Turning the Tables on Same-Sex Marriage? Not with THIS Argument (2 of 2).

Turning the Tables on Same-Sex Marriage? Not with THIS Argument (2 of 2). December 31, 2018

In part 1, we reviewed an inept attempt to prove the hypocrisy of same-sex marriage proponents. You say it’s wrong for a Christian baker to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake? Let’s see how you like it when the tables are turned! So they surveyed pro-gay bakers and asked them to bake a wedding cake for a straight wedding.

Kidding! There’d be no story in that case, because the bakers would’ve all been happy for the business. And why not? Same-sex marriage advocates (going forward, I’ll sometimes call them “liberals”) are embracing marriage, not disparaging it. No, the experiment was actually to ask pro-gay bakers to bake a cake with the slogan, “Gay Marriage is Wrong.” I discussed the problems with this experiment in part 1.

Blogger Tom Gilson has wrestled with problem of why the anti-same-sex (“conservative”) position has done poorly.

Six steps to a stronger conservative position.

How do the conservatives improve their strategy? Gilson offers some suggestions.

“First, we need to do our homework.” He encourages his side to study the argument thoroughly.

No, he doesn’t want to reconsider his position.

Or consider that same-sex marriage expands marriage rather than attacks it.

Or observe that it does absolutely nothing to harm the marriages of straight people and that if straight people don’t like gay marriage, they can just not get gay married.

Or wonder if maybe there are far bigger problems in the world that deserve their attention or ask what Jesus would do.

No, he just wants to double down on the conservative position and work on positioning the message with better PR.

“Second, we need to identify the other side’s rhetorical weakness.” The pro-same-sex marriage side shows a sympathetic face when arguing for their position, he says, but they’re nasty when attacking the conservative position. He gives some examples of weak points in his opponents’ position.

2a: Liberals say the conservatives are haters. But when they disagree, they’re just as hateful.

We can say that disagreement = hatred, and with that definition the two sides would be symmetric. But the goals are different, and expanding marriage is a far more loving goal than making it a gated community. Your rhetorical problem remains.

2b: Liberals blather on about marriage equality, but they don’t really believe that. They put constraints on marriage, too.

A definition makes clear what is included as well as what is not. Obviously, everyone puts limits on the definition of marriage just like they do for every other word. Gilson imagines that “marriage equality” must mean no constraints at all and that it accepts incestuous, bigamous, and other controversial unions. A quick look at how the term is used makes clear that this disingenuous complaint is groundless.

And note that his examples are arguably harmful options. Same-sex marriage isn’t harmful to anyone, not even to Christians. If it makes Jesus sad, he should let us know.

“Third, we need to be wiser about finding points of rhetorical symmetry.” Instead of demanding that gay bakers make hateful cakes (which he never sees the rhetorical problem with), he says that it would be rhetorically more productive to ask them to cater conferences for the anti-same-sex marriage position. “If they refuse, then that’s clearly discriminating.” Gotcha!

No, it doesn’t work that way. U.S. federal law recognizes protected classes that can’t be discriminated against. A business that provides public accommodation must (with few exceptions) serve all the public and can’t discriminate based on race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, and other categories. States have added additional classes. For example, Colorado made discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in 2008. This was the law broken in the 2012 Masterpiece Cakeshop case in which a Christian baker refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Retail stores have rights to free speech and can limit their customers, but those rights have limits. They violate the law if they refuse to serve someone simply because they’re in a class that’s protected. You can’t refuse to serve someone because they’re a Christian, a woman, or a Mexican, and (at least in Colorado) you can’t refuse to serve someone because that person is homosexual. On the other hand, a baker breaks no law when refusing to cater a National Organization of Marriage conference against same-sex marriage or a Westboro (“God Hates Fags”) Baptist Church picnic.

Again, I make the challenge: ask pro-gay bakers to bake wedding cakes for straight weddings. Show me one who won’t make an inoffensive wedding cake for a straight, Christian couple, and I’m on your side.

“Fourth, we need to put real faces on our position.” He suggests finding adult children of same-sex couples who have bad stories to tell.

Sure, you can find people who had a bad experience growing up with same-sex parents. But you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who had problems growing up with straight parents. What does that tell us? Seems to me that it says that marriage in the real world is imperfect. If you want to fret about marriage, focus on the social conditions that put pressure on all marriages.

“Fifth, even though it’s an uphill battle, we need to continue to explain and defend moral truth.”

Your “moral truth” is looking pretty hateful right about now; that’s why it’s an uphill battle. You still want to go with that as your final answer? Thirty years from now, the predominant Christian message on this subject will celebrate Christian leaders who took the tough stand to embrace homosexuals and accept same-sex marriage. History is listening.

“Finally and most importantly, we need to bear in mind that there is a spiritual asymmetry here as well.” The point here seems to be that Christians can’t forget the biblical reasons to reject same-sex marriage.

First, biblical reasons mean nothing in the secular public square. U.S. local, state, and federal government can’t make laws to advance a religious goal. In this domain, an argument that has only a Christian justification has no justification.

Second, the biblical argument against same-sex marriage is nonexistent (here, here). The Bible is a Rorschach test, and you read yourself into it. Don’t pretend that the Bible speaks unambiguously on this subject.

Look around you. There are millions of Christians happy to accept the liberal position. Two adults want to celebrate their love for each other—what’s not to like? These Christians feel no tension with their religious beliefs. What does it say about you that you can’t go there?

Some points of agreement

I think there’s more common ground than Gilson wants to admit. Obvious fact #1: the definition of marriage has changed over time. Biblical marriage, with its polygamy and other weird rules is a distant memory, and marriage continues to change today. Just in my lifetime, laws in the U.S. restricting marriage to people of the same race have been eliminated, divorce has become much easier, adultery is being decriminalized, and marital rape is now illegal. Even today, there are subtle differences between states’ definitions of marriage—different ages of consent, different restrictions on whether cousins can be married, different eligibility requirements, and so on.

Obvious fact #2: a definition imposes limits. Whether same-sex marriage is legal or illegal, there is no slippery slope problem. Conservatives don’t want to broaden marriage so that someone can marry their sex toy, and neither do liberals.

When you drop the fantasy that marriage is an unchanged institution since Adam and Eve, the same-sex marriage position seems a lot more reasonable. I doubt this will be persuasive, though. I think that Gilson is stuck with his position and doesn’t care which side has the stronger argument. He uses his substantial intellect to defend the conservative position, right or wrong.

A final jab

Gilson concludes his article by doubling down on the original message.

Before [this] experiment, no one ever seems to have thought of doing anything so thoughtlessly rude, except for the gays who asked conservatives to make cakes for their celebrations.

Seriously? Gays are thoughtlessly rude to expect equal access in public accommodation? Understand the law.

Gilson wants to know what the big deal is. So Straight-laced Christian Cakes won’t serve “your kind”? Not a problem:

I thought about the reported responses the conservatives gave: respectful, offering advice on other places people could be served, and compared it to [the angry responses] reportedly heard in response to [the request to bake “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cakes].

Are you also okay with a baker telling the Chinese couple or mixed-race couple that he didn’t approve of their marriage, but that there were other bakers in town without his high standards who might stoop to serve them?

And if same-sex marriage doesn’t exist for you, then what’s the problem? As far as you’re concerned, this is just a cake for a party. (h/t commenter Kodie)

While we’re offering “respectful” advice, let me offer some: if a wedding cake baker can’t follow the law, they can bake something besides wedding cakes or find another job.

And then I thought, Why do they accuse us of being the haters?

A trick question, perhaps? In this case, it’s because the experiment you applaud was hateful! And I keep coming back to the central issue. We’re not talking about a cake sculpture illustrating a lynching, a massacre, or the Kama Sutra. It’s a cake for a wedding! I can hardly imagine a worse event for conservative Christians to line up against.

You’re trying to improve your PR, but you’re still stuck with opposing a wedding cake. And you’re baffled why you’re labeled as haters?

Think about it for a minute.

Why is it that the same justices so eager
to bestow human rights upon corporations
are so reluctant to recognize them
as applying to actual human beings?
— Richard S. Russell

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/28/15.)

Image credit: andrluXphoto, flickr, CC

.

""The same" is the critical bit, how accurately do we have to specify the position ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."
"Actually it is. That story is a part of Revelation. Regardless there's also the story ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."
"Yep. If having a gun to the head is coercion, then Hell is far more ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."
"Hmm. I had assumed that by Bob's description that the initial conditions would be the ..."

How Much Faith to Be an ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • They, of course, probably don’t think sexual orientation or gender identity should be protected against discrimination at all. Yet they think religion should be. Who is the hypocrite then?

    As for gay bakers not catering a National Organization for Marriage conference, this is something that goes both ways. Christian bakers are free not to cater at a Human Rights Campaign conference too. The difference is political ideology isn’t protected against discrimination. Even if it were, caterers likely wouldn’t have much trouble making up an excuse not to serve them (“Sorry, we’re too busy at the moment”).

    Perhaps they disagree with this distinction though. In that case, both Christian bakers and gay ones could not refuse service to groups which oppose their views. Is that the hill they will die on? Because no one else will agree with only their discrimination getting protection on this. Why would they?

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      They, of course, probably don’t think sexual orientation or gender identity should be protected against discrimination at all.

      Given the laughable comparisons to molestation and beastiality, I’m inclined to agree.

      • Plus the fact they fought to stop anti-discrimination laws in the past, sometimes pretty recently, or carve out exceptions for religion. Now though it’s becoming less acceptable to openly do so. They instead claim discrimination themselves.

        • DingoJack

          Actually, here in Australia it’s even more interesting than that. The Turnbull Government, in order to appease the far-right religious fringe, commissioned former Liberal Party leader (and former AG) Phillip Ruddock to draw up recommendations to strengthen religious freedoms in Australian law*. The report he produced was never publicly aired, but during the Morrison government’s stint in power, one or two provisions, including allowing religious institutions the right to exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation, were leaked to the press. This led to a public outcry, with people complaining about religious schools being able to sack gay teachers and staff and/or expel gay students in order to preserve their ‘cultural ethos’. These institutions quickly denied they’d expel gay students (not a peep about staff though) in order kill the story. It soon emerged that religious institutions are covered by a whole raft of existing exemptions from anti-discrimination laws — but they really, really didn’t want the public to notice that. Whoopsie!
          —-
          * turns out religious freedoms are just fine. According to the legal profession, the government and the religious institutions themselves.
          The voters were pissed off to find just how far above the law they are. With the Royal Commission into child sex abuse still fresh in the mind of the public, it wasn’t a good look. Probably why the Government buried it.

        • So did they end those exemptions? I don’t know how things work in Australia, but do religious schools get state funding? There is a cruel hypocrisy there when they do-we’ll accept taxpayer money, but some taxpayers won’t be served.

        • DingoJack

          No — Scummo won’t do it, but Shorten might.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          ScoMo is a professing Christian because he practices the Christian faith, and he doesn’t believe in the oxymoron same-sex marriage. This means the secular registered marriage practice between 2 people will only exist in a legal fantasy world. This would be govern by fantasy laws like Disneyland, Movie world, Dream World.

        • Natureboi

          Sex is not a condition of secular marriage.

          You do not understand the definition of oxymoron.

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oxymoron

          2 people marrying has all the exact same legal aspects of man/woman marriage .
          NOTHING IS DIFFERENT.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Marriage without sex is 2 people of the same-sex living as house-mates for a civil partnership registration, this was established for same-sex partners in Australia.

        • Natureboi

          Marriage without sex is 2 people of the same-sex living as house-mates for a civil partnership registration, this was established for same-sex partners in Australia.

          People shouldn’t be judged only by what they do with thier genitals in the privacy of thier bedrooms.

          That’s just plain CREEPY.

          There is something wrong with people if that’s the only way they see and judge others.
          Vastly WRONG.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          The true and living God designed a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) as a good thing to prevent loneliness, unfaithfulness, and he viewed sexual intercourse to be a wonderful and perfect plan for filling the earth with people. Jesus Christ told his disciples (children of the living God) that one day he would return to judge the living and the dead, and this meanings the “intentional killing” of his children.

        • Susan

          The true and living God

          Until you make some kind of effort to show that this entity is not imaginary, stop going on about it.

          We’ve all heard it before. Many of us are formerly indoctrinated.

          Stop preaching and start supporting your claims.

        • Sheryl

          Susan,
          I know that the “inner feelings, thoughts, and voices” in your conscience aren’t controlled by you, but these things are very much influenced by the lies of deception from the Devil, and on a spiritual level your moral conscience isn’t imaginary, but your man-god (psychiatrists/psychologists) don’t understand people’s conscience. You may have been indoctrinated by a man-god (religious idol), but he isn’t the living God, as God is the Creator of the whole world and man is tempted to follow many man-gods such as the state which reflect their own image of man.

        • Susan

          these things are very much influenced by the lies of deception from the Devil,.. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah… blah, blah, blah..

          I mean it, Sheryl. Start supporting your claims.

          Stop… preaching.. and… support… your… claims.

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

          (Emphasis on the latter as you’ve done plenty of the former.)

        • Sheryl

          Susan,
          You’re enough evidence for me to believe that there is real evil and wickedness in this world, and I don’t want to be around someone like you, as you have faith in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage.” It is obvious that secular people can deliberately make things up, such as LGBTIAQ+ activists english language rule of laws, and this suits themselves. It is hard to believe that you’re such a nasty piece of work, but you’re shaped by your environment. Only the true and living God has the capability of rescuing you from the power of the Devil, and I’m going to leave you to your “inner feelings, thoughts and voices” of lies of deception which are coming straight from the Devil.

        • Sample1

          Wow, that escalated. I was wanting a conversation with you before I read this post but I will no longer push for one.

          Susan is an internet friend of many years and you’ve pegged her all wrong. I know these ideas of yours came from someone else somewhere, sometime. And now they’re in your mind. Surely you’ve been in more difficult situations in real life than what you’d find in a combox? You’ve gotten through them, presumably. Of course you did! The real world is challenging and you’ve carved out meaning, a worldview…no small thing. Really though, words from strangers illicit that kind of reaction? Maybe you have a good reason in your mind. If it’s a good reason I would imagine it would make you content, peaceful not what’s been displayed.

          You know what they say, first to apologize wins. I hate that expression because it isn’t a contest, but when it happens naturally it’s beautiful.

          Take care Sheryl, I don’t know you but mean no ill will toward you.

          Mike, fallibilist

        • Sheryl

          Mike,
          There are a majority of secular people like Susan who don’t understand their “inner feelings, thoughts and voices,” nor do they understand the way these things influence their behaviours and practices, but they feel they can be a judge about everything and everyone. I don’t play Susan’s game, as she doesn’t have any control over me, and she truly gets what she deserves.

        • Sample1

          Where I come from it’s bad manners attempting to characterize someone who is present in the conversation (someone you don’t know) to a third person not involved with your exchanges. What’s more, you know I’ve referred to her as my friend.

          Not cool. Downvoted.

          Mike

        • Sheryl

          Mike,
          I responded to Susan’s bad manners as a result of her direct comment to me. You can be a friend to Susan, but I’m not going to reply to her recent comment to me. I’m not here on this blog site to be cool, and I believe it is more important to communicate the other side of the argument to defend Mr Phillips’ right for religious freedom, as this includes defending everyone’s rights including freedom of speech.

          I have noticed that there is typically only 80-100 comments on most other articles for Patheos, and there was 800+ comments for one article, but this article has nearly 2000 comments. The majority of people on this blog site are all in the same bubble of thinking and they can’t tolerate difference at all. We can all deliberately make up things to suit ourselves and our family, but this will work against the common good for all.

        • DingoJack

          Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
          Awwww – you got push-back – how strange — tough noogies Shezza!!
          Your ‘arguments’ don’t cut it in reality – how sad, never mind!!

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          You don’t even have an argument for your “oxymoron same-sex marriage,”

        • David Cromie

          Nor do you!

        • Sheryl

          David,
          Keep dreaming about your “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • DingoJack

          Don’t have to, as it’s a reality. You have to provide a creditable rebuttal, which you’ve miserably failed to do.
          Therefore: fail. Big time.
          Next.

        • Sheryl

          Dingojack,
          Where is your “oxymoron same-sex marriage” in any of the Muslim countries in the world? These Muslim countries have marriages, but a marriage is between man-woman and never wife and wife. As of 1 January 2019, same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized (nationwide or in some jurisdictions) in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico,[a] the Netherlands,[b] New Zealand,[c] Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,[d] the United States,[e] and Uruguay. Armenia, Estonia, and Israel recognize same-sex marriages entered into elsewhere. This means only 26 countries in the whole world of 195 countries have legalised an “oxymoron same-sex marriage,” and the new President of Brazil and Australian Prime Minister are strongly against the “oxymoron same-sex marriage.” The majority of these 26 countries didn’t vote for an “oxymoron same-sex marriage,” and it has caused a massive breakdown in communication.

          The current marriage laws in Israel makes it impossible for same-sex partners to get married in Israel, but Israel will recognise a legal same-sex marriage from overseas. This legal practice is equivalent to Australia doesn’t have a legal Disneyland (fantasyland), but the government authorities will recognise that Australians have visited a legal Disneyland whilst their overseas in America, Hong Kong, Japan and or Paris.

        • DingoJack

          Yes Shezza, and in Muslim countries women driving, or going out in public without their husband, brother or father as chaperone is illegal. Perhaps the legally of women driving or going about their own business is ‘oxymoronic’ too? Perhaps all countries should ban these activities for women, since Muslim countries do.
          Muslim countries as legal sine qua non, brilliant!

        • Cynthia

          How do the countries you listed compare to the others in terms of respect for other human rights? Which group would you rather be a part of?

          Also FYI, a marriage between people of different faiths wouldn’t be performed in Israel either, but would be recognized if performed elsewhere.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          Lets discuss first the Australian, Canadian and British Marriage Laws, as both Australia and Canada inherited common laws from Britain. The current British marriage law doesn’t treat man-woman marriage as the same as same-sex married partners. Adultery is grounds for only a legal divorce between a man and woman, because the act of adultery can only happen between a man and woman. Therefore, adultery is irrelevant for same-sex married partners in a legal divorce. However, in Australia and Canada, these governments established a “civil registered people marriage,” as the criteria is now 2 people compared to the original British common marriage law and the Australian Marriage law, “an exclusive union between a man and woman for life. Therefore, the Australian and Canadian governments didn’t support nor protect man and woman need for each other or their most basic human right for the natural survival of humans. The governments rely on a man and woman uniting as “one flesh,” as their complementary male and female reproductive systems can naturally procreate new-life. Now that Australia and Canada no longer have the same civil registered marriage practice to Britain, this means this practice isn’t universal.

        • Cynthia

          In Canada, long before same-sex marriage, there had been fundamental changes to traditional marriage and divorce law.

          Married women had gained the right to retain their property and make contracts. Divorce on the grounds of separation came about in 1969, and using adultery as a ground is almost unheard of (even when it is clearly a factor in the split). Whatever you think of no-fault vs adultery-based divorce, that change came about long before.

          So no, nothing changed for opposite sex couples in Camada when same sex marriage came into being. There was no substantive change to the legal rights and obligations of spouses.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          Opposite-sex doesn’t mean “man” and “woman” in Canadian law, as you and your spouse are now only a legal “people,” and you and your spouse are exactly the same as a legally married same-sex partners whom are also recognised as legal “people.” Therefore, there was a substantive change to the legal rights to your natural children, because the court now makes all Canadian children only have a right to a legal parent. This means that all Canadian intact families gave the court more power to decide their child’s legal parent. In other words, an “oxymoron same-sex marriage” has now legally separated a child from their natural right to be procreated, nurtured and raised by their biological father and mother. Also, there is no longer a law in Canada that encourages, protects and supports natural human reproduction. You can pretend that infertility isn’t a problem in Canada, but Canadian culture will cease to exist without a fertility rate to replace the Canadian population.

        • Cynthia

          A change of language to use spouse and parent has precisely zero impact on my family’s legal rights. I’m writing this as someone who has practiced family law for 23 years.

