man-who-marries-a-goat/


----------



## waggastew (18/4/13)

The bit that I loved was the line to the priest:

'I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that quite interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life.'

SMACKDOWN with a capital SCHMACK!


----------



## Toper (18/4/13)

waggastew said:


> The bit that I loved was the line to the priest:
> 
> 'I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that quite interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life.'
> 
> SMACKDOWN with a capital SCHMACK!


And coming from a church that doesn't exactly have the best rep regarding pedo priests within their ranks..I wonder what Catholic altarboys think about the so called 'oath of celibacy'


----------



## Charst (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> hey dude, lets not make this a debate, but the law has already recognised their rights a long time ago, and rightfully so





Feldon said:


> Any homosexual couple who feel they are in anyway diminished by not having a legal Certificate of Marriage do not have a problem with the Marriage Act, they have a problem with their relationship.



My Boss is Gay and there was a few of us discussing it today, Gay couple rights have not been recognised a long time ago,
My Boss cant even get defacto status with his bloke, He's been with him for years, they have a home they own together, spend there lives together and one day when one of them drops the other cant even claim their partners super. No Defacto love for being a couple because they are both blokes.

Certificate of marriage gives you more advantages than just saying "yay were married". 

and its definitely not all about money despite my above points its simply the right for people in love express it the same way I can with my mrs.


----------



## Bribie G (18/4/13)

Intelligent design, yup works every time


----------



## dougsbrew (18/4/13)

some may argue that god created adam and steve.


----------



## Phoney (18/4/13)

Bribie G said:


> Intelligent design, yup works every time
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These poor blokes have a long lost brother. He was last seen heading for Canberra.


----------



## tavas (18/4/13)

manticle said:


> Actually marriage exists outside Christian Church parameters.
> 
> I don't think churches should be forced to celebrate a marriage they consider agaisnt their doctrines but legislatively marriage should be available to all


By far the most intelligent and rational comment I have read in a long time.


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

Charst said:


> My Boss is Gay and there was a few of us discussing it today, Gay couple rights have not been recognised a long time ago,
> My Boss cant even get defacto status with his bloke, He's been with him for years, they have a home they own together, spend there lives together and one day when one of them drops the other cant even claim their partners super. No Defacto love for being a couple because they are both blokes.
> 
> Certificate of marriage gives you more advantages than just saying "yay were married".
> ...


ask your boss what would happen if he dumped his boyfriend,

a likely outcome would be that his boyfriend would **** him good and proper, for the very last time, with his lawyer holding his cock the whole time

that is assuming your boss really is the boss


----------



## goomboogo (18/4/13)

Charst said:


> My Boss cant even get defacto status with his bloke, He's been with him for years, they have a home they own together, spend there lives together and one day when one of them drops the other cant even claim their partners super. No Defacto love for being a couple because they are both blokes.


Laws governing superannuation (amongst other things) and same-sex couples were changed a few years ago. Your boss and his partner have the same rights regarding superannuation as any couple.


----------



## Phoney (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> ask your boss what would happen if he dumped his boyfriend,
> 
> a likely outcome would be that his boyfriend would **** him good and proper, for the very last time, with his lawyer holding his cock the whole time
> 
> that is assuming your boss really is the boss


What does that even mean, and how would it differ from a relationship/marriage breakdown in a hereto couple?


----------



## bradsbrew (18/4/13)

phoneyhuh said:


> What does that even mean, and how would it differ from a relationship/marriage breakdown in a hereto couple?


I think thats the point DonB was making, he's saying it would'nt differ.


----------



## Toper (18/4/13)

Jesus was Gay,it's well known.


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

Dave70 said:


> Cool idea DB.
> I was going to suggest a debate, but I think the other board members will grow weary of me pasting endless links to evidence based evolutionary science and you replying with 'oh, yeah, well how do you get something from nothing'.


the links will eventually trace down the evolutionary chain to some beginning, the same question will be asked by both camps


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

toper01 said:


> Jesus was Gay,it's well known.


every icon i've seen depicting Jesus doesnt show him smiling, let alone gay


----------



## bum (18/4/13)




----------



## Toper (18/4/13)

donburke said:


> every icon i've seen depicting Jesus doesnt show him smiling, let alone gay


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices


----------



## Rowy (18/4/13)

Those dirty rotten perverted........................OK I'm having a lend...................Sorry Dane but.........******* about time!......Now our turn I say!


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

bum said:


>





bum said:


>


never seen such good use of the ps clone tool on jon english


----------



## donburke (18/4/13)

toper01 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices


i cant take serious any article written by someone who looks like kyle sandilands


----------



## Phoney (18/4/13)

Apparently Jesus was also a pot smoker:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/06/science.religion

Anyway, religion has no place the marriage debate, whether gay or straight. Personally I would prefer if the government just scrapped the Marriage Act and gave civil unions the same rights as marriages. Because if civil unions are good enough for same-sex couples, then they should be good enough for straight couples. After all, equality works both ways.

If couples want to walk down the isle and do the marriage ceremony thing, then so be it but that shouldn't have anything to do with the governments business.


----------



## pat_00 (18/4/13)

This brought me to tears. Didn't expect to see it here, of all the places I hang out on the net this is definitely the most blokey. I'm bi, and have many queer friends, so this is pretty close to my heart.

It upsets me that Australia is so far behind, and our leaders lack the vision or heart to make this important and humane change in our laws.


----------



## Nick JD (18/4/13)

Yup, that's the one thing the same sex partnerships were missing...

...divorce.


----------



## TheCarbinator (18/4/13)

Did anyone notice 1:52 into the first video, the awkward moment where one lady wanted a hug and the other lady just kept walking?


----------



## Byran (18/4/13)

toper01 said:


> http://naijagists.com/update-on-sudanese-man-who-marries-a-goat/


lol :blink:


----------



## fletcher (18/4/13)

i can't ever seem to find an evidence-backed or sufficient argument not to allow gay marriage here. how does a GLBT person being married affect anyone else negatively? it doesn't. if you don't like it, don't get gay married, but you should not have the right to stop others enjoying the exact same civil liberties you're allowed based on sexual orientation or gender.

the church and any religious connection had no part of my wedding, but i wouldn't turn that away from someone who wanted it for theirs. same shit different smell.


----------



## bum (18/4/13)

Well, it deeply offends a great many people, actually - those people can go **** themselves, of course, but pretending that this is not the case isn't going to change anything.

Not sure why you think a culture needs to be evidence-backed.


----------



## fletcher (18/4/13)

from a debate perspective. i can't see anything apart from "it's offensive". well i'm offended by stuff...i just don't do that stuff.


----------



## bum (18/4/13)

That's you.

Which is the point, I guess.


----------



## fletcher (18/4/13)

true. but if the point that we aren't moving on that law is because we might be offending _some_ people, is washy, at best.


----------



## iralosavic (18/4/13)

Cultural and religious sentiments aside, take a moment to consider how completely illogical preventing equal rights in same sex marriage is from a legal stand-point. It wasnt even until 2009 that the government could even recognise de facto relationships. This caused major imbalance to social security and child support equality. Gay marriage should've been passed in the same wave of reforms. How does it make sense to now recognise same sex couples legally for some purposes and not others?

I liked Manticle's post because it sums things up well; only the power of the church and a handful of unreligious bigots are holding back progression. I'm married and don't have any gay friends; this is just about common sense and humanity to me.


----------



## bum (19/4/13)

fletcher said:


> true. but if the point that we aren't moving on that law is because we might be offending _some_ people, is washy, at best.


Add to them the MILLIONS of Australians who DON'T GIVE A **** and you've got a fairly compelling argument against the idea of change occurring any time soon.

Country is full of arseholes that think they should be happy that they're even _allowed_ to be gay. A bit uppity of them to expect us to actually acknowledge the validity of their relationships too, innit?


----------



## bum (19/4/13)

iralosavic said:


> I liked Manticle's post because it sums things up well; only the power of the church and a handful of unreligious bigots are holding back progression.


What world do you live in?

Homophobia lives in more hearts than Jesus does.


----------



## manticle (19/4/13)

Are you arguing against change because of how you perceive things to be rather than because how you think they should be Bum?

I agree with what I think you are saying - that understanding people's attitudes is instrumental in making fundamental changes even if those attitudes are fundamentally opposed to change (or equally one's own perspective) but the end point should not be maintaining the status quo just because you understand why it is there at a set point in time.

To all others I ask 2 questions.

1. Does the marriage of two other people affect, in any way your marriage or your life as a whole?
2. Does your opposition to the marriage of two other people affect their marriage or their life as a whole?

No one person or institution has ownership over the concept of marriage. Stop caring about what others do when it hurts neither your life nor theirs.


----------



## bum (19/4/13)

manticle said:


> Are you arguing against change because of how you perceive things to be rather than because how you think they should be Bum?


Are you hard of reading?


----------



## manticle (19/4/13)

No but I did go to drink Ross' beer at the alehouse project and the last pint was so nice I had four so I may have misunderstood.

Two reasonably intelligent debaters can help each other understand a misunderstood point which may have been badly expressed as much as it may have been misread.

I'll look again tomorrow and see if you make any more sense than you did to me today. Don't pretend for a minute though that your actual expression of an idea is anywhere close to your intention, whether any or all of the time. Expanding on a point rather than condemning another's reading of it doesn't weaken your argument if your argument has any strength to begin with.


----------



## dicko (19/4/13)

I think Nicks cat is gay....there i've said it


----------



## jaypes (19/4/13)

Wow, 6 pages already.