          The courts have no new powers to remove children from biological parents. Different or additional parents are only added if there is agreement to do so, generally in assisted reproductive situations. Courts have also long recognized the concept of loco parentis – someone standing in the place of a parent, who gains rights and responsibilities associated with parents. This is a common-law concept that existed long before same-sex marriage.

          Removing children from parents works the same way it did before – it can only be done by court order or in a child protection emergency (still need a court order within 5 days), in the same grounds that existed before.

          I don’t understand your infertility comments. You don’t boost fertility by making it harder for people to do fertility treatments.

        • Cynthia

          FYI here is a quick summary of married women’s property rights under the old English common law and how it started to change in Canada: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/FamilyLaw/LawArticle-35/Matrimonial-Property-Law-in-Canada–A-Primer.aspx

          Blackstone’s 1756 Commentaries on the Law of England notes “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is, the
          very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the
          marriage, or at least is incorprated and consolidated into that of the
          husband, under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs
          everything.”

          THAT – the “very being or legal existence of the women in suspended during the marriage” – was what marriage had traditionally meant. So yeah, stuff changes. It’s not like everything else remained frozen in time until same-sex marriage came along.

        • Greg G.

          I have noticed that there is typically only 80-100 comments on most other articles for Patheos, and there was 800+ comments for one article, but this article has nearly 2000 comments.

          This article is not even three weeks old yet. There is at least one article with over 10,000 comments.

        • Kodie

          So glad you finally realize that making stuff up is against the common good for all. You have hitched yourself to a myth that has outlived most, if not all, of its usefulness. The only thing I can support it for is if people think they need to believe in god or else they would go on a murdering spree, better to cling to the myths.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie,
          It is you that has faith in the “Fairy in the Sky,” because you believe in your “inner feelings, thoughts and voices in your head,” and you can’t discriminate the difference between a myth and God’s law, “Thou shalt not murder.”

        • Susan

          Susan’s bad manners

          It’s bad manners to ask someone to stop preaching and to support the claims they make?

          What are you doing here if you are unwilling to support your claims?

          Preaching?

          THAT’s bad manners.

        • Sheryl

          Susan,
          Your bad manners include you’re accusing me of being “mentally ill,” but it’s you that has faith in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage” and this is nonsense. Today, I had a discussion with an ex- associate Professor of a University about people like you who are changing words to suit yourself, and how nonsense words were making it extremely hard to communicate in English. He told me how the Nazis got medical doctors and nurses to “intentionally kill” the mentally ill under German Law. The germans believed murder involved brutality, but the mental ill were being euthanised by healthcare professionals, so they didn’t view this as murder. You might believe changing the meaning of words to suit yourself is fair and equality, but this change of practice will have serious harmful consequences.

        • Susan

          Your bad manners include you’re accusing me of being “mentally ill”

          Sheryl, I didn’t. I asked if you were OK. By the way, concerns for someone’s mental wellbeing are not “accusations”. They’re concerns. I have had discussions with many theists over the years and have rarely been concerned for their mental wellbeing.

          The symptoms you display (repetitiveness with completely disjointed responses that revert back to repetitiveness that has an almost manic quality) reminded me of someone I love who recently had a breakdown.

          Again, it was a concern. Not an accusation. I was not trying to use it against your arguments. (As you have none, I don’t need to resort to cheap tactics.)

          He told me how the Nazis got medical doctors and nurses to “intentionally kill” the mentally ill under German Law.

          Versus me asking you if you’re ok? That you can’t see a difference is no surprise.

          The germans believed murder involved brutality, but the mental ill were being euthanised by healthcare professionals, so they didn’t view this as murder.

          So were the homosexuals, the jews, the developmentally and physically challenged and the communists.

          Yes. “Murder” is by definition “wrongful killing” so they could play your little language games and feel completely justified in doing what they were doing.

          For instance, “murdering” a homosexual (or a Jew, communist, mentally or physically disabled person) would be an oxymoron. It wouldn’t be possible. Killing them wouldn’t be “murder” because it wouldn’t be “wrongful killing”.

          So, they were playing your game. Not mine nor anyone else’s here.

          The ignorant claim against me for my “rudeness” was when I asked you to support your claim about your deity. You ignored it and accused me of rudeness for asking.

          The rest has been an unravelled and monotonous rant without support.

          My concern for your mental wellbeing was very hedged. I explained to other commenters here that I wasn’t qualified to make a diagnosis but that I was concerned.

          It’s also possible that you’re a particularly nasty, not very bright, and very indoctrinated person.

          In either case, I doubt I’ll engage with you much. I noticed early on that it’s pointless. You’re not interested in any sort of discussion. You’re only here to rant. You are unable and/or unwilling to support your claims.

          That doesn’t seem to bother you in the least.

          This is supposed to be a discussion board, not a soapbox.

          Now, I will wait for you to continue with your rant without making any effort to address anything I’ve said.

          Because that’s what you do.

        • Sheryl

          Susan,
          You don’t want a discussion, but you don’t like it when someone doesn’t agree with your world view. Also, you weren’t at all interested in my well-being, but you wanted to put yourself up and put me down. You appear to be concerned for the Jews, mentally ill including homosexuals and transexuals, as well as disabled people that were murdered by german medical doctors and nurses under German law. However, do you provide the same level of support Americans who have survived a legal abortion? An abortion is a legal consent by the mother who makes an informed decision to “intentionally kill” (murder) the unborn baby by a medical doctor/registered nurse, but the unborn baby is denied their natural right to live. Therefore, a legal abortion is a legal murder of an unborn baby, and this legal practice isn’t anything different to the Nazi’s legal practice of murder.

          You are definitely not a bright person as you have faith in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage,” and I already told you that you’re definitely a nasty piece of work. I would never want to experience your type of “love” because this would be extremely pain and suffering.

        • Susan

          You don’t want a discussion

          You’re wrong. That’s why I asked you to support your claims, something you have yet to do. You are using this forum as a soapbox.

          you weren’t at all interested in my well-being, but you wanted to put yourself up and put me down.

          I explained why I was concerned. You won’t find evidence in my commenting history of concern for people’s mental health just because they are christian.

          And no. Concern for someone’s well-being is not a power play. Mental illness does not make someone inferior. That you would see it that way says a lot about you.

          I note that you still haven’t supported any of your god claims. When were you planning to do that?

          You are definitely not a bright person as you have faith in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage,”

          You don’t know what an oxymoron is. But that doesn’t stop you from repeating your screed over and over and over and over.

          I already told you that you’re definitely a nasty piece of work.

          Yes, you did. But it’s just another assertion in a long list of unsupported assertions you make.

        • Sheryl

          Susan,
          This blog site is about Mr Phillips should be forced to bake a “wedding cake” for an “oxymoron same-sex marriage.” There are many lawyers, healthcare professionals and teachers who have identified a “same-sex marriage” is an “oxymoron,” because this practice doesn’t make any sense at all. You haven’t provided one piece of fact/evidence that can change the minds of the majority of people in the world and over the centuries. The words “he” and “she” in the original English language must have had a different meaning and based on some fact/evidence, otherwise there would have been one word to describe a legal “person.” Also, the word “marriage” must have had an original meaning in the English language, otherwise we would have had one word for legal “people.”

          Susan, you’re only a legal “person” and it doesn’t matter what pronoun you use because this only means a legal “person,” and your secular “civil registered people marriage” only means a legal “people.” You think this LGBTIAQ language is progressive, but you can’t identify that it doesn’t make any sense at all because changing words to suit yourself will never lead to progress.

        • Sample1

          I’ve got breaking news for you Sheryl, everyone who has ever walked upright, metaphorically speaking, is/was in their own bubble. Get over it. Find common ground where you can.

          For instance, you’re an apolytheist. Just like all of us here! Let’s celebrate that.

          Mike

        • Natureboi

          Why did God create the “Devil?”

        • Natureboi

          The true and living God designed

          Your “true and living” God also designed cancer, over 10,000 diseases and Natural disasters all of which kill millions.

          Please spare me of the wonderments of your “true and living” God…that you have to keep reminding me is the “true” God.

          a wonderful and perfect plan for filling the earth with people

          The earth is FULL.
          They are spilling across our borders.

          Jesus Christ told his disciples (children of the living God) that one day he would return to judge the living and the dead, and this meanings the “intentional killing” of his children.

          No, That’s NOT the murder of children I am referring to.
          God has ALREADY murdered children.

        • Susan

          he practices the Christian faith

          What is the “christian faith”? Whatever claim we address that professes to be of the “christian faith”, we are accused of strawmanning or reaching for low-hanging fruit.

          he doesn’t believe in the oxymoron same-sex marriage

          As marriage has had everchanging definitions and continues to do so across the world, you don’t have much ground for calling any kind of marriage an oxymoron. Oxymorons are reserved for terms that are opposite by definition/

          i.e. Free kittens. 🙂 (Don’t let that dissuade you. They’re worth every penny when you rescue a couple. )

          fantasy laws

          Laws are laws. They’re not fantasy. They have legal standing.

          If you think you can make a case against a law, (for instance, slavery, wife rape), make a case.

          But don’t use the bible to do so. It’s a book about human belief in a particular set of magical/imaginary beings.

        • Sheryl

          Susan,
          Make your case to every Muslim country about your “oxymoron same-sex marriage” and you’ll find out that many same-sex partners would experience the death penalty for homosexual behavioural practice if they chose to live or visit these countries. It is obvious that Muslims treat an “oxymoron same-sex marriage” as the opposite of a real and true “marriage,” but people like you want to continue to have faith in your “Fairy in the Sky.” I’ve decided not to have any more comments with you, because you don’t understand the real meaning of laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries.

        • Cynthia

          Susan – I’m wondering if we are dealing with a Poe or troll here? Surely nobody would seriously make an argument against same-sex marriage based on the fact that some Muslim countries have the death penalty for homosexuals? It is a fairly new account with minimal upvotes.

        • Susan

          I’m wondering if we are dealing with a Poe or troll here?

          So did I. But I went through her commenting history and it seems consistent with the real thing. So many of her comments have been here in the last few weeks, that you have to really scroll all the way to see the roots.

          I was also concerned about her mental health (not because she’s christian, but because of her behaviour).

          It’s quite possible that she’s just a particularly nasty, indoctrinated person who gets a high off of preaching and ignoring reason. That is, she doesn’t acknowledge responses or questions about her statements. They’re just a fresh opportunity to repeat her preaching.
          She never has to take responsibility for her statements. She just knows she’s right and if we don’t agree, she will yell it again.

          Not an uncommon trait in humans, even if they’re not trolling or mentally ill.

          (Sigh)

        • Cynthia

          Hard to tell. I’m not close enough to her community to tell if there is an obvious slip – occasionally I’ve spotted trolls who imitate communities closer to mine based on info they get online, but then they will slip up on a key detail that someone who was actually part of the community would know.

          It’s possible that “oxymoron same sex marriage” or comparing it to prostitution might be a line that is getting tossed around by some ultra-Conservative corner in Australia. After all, right wing radio hosts in the US compared health care coverage for contraception to prostitution a while back. The Muslim countries line just seemed over the edge, even by extremist standards.

  • WallofSleep

    I take it Gilson is too young to remember the conservative politician Barry Goldwater?

    “The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least – and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.”

    … and …

    “The big thing is to make this country – quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay. You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. They’re American citizens.”

    Of course there are many more quotes like that from Goldwater, but I did not want to post a wall of text.

  • Anri

    To refine their arguments, they should just ask god for an unanswerable rhetorical point, a perfectly convincing argument. Obviously, being all-powerful, god could provide that anytime he cared to do so. So, his proponents should ask for such a thing. In the deafening, echoing silence that ensues, they should then ask why god doesn’t want to provide them with such an argument. After that, ask why this apparently isn’t a really important item on god’s agenda.

    I imagine they’ll get pretty sick of silence pretty soon.

    • Carol Lynn

      The problem is, they will hear what they want to hear. Since no actual god has ever been involved with dictating scripture, why would this instance be different?

  • Michael Neville

    One thing Gilson fails to do is to show that anyone is harmed by same-sex marriage. He’s outraged by SSM but his moral outrage is not evidence of harm.

    • The argument that probably works well in his community is, “But it’s gay sex! I mean, seriously, I’ve got to explain it more than that? You know–two men, well … you know. It’s obviously disgusting.”

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Rule of Law by ICKY!!

        /s

        🙁

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        Ignoring that most probably have porn on their computers involving all the same sex acts that they imagine gay people engage in.

        • Obviously your penis has NEVER been in a WOMAN’S bumhole or you would know that GOD says it’s totz good when a straight,GODLY man does just a bit of deviant dalliancin’ to “spice up” the painful act of making teh babeez. But, if he even attempts to do such a thing with another MAN, his sacred tallywhacker will just FALL OFF!

        • Obviously your penis has NEVER been in a WOMAN’S bumhole or you would know that GOD says it’s totz good when a straight,GODLY man does just a bit of deviant dalliancin’ to “spice up” the painful act of making teh babeez. But, if he even attempts to do such a thing with another MAN, his sacred tallywhacker will just FALL RIGHT THE FUCK OFF!

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      He had ONE suggestion on how to show the harm of SSM. By finding children of same sex couples that had problems with their parents.
      He failed to suggest what sort of problems would have been unique to same sex parents, or (what he really needed) MARRIED same sex parents.

    • HE is hurt, I mean, yeah Gibson haz a big ol’ sad but,more importantly, 900’BabyJEEZUZwithtthefrikkinlazerbeemereyez and the sacred spook and his half-brother, YooHoo–the most powerful 3/3 of GOD in the universes–THEY’RE crying their eyes out!!

    • The lack of harm is one key argument against MANY laws. Just like homosexual marriage doesn’t harm the Christians. Someone refusing to bake a cake for someone else isn’t causing them harm. While, the converse, FORCING someone to labor against their will is slavery and stealing (of their time, at a bare minimum) and those are harms.

  • Sheryl

    All laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries are established by governments in order to protect the public and society from harmful behaviours and practices. Sex workers, sex offenders and civil registered married people have their names and details recorded on different public registries, as this practice allows government authorities a legal right to regulate (control) them and the courts have the legal power to punish them with legal fees/court costs/ fines etc when they harm the public and society.

    The Australian Federal Parliament decided to change the definition of the Australian Marriage Law to be between 2 people. This 2017 amended Marriage Act removed the criteria of sex/sexual intercourse which is the exclusive union between one man and one woman for life. This means my civil registered marriage is now between 2 people – a registered nurse and a healthcare consumer, as my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and intact family is now completely self-regulated. A registered nurse and a healthcare consumer are 2 people and these people are defined in Australian laws and regulations. I am a registered nurse and my husband is a healthcare consumer and we have an exclusive, lifelong commitment to love and care for our health and wellbeing needs. Our civil registered marriage between a registered nurse and a healthcare consumer allows my husband as a healthcare consumer to give me money for my professional advice/service on the management of his chronic episodic asthma, and I don’t have to pay any tax on the money I receive from him. The nursing regulations prohibit a sexual relationship between a registered nurse and a patient (healthcare consumer), so there is no sexual relationship in our civil registered marriage between a registered nurse and a healthcare consumer. Centrelink forms have been changed to partner because a civil registered marriage is about the exchange of money/property/service to include a civil registered marriage between a registered nurse and a healthcare consumer. My parents had a business partnership, but their partnership was totally independent of their man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and intact family.

    The Australian Marriage Law between 2 people will allow the fantasy creation of a civil registered marriage between a doctor and nurse etc. This new law now makes it impossible for government authorities to regulate (control) a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) relationship, and the courts can never have the legal power to re-criminalise the harm of adultery and breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath because there is no legal definition of man and woman in any Australian law, regulation, guideline nor public registry.

  • skl

    Some potential retorts:

    …consider that same-sex marriage expands marriage rather
    than attacks it.

    Like the way hardcore pornography expands movie-making rather than attacks
    it.

    Or observe that it does absolutely nothing to harm the
    marriages of straight people and that if straight people don’t like gay
    marriage, they can just not get gay married.

    Like the way if you don’t like abortion, then just don’t get yourself an
    abortion.

    Or wonder if maybe there are far bigger problems in the
    world that deserve their attention …

    If it’s such a small problem, then let the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker be,
    and focus on the world’s far bigger problems.

    • DingoJack

      “Like the way hardcore pornography expands movie-making rather than attacks it.”
      Yeah two amateurs getting in on in their bedroom filmed on their own digital camera is really preventing Michael Bey from making Transformers LXVII: A Skirmish in Scranton or some other ‘masterpiece’ of the cinematic arts??
      Is that the best argument you can muster? Really?!?

    • ”…consider that same-sex marriage expands marriage rather than attacks it.”
      Like the way hardcore pornography expands movie-making rather than attacks
      it.

      Is porn a bad thing? If you think so, then you see how your parallel fails. SSM isn’t a bad thing.

      Like the way if you don’t like abortion, then just don’t get yourself an
      abortion.

      Works for me.

      If it’s such a small problem, then let the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker be,
      and focus on the world’s far bigger problems.

      Tell us why you support the baker.

      • WallofSleep

        In case you are not familiar with “skl”, it is well known as a non sequitur spewing troll that has haunted other atheist blogs on Patheos.

        • Yeah. He comes and goes around here. I get deluded into talking with him. Or maybe I’m just forgetful. That makes it kinda my fault as well.

        • WallofSleep

          Your sandbox, your rules. If you wish to entertain that one at times, that’s your choice. I can’t judge, I’ve been known to entertain fools at times myself.

          (In this case, I mean “entertain” in the sense of receiving as a guest.)

        • Wow–how’d you get so many Disqus upvotes? You’re Mr. Popularity!

        • WallofSleep

          I’ve been on Disqus for too fucking long. Also, I’m told I can be pretty funny at times.

        • I think the funny may be the answer. I have more comments than you but you’ve got almost 3× the upvotes. I’m spending too much time being serious.

        • WallofSleep

          FFS, I really do have a ridiculous amount of upvotes. You may think I’m full of shit, but I’ve never really checked that before.

          At any rate, we need serious as much as we need funny. I’m not saying you should “stay in your lane”, because we all know we could use some more laughs these days. I’m just saying I appreciate your brand of seriousness.

        • Funny’s not my gift, but I’ve got lots of serious. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

        • Greg G.

          I see WallofSleep posting on Friendly Atheist and that crowd is generous with upvotes, especially with the insight and humor of those like WallofSleep.

          To disambiguate some of the opposition at this blog, we just have incite and tumors.

        • WallofSleep

          You flatter me, sir.

        • I guess it takes all kinds.

      • skl

        Is porn a bad thing?

        There’s no such thing as “bad”. There’s only what people don’t like.
        Here, it may be whether you’d like your daughter being widely-known as a hardcore porn “actress” or as a Hollywood Oscar winner.

        “Like the way if you don’t like abortion,
        then just don’t get yourself an abortion.”

        Works for me.

        Like if you’re a woman who doesn’t like men violating her, then just don’t be a man. Works for you.

        Tell us why you support the baker.

        I don’t know that “support” is the right word. For much lengthier extant exposition on this, re-peruse at https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/12/turning-the-tables-on-same-sex-marriage-not-with-this-argument-2/

        • Damien Priestly

          You don’t know how to do analogies. There is no equivalence to any of your comparisons. Porn and abortion are perfectly acceptable, even admirable things to do – unlike being “violated”.

          And not everybody thinks that mainstream Hollywood movies and Oscars are that desirable. It is eye of the beholder. The Baker is all a sideshow…victimhood complex by the SSM issue’s losers.

        • Kodie

          Like if you’re a woman who doesn’t like men violating her, then just don’t be a man. Works for you.

          That’s a quite fucked up perspective you have.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not only a fucked up perspective, but I’m betting he didn’t even express it properly.

        • Natureboi

          There’s no such thing as “bad”. There’s only what people don’t like.

          I don’t like religion.

          Can I discriminate against Christians?

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        OT: Bob, I apologize for losing my cool on Sheryl up above.

        I’ll try to watch my language in the future.

        • As often happens online, I wasn’t quite sure where Sheryl was coming from.