I wouldn't have thought that this topic would have spruced so much discussion on a home brew forum.

Or am I just being ignorant thinking that gays don't make home brew?



DISCLAIMER: I am not against Gay Home Brew (actually never tried it)


----------



## dicko (19/4/13)

jaypes said:


> Wow, 6 pages already.
> 
> I wouldn't have thought that this topic would have spruced so much discussion on a home brew forum.
> 
> ...


I think this thread is a perfect example of the vocal minority as opposed to the silent majority.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (19/4/13)

which are you?


----------



## Dave70 (19/4/13)

donburke said:


> the links will eventually trace down the evolutionary chain to some beginning, the same question will be asked by both camps


Though I'm well aware I'm pounding my head against a wall of piety here, I feel I need to highlight one critical point.

One camp makes a discovery like the Burgess shale fossils and understands its significance, one camp builds an engineering marvel like the Large Hadron Collider to help solve open questions about physics and the origins of life. One camp isn't arrogant enough to pretend it has all the answers. 

The other camp wants intelligent design taught alongside evolution. One side still maintains evolution is a 'theory'.
That's about reasonable as teaching alchemy as an alternative to chemistry, or astrology as an alternative to astronomy. 
One camp bases its entire argument on Romans 1:20.


----------



## Bridges (19/4/13)

Yep our government should just get on and do it, pass the laws, but it could also be argued that our politicians have bigger issues that need their attention. Strangely enough they don't seem to be able to make any progress in any area, and if you think Cleetus abott is going to let a gay marriage act get up you are kidding your self.


----------



## hellbent (19/4/13)

it means they will be forever happy and gay.


----------



## dicko (19/4/13)

The vocal minority has included their comments in this thread the silent majority has looked at the topic heading and just ignored the topic entirely.

My point is, the comments in this thread do not necessarally represent the majority. 

@ Liam Snorkel I have not included my views on gay marriage in this thread so my comments may be taken any way that anyone wants. 

Cheers


----------



## Liam_snorkel (19/4/13)

all good Dicko, I wasn't having a rib. The silent majority as you put it may be representing apathy more than disagreement. I can't think of anyone that I know (in person - not online) that is actually opposed to gay marriage, except for maybe my sisters mother in law.


----------



## dicko (19/4/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> all good Dicko, I wasn't having a rib. The silent majority as you put it may be representing apathy more than disagreement. I can't think of anyone that I know (in person - not online) that is actually opposed to gay marriage, except for maybe my sisters mother in law.


No worries Liam. There are many situations that may influence a persons individual view and I would imagine that there would not be many people nowdays that don't know someone that is gay or is in a gay relationship.

Cheers

Edit spelling


----------



## Mardoo (19/4/13)

A gay friend of mine once said to me, "I just wish I could hold hands with the person I love when I walk down the street." That did it for me. No more arguments about rights needed to convince me. 

Marriage is both about love and about law, and is one of the rare places where the two cross over. 
There's no reason not to give gay folks the rights to make decisions of medical attorney, and so on, for the person they love. I watched my Mom have to make the decision to turn off life support for her second husband. No need to make such times any more difficult for someone because they're gay.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (19/4/13)

Power of attorney is no longer affected FYI, provided they have their respective wills drafted correctly (which I assume many don't)


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (19/4/13)

My mother made me a queer !
If you give her the wood,
she will make you one too. 



Dont care if gay or not they are human and deserve respect. With that the same rights.
Nev


----------



## WarmBeer (19/4/13)

Dave70 said:


> One camp bases its entire argument on Romans 1:20.


----------



## Bridges (19/4/13)

"Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure."
-George Carlin


----------



## Liam_snorkel (19/4/13)

there's bound to be a priest by the name of Mr Tickle somewhere h34r:


----------



## mckenry (19/4/13)

It makes no difference to my life if gays marry or not. The bank still wants my repayments, my employer will still pay me, and I'll still see gay people walking around like any couple. If it makes no difference, and it doesnt, then allow gay couples everything allowed to straight couples.

:icon_offtopic: The church is an outdated institution. I could go on for hours about the hypocricy. The best one though - If the church is anti-gay, how the hell did the human race exist after Adam & Eve had 3 boys :lol: obviously not to be taken seriously...
Things such as slaughter in the name of God (Lots of religions have documented histories of invasion & murder justified by calling it Holy)
All these pedo's finally getting outed - its great. But really, they think I should listen to their 'wisdom' No thanks.

Back on topic - Congratulations to NZ - another first over us.


----------



## slash22000 (19/4/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> there's bound to be a priest by the name of Mr Tickle somewhere h34r:


Trying to not to get all political up in this bitch but that one had me laughing out loud.


----------



## browndog (19/4/13)

Unexpected consequences.