          But if you want to apologize, maybe do it to her. Thanks for the update.

      • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

        Is skl still claiming to not be a Christian, yet hate exactly all of the same things that Christians hate, and believe all of the same things are wrong that Christians believe are wrong?

        • Last time I checked, yes. I don’t know what he does claim to be/think. Some sort of conservative, presumably, but I don’t know what his spiritual beliefs are.

          I believe he likes to put as few stakes in the ground as possible so that he can dance around and attack rather than have to defend.

    • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

      Like the way hardcore pornography expands movie-making rather than attacks
      it.

      Yes. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say it attacked movie-making.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        Actually, I think pornography helped mainstream movie making, by being a major driver of online streaming technology that is now an indispensible distribution method for moviemakers of all kinds.

        • epicurus

          Without porn and games to drive development , the internet would probably still be in a late 1990’s state – Is that the sound of a dialup modem I hear?

        • WallofSleep

          Pretty much every major step forward in commercial internet service has been driven by the porn industry.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And lately, VR.

        • WallofSleep

          Sex sells. Always has, always will.

    • Natureboi

      Like the way hardcore pornography expands movie-making rather than attacks
      it.

      How does gay marriage “attack” man-woman marriage?

      Like the way if you don’t like abortion, then just don’t get yourself an
      abortion.

      How has abortion harmed you?

      If it’s such a small problem, then let the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker be,
      and focus on the world’s far bigger problems.

      Gays marrying is NOT a “problem” for Masterpiece.
      Same-sex marriage is NOT a “problem” for Masterpiece.
      Homosexuality is NOT a “problem” for Masterpiece.

      You DO realize what the “problem” is for Jack, don’t you?

  • Sheryl

    Ski, The Australian Marriage Law between 2 people expands a civil registered marriage to include a registered nurse and a healthcare consumer because the 2017 amended Marriage Act removed sex/sexual intercourse which is the inclusive union between one man and one woman for life.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      YOUR KIND don’t get to define ‘sex’, either.

      Crawl back into the slimy sand under your failing cathedral.

      • Sheryl

        HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
        Your kind hasn’t defined “sex” nor “sexual intercourse,” so you have now identified the obvious reason that the Australian Marriage Law is only between 2 people. Your kind believes that the UK is legally married to the EU, and Brexit is a real legal divorce because sex/sexual intercourse has been removed as the criteria of a civil registered marriage. I don’t need to crawl into the slimy sand under a failing cathedral because your idea of a civil registered marriage has been totally confused by the historical meaning of “marriage.” How will the ABS census record a civil registered marriage in the future when all the man-woman “one flesh” (marriages) now self-identified as “independence” or “ind” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act? I don’t have to self-identify as “female” as I have the freedom to declare I have a “female reproductive system.” I don’t have to self-identify as “married” because I have the freedom to declare “independence” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act and I can record my relationship as a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) which is self-regulated.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          We don’t have to…WE use the dictionary definition, which doesn’t limit it to heterosexual contact.

          YOUR KIND don’t get to make the rules any more, and I can see you obviously PURELY HATE IT…and that makes my schadenfreude that much sweeter.

          If YOUR KIND could get away with it, you’d be making like Iran’s ‘morality police’…but you can’t, so you come here and piss in the punch bowl out of pure impotent spite.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I have never felt the power to make the rules your claiming I once had. What are these rules? I definitely don’t define my life by psychiatric/psychology words such as “heterosexual” nor “cisgender.” I definitely don’t have any feelings of hate, especially like your HATE on everyone who doesn’t agree with your feelings/thoughts/opinions/ideas/values. Your kind are the “moral police” and that is the reason your demanding government and government authorities to give you some power by changing the laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries to suit yourself. I know that the “thought police” doesn’t end well for any civilised society.

        • Gee, Sheryl, I’ve read a couple of your comments–that takes some doing, I didn’t have my wordsaladfork handy.

          But, um, well, gosh.

          You’re a bigoted p.o.s. and you’re blocked.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You never had to.

          YOUR KIND had stolen that power, arrogating it only to yourselves, *centuries* ago.

          The rest of us have gotten sick of it and are taking our rights back.

          What you’re feeling is privilege distress, and the rest of us don’t give a fuck because we demand equality of rights.

        • Natureboi

          your HATE on everyone who doesn’t agree with your feelings/thoughts/opinions/ideas/values.

          You are WRONG.

          LGBT people don’t care about your “feelings/thoughts/opinions/ideas/values.”

          They only care about your behavior.

          As you wrote your anti-same-sex marriage posts, your “feelings/thoughts/opinions/ideas/values” became behavior.

          Voting against LGBT rights is behavior. and not “feelings/thoughts/opinions/ideas/values.”

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          You can’t speak on the behalf of all LGBTIAQ+ people, especially people whom self-identify as “transgender” because they feel/think that their biological sex is only assigned at birth, when this isn’t objective truth as sonographers identify the biological sex of an unborn baby in the womb, and medical doctors/nurses identify patient’s biological sex on admission, prior to treatment/procedure/therapy/surgery and even on death. LGBTIAQ+ people do care about the thoughts of their family, friends and even their teachers and other professionals such as healthcare professionals etc. LGBTIAQ+ people are as complexed as all other people. You’re a hypocrite, as you voted against a Marriage Law – an exclusive union between a man and a woman for life for all man-woman marriages.

        • Natureboi

          I voted against nothing.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          You claimed, “We don’t have to …” english dictionary definition based on language law/rule for common sense, but then you expect everyone else to obey secular laws to deter/prevent murder and crime, and your comment doesn’t make any sense to a rational and logical person.

        • Natureboi

          YOU expect everyone to obey a religion based on a God that cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

          Therefore, YOU have NO SAY in secular law.

        • Natureboi

          your idea of a civil registered marriage has been totally confused by the historical meaning of “marriage.”

          Is that your only “rational” reason to prohibit gay from marrying?
          Can you do any better?

        • Natureboi

          Sex is not a part of any marriage law.
          Nor is procreation.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Sexual activities nor procreation aren’t part of the civil People Marriage law between same-sex partners, and that why man-woman “one flesh” (married) couples have declared “independence” from this secular practice.

        • Natureboi

          Good for them.

        • M. Solange O’Brien

          You can declare anything you like. Doesn’t make you exempt from the law.

        • Sheryl

          M. Solange O’Brien,
          The Australian 2017 amended Marriage Act (law) must command my husband and I to have a civil registered people marriage in order for us to not be exempt from this law, and the no fault divorce law must command my husband and I to “irretrievably break-down” our civil registered people marriage and intact family with court costs/lawyer fees, so we’re not exempt from this law.

    • Natureboi

      Is sexual intercourse a requirement to marry?

      • Sheryl

        Natureboi, Sexual intercourse is only a requirement for Christians/Catholics/Orthodox/Jews and Muslims whom believe is the historical meaning of “marriage,” but this is completely self-regulated.

        • DingoJack

          Actually not. Plenty of Christians marry even if they are unable, unwilling or too old to have children. Intercourse has never been a requirement of marriage. (Although, not having sex has always been grounds for annulment).
          —-
          In fact during the medieval/ early modern period children being married off was certainly not uncommon in England. A habit that continues to the present in some parts of the US.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack, You’re right that sexual intercourse has never been a requirement for a “sham” marriage.

        • DingoJack

          Yes but its not just you, it’s true of all marriages.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So women past menopause shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

          Elderly widows and widowers can’t marry to live their lives together in love?

          If the elderly infertile can, why not same-sex couples?

        • Cynthia

          Child betrothal wasn’t just in England. I know it happened in some cases among Russian Jews in extreme circumstances – parents would pair off children if they feared that they may not be around when the child got older, or as an attempt to avoid mandatory 25 year military service. The marriages weren’t consummated until later.

        • Natureboi

          Then stay out of the rights of gay couples to marry.

      • Sheryl

        Natureboi,
        The state and the Christian church have now a different understanding on the meaning of gender, sex/sexual intercourse,”marry,” marriage, family, so your comment about “requirement to marry” depends if you meet the requirement of the state or church because these are the same things.

        • Natureboi

          Is procreation a mandate of any marriage law?

    • M. Solange O’Brien

      If a nurse and a patient wish to marry, why stop them?

  • Sheryl

    Ski,
    You can no longer discriminate against a civil registered marriage between a doctor and a nurse because the 2017 amended Marriage Act has totally removed the historical meaning of “marriage.” The marital act of the consummation of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman has historically been considered a genuine marriage, as a legal state marriage certificate and a public wedding ceremony were never considered enough evidence of a genuine marriage. Historically, adultery was grounds for a divorce, and this act can only happen between a man and a woman.

    • WallofSleep

      You are a truly odd sort, with an account that was dormant for almost a year and a half.

      https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AbleConsciousDromaeosaur-small.gif

      • Sheryl

        WallofSleep,
        My account hasn’t been dormant for a year and a half. You now have to accept, a germanic marriage is based on a man-woman cohabitation, and the man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) is based on sex/ sexual intercourse which is the exclusive union between one man and one woman for life, and these man-woman sexual relationships now have gained “independence” or “ind” from a civil registered marriage or dejure marriage or roman marriage which are based on legal consent/contract. The Australian Federal Parliament, government authorises and courts no longer have the legal power to regulate nor criminalise man-woman (adult) consenting affairs nor prevent the breakdown of man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath and their intact family. It is now impossible for government authorities to educate future generations about the harm of adultery and breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath because a civil registered marriage now includes same-sex partners which don’t meet the basic criteria of man-woman.

        The secular idea that “a lawful husband can now legally sodomise his lawful spouse” confuses the meaning of “marital rape” for the majority of married women. All civil marriage celebrants must declare that the new Australian Marriage Law is between 2 people, even though the word “people” include unborn, babies, children, parents, sex workers, clients, sex offenders, victims, nurses, patients, doctors, teachers, students etc. Also, there are secular people who don’t believe in the new Marriage Law between 2 people, but they can no longer have a legal right for a civil celebrant to declare their marriage is between a man and a woman. However, all religious people have a legal right to ignore/reject this new law between 2 people because their minister/priest/church only witness a wedding ceremony between a man and a woman and they don’t declare the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people during the wedding ceremony, as a man and woman marry each other by consummating the marital act of sexual intercourse in private to avoid annulment, and adultery is grounds for a divorce.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND don’t get to choose for others…that’s what the law was about.

          YOUR KIND have lost power, and we refuse to return it to you.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          Secular people have changed some laws for themselves such as the abortion law, euthanasia law, Marriage Law between 2 people, no fault divorce law and prostitution law, but the Australian governments allows me a legal right to ignore/reject all these laws for myself. However, the majority of secular people like yourself have forced a minority of secular people to no longer have their civil registered marriage between a man and a woman because this is no longer the Marriage Law in Australia. In other words, you’re a hypocrite because your kind shouldn’t get to choose for the minority of secular people it they want their civil marriage celebrant to declare their marriage is between a man and a woman…so the Australian Marriage Law doesn’t mean “marriage equality” for everyone because bisexual people are discriminated against experiencing a civil registered marriage.

          My kind have been given our natural power because I am not demanding nor wanting any human rights for an abortion, euthanasia, marriage between 2 people, no fault divorce nor sex work. The Australian governments have all allowed me the freedom to self-regulate the live births of my 3 children, a natural death, a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and my intact family which are free from prostitution. I would be crazy to demand or want your power which has now caused the Australian governments to establish new laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries in order to protect the public and society from harmful behaviours and practices, as it is total madness for me to demand/want government authorities a legal right to regulate (control) me, so then the courts have the legal power to punish/criminalise me with legal fees/court costs/fines etc. I will make sure that my 3 children and 15 nieces and nephews all have read the 2017 amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce law, so they can make an informed decision to ignore/reject this madness of legal “partners.” My parents clearly taught me that business partnerships come to an end, unlike a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) is faithful and lifelong.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If YOUR KIND don’t want to live under secular law, you’ve got a problem…because from what I understand, you’re a *christ*ofascist, and the only theocracies left in the world are muslim.

          YOUR KIND don’t get the power to rule society, only your own lives…where you don’t affect others.

          Deal with it, because that’s your lot until your (much anticipated) conversion to reality or demise.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          My kind are “live and let live,” but your kind is Communism because you have forced the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people, even onto secular people who don’t agree with this new marriage law. The Australian governments have never forced me as a non-healthcare professional to participate in the secular laws regarding abortion, euthanasia, marriage between 2 people, no fault divorce nor prostitution, but medical doctors only have “State’s choice” to participate in a legal abortion and student nurses don’t have the power to reject participation in a legal abortion practice. There is a greater power which will destroy your kind and you can look at history books to work out how totalitarian people have been defeated.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          YOUR KIND are trying to prevent equal marriage from taking place because it disturbs you, and you care not a bit that your position is a violation of human rights of those same-sex couples who desire each other and want to join their lives & fortunes.

          You don’t want to be left alone, you want PRIVILEGE to dictate the lives of others. You can’t. You don’t have to like it, but you WILL acquiesce to it in action wherever rights are concerned or rightly be ruled as criminal and punished for violating people’s civil rights.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          Nope.

          My kind isn’t into your type of HATE on people who don’t agree with your feelings/thoughts/ ideas/values. Same-sex partners can claim all their human rights, as I only want my natural rights to sex/sexual intercourse, man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and my intact family. I don’t think caring for other people is dictating the rights of “others,” but it is impossible to care for many people at all the same time. I don’t want any civil right which are legal rights.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You have your marriage.

          You have to SHARE, legally, the *right* to marriage with all adult consenting couples who wish to exercise their rights.

          Why that’s such a difficult concept for you is breathtakingly amazing in its unalloyed selfishness.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower” If marriage” was defined as “all adult consenting couples,” then marriage would mean legal prostitution, because a sex worker and their client are included as “an adult consenting couple.”

        • Natureboi

          Bull$hit.
          A marriage is consenting to enter into a legal contract.

          You have NO credibility with your nonsense.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Your definition of marriage as a legal contract means this equivalent to the legalised Prostitution practice, as this a legal contract/consent between people.

        • Natureboi

          Flagged as offensive.

        • Kodie

          What the hell do you keep on whining for then? What the hell are “natural rights”?

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, Christian natural rights are our God given right to the laws of nature, science, language, history, beliefs, culture, freedom, truth, peace, joy, love, happiness, forbearance, patience, gentleness and self-control.

        • Natureboi

          If you cannot “scientifically prove” God exists, your religion argument is meaningless.

        • M. Solange O’Brien

          You have all those rights, correct?

          You can have sex with anyone you want – including your husband exclusively if you choose.

          You can have a one-flesh marriage if you want – one man and one woman,

          You have your intact family.

          What rights are you being deprived of?

        • Sheryl

          M.Solange O’Brien,

          The LGBTIA+ activists are depriving me, my family and my community of the English language. They think that we have to use their acrobatic words making the words become total nonsense that now “wicked” means “good.” Sex and gender mean the same thing for all animals because these things are based on the male and female reproductive system. However, LGBTIAQ+ activist believe in their sexuality and gender theories, as well as the power of the state/government can all ignore scientific facts and reason about biological sex based on male/ female reproductive system to make gender based on an “inner feeling,” despite evolutionary theories of animals and humans doesn’t support this new idea of thinking.

          LGBTIAQ+ activists demand the state/government to deny Christians and their institutions their “independence” from a secular marriage practice. However, in Australia Christian/Catholic/ Orthodox churches are handing back their marriage licence, and Churches are only offer a “wedding ceremonial blessing” for man-woman “one flesh” (marriage). Australian Laws recognises a legal “couple” which includes married/partnered/defacto (marriage), and defacto (marriage) doesn’t have a legal consent/contract to the state, but they still are entitled to legal government marriage benefits.

          Christians and religious people are legally allowed to ignore/reject the new secular marriage law between 2 people, but this right is denied to the minority of secular people who want to identify with the historical meaning of marriage which was recorded in British Law that was based on the Judaeo-Christian law means God’s law based on natural laws, because all Australian secular civil marriage celebrant are prohibited from now declaring their marriage is an exclusive union between one man and one woman for life. All civil marriage celebrant must now declare the new Australian Marriage Law in Australia is between 2 “people,” despite the word “people” includes unborn, babies, children, parents, siblings, nurses, doctors, patients (healthcare consumers, sex workers, clients, sex offenders, victims etc. The idea that any of these 2 people can have a sexual relationship and call it marriage is a delusional fantasy. People have legal registrations with their animals, vehicles, houses, property and professions/work and they have never identified these legal registrations a marriage. The LGBTIAQ+ activists have made the english language into a complete joke which is like the E.U has made the U.K plan of Brexit as complete joke.

          Have a look at the N.H.S in England at the current health consumer guideline for a pap smear test. The english language is completely confusing telling a person who has a female reproductive system, despite they self-identify as a “male,” that they still need to have a pap smear test if they still have a cervix. The acrobatic language which is used is completely insane, so I am not surprised that an insane person describes me “insane,” as this is perfectly normal. It is impossible to rationalise anything with an insane person or any person who is suffering a mental illness. This is the reason it is acceptable practice to give an insane person their medication in food and water without their consent/contract, but this is unacceptable practice for a patient who is in control of their mind. The Victorian government decriminalised the mentally ill in the 1990s in order to live in society like everyone else, even if this meant putting them in jails, hospitals and homelessness. Therefore, I’m not surprise by the insanity of the English language in our society today. People are no longer able to discriminate a truth from a lie, as everyone now has to have their own individual language accepted, even if it is absolute nonsense. Americans believe they have a Trump problem, well I can tell them they have an english problem because the western world can no longer understand what the Hell they are saying. LGBTIAQ+ activist need to stop talking S…T, and for once start speaking the truth.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I can’t believe that you think I’m privilege, and I’m not demanding nor wanting my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) to be legally recognised as a civil registered marriage. At least you realise that the civil registered marriage practice is about criminalise (punishing) harmful behaviours and practices.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The simple fact that you HAVE privilege and don’t recognize it is the entire fucking problem.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I am privileged for our family to own two homes in Melbourne, but I don’t know what the “privilege” your referring to in your comment.

        • WallofSleep

          “My account hasn’t been dormant for a year and a half.”

          Don’t lie. Your account went dormant two years ago and did not rear it’s stupid head again until about seven months ago.

        • Sheryl

          WallofSleep,
          What is a lie to you? The “Bullshit” same-sex marriage.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          A lie is a provably false statement.

          As WallofSleep just showed you to have committed.

          YOUR KIND don’t have to *get* same-sex married…but if you wish to ACT on that distaste, you have to accept the consequences of being a criminal.

          What happened to YOUR KIND’s hunger for being ‘persecuted’ and ‘martyred’? Or is what YOUR KIND want really *martyrbation*?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          What fun is it to be persecuted if you don’t whine about it?

        • Natureboi

          What is a lie to you? The “Bullshit” same-sex marriage.

          Bullshit????
          Really?

          Who are you to deny the love between two others?

    • Michael Neville

      Who is discriminating against doctors and nurses getting married? You’re making no sense about this particular marriage.

      Adultery is sexual intercourse between two or more people not married to each other. Nothing says they have to be of different genders.

      • Sheryl

        Michael Neville, The new Marriage Law between 2 people doesn’t discriminate against a secular couple from having a doctor-nurse marriage because this is legally the same as a same-sex marriage, but it is impossible for a secular couple to have a civil celebrant declare their marriage is between a man and a woman because this is no longer the Marriage Law in Australia.

        Obviously you haven’t read the British Marriage Law on adultery because the act of adultery is only grounds for divorce for man-woman marriage, and it is irrelevant to same-sex marriage. In 1975, the Australian courts introduced a no fault divorce which decriminalised (no longer punished) the harm of adultery nor the harmful practice of breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath because a civil registered marriage is no longer based on faithful sexual intercourse nor a lifelong contract. Therefore, adultery is irrelevant in a the Australian divorce law.