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/04/18/surges-hours-zealand-legalizes-gay-marriage-2/


----------



## rehab (19/4/13)

On a side note it is really great to see Greg Bird showing support for gay marriage with that haircut tonight. h34r:


----------



## wbosher (19/4/13)

I'm neither for or against the bill, it doesn't affect me at all, but this country in in deep shit economically and I think there are far more important things we could be concentrating on.

We're are shedding jobs left, right and centre, that might be a good place to start.


----------



## manticle (19/4/13)

jaypes said:


> Or am I just being ignorant thinking that gays don't make home brew?


Why would choice of sexual parnter influence what you like to make at home?

Plenty of gay blokes and ladies brewing strong - they probably just don't post much on blokey forums that make lots of dick jokes. We've had at least one male and one female on this forum in recent years who've been openly gay. At least one female professional brewer that I know of is also gay and has posted here at times.

If I was gay, I would still drink beer and more than likely still make it.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (19/4/13)

wbosher said:


> but this country in in deep shit economically


 in all seriousness, are you brain damaged?


----------



## fletcher (19/4/13)

haha deep shit economically? we're killing it at the moment


----------



## Florian (19/4/13)

He's from NZ in case you hadn't noticed.


----------



## wbosher (19/4/13)

Liam_snorkel said:


> in all seriousness, are you brain damaged?


WTF do you mean by that? We've lost thousands of jobs (literally) in the last 12 months or so, that's a little more important in my mind than this bill. Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely brilliant to many people, and I don't want to take that away from them, I just think that people losing their jobs is something that needs to be given a little more attention.


----------



## bum (19/4/13)

Outlaw firing people?


----------



## wbosher (19/4/13)

Fuckin' hilarious Bum. Do something about our ridiculously high dollar so that our manufacturers can actually make some money...that would be a good start.

Anyway, seriously off topic...as you were, I've had my rant.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (19/4/13)

Your rant wasn't.


----------



## bum (19/4/13)

Be fair, Liam. It's not like he can say "I've made my point."


----------



## stakka82 (19/4/13)

Flame suit on.

I have also pondered about the mostly positive response to this issue by a bunch of 'blokey homebrewers'.

Now I'm 5 IPAs down, but this is my theory:

Embrace of craft brew, and exploration of brewing and things outside the mainstream requires a somewhat liberal, inquisitive mindset (liberal in the true, not political sense of the word). You grew up, everyone drank CUB. Half your mates still drink it, despite the craft revolution. But something makes you wonder if there are better beers out there, so you get to trying em. The fact that 'that's just the way it is' doesn't come into it, cause that's the type of person you are.

It could be argued that that sort of attitude makes you explore new ideas, and try to objectively weigh them. So, if something doesn't affect my or other peoples lives negatively, and makes some people happy (regardless of what the traditional view is), I'm for it.

Either that, or there is a silent majority on AHB that are against it!


----------



## slash22000 (19/4/13)

wbosher I hope you're getting paid good money for that one because there's no way somebody not employed by the opposition could possibly say Australia has a poor economy at the moment. If anything it's actually TOO good, it's causing problems in tourism etc that the Aussie dollar is TOO valuable. Some countries are literally 100% bankrupt in the fallout of the yank's economy **** up but we're sailing calm waters without a care in the world besides the imaginary ones made up to scare people into changing their vote.

@stakka82

Fair call mate but honestly I'd rather think that people in general are just becoming less of a bunch of bigoted fuckwits as time goes on. Gives me more hope for the future.


----------



## manticle (20/4/13)

Wbosher is in NZ slash.
I make no comment on whether s/he is correct in assessing the NZ economy (because I don't feel qualified to do so) but the country s/he is talking about is not AU.


----------



## fletcher (20/4/13)

yeah, i take back my comment that "we're killing it" because i mistakenly though he was from Aus.


----------



## stakka82 (20/4/13)

Same, retracted. Although from what little I know, arguably NZ is doing better than EU/USA atm.


----------



## slash22000 (20/4/13)

Ah. Shit.

This is the dark side of home brewing isn't it? The "posting after many beers" curse.  Sorry wbosher.

I'll keep my comment there just incase any Australians run across it who are crying about the AU economy!


----------



## Northside Novice (20/4/13)

have been a bitten tounge on this thread ...

whats the big deal ? most homosexuals I know are very extreme on everything, least alone the marriage front ,
history proves that if you want it bad enough it happens.
end of .

some lose some win .

hopefully the gays will now migrate to newzealend which will hopefully balance out the last fufty years of gay poofs migrating here from there .


----------



## slash22000 (20/4/13)

If you have that attitude you don't "know" any homosexuals, at least not to any depth worth mentioning. If you ever had any gay mates you'd be a bit wiser on the matter.

Big deal is simple. Democracy means equality. You can't have some people with 100% rights and some people with 90% rights, well shit apparently you can, but that doesn't make it okay in a 1st world democratic country. It's that simple. If straight people have rights, gay people should have the same rights.