        Your idea of adultery is “sexual intercourse” between two or more people not married to each other” which has never been recorded in any Australian law, regulation, guideline nor public registry. You didn’t define “sexual intercourse,” so you can’t discriminate adultery from fornication, prostitution, rape, sexual assault, child-on-child sexual assault/abuse, sodomy nor medical/nursing sexual procedures. First, you have to define what is “sexual intercourse?” and then you need to be able to discriminate the difference sexual intercourse is from fornication, vaginal & anal/prostate examinations, sexual assault/rape, anal and oral sex, prostitution, robotic sex dolls/toys and pornography. Sexual activity isn’t the same behavioural practice as sexual intercourse, so what does cheating on a spouse mean?

        If your idea that the different genders with their complementary male and female reproductive systems aren’t required for sexual intercourse, then does an anal and or vaginal examination become included with your idea of sexual intercourse? Is anal and oral sex included in your idea of sexual intercourse? Are medical doctors cheating on their spouse by performing anal and or vaginal examinations on their patients? Your definition of adultery pretends that the public and society agrees with you, but historically the true meaning of adultery has been recorded in the Bible, as God warned God’s people in the 10 Commandments – Do not covet another man’s wife as this act leads to adultery. King David and Bathsheba’s adulterous relationship resulted in an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy which lead to Bathsheba’s husband (Uriah) being murdered.

        Unfortunately, all western societies no longer have a common understanding to the meanings of words including adultery, sex (male/female), sexual intercourse, marriage and family because the Judaeo-Christian laws have been replaced by “people’s choice,” State’s choice to include feelings, thoughts, ideas and mental illness. Today, western societies now include fantasy such as Disneyland which is a real place with real people and it is governed by real laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries, but it still remains a fantasy world for most people. For the majority of people in the world and throughout history they have practiced a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) resulting in an intact family, and for the majority of married people this behavioural practice is self-regulated. The western governments have established a legal same-sex marriage, but this means the defacto (same-sex marriage) are two people of the same-sex living as house-mates. The Australian governments can no longer discriminate against single people as it isn’t fair that my father, sister and I paid stamp duty on the same car and we never exchanged any money between us when we changed ownership. However, I can legally transfer my car into my husband’s name and he doesn’t pay any stamp duty. Therefore, governments will eventually tax everyone individually as the idea of sex, marriage, family and household have now lost their true meaning.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          As said elsewhere, YOUR KIND do NOT get to define what ‘sex’ is or isn’t for anybody but yourselves and consenting adult partners.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          You have disobeyed the english language rule of common sense. This means that the word “sex” was initially created with a true and correct definition, and now you believe this definition means something else to you and for others.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      stuff & nonsense.

      • Sheryl

        HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

        “Stuff and nonsense” are your breed of words. It is obvious that you need to start reading some history books. I’m not demanding nor wanting to be treated equally under Australian laws because I have now the legal freedom to ignore/reject the abortion law, euthanasia law, Australian Marriage Law between 2 people, the no fault divorce law, and prostitution law. There are some countries which have replaced “people choice” law with “State’s Choice” law on abortion.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND just can’t accept that not only *have* you lost, you’re going to *continue* losing because your hateful authoritarianism is unacceptable to GOOD people the world round.

          As of now, it’s just a matter of how much of a nuisance YOUR KIND is going to make of yourself while we’re sweeping you and your ideas into the dustbin of history where you’ll just be an odd curiosity (and a footnote).

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          YOUR KIND has LOST, because all LGBTIAQ+ people are now defined not as male and female, but by their psychriatric/psychology names which shows true and correct mental illness.

  • Sheryl

    Ski,
    The harm of adultery and the harmful practice of breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath still exists in western societies, but now these behavioural practices are self-regulated because the courts are no longer criminalising (punishing) consenting adult sexual affairs nor preventing marriage and family breakdown.

    • M. Solange O’Brien

      Why should the courts criminalize (punish) these behaviors? Why is it the responsibility of the State to prevent the breakdown of marriages and families, or to prevent adultery?

      • Sheryl

        M.Solange O’Brien,
        The Australian Marriage Law was inherited from the British Law which was based on the Judaeo- Christian law which means God’s law against adultery. This gives grounds for a divorce by breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath. The Australian governments originally wanted to deter/prevent marriage/family breakdown because this behavioural practice is a massive cost to all levels of government and society, and children suffer the most from separated biological parents. The state/government no longer deters/prevents marriage/family breakdown because this gives increased power to the state/government to regulate (control) people’s personal life including the “thought police.”

  • Sheryl

    Ski,
    I am sure no “gay” baker would be offended to put a doctor and a nurse on top of a wedding cake for a civil registered marriage between a doctor and a nurse in order to celebrate an exclusive, lifelong commitment to love and care for their health and wellbeing needs. A civil registered marriage between a doctor and a nurse would allow them to exchange money between each other for their professional health services without paying tax.

  • Random_Lurker

    Somehow I don’t think that treating civil rights as a branding issue will work out for them.

    • Michael Neville

      It’s a hill the evangelicals have decided to die on. It’s quite obvious even to people like Gilson that nobody else cares about their rants and whines but it’s something they’ve decided is important to them.

      • M. Solange O’Brien

        The hill conservative religion has chosen to die on is “love.” I don’t feel this is likely to end well.

    • Sheryl

      Random Lurker, I agree with you that “civil rights” means “legal rights” and this branding won’t work for same-sex partners because their relationship has now become legally regulated by government and government authorities, as well as punished by the courts with legal fees/court costs in a legal divorce. Not all people are treated equally under laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries, such as the Marriage law between 2 people discriminates against bisexual relationships. A same-sex marriage is now treated legally the same as a civil registered marriage between a doctor and a nurse, as Centrelink now uses the word “partners” because a civil registered marriage deals with the exchange of money/property/assets for services.

      The change of definition to the Marriage Law to be between 2 people has allowed man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) to gain “independence” from a legal consent/contract with the state, so the courts have lost their legal power to punish them with legal fees/court costs because they can give their own legal consent to divide their money/property/assets for services, as well as they can decide for themselves the best way to manage their child/children in the breakdown of their relationship.

      It is crazy for any person who is in control of their mind to demand that the Australian laws should treat them legally the same as an insane person. Therefore, I am not going to demand that the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people should treat my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) which is naturally self-regulated to be legally the same as my civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and a healthcare consumer because this relationship is regulated by laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries. My husband who is a healthcare consumer because he suffers from chronic episodic asthma, and I am a healthcare professional who has provided him with professional advice on ways to self-mange his asthma, and I have never paid tax on the money that he has given me. Healthcare regulations prohibit a sexual relationship between a healthcare professional and a patient (healthcare consumer) and this meets the new criteria of a civil registered marriage which no longer includes sex/sexual intercourse. Therefore, my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) has naturally gained “independence” from government regulations and criminalisation by the courts. In other words, the court now only have legal power to divorce my civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and a healthcare consumer because the court has no legal power over sex/sexual intercourse/procreation as these things have no legal definition and these words have different meanings for man-woman “one flesh”(marriage) compared to LGBTIAQ relationships.

      My faith and family history doesn’t require my 3 children, my 15 nieces and nephews nor me to have our name and details on any public marriage registry because a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) is no longer regulated by government/ government authorities nor punished (criminalised) by the state. Adam & Eve never purchased a legal state marriage certificate nor did they have a public wedding ceremony, and God never declared that Adam & Eve’s children were born out of wedlock or illegitimate children. True religious freedom comes when a person understands the true meaning of words. People are getting confused between the new civil registered marriage practice with the historical meaning of “marriage,” and this is like being confused about the public roads authority which only regulates public roads and the courts punish drivers who disobey laws on public roads, but private roads are self-regulated.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Libertarian theofascist nonsense.

        Crawl back into your hole.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          The reason I don’t crawl back into a hole is because you call me a “Libertarian theofascist nonsense.” You can have a same-sex marriage legally the same as a doctor-nurse marriage, but a civil marriage celebrant can’t declare this is the same behavioural practice as a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) because the Australian Marriage Law has changed to be between 2 people. The word “people” doesn’t mean an exclusive union between one man and woman for life.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope, you don’t.

          But if you’re going to push your idiotic authoritarian bullshit, I have every right to disdain and rebuff you in any way allowable within the law.

    • Grimlock

      Ain’t this the same folks who rebranded creationism as “intelligent design”?

  • Sheryl

    Wallofsleep,

    I am a professional person who has been educated about the Australian laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries, so I’m odd to you. Australian laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries were originally established by governments to protect the public and society from harmful behaviours and practices. Sex workers, sex offenders and civil registered married people have their names and details recorded on different public registries, as this allows government authorities a legal right to regulate (control) them, and the courts then have the legal power to punish them with legal fees/court costs/fines etc when they harm the public and society. Defacto (married) couples don’t have a legal consent/contract, but they’re entitled to legal government marriage benefits, so all man-woman “one flesh” (marriages) no longer need a legal consent/contract to be entitled to legal government marriage benefits.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      Libertarian nonsense.

      • Sheryl

        HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
        If what I have stated is Libertarian nonsense, then you should be able to explain why people can’t register a knife as a gun on a public gun registry, even though a knife can cause harm to the public and society. It was impossible to register same-sex partners as the same as a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage), so this is the reason that the Australian Marriage Law was changed to be between 2 people. However, the Australian Federal Parliament didn’t expect the unintended consequences of man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and their intact family have now gained “independence” or “ind” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce laws, as these laws can now be ignored/rejected by religious married people because they don’t prevent their marriage and family breakdown.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Because a knife *isn’t a gun*.

          Any other idiotic nonsensical propositions you want to advance?

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          I agree with you that a knife isn’t a gun, but you’re unable to discriminate the difference between a same-sex marriage and a man-woman “one flesh.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In *secular* law, both are considered marriage as long as both members of each are consenting adults.

          If you want your special ‘religious’ marriage, do it in a church. Just don’t expect the rest of us, good people living our lives preventing you from fucking us over, to care at all about what you *emote* (because you’re DEFINITELY not thinking) makes you so ‘spayshul’ (misspelling intentional).

          Just go the fuck away, live your straitlaced lives as you would, and LEAVE US THE FUCK ALONE! Your hateful fairy-story has NO POWER here.

          And just because it was a fun movie and a morality play, I’m inserting this here:

          https://youtu.be/_MolWhOGhRc?t=122

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I’m extremely surprised that you identified a man-woman “one flesh” as a “marriage” because the majority of LGBTIAQ activists claim that a civil registered marriage is only between 2 people as the Australian Marriage law is only between 2 people. I no longer identify my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) with the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people because this would make it impossible for me to educate my 3 children about the harm of adultery and the harmful practice of breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath, so it is better to self-regulate.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s EXACTLY what YOUR KIND don’t understand.

          While *legally* the new definition obtains, it *doesn’t* negate the old definition, it *extends* it, the same way that quantum physics extends Newton’s classic physics.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          The new definition of the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people has completely changed the practice of a civil registered marriage and a legal divorce. The government & government authorities can’t regulate same-sex partners as the same as man-woman couples, especially if there are only same-sex partners whom are voluntarily putting their names and details on a public marriage registry. Also, the courts no longer will have any power to punish same-sex partners with the same legal fees/court costs as man-woman couples if there are only same-sex partners who can legally get divorced. You’re completely ignoring the history of the NSW parliament which forced the Churches to record all church marriage on a public registry. Healthcare professionals would not pay money to government authorities so they could have their names and details on a public registry with APRHA if the government decided to make this practice voluntarily. The Professional health Counsellors in Australia don’t have to register with APHRA because they’re considered as professionals whom can’t cause significant harm to the public and society, so they have a legal right to self-regulate. Your idea of quantum physic is like believing you can expand the definition of the “sun” to include the “moon” and next the planets, but the solar system is the same as the sun.

        • DingoJack

          As you sign the papers — bingo – you’re married.
          The papers are forwarded to BDM and recorded, you can’t voluntarily put your name on to the register, it’s compulsory.
          The government required all marriages to be recorded as far back as the time the Church was given control of marriages (c1215) .
          [OBTW – counsellors aren’t regulated for the same reason reflexologists, aura-readers and feng-shui practitioners aren’t – any moron can give themselves these titles. You need zero qualifications].

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Dara O’Briain, in his comedy routine, refers to such quacks as the difference between ‘dentistry’ and ‘toothyology’

          🙂

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Health counsellors have professional qualification, but are only self-regulated.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Self-regulated == UNregulated.

          See also ‘thalidomide’.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re lying in your teeth again.

          It *extended* it to any two consenting adults.

          The fact that YOUR KIND are *pissed* at losing your exclusive franchise to it is NOT OUR PROBLEM.

        • Natureboi

          How do you explain “one flesh” to children?

        • DingoJack

          It’s legally irrelevant how you identify your marriage. The courts don’t give a shit.
          If you signed that paper you’re under the jurisdiction of The Marriage Act (1961) like it or not. [If not, you are in what is called a defacto (or ‘common law’) marriage].
          As for divorce, you don’t have to go to court. You can file in front of a magistrate and decide how you want divvy up the assets as you wish. No mess, no fuss. Lawyers only become involved if one party (or both) contests.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          You make a really good point that the court don’t identify with my man-woman “One flesh” (marriage) nor intact family, so I don’t need to sign any legal papers for a legal divorce nor do I need to purchase my NSW Marriage Certificate, because I would never be crazy enough to have anything to do with the new Marriage Law between 2 people. I am not prohibited from driving a car on private property as if I was driving on a public road, but I’m not crazy enough to do it. Therefore, I am not going to pretend that my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) is a civil registered marriage between 2 people. I’m not crazy enough to believe that the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people and the no fault divorce law are regulating my sexual behavioural practice.

        • DingoJack

          Actually the courts recognise both ‘common-law’ & civil marriages. You don’t need to purchase anything, once you sign the papers – you’re married! (OBTW — marriage licence to have sex nor regulate your sex life).

        • Kodie

          Reality determines that, despite the fact you think you and your husband are the same person, you are actually two people, and reality and by government definition, you are married legally and not just delusionally in your cult.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Just fear me, love me, do as I say, and I will be your slave!

          The dishonest promise of God.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        Libertarian claiming a right to government marriage benefits?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Libertarian trying to divorce a part of society from government control because said snowflake doesn’t like *current* secular control.

          IMHO, YMMV, etc.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          But she’s still saying “defacto” marriages (defined by her) have a right to legal government marriage benefits. I at least understand the argument to remove all legal marriage benefits as a way to avoid recognizing ssm (as unpopular as that move would be). But to remove legal registration of marriage but preserve the benfits (for straight couples) makes no sense from a libertarian stance (or any stance)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I missed the ‘preserve MUH benefits’ part….

  • Sheryl

    WallofSleep,

    You need to become a deep thinker because same-sex partners are falling for the trap of having their name and details on a public marriage registry which may be used by future governments, government authorities to regulate them and the courts could even punish them, and this is like my german forefathers. My german forefathers came to Australia in the mid 1800s, and they didn’t have a legal state marriage certificate because they refused to get married in their King’s state church. In 1857, the NSW parliament forced all Christian/Catholic ministers/priests to record all church marriages in the NSW public marriage registry, as this then gave the courts the legal power to punish the harm of adultery and breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath. The government wanted to deter/prevent marriage and family breakdown because of the massive cost to all levels of government and society, and children suffered the most from separated biological parents. The Christian churches held the only records of births, death and marriages from 1788-1856, and there were no records of same-sex marriage because same-sex partners can’t consummate a marriage, and adultery is only between a man and a woman. During World War 1, the British authorities didn’t trust the german people, so the government authorities used public marriage registries to search for german surnames, and then they rounded up my german forefathers and placed them in a concentration camp outside Melbourne.

    Today, you need to look at the significant increase of British youths identifying as “muslim” because this religion will have a significant impact on the future of British laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries which may negatively impact on same-sex partners. The 2016 ABS census showed evidence that Christians have significantly decreased in Australian, whilst people who identify as “muslim” have significantly increased. There are now areas in Sydney which have a significant population of muslims whom have a strong belief against same-sex marriage. The main Christian/Catholic/Orthodox churches in Australia and around the world have only a wedding ceremony for a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath. Same-sex marriage is considered a heresy to Christianity, so churches have divided over the acceptance of the new Marriage Law. The Episcopal church (sect) in America and Canada have significantly lost members over liberal ideas, and these liberal churches are now identified by genuine Christians as a “religious sect” which no longer enjoy Anglican communion rights.

    • Michael Neville

      genuine Christians

      No True Scotsman is a favorite Christian fallacy.

      • Sheryl

        Michael Neville,

        People can self-identify as a “Christian,” but this isn’t the same behavioural practice as a genuine Christian who believes in Jesus’s words – Matt 19: 4-6 and practices a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) like Adam & Eve.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Sheryl

          My german family history books are just like the churches and Christian movement. I don’t need to have a genetic test to find out about my forefathers as I have detail records about their lives. There is no record of my forefathers self-identifying with “other” sex/genders nor same-sex orientation nor surrogate children. My daughter’s skin tag on her hand is an abnormality and this doesn’t define her hand as a non-specified hand, inter-hand nor non-binary hand.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So what?

          YOUR KIND are trying to claim authority based on mistaken premises. The rest of us, the GOOD people, have moved past you and are just waiting for you to die of apoplexy and return to the cycle of life.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          It is obvious that you don’t believe Good people include “muslims” whom reject same-sex marriage.

        • WallofSleep

          Deflection, deflection, deflection.

        • Sheryl

          WallofSleep,

          You can’t deny that his idea of “Good people” doesn’t include “muslims” whom reject same-sex marriage.

        • WallofSleep

          You’re about as sharp as a bag of wet cotton balls. Don’t bother replying to me any further.

        • Sheryl

          WallofSleep,
          Why do you decide who gets the last say between us? It is obvious that your as “sharp as a bag of wet cotton balls” because your ideas can’t support a “bullshit” same-sex marriage.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          The word is EQUAL marriage.

          And it’s obvious that YOUR KIND is apoplectically *furious* because all you can do is rail against it verbally or in print.

          Society has moved past your superstitious hate, and we’re leaving you there, to either die or catch up on your own.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBomThrower,

          Your idea of “EQUAL marriage” when the government and government authorities can only regulate a civil registered marriage. This is no different that the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Board can only regulated registered nurses and carers whom care for unrelated people, as it can’t regulate nursing (care) which people give to themselves and their family members. It is usually a given that people will care for themselves and their family members, but it isn’t a given that they would treat unrelated people equally the same.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not a bit.

          IF you want government benefits applied to your married union, you follow the rules. If you don’t, you don’t get the benefits. This includes ALL the various special benefits only granted to married couples.

          But stop whining because same-sex married couples now get them, as well.

          RIGHTS ARE **NOT** ZERO SUM!!!

          JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY **ELSE** GETS A RIGHT DOES **NOT** DENATURE YOUR EQUAL EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT!

          Savvy??

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          I never got married for any legal government marriage benefits such as the status of civil registered marriage, nor access to a legal abortion, nor immigration, inheritance and welfare benefits for “partners.” My man-woman “one flesh” and intact family aren’t regulated by the 2017 Marriage Act nor Family laws including no fault divorce law. I would receive more financial benefits from the Australian governments if I could legally identify as “single,” this means that my children, nieces and nephews would all be better off financially by keeping a “single” status. I recently witnessed the separation of my girlfriend’s married relationship, and she has now only enough money to buy a unit like I bought when I was 23 years old and I owned it outright by 26 years old.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So?

          You didn’t have to marry FOR the benefits…they were merely understood to be a part of the package, no extra effort.

          I don’t see you claiming anywhere here that you REFUSED said benefits because of your distaste for *secular* government.

          I don’t see you refusing the benefits NOW.

          That makes you a sanctimonious hypocritical LEECH.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          The new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people doesn’t mention the words “love” nor “care” because it is only a legal union, and this is now like my parents business partnership with the new word “partners” on legal documents such as Centrelink. I don’t receive any government welfare benefits for me nor my intact family, as we have to fully fund our living expenses even providing for two households as my son is at University.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Show me where the law for marriage of heterosexual-only couples mentioned or defined ‘love’, or give that talking point up.

          You’re getting REALLY desperate for talking points!

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          Please re-read what I wrote because I never stated that a Marriage Law had defined the word “love.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          To quote you DIRECTLY:

          “The new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people doesn’t mention the words “love” nor “care” because it is only a legal union”

          You are *by implication* positively stating the previous law DID mention ‘love’.

          So try again, you slippery fatuous hater.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          Same-sex partners in the Marriage debate based their argument that a civil registered marriage needs to recognise their “love.”

        • Natureboi

          Same-sex partners in the Marriage debate based their argument that a civil registered marriage needs to recognise their “love.”

          Are you sure this is what all gay people want? Just “recognition?”

          What about all the benefits, incentives, rights and protections?

          Are you asserting that gay people aren’t interested in all those things?

          Your credibility is sinking with every under researched post you make.

        • Natureboi

          Why did you put the word love in scare quotes?

          Are you asserting that gay people are incapable of loving one another?

          There you go down yet another notch in credibility.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          I am not asserting nor suggesting that gay people are incapable of loving one another nor their families nor their society. However, the secular people in the Australian Federal Parliament didn’t recognise same-sex partners when they designed this new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people because they were only identified as “2 people,” so what is loving about that? This would be like the Australian Family law only recognising me as a legal “parent” when I wish to be identify as my child’s “mother.”

        • Natureboi

          That is not a rational reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          Same-sex partners in the Marriage debate demanded that the Marriage Law in Australia should recognise their “love,” but the law only define their relationship “between 2 people.”

        • Natureboi

          Same-sex partners in the Marriage debate demanded that the Marriage Law in Australia should recognise their “love,” but the law only define their relationship “between 2 people.”

          WRONG, Sheryl. WRONG.

          They want to be recognized as citizens being afforded RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.

          But for some irrational (religious) reason, you feel gay couples are better of without these rights and protections.

          Or perhaps for an even more irrational reason, YOU, Sheryl, feel better off denying gay couples rights and protections.

          Why, Sheryl, WHY are you better off by doing this?

          What is the purpose, Sheryl, of denying gay couples rights and protections?

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I don’t get any legal government marriage benefits and this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. I think it is ridiculous for me to pretend that I need to follow the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people when I never have legally consented to such nonsense, and the law allows me a legal right to ignore/reject it so I can have my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) which is self-regulated, as their aren’t any police spying in my bedroom. I’m happy to inform government & government authorities that I don’t want any of those special benefits only granted to civil registered married people because I naturally don’t need nor want them. I’m not stopping same-sex partners from having these special benefits all to themselves. I prefer not to have the government/government authorities nor the courts to be involved in my life.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’m impressed.

          You got that in ONE try…

          Which is a diversion, an attempted derail, and means exactly FUCKALL…

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          There is no record of it. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Especially since it was not considered acceptable back then, family histories would have likely covered it up and ignored it, or removed unacceptable people from the family tree.

        • Max Doubt

          “There is no record of my forefathers self-identifying with “other” sex/genders nor same-sex orientation nor surrogate children.”

          Yet statistics would say without any doubt some of your forefathers – and foremothers – were gay. Yes, you’ve got queer in your blood, same-sex lust in your heritage, gayness in your family tree. Scare ya a little bit when you look at a beautiful woman think maybe she’d be a lot of fun to roll around with naked?

        • Sheryl

          Max Doubt, I don’t know why you think there is gayness in my blood-line but I’ve given birth naturally to a son, so it should be obvious to you that his penis has been in my vagina, but it does appears that you couldn’t discriminate a natural birth from incest because all sex is “icky” to you.

        • Max Doubt

          “Max Doubt, I don’t know why you think there is gayness in my blood-line…”

          It’s reasonable to suggest you have gay men and women in your ancestry because – given the statistics, the science of biology – it’s nearly impossible that you don’t.

          “… but I’ve given birth naturally to a son, so it should be obvious to you that his penis has been in my vagina,…”

          Given the arrangement of the words in that comment, it looks like you’re saying your son’s penis has been in your vagina.

          “… but it does appears that you couldn’t discriminate a natural birth from incest…”

          Your above comment about your son’s penis would lead one to believe it’s you who doesn’t understand a few things about incest. Or maybe you do understand incest better than some of the rest of us, eh? 😉

          “… because all sex is “icky” to you.”

          Nope. I think sex is almost always fun, and frequently interesting. I don’t share your bigoted delusion that some relationships involving sex between consenting adults should be considered less valid or genuine, or less deserving of societal acceptance. Icky? Picture a couple big hunky guys, the type you see on sporting equipment advertisements, both naked, sweaty, caressing each other, lubricated, penetrating… How does that make you feel? Icky? 🙂

        • Sheryl

          Max Doubt,
          It is obvious that you don’t understand the difference between child birth and incest, but keep dreaming about your men.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “Max Doubt, I don’t know why you think there is gayness in my blood-line”.

          Because you’re *human* (assumption, here…)

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          Me being “human” doesn’t show any real scientific evidence that I have “gayness” in my blood-line.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          Dr Kerryn Phelps and Christine Foster are now married to same-sex partners, but they were both previously married to their ex-husband with children. So your stats on gays doesn’t make any sense unless there is some biological evidence of “gayness” or evidence of a “gay gene.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          The phenomenon exists, and is replicable and studiable, even if it’s entirely subjective.

          We don’t need perfect knowledge to know that it exists and study it to learn more.

          There’s also such a thing as BI-sexuality (which YOU mentioned above) which could account for the cases you’re vainly trying to raise as an exception.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          Subjective information isn’t treated the same as objective truth in court. A person may feel that they didn’t murder another person, but the court doesn’t care about this person’s feelings, because the court is searching for objective facts to support the reason for a death/murder. The anti-vaccinators are a group of people who feel that vaccinations aren’t good for the public and society, but they don’t have any objective facts to support their feelings/thoughts/ideas.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Define ‘objective *truth*’.

          There are objective FACTS, which can be established, but make NO claim to ‘truth’.

          There’s also induction, and following evidence to a conclusion.

          Remember, “innocent until proven guilty”, and there are also different levels of evidence demanded based on the crime.

          The British legal system, IIRC, also has a category of ‘Not Proven’. It means, “We believe the defendant IS guilty, but the prosecution has not met its burden of proof.”

          The last is a terrible blow to a defendant’s reputation and prospects.

          Oh, and just realize that YOUR KIND fall in with antivaxxers in the ‘lack of evidence’ category.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          I am not a anti-vaccinator, so your evidence is all subjective information. Your kind are very much into subjective information. However, objective truth includes the word “me” meaning “referring to the speaker,” and this word isn’t confused with other words/meanings within the same language. Scientific facts and reasoning both support objective truth such as the Sun “is a big ball of fire,” and the sun is different to the moon because this has no light of its own. The moon could never be included as a “sun” because the moonlight is only a reflection of the sun’s light. You might feel light the moonlight is the same as sunlight, but the objective truth is that the sun and moon aren’t the same nor are these things planets in space.

          Lucky! you referred to the British law about “innocent until proven guilty,” as the “me too” movement made the recent senate enquiry into the appointment of the Supreme Court Judge – Brett Kavanaugh “guilty until he could prove his innocence.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So?

          You’re still practicing the Law of Conservation of Stupid…

          And Brett Kavanaugh WASN’T ON TRIAL!

          It was a JOB INTERVIEW, which he fucked up by the numbers and only got because he’s a member of the Good Ol’ Rapists network.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          It was a JOB INTERVIEW for the Supreme High Court and Chrissy Bassey Ford could have pressed charges against Brett if the Senate had found evidence that he had sexually assaulted her as a teenager.

        • Brett Kavanaugh “guilty until he could prove his innocence.”

          Was he being tried? If not, then this is irrelevant.

          This was a (public) job interview, not a trial. The senators could have all sorts of criteria in seeing how he’d fit in this job that wouldn’t make sense in a courtroom.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          all sex is “icky” to you

          YOUR KIND have that wrong.

          ALL sex is icky to *children*…it’s a biological safety mechanism.

          It stops being icky when the person in question undergoes puberty and the hormones do their work…then it’s icky to watch others at (porn acting aside), but FUN for a consenting couple.

          ETA: and HOWthefuck are YOUR KIND contrasting *incest* vs ‘natural birth’??!!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Oh, and you obviously didn’t inspect the cartoon closely.

          THOSE ARE SECTS OF XTIANITY, NOT A FAMILY TREE!

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          My family tree is full of lines leading from one generation to another.

        • Michael Neville

          You still don’t understand the cartoon. What’s shown isn’t a family tree.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So what?

          All you’re demonstrating is your (and YOUR KIND’s, more broadly) inability to discern the essence of a concept, the organization implied, and transfer that to another field of study.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          My kind understand there is true meaning to words, and your kind change words to suit yourself. However, your kind of secular ideas lead to madness, especially when women have a hysterectomy and mastectomy for cancer treatment, and they feel less feminine. Your kind tell these women that their body has now changed into a man because you make xx female chromosomes/gametes as irrelevant to “gender identity.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          YOUR KIND *twist* words to allow you to say ‘love’ while meaning ‘hate’, to say ‘joy’ while meaning ‘peformance anxiety’, etc.

          YOUR KIND don’t get to define *marriage*. YOUR KIND have had that privilege, which you never earned and don’t DESERVE, properly TAKEN from you for abusing it, and you’ll never regain it because we will never trust you again (for those who ever did trust you) to exercise it with full respect for the rights of all.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordombThrower,

          I “love” my children so much that I discipline them, and you would call this “HATE.”

        • Kodie

          Sheryl, you are ridiculous. Objectifying women by their ability to bear children is what makes women who have to get hysterectomies and mastectomies feel less feminine. YOUR KIND make women about the parts they have and not who they are or how they feel. Are YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME. Christianity is institutional stupid-making.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, I have witnessed women who have required a hysterectomy and mastectomy for cancer treatment, and they have told me the hardness part of losing their breast/s and or vagina was a feeling of being “less feminine.” Some women who have had a bilateral mastectomy told me they felt they “looked like a man,” so this was the reason they wanted a padded bra or cosmetic breast implants. I think I would have the same feelings as these women if I faced their situation.

        • Kodie

          You don’t understand gender identity at all.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, I definitely understand the sexuality and gender theories, but I don’t believe in these theories for myself nor my family.

        • Kodie

          They why did you explain it wrong?

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, you see sex and gender your way , whilst I see these things my way, and this is the reason the sexuality and gender ideas are called theories not facts, because these sexuality and gender theories can’t be scientifically proven as a fact.

        • Natureboi

          Neither can your God.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Sorry, Jesus never said a thing against homosexuality. And he said plenty of times that his father’s rules were stupid and should be ignored, the only question is WHICH of his father’s rules were stupid.

        • Sheryl

          Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker,

          You need to read what Jesus stated in Matt 19: 4-6 as he doesn’t mention same-sex partners in the Creator’s design of man-woman “one flesh.”

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          So? He didn’t mention people who move out of their parents’ house long before marrying, either. Or your favorite example of doctors and nurses narrying and becoming “one flesh”. He only gave one example, that doesn’t mean Christians have to cling exclusively to that example.

        • Sheryl

          Jack Baynes, Sanwichmaker,

          God/Jesus/Holy Spirit never commanded his people to have a civil registered marriage, so a “doctor-nurse marriage” is genderless and doesn’t include sex/sexual intercourse. Therefore, it doesn’t meet the basic criteria of a Biblical man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) which is now self-regulated. You can add words like “same-sex marriage” to the Bible, but this is known as heresy.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Why wouldn’t the nurse doctor marriage include sexual intercourse? Doctors and nurses have as much sex as anyone else.

          And you still haven’t found anything in the Bible that limits marriage to your interpretation.

        • Sheryl

          A legal doctor-nurse marriage is completely regulated by laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries, and the new civil registered marriage has removed the criteria of sex/sexual intercourse/procreation, so these things are irrelevant in the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people. In other words, doctors and nurses sex is irrelevant to the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people. You’re unable to prove that the Bible includes “same-sex marriage” or your idea of a civil registered marriage.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Your ‘bible’ also says that you are your husband’s PROPERTY, so there’d be no such thing as spousal rape.

          Deal with it.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          The Bible begins before sin had entered the world, and God created Adam and Eve, and he united them as “one flesh,” in order to fill the earth with people, so there is no reference to husband’s property.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And Captain Kirk said, “What does a *god* need with a STARship??!!” (Shatner’s acting has strong emPHAsis…)

          And that story is MUCH better, and more self-coherent, than the hateful nonsense superstitious meme you’re trying to force on people of good will simply trying to live their lives ignoring your fucking hateful authoritarian impulses.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          You’re allowed to live in a fantasy world like Disneyland with Captain Kirt and Starship, but the real world uses a different language about sex/sexual intercourse, man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and intact family which are all self-regulated.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Yep.

          The real world considers you and YOUR KIND as aging dinosaurs plodding off to your impotent death.

          And Star Trek is *still* a better, more moral, more coherent story than your hateful book of superstitious nonsense, which has no more evidence for it being fact rather than just another fictitious tale.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I am not scared of dying, and there are people like you who now live in the virtual world which is equivalent to fantasy land.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          I’ve got a life outside the virtual. Today (and the past few days, in case you missed it) were holidays that I could take as vacation.

          And stomping on YOUR KIND is fun before going out and spending time with my friends who were working…

          Although it’s interesting that YOU are spending *just* as much time in the virtual world here as I am, but seem blithely unaware of how hypocritical and sanctimonious your attempted snipe was.,

        • LastManOnEarth
        • LastManOnEarth

          Before this conversation degrades any farther, I need to point out that Star Trek is a Paramount property, not Disney.

          Perhaps you are confusing it with Star Wars, which is (now) a Disney property and in fact will debut “Star Wars:, Galaxy’s Edge” at both Disneyland and Disney World this year.

          The less said of Starship the better.

          Anyhow, back to your incoherent anti-gay bigotry.

        • Sheryl

          LastManOnEarth,

          I have no idea what you means by “anti-gay bigotry,” because I don’t think like you. Therefore, you should feel free to have your name and details on a public registry like sex workers and sex offenders. However, you can’t deny me my natural right to my sex/sexual intercourse, man-woman “one flesh” and intact family which I can all be easily self-regulated without any interference from the government, government authorities and the courts. I wish you well in fantasyland – Star Trek.

        • LastManOnEarth

          Look, if you can’t be bothered to get very basic Pop Culture references correct I don’t see why anyone would bother to try to make sense of your gobbledygook

          You make less damned sense than a Tamarian.

        • Sheryl

          LastManOnEarth,

          I am glad you’re not the last man on earth, but people have different thinking on basic Pop Culture reference such as “anti-gay bigotry.” You could attempt to define this for yourself and then another LGBTIAQ activist would tell you to pull your head in.

        • LastManOnEarth

          Shaka, when the walls fell!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Details are important!

          🙂

        • LastManOnEarth

          We reach, brother. We reach.

        • Kodie

          I really don’t get why you keep bringing up doctors and nurses, but almost assuredly you assume the doctors are male and nurses are female, and I still don’t get what’s your beef. Marriage is a contract between two people, and it’s ok if one of the people is very old and rich and the other one is much younger (but over 13! In some US states, a person as young as 13 can marry, with parental permission). What is this “one-flesh” thing, like you make sex between a man and a woman sound really gross. Why do Christians have a preoccupation with sex and can’t shut up about how much and what ways they do it?

          I don’t want to hear about your sick fetishes.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, The Australian Marriage Law between 2 people is genderless, so a doctor-nurse marriage doesn’t include male and female or sex/sexual intercourse nor procreation. You don’t have to agree with a doctor-nurse marriage so you don’t have it. A civil registered marriage or dejure marriage and roman marriage are all based on legal consent/contract, but a germanic marriage is based on man-woman cohabitation and a man-woman “one flesh” marriage and their intact family can be self-regulated. The Bible is about sexual behaviours and practices including a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage). You aren’t forced to have sexual intercourse between one man and one woman because “sexual intercourse” or “one flesh” is now self-regulated.

        • DingoJack

          The Marriage Act (1961, as amended) refers only to ‘persons’. Gender is not legally relevant. (Well, until Howard’s intervention in 1997).

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Howard’s intervention was to included the true historical meaning of “marriage” which was known in British Law that was based on the Judaeo-Christian law, and Australia inherited this law.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. Howard changed the definition of marriage to fit his own warped ideas of marriage formulated according to his own 1950’s mindset.
          The English conception of marriage comes mainly from Saxon Law with a sprinkling of Roman Customs. Nothing remotely Christian about it. In fact, the Christian Church only got into the act in the 13th century.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Please refer to the British law on marriage, as this has the true and correct meaning of “marriage” between a man and woman, and same-sex irrelevant partners are greatly separately in the current British marriage law because they can’t consummate the marital act of sexual intercourse, nor can they commit the harmful act of adultery and harmful practice of breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath.

        • Natureboi

          Procreation is not a mandate of any marriage law.

        • DingoJack

          The law doesn’t care who’s having sex with whom*, it doesn’t care about adultery & it certainly doesn’t care who breaks marriage ‘oaths’ (since legally there aren’t any made).
          ——
          * as long as it’s between consenting adults

        • Kodie

          I don’t get what the issue is then. Have you recently had a head injury that makes you babble and repeat stuff over and over again? None of what you say matters in reality if you are ignorant, and sounds like you are just stating facts which you accept, so I don’t know why you’re even here, or what this discussion is supposed to be about. Do you know how irrelevant you sound? Make a point already and stop copying your paragraph out of the encyclopedia.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, Have you had a head injury, because your claiming an oxymoron legal “same-sex marriage,” in order to break the rule/law of the english language known as “common sense.” You’re unable to clearly identify a true and correct “oxymoron” because you believe same-sex partners sexual activities are the same sexual intercourse as a man and woman. Are you crazy to think that a biological man can now have sexual activities with self-identifying “man” in order to call this sexual intercourse. This really is harmful (HATE) to real LGBTIAQ+ people because they’re not the same as LGBTIAQ+ activists.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          I know shows like Grey’s Anatomy aren’t realistic in many respects. But from what I’ve heard, the amount of sex going on is NOT one of the inaccurate parts.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Better still, a same-sex doctor/nurse marriage!

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Or a same-sex doctor/doctor marriage!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Hmmm, is that possible?

          Because then they wouldn’t be *playing* doctor 😉

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Yeah, that must just have been a fantasy from Grey’s Anatomy. Couldn’t possibly happen in real life…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Sorry, the ‘playing’ thing was amusing to me.

          I have a very *silly* sense of word humor.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Well I wanted to refer back to Grey’s Anatomy, but I couldn’t think of an example of Doctor/Nurse marriage there (think that was just Scrubs). But Doctor/Doctor lesbian marriage (or Doctor/Doctor lesbian/bisexual woman marriage), yeah that one’s there.

        • DingoJack

          It’s interesting that Sheryl assumes the sex of this hypothetical doctor/nurse couple, isn’t it?
          There’s absolutely no reason that a doctor or a nurse should be of one sex or another (if one is thinking in a B&W way like her).

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “God/Jesus/Holy Spirit” also commended slavery rather than forbidding it, and gave rules to regulate it.

          “God/Jesus/Holy Spirit” also told YOU, as a woman, to shut the fuck up in any situation where you might be instructing or disputing any man in public, that such interactions should just be with your supposed husband, at home.

          Also, the book forbids associating in society if you’re menstruating. I’m not going to ask, but there’s a what, say, 1 in 4 (week) chance that could be the situation right now?

          Obey the WHOLE book or shut the fuck up about your cherry-picked preferences.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          It is obvious that you don’t comprehend the Bible. The newspaper reports violence everyday, but this doesn’t mean that the news reported supported this violence, so your “slavery” comment is no different. Your comment about “woman” and “menstruating” doesn’t fit into your sexuality and gender theories, so it is obvious that you can never understand the real meaning of these words.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I comprehend your ‘bible’ *better* than YOUR KIND do, because I’m not approaching it with any preconceived notions about it, such as it being (somehow) ‘inerrant’.

          I have presuppositions about reality that your ‘bible’ clashes against, but I can *demonstrate* reality, so your ‘bible’ loses on THAT point as well.