It sets a fucked up precedent, to have some people with more or less rights than other people. What if in the future the Government came out and said they were revoking certain rights, but only from heterosexuals? I'm sure you'd have a problem with it then.

The fact you don't like "poofs" doesn't mean shit. I don't like you, but I'm not lobbying to take away your rights am I?


----------



## manticle (20/4/13)

northside novice said:


> have been a bitten tounge on this thread ...
> 
> whats the big deal ? most homosexuals I know are very extreme on everything, least alone the marriage front ,
> history proves that if you want it bad enough it happens.
> ...


You know some?

Well?

Many aren't extreme by anyone's definition unless you think ******* a bloke is extreme in which case ask your wife/lover/fantasy to migrate as well.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (20/4/13)

Sorry Wbosher I assumed you were from Aus. Posting from a phone so didn't see your location.


----------



## pk.sax (20/4/13)

Frikkin hell.

In all seriousness, the few gays I've had much to do with usually have some level of trauma in their life. Then they work out their relationship preference but the society in general still tells them they are fucked up in their choice and cannot be recognized as normal. Way to go for a civilised society. Why don't we start picking the disabled and retarded while we're at it. They are different too.

Well done sheep lovers.


----------



## pk.sax (20/4/13)

browndog said:


> Unexpected consequences. http://dailycurrant.com/2013/04/18/surges-hours-zealand-legalizes-gay-marriage-2/


Sums it up.


----------



## fletcher (20/4/13)

thanks northside, i think your rambling has set us back by about 200 years.


----------



## Northside Novice (20/4/13)

slash22000 said:


> I don't like you,


----------



## wbosher (20/4/13)

bum said:


> Be fair, Liam. It's not like he can say "I've made my point."


The point I'm trying to make bum, is that we have far more serious issues over here that affect pretty much everybody, that aren't getting half the attention that this bill is. I'm not saying our economy is any worse than anyone elses, or that this bill doesn't matter, because it does, just that as a country (yes NZ ), we could be putting a bit more effort into other things. Hopefully, now that this is out of the way, and once all the media hype dies down, we can start looking at some real problems.

When I posted last night, it was close to midnight, after several IPAs (thanks Dr Smurto), so I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been, and probably should have pointed out that I was in NZ, not Aus. That would have saved an awful lot of confusion.


----------



## iralosavic (20/4/13)

The attempt at parody humour in that beastiality article made me cringe - kind of in the same way that watching 20's slapstick comedy does. And if it's not a parody, but a sad, desperate attempt by a zealot to "open our eyes", then even worse.

The comment about 50 years of gays going back to NZ made me laugh, then I realised even I have a bit of the bigot in me, but at least I can recognise it is a fault in ME, not in the sexual preferences of others. Practical fool is onto something - homosexuality can stem from significant childhood trauma and amplifying the sense of rejection of these people by opposing equality of sexual choice is the embodiment of lack of emotional evolution/progress of our people. And that is just one small example of the significance of one basic symbolic meaning in the legalisation of gay marriage.

If you don't think it's a big deal (positively), then you're just as gay because you've got your own head up your arse. (Had to throw a gay joke in there to show that we can still be dickheads and at the same time, represent more evolved emotional stances.)

Edit: grammarz


----------



## Nick JD (20/4/13)

dicko said:


> I think Nicks cat is gay....there i've said it


I googled him. He's actually a girl. No sign of lesbianism, but a small amount of dwarfism apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumpy_Cat


----------



## Mattress (20/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> I googled him. He's actually a girl.


You googled him?

Was that on the list of what is now happening in NZ in that article?


----------



## Nick JD (20/4/13)

Mattress said:


> You googled him?
> 
> Was that on the list of what is now happening in NZ in that article?


Your cat is also gay.


----------



## fletcher (20/4/13)

iralosavic said:


> The attempt at parody humour in that beastiality article made me cringe - kind of in the same way that watching 20's slapstick comedy does. And if it's not a parody, but a sad, desperate attempt by a zealot to "open our eyes", then even worse.
> 
> The comment about 50 years of gays going back to NZ made me laugh, then I realised even I have a bit of the bigot in me, but at least I can recognise it is a fault in ME, not in the sexual preferences of others. Practical fool is onto something - homosexuality can stem from significant childhood trauma and amplifying the sense of rejection of these people by opposing equality of sexual choice is the embodiment of lack of emotional evolution/progress of our people. And that is just one small example of the significance of one basic symbolic meaning in the legalisation of gay marriage.
> 
> ...


i don't think looking at homosexuality as an adverse effect or psychological trauma aftermath though is really showing any signs of equality. you end up making it a condition which negates any equality in the first place. then it becomes something that is considered unfortunate, and ultimately sets up a power relationship between heterosexuality. what is needed is the removal of an assumption that it's wrong or different.

2c


----------



## iralosavic (20/4/13)

fletcher said:


> i don't think looking at homosexuality as an adverse effect or psychological trauma aftermath though is really showing any signs of equality. you end up making it a condition which negates any equality in the first place. then it becomes something that is considered unfortunate, and ultimately sets up a power relationship between heterosexuality. what is needed is the removal of an assumption that it's wrong or different.
> 
> 2c


I understand your point, but you misunderstand me perhaps. I don't think homosexuality is the effect of trauma. I think that trauma can lead to it. More commonly it is simply genetic. If someone has been abused by a person of the opposite sex, I don't blame them from looking elsewhere and these kinds of people have often been abused by parents or guardians and have gone through a lot of rejection to then only be rejected by society because our people in their emotional immaturity lack the ability to accept people radically.


----------



## Feldon (20/4/13)

iralosavic said:


> More commonly it is simply genetic.


Really. How does a gene for homosexuality perpetuate into future generations?


----------



## iralosavic (20/4/13)

I like it how you guys side step the actual main points to make yourselves feel good. The issue is the lack of radical acceptance in society, not the cause of homosexuality and not my understanding (or lack thereof) of genetics etc.


----------



## wbosher (20/4/13)

Nobody knows why some people are gay and some or not. Does it really matter why? 

EDIT: Beaten to it. I need to type faster


----------



## Nick JD (20/4/13)

wbosher said:


> Nobody knows why some people are gay and some or not.


I always thought it was because they were sexually attracted to members of their own sex.


----------



## iralosavic (20/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> I always thought it was because they were sexually attracted to members of their own sex.


haha well I guess we can always rely on you to bring comedic relief to the table :drinks:


----------



## wbosher (20/4/13)

Nick JD said:


> I always thought it was because they were sexually attracted to members of their own sex.


Really don't have a come back for that :lol: ...better just go have a hair of the dog...enter beastiality comments...


----------



## Feldon (20/4/13)

Feldon said:


> Really. How does a gene for homosexuality perpetuate into future generations?





iralosavic said:


> I like it how you guys side step the actual main points to make yourselves feel good. The issue is the lack of radical acceptance in society, not the cause of homosexuality and not my understanding (or lack thereof) of genetics etc.


I didn't side step anything. You raised the issue of genetics as a "main point" when you stated that homosexuality had a genetic basis. I just asked a question in response.

And as for "you guys", WTF?


----------



## stakka82 (20/4/13)

Feldon said:


> Really. How does a gene for homosexuality perpetuate into future generations?


There is some evidence that female siblings of gay men are hyper fertile.

One theory is that whatever gene confers that, which is an evolutionary advantage, when expressed in males leads to homosexuality. If this is the case obviously the ability of the gene to proliferate in a population means the benefit of increased female fertility trumps the evolutionary dead end that is often homosexuality.

The tipping point in the genes favour is probably also that gay men often reproduce due to cultural pressures.


----------



## pat_00 (20/4/13)




----------



## Dave70 (20/4/13)

Lets lighten the mood a little with some good old fashoned German homo-eroticism / sado masochism.
And nobody does it better than Rammstein.

Except maby the catholic church.


http://youtu.be/chCg-p9F55g


----------



## manticle (20/4/13)

Bugger Rammstein. I'm going to go and put on some Coil.


----------



## bum (20/4/13)

wbosher said:


> The point I'm trying to make bum, is that we have far more serious issues over here that affect pretty much everybody, that aren't getting half the attention that this bill is. I'm not saying our economy is any worse than anyone elses, or that this bill doesn't matter, because it does, just that as a country (yes NZ ), we could be putting a bit more effort into other things. Hopefully, now that this is out of the way, and once all the media hype dies down, we can start looking at some real problems.


What this old, old argument boils down to is "we can't afford simple human rights" and it is complete BULLSHIT.



manticle said:


> Bugger Rammstein.


That's the spirit!


----------



## pk.sax (20/4/13)

Well, bugger. In clarification to pissheads, all I meant by that was that people are different for a reason. Homosexuality 'can' be a result of not so pleasant reasons. In fact it often is. Look at northside's comments, he speaks the truth, they are usually ranging from somewhat chilled out to extreme. A lot of that is aggravation of emotional states by how everyone treats them. To not recognise the harm done is irresponsible.
The other part, they are discriminated because of a decision they make. Whatever the reason, this great civilised country of our's cannot recognise that denying them family recognition is discrimination. Heads up arses much.


----------



## wbosher (20/4/13)

bum said:


> What this old, old argument boils down to is "we can't afford simple human rights" and it is complete BULLSHIT.
> 
> 
> That's the spirit!


I'm not saying that at all. This should have happened about a decade ago when the Govt at the time brough in "Civil Unions". This basically meant that a couple (straight or gay) would be recognised under the law as a couple, but didn't quite go as far as being recognised as a marriage. That was bullshit, and I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't do it back that then. Country wasn't quite ready I guess.