          Your supposed ‘god’ COULD have said “DON’T OWN SLAVES!”

          It didn’t.

          But it DID tell men to cut off a part of their penis (penii?) and to not eat shellfish or pork, AND ENFORCED IT.

          It’s that simple.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          The Bible doesn’t mention female genital mutilation, but you don’t get angry at muslims for FGM. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit never has commanded his people to have slaves. The America government has a law against slavery, but there are many businesses/companies in America which don’t pay people a living wage, and this practice makes them equivalent to a slave.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          I DO hate FGM…but that’s not a problem I deal with every day.

          The power that must be battled in the USA is authoritarian christofascists.

          Ever hear of prioritization? FGM is terrible, but both remote and not something I can affect.

          And I can and WILL fight for living wages…unlike YOUR KIND, who slavishly follow the GOP, who pass laws to fuck people over and *create* a wage-slave situation to concentrate wealth in the hands of the already rich.

          Par usual, you’re a fuckup who can’t tell what other(s) think or believe, whether due to a failure of empathy or intentionally self-stunted development.

          Whataboutism doesn’t work in this forum, to the best of my knowledge.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          Don’t mention the word “muslims” because you’re afraid of them and their belief against same-sex marriage. Muslims are definitely not scared of you, and they would easily put you in your place as “speechless.” If they get power in the western worlds, they’ll change the civil registered marriage practice to exclude same-sex marriage, and there won’t be any opposition from the LGBTIAQ activists because they’re completely scared of “muslims.”

          You’re very angry about “wage-slave,” so tell those American businesses and companies to give people a respectful living wage. The Bible doesn’t support God’s people having slaves nor prostitutes.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Fuck muslims. Fuck Islam.

          Next?

          Oh, and you’re a blatant LIAR about your ‘bible’ not supporting slavery or prostitution.

          For slavery, the following readings: Exodus 21, Deuteronomy 15, and Leviticus 25

          For prostitution: Abraham pimped Sarah out a NUMBER of times, and both Kings David and Solomon had scores if not hundreds of prostitutes JUST FOR THEMSELVES.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          Don’t you know the punishment you’ll receive for publicly stating those words. Just look up the woman in Pakistan and her 8 years in prison on death-row for the words she stated against Islam.

          There is no Biblical reference that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit demands his people to have a slave or his people need to sell their body as a prostitute. The Romans were executing people like Jesus on a cross, but this didn’t mean that God ordered the Romans to practice crucifixion.

        • Otto

          Are we in Pakistan?

          Hmm…who knew…

        • Sheryl

          Otto, You don’t know how social media will be judged by foreign countries, and you only have to take Julian Assange’s example as the American government have wanted him punished under American law.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Julian Assange violated US law by publishing information that the US government had kept secret.

          Different than opinion-crime…which is what you’re trying to imply you’re suffering, rather than simple *social* disapproval of YOUR KIND for being a bunch of selfish fuckups.

        • Otto

          But you said there would be a punishment…I have read enough in your comments to realize you are not all there.

        • Sheryl

          Otto, I never stated that punishment would be right here and now.

        • Otto

          Oh, right. The other bogeyman you believe in is gonna get us.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So there are fucked-up theocracies in the world…

          We’re fighting ALL religious overreach, not just yours.

          And if any muslim wanted to fight me on it, I’d fight.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          re slavery:

          Ephesians 6:5 — “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

          You’re not real bright, are you? (Bless Your Heart…)

        • Natureboi

          The Bible doesn’t support God’s people having slaves nor prostitutes.

          Just slaves, multiple wives, concubines and kidnapping and rape of virgins.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          Secular people want just slaves, multiple wives, concubines, kidnapping and rape of virgins because they believe in their Fairy in the Sky which means they don’t need control over their mind because they can go with their feelings, and decide their behaviours, practices, values, faith, belief, culture, ideas, rituals, thoughts etc. This is the reason Pol Pot was a real secular person because he had absolutely no belief in God (a real atheist).

        • Natureboi

          Nobody murdered in the name of Atheism.
          Your God instructs YOU to murder in GOD’S name.

          Being an Atheist does NOT equate to being evil.
          You, Sheryl, are advocating for the persecution of gay people in the name of your imaginary GOD.
          YOU, Sheryl, are the persecutor of innocents by doing so.

          Are you the Kettle or the Pot?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Secular Pol Pot is the True Atheist, as he never believed in the living God, nor did he read or quoted from God’s word the Bible, and he had absolute and complete faith in his “inner feelings” of conscience, morals, values, culture, thought, speech, language, values, behaviours and practices. Pol Pot killed millions of his own people for his own image, and he never had to declare to anyone that his evil and wickedness was a direct result of his non-belief in the living God, because he was a True Atheist. He never acknowledge to anyone that there might be a living God. So your claim that nobody has murdered in the name of “Atheism” (a non-belief in the living God) is a complete and utter deception of lies, because the True Atheist is the strongest deceiver about the living God, as he only hears the voice of the Devil which is the deceiving spirit that has entered within him. Your only a real atheist because you have read the word of the living God, and you have decided to ignore and rejected God’s Holy Spirit to understand his word and to live by faith in Jesus Christ and God’s commandments for the Christian faith and repentance of all sins. This will put you in a right relationship with the living God, so you can look forward to the day of Christ’s return to judge the living and the dead. Unfortunately, time is running short for you to make a real decision about the living and True God, because the lies from the Devil about legal “same-sex marriage” is the curse which ended Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the Creators World.

        • DingoJack

          And what was the ‘sin’ of Sodom? Ezekiel 16:49. Read your own holy book!

        • Natureboi

          You worship a slavery and rape condoning child murderer.
          You worship a failed “creator” who “created” a world of evil, suffering disease and death by natural disasters.
          You make utterly absurd excuses for this “creator.”
          All that occurs in this world would happen in a natural environment devoid of a “creator,” a Satanic “deceptor ,” and fruit eating “sin.”
          You CANNOT be trusted to be a reliable source of “moral” advice.

        • DingoJack

          “Secular people want just slaves, multiple wives, concubines, kidnapping and rape of virgins because they believe in their Fairy in the Sky which means they don’t need control over their mind because they can go with their feelings, and decide their behaviours, practices, values, faith, belief, culture, ideas, rituals, thoughts etc.”
          I thought you were talking about atheists? Sounds more like people of faith.
          [Authoritarian followers: every accusation – is a confession].

        • DingoJack

          Psst Sheryl (you might want to draw-up your fainting couch and get your clutching pearls for this one) —
          Muslims aren’t Christians – they follow the Koran, another collection of your idiot god’s ‘commands’.
          [FGM isn’t mentioned in the Koran, AFAIK]

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack, I never claimed that Muslims were Christians, but you don’t want to publicly report what the Koran states about same-sex relationships.

        • DingoJack

          Bwhahahaha!
          a) you did. Read what you posted.
          b) I did report what the Koran say about it – nothing.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          You claim that the Koran says nothing about a same-sex marriage, so do you know why muslims are extremely against same-sex marriage?

        • DingoJack

          Oh Cheryl – reading comprehension really isn’t your strong suit, is it? (My advice don’t lead with it.) You were speaking about FGM, remember?

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          You can’t even spell Sheryl, and I never said that FGM is mentioned in the Koran, but you still don’t know why Muslims are strongly against same-sex marriage nor the reasons for muslims practicing FGM. You’re over thinking, so I’m not surprised that you’re pointing the finger at me – “reading comprehension.” Get over yourself, because the government will blame same-sex marriage when same-sex partners are the only names recorded on the future public marriage registries. I will laugh so much when those greedy lawyers/courts are no longer making any money out a legal divorce because parents/children need that money to be spent on them and they don’t need the trauma in courts. Also, I hope that the cash cow “wedding” businesses/companies will no longer make any money out man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) because that money should be spent more wisely on a roof over their head and food. I can get a really nice dinner for the family and friends without paying 10x the price for a dinner which is based the word “wedding.”

          Times have significantly changed, and I’ve educated my 3 children to reject the 2017 amended Marriage Act, no fault divorce as these laws have nothing to do with our faith nor our intact family. Martin Luther over 500 years ago rejected the practice of “indulgences” because these weren’t part of the Christian faith in penance, so genuine Christian like myself can now reject the new Australian Marriage law between 2 people and the no fault divorce law, as these laws aren’t part of the Christian faith in a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage).

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          It’s no fair! Muslims OVER THERE get to do horrible things! The things Christians like Sheryl want to do are less horrible, why won’t mean nasty liberals let them!!!!

        • Joe Padgen

          Can’t have it both ways – either the bible is the rule book or it was just reporting what it was going on.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          And when it says “You can beat your slaves and no one can punish you because they’re your property”, that sounds like a rule book, not just reporting on what was happening. Same with “If you touch a menstruating woman you’re unclean and can’t go in the temple”.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I *like* that!

        • Sheryl

          Joe Padgen,
          Your statement is like believing the newspaper is only reporting news because you want to ignore advertising, cartoons, puzzles etc. I can give my children a set of house rules, but if I fail to explain the reason they should even follow them, then I doubt they would even be bothered with them.

        • DingoJack

          1 Samuel 18:1-4.
          [So you’ve not read your own ‘holy book’ then?]

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          King David’s love for Jonathon doesn’t compare to his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I don’t recall ‘jesus’ mentioning representative democracy, *soap*, antibiotics, electricity, or the Internet, either.

          But you use ALL of those things.

          And I’ll bet you’re wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics, and you eat shellfish and pork/ham, too…

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          God/Jesus/Holy Spirit never commanded a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) included democracy, soap, antibiotics, electricity or internet nor clothes made of mixed fabrics, shellfish, pork/ham. I have never made an informed decision about the 2017 amended Marriage Act, so I haven’t legally consented to the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Oh, FUCK…*now* I get the vibe…

          You’re one of those ‘sovereign citizen’ wastes of protoplasm.

          And my point stands. YOU AND YOUR KIND use *lots* of stuff not mentioned in your ‘bible’, and some that’s *against* your ‘bible’.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          The newspaper reports on violence everyday, but that doesn’t mean the news-reporter loves violence nor does this mean that I love paying for news-reports about violence. The Bible is very confusing to you because you think that it doesn’t make any sense. This is really no difference to a non-musician doesn’t understand written music, let alone how to play a musical instrument using written music.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You tried that before.

          A newspaper article on violence doesn’t *condone* it, or prescribe rules to govern it while letting it continue…such a newspaper article would *abhor* it and call for the annihilation of violence.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          There are wars in our world today, but the UN, newspapers and news-reporters haven’t stopped these wars.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          But news *still* calls for a cease to hostilities, preferring diplomacy.

          YOUR KIND follow a book that *commanded* genocide, from the Amalekites, to the Ammonites, to ‘shibboleth’.

          DO NOT try YOUR KIND’s false equivocation here.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          You can even discriminate the difference and sameness of the old testament to the new testament.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          YOUR KIND’s ‘bible’ approves of slavery, both OT & NT.

          NEITHER has any acceptance of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, prescribing only royalty, feudalism, and serfdom.

          The same hateful book, IN THE NT, also introduces ‘hell’ and thoughtcrime in words attributed to your ‘jesus’, who also practiced racial prejudice.

          NONE of what the Enlightenment has brought to the world is either mentioned, nor would be *approved* of, by the misogynistic barbarians who collected the books that became your ‘bible’ through political machination.

          Texts, and their theses / explications, matter.

          YOURs is worthless.

        • DingoJack

          Aww how cute! You think journalists are gods.
          The bible is, according to Christians, the word of god! And yet your ‘benevolent’ and ‘good’ god allows these things to happen when clearly he/she/it can actually stop it. In fact, he/she/it commands wars (and war crimes) on numerous occasions.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,

          People in Europe believe the UN is their god, so why can’t the UN fix the wars in the middle-east, surely it isn’t hard to convince people that removing healthy body parts such as the head isn’t appropriate behaviour, but Australians can even convince all people that female genital mutilation isn’t appropriate behaviour.

        • DingoJack

          I’m pretty sure most Europeans don’t worship the UN, and more than 7% think the UN is real, and most probably think then UN does more good than harm. So not at all like your idiot-child god then.

        • Brisley Bear

          Why can’t your god fix the wars in the middle-east?

          Oh, right, according to scripture he STARTED those wars.

        • Natureboi

          I have never made an informed decision about the 2017 amended Marriage Act, so I haven’t legally consented to the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people.

          What is the rationale in prohibiting gay marriage?

        • DingoJack

          ” I have never made an informed decision …”
          [Never were truer words spoken]
          “…about the 2017 amended Marriage Act, so I haven’t legally consented to the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people”.
          Well if you were too lazy to have your say, too bad. Your permission is not required.
          Over 61% voted ‘yes’ to marriage equality.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          That’s not how Democracy works! A Democratic government is supposed to allow all its adult citizens cast their votes for Representatives or for specific ballot propositions, and then Sheryl should get whatever she wants, despite not voting. /s

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Don’t you know about statistic which can be distorted to reflect a desired outcome. You and the ABS declared 61% voted “yes,” but the ABS records clearly showed that this didn’t include the electoral role voters who didn’t vote. The real fact is only 49+% of all Australian electoral voters indicated “YES” for same-sex partners to marry, and this means that more than 50+% didn’t care or refused to change practice from man & woman to between 2 people. This result wasn’t as good as the LGBTIAQ+ activists had previously informed Australians because they were claiming that more than 80% of Australians wanted a legal “same-sex marriage,” when this was clearly fake news.

        • DingoJack

          The real fact is less than 31% of the population voted ‘no’, which means 69% either voted ‘yes’ or thought voting on the human rights of someone else was a stupid idea. (See what happens when assume you know what other people are thinking without asking them?)
          In fact:
          Essential Polling. 28th Sept – 1st Oct, 2017.
          “Do you think people of the same sex should or should not be allowed to marry?”
          Should be allowed to marry: 61%
          Should not be allowed to marry: 32%
          Don’t know: 7%
          Margin of error: 3%
          Seems even if it were a compulsory vote the result wouldn’t have been much different. (Polling in Mar 2018 has only seen the ‘yes’ opinion grow).

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          This wasn’t the result of the ABS result for allowing same-sex partners to marry.

        • DingoJack

          It indicates the population’s inclination to vote one way or the other. Note how closely the two results match.
          If the vote was compulsory the result would have been virtually identical.

        • Michael Neville

          If someone calls themselves a Christian then I accept they’re a Christian. I don’t care if you consider them a “genuine” Christian because they don’t agree with you on something.

          Furthermore, how does same-sex marriage hurt you or anyone else? It doesn’t, no matter how much you rant and whine about the Australian Marriage Law.

        • Max Doubt

          “People can self-identify as a “Christian,” but this isn’t the same behavioural practice as a genuine Christian who believes in Jesus’s words – Matt 19: 4-6 and practices a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) like Adam & Eve.”

          Anyone who self-identifies as a Christian is a Christian. It is no more up to you to choose other people’s religions for them than it is for you to choose their favorite flavor of ice cream. Knock that off. It’s making you look pretty silly.

          And what in the hell is “one flesh”? I’m over 60 and I’ve never met a couple in my life who I would describe as “one flesh”, married or not, gay, straight, Christian, atheist or otherwise.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          FWIW, my guess is that sheryl-clown is discussing that as ‘mystical’ if you try to make her nail it down, while using it in a *physical* sense (children) whenever she can get away with it.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          But of course making some excuse to allow it to still apply to heterosexual couples who don’t have children.

        • Sheryl

          Max Doubt, I am not stopping any person from self-identifying as a “Christian,” but this doesn’t mean the same thing as living the Christian faith. It is obvious that you have never read the Bible because the word “marriage” doesn’t even exist in the Book of Genesis. Christianity follows Jesus’s words – Matt 19: 4-6 “Haven’t you read,” he (Jesus) replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate. It is known as heresy to add same-sex marriage to God’s word. Since the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people has removed the criteria of sex/sexual intercourse between one man and one woman for life, now genuine Christians like myself are referring to the book of Genesis which never mentioned the word “marriage” but describes a man-woman “one flesh” relationship. I never heard of “same-sex marriage,” until the Netherlands decided to legally regulate it.

        • Max Doubt

          “Max Doubt, I am not stopping any person from self-identifying as a “Christian,” but this doesn’t mean the same thing as living the Christian faith.”

          There is no such thing as “the” Christian faith. Anyone who self-identifies as Christian is a Christian, your insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.

          “It is obvious that [*babbling quotes from myths and fables snipped*] God’s word.”

          Unless you can objectively demonstrate that the gods in your myths are something other than characters described in tales and figments of your imagination, then figments of your imagination is the most reasonable way to describe them.

          “Since the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people has removed the criteria of sex/sexual intercourse between one man and one woman for life, now genuine Christians like myself…”

          Genuine? Like you? That’s some pretty arrogant assholiness you have there. You’d be a much better human being if you’d shed it. Genuine Christians are like yourself – and like anyone who self-identifies as a Christian. You are not the arbiter of what does and does not constitute a “genuine” Christian. You don’t get to pick another person’s religion any more than you get to pick their favorite color, and you look like an idiot to keep trying.

          “I never heard of “same-sex marriage,” until the Netherlands decided to legally regulate it.”

          Obviously you need to get out more.

        • Sheryl

          Max Doubt, It is obvious that you don’t understand the majority of Christians who live in this world, so you need more exposure to them. For a person to claim they’re a “Christian,” but to not live the Christian faith is like a person who claims they’re a “medical doctor,” but they don’t practice as a medical doctor. A person can claim to be a “Christian” and they have the freedom to ignore/reject God’s word the Bible, but this is really no different to a person who claims to be a “medical doctor” but ignores/rejects all the medical scientific research.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Which of the 44,000 sects of xtianity (in the US *alone*) are YOUR KIND claiming to be the ‘majority’ of xtians?

          Be specific, and show your work.

        • Max Doubt

          “Max Doubt, It is obvious that you don’t understand the majority of Christians who live in this world, so you need more exposure to them.”

          I live in the United States. I’m over 60 years old. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of the people I’ve crossed paths with have been Christian. Thousands of them. Tens of thousands. Over half a century. And here’s what we can objectively understand about Christians. No two of them agree on exactly what it means to be a Christian. The only ubiquitous, common characteristic they share is their self-identification as Christians. That’s it. That’s all. That’s the only way we can objectively determine who is and isn’t a Christian. If you don’t like that, you need to go fight it out with those other Christians, the ones who disagree with you but still refer to themselves as Christians. From out here in the real world, outside your imaginations, there’s no other way to tell you apart.

          “For a person to claim they’re a “Christian,” but to not live the Christian faith is like a person who claims they’re a “medical doctor,” but they don’t practice as a medical doctor.”

          What objective criteria would you use to make that distinction among Christians. I mean like the educational credentials and certifications we objectively use to sort doctors from not-doctors. That’s right, you have no such method. But here’s one that works… objectively… Ask a person if they’re Christian. If they say, “Yes,” they are. If they say, “No,” they’re not. It’s really as simple as that.

          “A person can claim to be a “Christian” and…”

          And? And they are. Again, if you disagree, you go convince all those other Christians that they aren’t Christians. Your continued complaining about it here is only making you look like a fool. A desperate, dishonest fool.

        • Sheryl

          Max Doubt,
          I’m 47 years old, and I have lived in America for a year, so I have met the people who claim to be a “Christian,” but they choose to ignore/reject the Bible because it doesn’t fit in with the evolutionary theories and or the sexuality and gender theories. Also, I’ve met genuine Christian who live out their Christian faith by following God’s word including repentance of their sins. An atheist is unable to discriminate the difference between Christian identity and the genuine Christian faith, this is like a non-healthcare people can’t discriminate between a drunk person and a person who is losing unconsciousness as this things aren’t the same.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So?

          I already quoted enough of your ‘bible’ to show you to be not only hypocritical, but *sanctimonious* and an authoritarian.

          But you don’t care, because you want to ‘own the libs’ badly enough to piss in the punch bowl from which YOUR KIND will have to drink as well.