As I said, there are some real problems like almost record high unemployment, redundancies in numbers not seen in decades, exporters shutting up shop and laying everybody off, this list goes on. This has a REAL effect on thousands of families, whether directly or indirectly. A lot of it can be attributed to an almost record high NZ$ for quite a long time now, not just a short term spike. I'd like to see as big a deal made about doing something about that!

Anyway bum, lets move on now. I'd made my position clear, as have you. We'll just have to agree to disagree...


----------



## manticle (20/4/13)

Equality among citizens is a pretty real issue.

Economical issues can and should be sorted but recognising equality doesn't need to be put on the back burner. Two distinct issues and governments shouldn't only ever be working on solving one problem at a time.


----------



## wbosher (20/4/13)

Yes Manticle, it is a real issue, and it good that it's been sorted. But kids aren't going to go cold and hungry if a gay couple can't get married, they just might if mum and/or dad get laid of from the local plastics factory.

I'm sure the Govt aren't just working on this one issue, but the country (the general public) are just consumed by this, and very little mention of the other issue(s). Governments seem to sit on their hands and ignore issues unless the public make a fuss about it, that's what I want here, some noise on issues other the gay marriage. Hopefully that can start to happen now.


----------



## manticle (20/4/13)

The general population didn't starve here when aboriginal people were considered non-citizens (or as a specific result thereof). Doesn't diminish its significance to people's lives.

I'm not familiar with the media in your country but both politicians and media often deflect one issue by focusing heavily on another.

An intelligent person doesn't need to conflate the two completely unrelated issues though. If the economy needs fixing, then push for that. It's got nothing to do with gay marriage.


----------



## wbosher (20/4/13)

Fair call. I never suggested for a minute that I was an intelligent person though. :lol:


----------



## booargy (20/4/13)

My 84yr old granmother said to me "you know what they do? they suck the shit off each others dick" I didn't know what to say. she goes to church and i had never heard her swear before. Obviously she had thought about it, maybe she liked a bit of ATM or had tried it and didn't like.
I thought the sooner you people die out the better. pass it and get on with things that really matter.


----------



## Dave70 (20/4/13)

booargy said:


> My 84yr old granmother said to me "you know what they do? they suck the shit off each others dick" I didn't know what to say. she goes to church and i had never heard her swear before.


You'd be suprised what they talk about in church.

Over to you pastor..

http://youtu.be/euXQbZDwV0w


----------



## doon (20/4/13)

Good old poo icecream


----------



## bum (25/4/13)

What the...? I don't even.


----------



## doon (25/4/13)

But doesnt it mean I would have to become a gay if this law got passed? Haha stupid idiots


----------



## booargy (25/4/13)

"the worst thing about a democracy is that you have to defend the rights of those you despise"


----------



## manticle (27/4/13)




----------



## Feldon (27/4/13)

...


----------



## Mikedub (27/4/13)

Feldon said:


> ...


irony?, humor? neither working for me there


----------



## whatwhat (27/4/13)

Against Gay marriage I am! Against discrimination, i am against!! Guess this is not the forum...


----------



## Liam_snorkel (27/4/13)

Huh?


----------



## bum (27/4/13)

I will sleep better if I assume it is satire of some sort.


----------



## GuyQLD (27/4/13)

whatwhat said:


> Against Gay marriage I am! Against discrimination, i am against!! Guess this is not the forum...


If you're saying what I think you're saying I agree with you. But we'd be a bloody small minority.


----------



## WarmBeer (27/4/13)

whatwhat said:


> Against Gay marriage I am! Against discrimination, i am against!! Guess this is not the forum...


----------



## Lecterfan (27/4/13)

There's really no thread available anymore for me to comment


----------



## bum (27/4/13)

Wouldn't that piss you off!


----------



## tipsy (28/4/13)

I like bum


----------



## WarmBeer (28/4/13)

tipsy said:


> I like bum


Then maybe you two should get married.

How's that for bringing this thread back On Topic?


----------



## bum (28/4/13)

Everyone likes bum.

Deep down inside.


----------



## Dave70 (29/4/13)

tipsy said:


> I like bum


You should click your pointer on his like button then.


----------



## OzPaleAle (30/9/13)

Interesting looking at the whole celebrant thing for getting married, the marriage act says you have to have the phrase below said as part of the ceremony for it to be a legally recognised.
I'll have several gay friends and family members there and will feel like a bit of a prick having that read out on what should be a positive happy day, I'm sure they will have heard it at weddings previously and know its far from my opinion on the subject but still seems wrong.
Fair enough if the government aren't ready to make it legal yet (although long overdue I think) but don't force me to read a discriminatory sentence from the act(from 1961 no less)

"Before you Groom and you Bride are joined together in marriage, in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am bound to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are about to enter. Marriage according to law in Australia is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"


----------



## shaunous (30/9/13)

OzPaleAle said:


> but don't force me to read a discriminatory sentence from the act(from 1961 no less)
> 
> "Before you Groom and you Bride are joined together in marriage, in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am bound to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are about to enter. Marriage according to law in Australia is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"


Cry me a river...