        • Max Doubt

          “I’m 47 years old, and I have lived in America for a year, so I have met the people who claim to be a “Christian,”…”

          If that’s what they claim, that’s what they are. It is not up to you to decide what religion other people are. You’re an asshole to keep insisting you’re the judge. You. Are. Not.

          “An atheist is unable to discriminate the difference between Christian identity and the genuine Christian faith,…”

          An atheist is someone who, when asked if they accept claims that gods exist, answers, “No.”

          A Christian is someone who, when asked if they’re a Christian, answers, “Yes.”

          Yes, in your bigotry and ignorance, you may disagree. It’s easy for you to come to a forum full of atheists, point at other people, and tell us which of them is and isn’t a Christian. But here’s your problem – well, one of your many problems. You don’t have the courage or honesty to go to Christian forums and tell them they’re not Christian. You’re a coward. A big talkin’, small minded, ignorant coward. Now go fix that Christian problem if you think you can. But for pete’s sake, stop pissing and moaning about your inability to do that here. You aren’t getting any traction and you’re acting like an asshole.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          But here’s your problem – well, one of your many problems. You don’t have the courage or honesty to go to Christian forums and tell them they’re not Christian. You’re a coward. A big talkin’, small minded, ignorant coward.

          Borrowing from RtD…^^^^^billboard!!!

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          If Christians themselves can’t agree on who is and who isn’t a Christian (And they can’t, even after fighting literal wars over it), who is an atheist to claim to know the difference? Thousands of Christian sects out there, I’ll count at least FIVE major divisions (Orthodox, Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, Mormon), disagreeing on major elements of their faith. We really have no choice but to take a perspective Christian at their word and call them Christian.

        • Sheryl

          Max Doubt, I don’t have to tell people they’re not a “Christian” because when they read their Bible, God/Jesus/Holy Spirit will guide them in the truth.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND’s ‘holy spirit’ has ‘guided’ quite a few parents, in the last few years, to murder their children a la ol’ Abraham (in your ‘bible’s story).

          YOUR KIND would no doubt condemn them…but only because of the results.

          THAT means that YOUR KIND aren’t ‘guided’ by any kind of ‘holy spirit’, either, but you’re too fucking stubborn and hateful to accept the reality that you’re just giving your worst impulses free rein by claiming they’re an outside influence on your supposed ‘minds’.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          It is obvious that you don’t understand the Bible.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s even MORE obvious that YOUR KIND know *fuckall* about anything *useful*, and are arrogant to boot.

          YOUR KIND really need to learn to stop making broad assertions with ZERO evidence.

        • Natureboi

          It is obvious that you don’t understand the Bible.

          Where in the bible does it state being gay is wrong?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, What is your meaning of the word “gay,” as some people self-identity with the word “gay,” but they don’t act on their same-sex attraction. The Bible only defines homosexual behaviour such as Leviticus 18:22 – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” Romans 1: 26-27 – “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into which is against nature; And like wise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

          The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is where the word “sodomy” comes from. There are other references in the Bible, but I’m unable to report them here, The Bible describes both the murderer Cain and his killing of his brother Abel, but people aren’t defined by their homosexual behaviour in the Bible. Christians/Catholics/Jews/Orthodox and muslims all understand that homosexual behaviours are against the Creator’s design of a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage). Jesus tells people that we are all sinners, so the act of sodomy is like other sins which Christians must repent and turn away from their sin in order to live a new life in Christ.

        • Leviticus lists ritual abominations, not things that cause objective harm. Eating shellfish is also a ritual abomination. Since Christians drop the kosher rules, why not the anti-gay rules.

          The “sin of Sodom” was rape, not homosexuality.

          And Romans 1:26-7 makes no sense. It’s not an attack on homosexuality, since it apparently is talking about straight people having homosexual sex.

          No, the Bible makes no case against homosexuality. Even if you imagine that it does, the Bible supports slavery and polygamy, and modern Christians have no problem turning their back on those customs. They can do the same for homosexuality.

        • Sheryl

          Bob Seldensticker, Your interpretation of the Bible isn’t how the majority of Christians/Catholics/ Orthodox/Jews and Muslims have interpreted scripture, and Muslims are extremely against same-sex marriage, so you don’t have to convince me.

        • You’re right, but if ordinary Christians etc. would just read their Bible instead of listening to what they’re told, they might find they’ve been lied to.

        • Sheryl

          Bod Seidensticker,

          The devil is the deceiver because he is full of lies, so I doubt that Christians/Catholics/ Orthodox/Jews and Muslims are going to change over 2000 years of interpreting the Bible or any other sacred texts to your way of thinking in the last 15 years. Remember that same-sex partners use to rubbish the idea of “marriage” and they totally rejected this practice for themselves. Now that they have changed the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people in order to include “gays,” but they still reject the man-woman figure on top of a “wedding” cake for themselves because it reminds them that a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) is the true meaning of the word “marriage.” The Australian Federal Parliament has the power to include all sham marriages in a civil registered marriage, but this would make it impossible for government authorities to regulate this practice because a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony have never been enough evidence of a genuine marriage. The Swedish government have now established laws to regulate the harm of a man-woman cohabitation and their family breakdown because the majority have refused a civil registered marriage or a civil partnership registration. My 3 children and 15 nieces and nephews will be able to quickly see for themselves that the 2017 amended Marriage Act, Family Law including no fault divorce law are all government “Bullshit,” so they can easily claim “independence” to such garbage.

        • Otto

          You seriously believe in the bogyman?

          I am so sorry. That must be awful for you.

        • Sheryl

          Otto, You really believe in the bogyman same-sex marriage because this idea is totally from the Sky Fairy, especially using laws, regulations, guidelines and a public registry to try and make it real as Disneyland.

        • Otto

          All marriages under the law (and even laws themselves) are man made and therefore open to re-definition. That has always been the case. I seriously don’t know what you are bleating about.

        • DingoJack

          It doesn’t matter Sheryl – any time you sign the marriage papers they go to BDM, civil or church marriages alike.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          It’s OK, as I don’t need to waste my time getting my NSW Marriage Certificate

        • Where’s the bullshit? What’s to declare yourself independent from?

          Not all laws will apply to you, so if you or members of your family aren’t gay, they don’t have to get gay married. It’s a win-win.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          PURE bullshit.

          Show me ONE ‘bible’ verse, BOOK/CHAPTER/VERSE, where ‘satan’ lies about *anything*.

          The only records we have in the story of ‘satan’ speaking, it’s telling An Inconvenient Truth.

          But YOUR KIND will call lies truth, and truth lies, because you’re consumed by hate and power lust.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Most xtians of whatever stripe have NEVER considered the subject until recently. Those who HAVE considered it, and realized that people they know and like/love as friends/family are LGBTQ and still good people, realize that either:
          – YOUR KIND’s interpretation is nonsense, or
          – The whole ‘bible’ is nonsense.

          You’d be AMAZED by how many are coming to that second conclusion because of how YOUR KIND push your hateful agenda.

        • Natureboi

          Why is homosexual behavior wrong?

          Why am I a “sinner?”
          I don’t steal, lie, cheat or kill.

        • Sheryl

          Naturebol, you’ll need to read the Bible for yourself as this site doesn’t allow words which can offend people with same-sex attraction.

        • Natureboi

          I have read the bible.
          There is no logical reason why being gay is wrong.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, You probably read the “gay” bible with a rainbow cross on it. However, The NIV Bible completely rejects homosexual behaviour, and the evidence is that this site wouldn’t even allow the words in the Bible to be repeated. However, the Bible doesn’t define the people who practice homosexual behaviour. What is your meaning of “gay,” as there are people who self-identify as “gay,” but don’t act on their same-sex attraction.

        • Natureboi

          Why does God reject homosexual behavior?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “However, The NIV Bible completely rejects homosexual behaviour,”

          Book/chapter/verse or STFU & GTFO.

          and the evidence is that this site wouldn’t even allow the words in the Bible to be repeated.

          PURE bullshit. We’ve been quoting ‘bible’ verses at you ALL OVER this to show you we realize what a deceitful scumbag you are.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          This site doesn’t print Biblical verses that may offend some people.

        • Natureboi

          This site doesn’t print Biblical verses that may offend some people.

          Why would a bible verse offend gay people?

        • Sheryl

          The Bible reports/discusses murderers and their behaviour of “intentionally killing” a person. A murderer would be offended by the words in the Bible which supports punishing people who have killed a person.

        • Natureboi

          You have sunk to a new low comparing gay people to murderers.

          You really are a hate-filled bigot.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          You asked me for the reason the Bible can be offensive, and now you’re judging other people such as Christian and murderers, and this is offensive to them.

        • Natureboi

          Wrong.
          I am NOT calling Christians murderers.
          YOU compared gay people to murderers.
          It is YOU who is being offensive.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          You wanted to know why the Bible can be offensive, and I told you that God commands certain behaviours and practices.

        • Natureboi

          There is NO REASON to believe the bible is true.

        • David Cromie

          Your supposed ‘god’ may ‘command’ anything it likes (see OT for some examples of genocide and murder), but if you cannot adduce the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence showing that your favourite supposed ‘god’ actually exists, then you are just another deluded moron talking superstitious BS.

        • Sheryl

          David Cromie,
          I know that you don’t really exist in the real world, nor the spiritual world, but there is a possibility you might exist in the Virtual-reality World. You’re only a man-god and you preach superstitious B.S to anyone that will listen to your “inner feelings, thoughts and voices” in your head. You haven’t provided one bit of evidence to prove that you’re a real man or a real woman, but you might be only a “legal person” for your fantasy legal “oxymoron same-sex marriage.” There is no amount of evidence that could prove to me that you’re a real human, because animals behave nicer than you.

        • There’s not much you can’t say here. Yes, the Bible is hateful, but even that can be quoted and discussed here.

        • Natureboi

          Have read the bible.

          Why is it “wrong?”

          Why am I a sinner?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          What, words like ‘sodomite’? ‘Lesbian’?

          We don’t have a problem with words, just assholes trying to use them to wound.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND are trying to claim being LGBTQ is a sin…

          Book/chapter/verse(s) or STFU & GTFO.

          YOUR KIND don’t get to push off your burden of proof.

        • DingoJack

          And what was Sodom’s sin?
          Ezekiel 16:49
          Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
          So being a Republican, pretty much.

        • Natureboi

          What does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboli, Christians all can practice the historical (Biblical) meaning of “marriage,” and this isn’t the same behavioural practice for “gay marriage.” This doesn’t prohibit gays from having a civil registered marriage according to the 2017 amended Marriage which has changed to the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people, but this will no doubt have a significant impact on all man-woman “one flesh” (marriages), as they can now claim their natural right for “independence” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce laws. My german forefathers were forced to their names and details recorded on a public marriage registry as allowed the courts then the legal power to punish them for the harm of adultery and the harmful practice of breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath. However, governments continue to force our Churches/ministers to participate in a civil registered marriage.

          This is now our time to claim “independence” because the courts have decriminalised (no longer punish) the harm of adultery nor the breaking of a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath, and our intact family are set-sufficent and we can self-regulate them. I have wondered why gay people don’t understand the power they’re giving governments/government authorities and courts including a legal right in regulating and punishing them, but it could be because they’re use to being abused by power, and they don’t truly understand the meaning of laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries. However, this is our first sight of true freedom like my german forefathers experienced as they didn’t have a legal state marriage certificate. I grew up on two farms, so I know what it is like to feel free from regulation by governments/government authorities. We will have the best opportunity now whilst government/government authorities and the courts are more confused then ever about how they can regulate/punish different behavioural practices are the same thing without offending people.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re right.

          What xtians CAN’T do is force others to play their Pretendy (Not So) Fun Time Games.

          And the LAW is on our side.

          What happened to ‘Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar’ and ‘obey the lawful authorities’?

        • Natureboi

          This doesn’t prohibit gays from having a civil registered marriage

          Does civil registered marriage come with all the exact same rights, benefits and incentives your “flesh” marriage come with?

          What does adultery and divorce have to do with allowing gay couples to be legally married?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Ezekiel 16:49-50 disagrees with you:

          “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me.”

          So Sodom & Gomorrah were libertarian Repugnicants.

        • Brisley Bear

          In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, we see a mob of people seeking to rape Lot’s angel visitors.
          The RAPE was the problem there, not whether the angels were the same sex as the mob.

        • DingoJack

          Oh and greed, and a lack of charity.
          [See: Gropey ol Pedos]

        • Max Doubt

          “I don’t have to tell people they’re not a “Christian”…”

          If you’re going to come here and tell us that other people aren’t Christians, yes, you do have to tell them. You not only have to tell them, you have to convince them. If they don’t agree with you, if they still call themselves Christians after you give ’em a piece of your mind, they’re Christians.

          “… because when they read their Bible,…”

          … or hear it from their preacher or become convinced by their parents or learn it in school or…

          “… God/Jesus/Holy Spirit will guide them in the truth.”

          As for arriving at the truth of whether they are Christian or not, however they might come to that conclusion, anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

        • Greg G.

          God/Jesus/Holy Spirit will guide them in the truth.

          There are at least 45,000 Christian denominations in the world today. That means at least 44,999 groups of Christians were not guided to the truth. We don’t know if any group of them were guided to the truth.

          That makes Jesus the greatest prayer failure of all time:

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          The unity of believers was supposed to be so impressive that the rest of the world would be convinced to believe. It never happened.

          Now you have been guided to the truth and you can’t give the credit to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

        • Kodie

          Do they have a superstition about Jesus being their lord like you do? It doesn’t matter if they follow the bible, as the only thing the bible says that every Christian thinks matters – the only way to god in heaven is through the son, lord Jesus Christ.

          That’s all any Christian cares about at heart. Around that core belief, anything that their local cult believes comes off as sound if you immerse yourself in it often enough, and brainwash and want to belong to a social group, beating up on your cult’s “others”.

          A Christian is unable to discriminate among those Christians who disagree with your fundamental beliefs and attitudes, but an atheist reads them loud and clear: SUPERSTITION. You believe if you believe something you believe correctly according to the instructions OF OTHER PEOPLE, then you will believe something by the power of suggestion and blather on foolishly as though you are profound.

          Other Christians are exactly the same in that respect. Their tribes influence them one way, yours influences you another way. Some people aren’t awful as you are. Some people aren’t destructive and hateful just because they are Christian. Your bible is an ancient myth book that a rational person can say doesn’t apply. Here is where I sort of agree – if you take it literally, you are fucking ignorant as fuck about reality, but you are all in. If you don’t take some of it or most of it literally, what the fuck are you holding onto when you recognize it is lies and myth? They just are afraid not to be saved, which is totally silly – a dead legendary character cares about you personally and ranks you on how much you submit yourself to childish fantasy? You say they’re not real Christians, but I say they are the realest, because they are clinging desperately to something that they know isn’t real anyway, whereas you are completely delusional.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, It is obvious that you’re delusional about a same-sex marriage and this idea is totally based on superstition, as you’re trying to use the power of the law. regulation, guidelines and public registry to create your fantasy. Sex workers, sex offenders and man-woman “one flesh” married people were forced to put their names and details on public registries, but your fairy in the sky makes you voluntarily want to have your name and details be recorded on a public marriage registry, so this allows government/government authorities a legal right to regulate (control) you, and this then allows the courts their legal power to punish you with lawyer fees/ court costs etc in a no fault divorce.

        • DingoJack

          Hate to tell ya this Sheryl — if ya signed the paper, the BDM already knows!
          [Oh and, divorce is only expensive if you want it to be. If not, it’s easy & cheap].

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,

          I have never claimed that the NSW Marriage Registry doesn’t have my name and details, but it is legally voided when I’ve never made an informed decision about the 2017 amended Marriage Act. You can search the grounds that a civil registered marriage can be voided.

        • DingoJack

          Valid reasons for a nullity include:
          . one or both of the parties were already married at the time
          . one or both of the parties were under-age and did not have the necessary approvals, or
          . one or both of the parties were forced into the marriage under duress.

          The Court will NOT declare a marriage invalid on the following grounds:
          . Non-consummation of the marriage
          . Never having lived together
          . Family violence or
          . Other incompatibility situations.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          The words “forced into the marriage under duress” could be argued in court that I never made an informed decision about the 2017 amended Marriage Act, and I would have never legally consented to the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people because the word “people” include unborn, babies, children, parents, siblings, doctors, nurses, patients (healthcare consumers), sex workers, clients, sex offenders victims etc. This civil registered marriage practice is suppose to be “voluntarily entered into,” and if I don’t agree with this legal practice then the courts would most likely give my freedom, as this would be equivalent of no longer practicing as a healthcare professional because I don’t believe in a legal euthanasia practice. However, I don’t bother wasting my money on a legal right to “annulment” because I can freely declare my “independence” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act, as I my family is self-sufficient as we don’t rely on any government benefits.

        • DingoJack

          Nope you can only claim you were under duress at the time of the marriage.
          It’s kind of like saying: ‘I wasn’t legally 20km per hour over the speed limit because when I got my driving licence you didn’t need to drive at 40km per hour in school zones.’ It won’t fly in court.
          Also, not liking a law – isn’t ‘duress’.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nonsense.

          You were married.
          The law extended marriage.
          YOUR KIND fought and lost.
          Hence, you’re *still* married.

          Otherwise, slaveowners could simply claim they weren’t affected by a law banning slavery because they, as criminals, didn’t consent to giving up their ill-gotten gains.

          Y’know…like YOUR KIND.

        • Natureboi

          How about changing the words “two people” into “two consenting adults.” What then would be your complaint?

        • Sheryl

          Naturebol,
          The word “adult” doesn’t mean people as there “adult” dogs etc

        • Natureboi

          The word “adult” doesn’t mean people as there “adult” dogs etc

          Are dogs able to give legal consent?

          Guess what Sheryl, you just plummeted in credibility with your “dog” marriage desperation.

          You are clearly morally bankrupt in prohibiting same-sex marriage to the point that you have included animals in your idiotic argument against same-sex marriage.

          But I thank you for your gracious concern for the well-being of dogs.

          Now, if you can put away your bigotry and direct your graciousness towards human beings, you just might be seen as a morally sound person.

        • Cynthia

          So you got legally married in the 1990s and never got a divorce? Guess what, you are still legally married and personal POV doesn’t change that.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          My husband and I have a civil registered people marriage between an engineer and a client, as well as a healthcare professional and a healthcare consumer.

        • Cynthia

          Do you provide professional health care services to him?

          Having sex with a patient is a good way to get your licence yanked in Canada. My husband can only give me emergency or occasional minor treatment where another doctor is not readily available.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          The laws in Australia is very clear about the meaning of a “patient”is a person admitted to hospital/health services. However, now the law has recently changed patient to mean person (healthcare consumer), and my husband is a healthcare consumer. It is prohibitive for a healthcare professional to have a sexual relationship with their patient. However, I am judged in court on the basis of my knowledge and skills as a healthcare professional in the workplace and at home. I have been able to practice nursing in my own home by caring and providing treatment for my family and extended family, as well as myself, because the doctor/s have informed me as a healthcare professional to deliver the treatment required and my responsibility to inform them of any adverse complications/problems.

        • David Cromie

          So there are four people in your marriage. I hope it is a ‘one flesh’ affair. Who wears the trousers?

        • Sheryl

          David,
          There is my husband and me in our man-woman “one flesh” (marriage), and we have multiple roles, so which one of our roles is the new criteria of a civil registered people marriage?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “but it is legally voided when I’ve never made an informed decision about the 2017 amended Marriage Act.”

          Wrong.

          The only way you can void it is by LEAVING Australia.

          You’re just pushing more ‘sovereign citizen’ nonsense.

        • Kodie

          Chrissake, you moron, keep up. You want to address what I wrote?

        • Kodie

          Why are you so disturbed? Ranting and complaining about something that has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with your superstition.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, It is obvious that you’re disturbed by your ranting and complaining about my comments. You’re superstitious by believing in a same-sex marriage The Australian pubic marriage registries haven’t recorded many same-sex marriages because your fairy in the sky hasn’t convinced your supporters to be regulated by government/government authorities, as they don’t want t be punished by the courts with legal fees /court costs, as a civil partnership is far more cheaper and easier to revoke the registration.