----------



## Liam_snorkel (30/9/13)

won't have to for long. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/territory-to-legalise-samesex-marriage-20130915-2tt9o.html


----------



## shaunous (30/9/13)

I worked with a heap of Philippino's a couple years back, there was one LadyBoy amungst them, he/she was better looking than the actual females. 

Does this make me gay.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (30/9/13)

depends if you pushed back..


----------



## pat_00 (30/9/13)

OzPaleAle said:


> Interesting looking at the whole celebrant thing for getting married, the marriage act says you have to have the phrase below said as part of the ceremony for it to be a legally recognised.
> I'll have several gay friends and family members there and will feel like a bit of a prick having that read out on what should be a positive happy day, I'm sure they will have heard it at weddings previously and know its far from my opinion on the subject but still seems wrong.
> Fair enough if the government aren't ready to make it legal yet (although long overdue I think) but don't force me to read a discriminatory sentence from the act(from 1961 no less)
> 
> "Before you Groom and you Bride are joined together in marriage, in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am bound to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are about to enter. Marriage according to law in Australia is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"


Yeah it's shit, but what are you gonna do? I'm sure your mates understand.

It's been a bit of a cringy moment at the last few weddings I've been to. Hopefully we get reform soon.


----------



## sp0rk (30/9/13)

OzPaleAle said:


> Interesting looking at the whole celebrant thing for getting married, the marriage act says you have to have the phrase below said as part of the ceremony for it to be a legally recognised.
> I'll have several gay friends and family members there and will feel like a bit of a prick having that read out on what should be a positive happy day, I'm sure they will have heard it at weddings previously and know its far from my opinion on the subject but still seems wrong.
> Fair enough if the government aren't ready to make it legal yet (although long overdue I think) but don't force me to read a discriminatory sentence from the act(from 1961 no less)
> 
> "Before you Groom and you Bride are joined together in marriage, in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am bound to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are about to enter. Marriage according to law in Australia is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"


I don't remember that being said at my wedding last year...


----------



## OzPaleAle (30/9/13)

I've been looking around to verify that it is required and everything I have seen so far has indicated it is.

Hopefully your right and its just a matter of finding the right celebrant who will omit it, maybe I can get them to say that bit in french\german etc or mumble it.
Probably in the scheme of things its not a big deal.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (30/9/13)

you could get the celebrant to preface it.

"_currently_, marriage according to law in Australia is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"


----------



## OzPaleAle (30/9/13)

True, that certainly takes the edge off the statement without turning the ceremony into sounding like a protest.
Thanks


----------



## sp0rk (30/9/13)

OzPaleAle said:


> I've been looking around to verify that it is required and everything I have seen so far has indicated it is.
> 
> Hopefully your right and its just a matter of finding the right celebrant who will omit it, maybe I can get them to say that bit in french\german etc or mumble it.
> Probably in the scheme of things its not a big deal.


Or get translate them to read it out in Klingon
I'm not a trekkie, but I reckon it'd be pretty damn funny


----------



## QldKev (30/9/13)

I like Lady GaGa, does this make me gay?


----------



## pat_00 (30/9/13)

It makes it apparent you have bad taste in music


----------



## manticle (30/9/13)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xxiK6Z4eXs


----------



## Cocko (30/9/13)

_They're not real tuff??_... Classic.

Not gay but a great clip!! - well played, Steve.


----------



## bum (30/9/13)

sp0rk said:


> I don't remember that being said at my wedding last year...


I hope this is because you were hideously drunk. You're not legally married if that was not said before witnesses.


----------



## shaunous (1/10/13)

bum said:


> I hope this is because you were hideously drunk. You're not legally married if that was not said before witnesses.


And your not legally married if u turned up drunk, this is all lose lose for you sp0rk, chances are your probably not married...


----------



## wbosher (1/10/13)

shaunous said:


> And your not legally married if u turned up drunk, this is all lose lose for you sp0rk, chances are your probably not married...


Lose lose, or get out of jail free card...


----------



## shaunous (1/10/13)

wbosher said:


> Lose lose, or get out of jail free card...


Collect all your beer and guns and run for the hills sp0rk...


----------



## sp0rk (1/10/13)

bum said:


> I hope this is because you were hideously drunk. You're not legally married if that was not said before witnesses.


Wasn't drunk, only had 1 glass of scotch before the ceremony
I could have been a little distracted and not heard it, however


----------



## doon (1/10/13)

Had to go look at a copy of my ceremony. Its definitely in there I dont remember it though although I was extremely hungover


----------