        • DingoJack

          How can you know this?
          A) You’re not here
          B) That information isn’t due for release until November 2019. (Rectally sourced, I’d guess)
          ——-
          Based on the 4.6% drop in the number of marriages 2016/17, and that there were 112,954 marriages in 2017 it would be reasonable to guess about 107,758 marriages in 2018. Between 6 December 2017 and 30 June 2018 there were 3,149 marriages where the partners were of the same sex. So an reasonable estimate would be 5662 of these marriages over 2018. That means over 5.25% of all marriages would involve partners of the same sex. Probably a higher rate per adult capita than straight marriages.
          [SOURCE]

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          When you do the Maths, then in the future the government & government authorities can no longer regulate man-woman relationships and the courts can’t punish them with legal fees/court costs in a legal divorce. You can have the responsibilities of keeping alive the civil registered marriage practice or dejure marriage or roman marriage based on a legal consent/contract. However, Jerry Hall was married to Mick Jagger without any legal contract/ consent, and they had no public messy court cases like Brad Pitt and Anglina. Freddy Mercury believed his common law wife was with his ex-finance Mary, and he left her a significant amount of his fortune including his house, and British law doesn’t have a common law marriage because this behavioural practice is completely free to self-regulation.

        • DingoJack

          So Hall & Jagger were in ‘common law’ marriages then (a concept enshrined in British Law since time immemorial). The legal requirement is no different from a civil marriage. The parties can come to a mutually acceptable agreement, or fight it out which ever they wish, it depends on them.

        • Kodie

          No, you sound like someone with a recent head injury, and I hope you get that checked out. You sound like a broken record, and make no sense.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, I’ve witnessed many people with an acute head injury, so your reality needs checking out from because you’re living in Disneyland, and you think this place is the real world.

        • David Cromie

          I was wondering when the No True Scotsman fallacy would be trotted out. Your post makes you an all-round bigot, not surprisingly, since in the ‘onward christer soldiers’ march, you believe you are the only one in step.

      • Sheryl

        A Christian baker doesn’t make a wedding cake for all people nor does the Australian government force all people to have a civil registered marriage. I have never witnessed a mother celebrating the death of her still born baby, but I have witnessed mothers celebrating the “intentional killing” of their unborn baby in a legal abortion practice because these behavioural practices aren’t the same, despite both mothers deliver the same result of a dead baby. I’m not pretending that a same-sex marriage and a doctor-nurse marriage are the same behavioural practice as a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) because the Australian Federal Parliament had to change the Australian Marriage Law to be between 2 people, and all civil marriage celebrant are now legally prohibited from declaring that the Marriage Law in Australia is an exclusive union between one man and one woman for life. It is obvious that a change to the definition to the Australian Marriage Law has resulted in a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) like my own has now gained “independence” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce law.

        In the future, all civil registered marriage could be only identified as same-sex marriage in order to prove that the government and government authorities no longer regulate man-woman “one flesh” and their intact family, and the courts have no power to punish them with legal fees/court costs/ fines/ child maintenance orders etc.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Learn the meaning of *public* accommodations.

          If the baker bakes wedding cakes, and a given client has the money, the baker has no right to refuse based on any protected class.

          If you want to not bake cakes for those of whom you disapprove, form a private ‘no cakes for gay weddings’ baking club. If you limit your reach and financial success, that’s the price you pay for your bigotry.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          There is no “wedding” cake for a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage), so I have no problem with not supporting the commercialisation of “weddings.” When I have organised a baptism and confirmation celebration for my 3 children, I realised that the expensive cash cow “wedding” price tag and lawyer fees/court costs for a legal divorce all have to go because a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and an intact family can all be self-regulated.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So?

          If that’s the case, why should a baker refuse to create one for an equal marriage? If it’s, as YOU are asserting here, no big issue?

          Also, you’re admitting to LYING about what a cake would be used for in order to save money….don’t the 10 C have something to say against bearing false witness?

        • Sheryl

          The Christian baker in America doesn’t support “equal marriage,” but you’re a hypocrite because you don’t support bisexual people’s right for “equal marriage.” However, the state isn’t punishing you, but only bakers who refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage. There is no Biblical passage which supports a “wedding” cake, so I’m not bearing a false witness.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          As usual, you’re throwing around broad assertions with zero evidence.

          The christian baker doesn’t have a choice if s/he is going to run a *public* accommodation under business rules. If the client has the money, and the service is one that the baker performs (here, making cakes), then the baker is not given the choice to refuse the commission BECAUSE IT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY ALREADY DO, ALL DAY LONG.

          And I have ZERO problems with ‘bisexual’ marriage…marriage is between the participants. ALL current marriage that I know of in the Eurocentric model of society world is between two consenting adults. That doesn’t militate against *any* such pairing.

          YOUR KIND is trying to introduce plural marriage, which is irrelevant to this discussion of pair-bonding marriage.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          A Christian baker doesn’t need to provide any “wedding” cakes, and I personally don’t need nor want a “wedding” cake for my man-woman “one flesh.” All muslim countries have the option of a plural marriage, but western countries have only had a monogamous marriage because historically it was based on the Judaeo-Christian law of man-woman “one flesh.” Your idea of “pair-bonding marriage” would include a parent-child marriage, brother and sister marriage etc.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “A Christian baker doesn’t need to provide any “wedding” cakes”

          True.

          But if a baker, christian or not, DOES produce wedding cakes, s/he MAY NOT refuse to make one for a client with enough money to pay for it.

          That’s what *public* accommodation means.

          End of discussion.

          Said baker may start a private baking ‘club’ to exclude anybody s/he doesn’t want to serve, but will have to accept a much small customer base and less income.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          A Christian baker could design “wedding” cake with only a man-woman on top, and gay couples can now ignore/reject these “wedding” cakes for themselves.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Go ahead and find me any baker that stupid…they’ll be out of business.

          An engaged couple choose their OWN topper, almost always, even if it’s just from a book provided by the baker if the baker will be providing it.

          That’s not an excuse to not bake a cake, as heterosexual engaged couples could ALSO decide they want their own topper.

          And MOST bakers don’t provide text unless requested, as that’s another way of losing business.

          BTW, you’re getting pretty desperate in trying to find a special circumstance in which you can lodge your superstition.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          The lengths some poor businessmen will go to to turn away business.
          Of course, also turning away straight couples who have their own cake toppers they want to use.

          Maybe the baker just needs to make black iced cake baked in a wad of aluminum foil. Nobody may want to buy it, but at least there’s little danger of it ending up in the hands of a gay couple.

        • Sheryl

          Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker,

          I might want Bon Jovi to sing Christmas Carols, but the state can’t force him to sing Christian songs. Bon Jovi is a professional singer and he does sing a variety of different types of songs, but this doesn’t mean I have any human right to force him to sing Christian Carols for me that goes against his wishes/conscience.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re trying to evade again.

          A cake baker is not an artist, any more than an assembly line mechanic is or a fast food worker.

          The rule is, if you do it, and the customer has the money, and you’re a *public* accommodation (i.e. not a private club), you must deliver, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.

          YOUR KIND keep on trying to introduce irrelevant minutiae to create even the most minimal speck of ground for your prejudicial behavior to stand on…and you can’t, plain and simple.

        • Sheryl

          A medical doctor isn’t an artist, but the Victorian government has only given them “State’s choice” to participate in a legal abortion practice. It is obvious that you truly believe that a paying customer like myself has the human right to hear Bon Jovi sing Christmas Carols, and he should be forced by the state like Victorian medical doctors, despite their conscience/ feeling/wishes. Your kind are like the Communist party in China which force pregnant mothers to have an abortion against their conscience/feelings/wishes, and pregnant mothers aren’t an artist.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re STILL missing the point.

          If a doctor doesn’t offer abortions, s/he doesn’t offer abortions.

          If a doctor DOES offer abortions, then s/he MAY NOT refuse to perform the procedure on a pregnant person (who has a pregnancy in utero) if S/HE requests it (or, if s/he’s comatose, her/his health proxy). This is assuming the doctor would be paid the typical rate.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          You’ve missed the point, because the law doesn’t treat artists, doctors, bakers, pregnant mothers as equals, all having the same right to exercise their conscience/feelings/wishes.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Artists create. You can’t force somebody to accept a commission they don’t believe they can fulfill.

          The other professions? When people make the choice of such, they accept both the privileges AND RESPONSIBILITIES attending thereto.

          And the *responsibilities* can change. At that point, any given practitioner can make the choice of compliance or starting over in another field without the responsibility they’re not willing to undertake. That’s called HONOR.

          YOUR KIND appear to not want to have to exercise HONOR, but be allowed to be criminals without consequences, such a mindset dictated by your *privilege*, and how *privilege distress* makes you think we shouldn’t force you to act on a level playing field with everybody else.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          I can’t believe that you think the law is fair to discriminate between employees/employers. You hypocrite for believing that their should be no discrimination against any person, as this means you want the law to discriminate when it suits you. It is no privilege to “intentionally kill” any person, and I don’t care how much money the state would pay me to do this job. I don’t have a responsibility to “intentionally kill” any person (healthcare consumer). The western governments never forced any healthcare professional to learn to “intentionally kill” any person, until the secular people demanded a legal abortion and euthanasia practice. There is currently a shortage of healthcare professionals in all critical areas and it is impossible to attract the best future students because many have totally rejected the idea of “intentionally Killing” a person (healthcare consumer).

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You can *feel* however you want.

          Your feelings NO LONGER allow you the *privilege* of violating another person’s civil rights merely because otherwise your feelings will be hurt.

          Privilege does not take priority over rights, and while being unhappy at equality is a right, ACTING on it is NOT.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I am not hurting my feeling by “intentionally killing” a person with a legal consent/contract, but I’d be hurting the pregnant mother and her baby via the procedure of an abortion. The unborn baby are denied their human right to life, so please spare me your lecture on “human rights.” If you truely believed in the idea of “equality,” then the baby would have the same right as their mother to have a life.

        • DingoJack

          And does your sister’s skin tag get the same rights? It too is just a clump of cells.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          The legal idea that sex is now male, female or “other” when there is no scientific evidence of zz chromosomes/gametes, means that a variant from the norm of male and female chromosomes/gametes has now lead to people being identified as “intersex,” and this can be liken to my daughter’s skin tag now identifying her hand as “unspecified hand, inter-hand or non-binary hand, rather than her skin tag being identified as an abnormality which could be surgically removed.

        • DingoJack

          ZZ gametes are found in male birds, some moths & butterflies, some reptiles & some crustacea. So not unknown to science.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          A pregnancy is an abnormality, too, or women would be constantly pregnant.

          You’re not very good at this, are you?

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          Not all women are fertile.

        • DingoJack

          The very reason why fertility is an irrelevancy when it comes to marriage! Oops, there goes your argument!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Interesting how you CHANGE THE SUBJECT when it gets uncomfortable.

          And since I don’t subscribe to the idea that women should be forced to be slaves of pregnancies, abortion isn’t an issue.

          YOUR KIND love ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws…and what could be more ‘Your Ground’ than a person’s uterus? If the pregnant person considers the pregnancy an invader, YOUR KIND should *laud* a violent end to the squatter.

        • DingoJack

          The definition of murder gives various situations where killing is not murder.
          A simple definition: ‘Unlawfully taking another persons life with malice aforethought, without mitigating circumstances’.
          A soldier killing another soldier on the battlefield isn’t murder – it’s not unlawful. (Neither are abortions in some jurisdictions)
          Euthanising a dog isn’t murder – dogs aren’t people. (Neither are foetuses, BTW).
          Killing someone who jumps in front of your vehicle isn’t murder – no malice aforethought (ie: lack of intent)
          Mitigating circumstance include, but aren’t limited to, reasonable fear, protection of others, self preservation, not being in ones right mind & various other cases. Some of these apply to abortion, I’ll let you figure out which all by yourself.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,

          The Victorian government has never explained how a legal consent/contract based on an informed decision makes the “intentional killing” of a person, no longer the criminal activity of murder. This means a legal consent/contract with the state removes morality such as “murder” because medical doctors/nurses are forced to have “state’s choice” as they must participate in a legal abortion practice. This means, that the Nazis would have got away with killing the Jews if they had got them to sign a legal consent/contract based on an informed decision. The Victorian government/government authorities have got away with convincing thousands of pregnant mothers to “intentionally kill” her unborn baby with their legal consent/contract by claiming “this act will protect their mind.” Communist countries like China have removed “people choice” with “State’s choice” to kill without a legal consent/contract because the government has removed the morality of “murder” to suit themselves.

        • DingoJack

          Is removing a skin tag murder? Did you need someone to explain to you why or why not?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Personhood is irrelevant.

          Nobody has the right to demand use of another person’s organs, and in the US, that’s codified in the Supreme Court case McFall v. Shimp. In fact, the case states that consent may even be withdrawn after initially being offered, so consent is a continually required condition.

          Hence, EVEN IF THE FETUS WAS A PERSON, which I don’t concede, it still has no right to use the pregnant person’s uterus without consent.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack, How does the Nazis killing Jews under german laws fit into your idea that it’s not unlawful. There are countries which have established bad laws, especially regarding “intentionally killing” people with or without a legal consent/contract.

        • DingoJack

          So Jewish people are to you clumps of 128 or so undifferentiated cells without nerves, brains or viability outside their mothers — racist much?

        • Sheryl

          Are the Jewish people any different to the terminally ill patients who are fully human and deserve dignity and life?

        • DingoJack

          “A medical doctor isn’t an artist…”
          Bwhaha! Tell that to a Plastic Surgeon! (Or a Neurologist, or…)
          “… Victorian government has only given them “State’s choice” to participate in a legal abortion practice.”
          Really? The aforementioned are in the business of abortions now are they? What about Dermatologists, Gerontologists, Virologists, Rheumatologists, Oncologists, EN&T, Orthopaedic specialists…? All abortionists now are they?

        • lady_black

          Bon Jovi isn’t a public accommodation, and never has been. He has the right to sing or not sing, as he chooses.
          Now, if he retired from the band and offered his services as a wedding singer, he couldn’t turn down singing at a wedding that wasn’t two white people having a religious ceremony.
          You are discussing two totally different business models, and trying to conflate the two.

        • Natureboi

          this doesn’t mean I have any human right to force him to sing Christian Carols for me that goes against his wishes/conscience

          LOGIC FALLACY ALERT.

          Christian wedding cake makers already offer to make wedding cakes for the public in the public market place subject to government ordinances.

          If Jovi doesn’t already offer to sing Christmas carols, he is free to not do so for anyone.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, If I used your line of thinking then a baker makes baked goods for everyone, and if they don’t offer to bake same-sex wedding cakes, then they’re free to not offer them to anyone because this would be true discrimination against a “gay” person/s.

        • Natureboi

          Refusing to create wedding cakes for gay customers only because they are gay is bigotry and discrimination.

        • DingoJack

          Or the baker could open a ‘by appointment only’/ ‘by subscription’/ ‘by recommendation only’ private baking club — then discriminate to their heart’s content! The law couldn’t prevent them.

        • Natureboi

          Not offering to make wedding cake at all is not discrimination. It’s free business practice.

          If a baker offers wedding cakes to the public, he/she must take all comers.

          If you offer a specific item for sale, you cannot discriminate.

        • lady_black

          There is no such thing as a “same sex wedding cake,” you idiot. There are only cake designs that various bakers may, or may not offer. If you offer wedding cakes as a part of your service, than you have no right to refuse to bake one for me, so long as I come up with the fee you charge. And it matters neither whether I’m getting married at all, to anyone, or to whom I am getting married. You do not need to know, and nobody cares what you think.
          If you don’t offer this service, then you can turn down anyone and everyone.

        • DingoJack

          Bon Jovi* isn’t running a public convenience.
          —-
          * it’s shame you didn’t use George Michael as an example — the jokes would have written themselves.

        • lady_black

          There need be nothing on top. Some people don’t want it, and others want to provide their own, not some tacky plastic figurines.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Imagine this that “wedding” cakes were only identified with a man-woman on-top and same-sex partners were forced to purchase them.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Why imagine that?

          It’s totally irrelevant, and only is posited to frantically create a grain of sand on which to base your otherwise fatuous and hateful argument.

        • Natureboi

          Your idea of “pair-bonding marriage” would include a parent-child marriage, brother and sister marriage etc.

          Wrong.
          Children cannot give legal consent.
          Sibling marriage is prohibited due to consanguinity issues.

          Your slippery slope argument is meaningless and nothing but an irrelevant distraction reeking of desperation, as you have no rational reason to prohibit gay marriage.

          Interesting how you omitted polygamy from your slippery slope argument.

          Polygamy is allowed in the Bible.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, The Australian Marriage Law between 2 people no longer includes the criteria of sex/sexual intercourse, so your claim of “consanguinity issues” between siblings is no longer an issue. This means a civil registered marriage is now only a legal union between 2 people. You’re a hypocrite to discriminate against muslims’ chid marriages, and many American and Australian states have allowed child marriages or children over the age of 16 years. Australian does allow more tan one legal partners ( polygamy) as Barnaby Joice is legally married to his wife with 4 children, as well as he has a legal defacto (marriage) to his partner with child.

        • Natureboi

          How is any of this related to same-sex marriage?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          You are completely right that my church marriage certificate for a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) has nothing to do with the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people which has been particularly designed for a same-sex marriage.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          As usual, you’re purposely setting up a strawman because reality doesn’t agree with you.

          ALLOWS FOR same-sex marriage is not the same as REQUIRES same-sex marriage.

          Get that through your theocratic thick skull.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Of course, we could go back to the REALLY old ‘more godly’ days. That would deprive YOU of:
          – The right to vote
          – The right to own property
          – A chance to have an independent job or career

          It would IMPRESS UPON you:
          – The status of *being* property of some male (father/husband/son/pimp/etc)
          – As property, having no right to refuse sex or ANYthing that your male owner ordered of you or forced upon you (medical experiments, anyone???)

          And don’t TRY to tell me that ‘godly’ men wouldn’t do that…because headlines ALL OVER THE FUCKING WORLD show that to be a blatant lie.

        • Natureboi

          How has allowing same-sex marriage affected man-woman marriage?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I have explained this multiple times on this blog site.

        • Natureboi

          It does not change or affect man-woman marriage.

          You still have all the rights, benefits and protections.
          Inclusion of same-sex couples does not affect man-woman marriage.

          There is NO TANGIBLE EFFECT.

        • DingoJack

          The marriage act never mentioned intercourse. It was about marriage. The two aren’t linked.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          The civil registered marriage practice has changed from recognising religious marriages to now between 2 people.

        • Natureboi

          The civil registered marriage practice has changed from recognising religious marriages to now between 2 people.

          Is your marriage no longer viewed as being “religious?”

          Was it ever viewed as a “religious marriage” in the first place?
          Please go fetch your marriage license and copy the part that states your marriage is strictly a “religious marriage” and post it here.

          I am dying to see this.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I am not that stupid to post on-line my church marriage certificate. You can look up the NSW or any other state public marriage registry to find out that an authorised minister of religion of the Church can give a married couple a marriage certificate, but this isn’t their legal state marriage certificate because it doesn’t have a number on it.

        • Natureboi

          Why do you oppose same-sex marriage?

        • DingoJack

          … or, for the vast majority, civil celebrant. Oops, there goes your argument!
          [BTW – it’s irrelevant because the marriage is registered either way by BDM].

        • DingoJack

          The Australian government never recognised religious marriages (well not unless you’ve been married for over 180 years, at least).
          Legally religious magic spells or whatever are your choice — it’s signing that certificate that makes you married. That cert gets filed at BDM.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack, You should read the NSW Marriage Registry history as it is on-line, and you will fine that the only records of births, deaths and marriages were held in the Christian churches’ registries from 1788-1856. Therefore, your comment would means that all those people only had a church marriage and not a civil registered marriage. Australian Christian churches have a very strong case to hand-in their marriage licences and only do “wedding ceremonies” for man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) according to their faith/rituals, and this practice is now happening throughout Australia. It may soon become impossible to find any Christian church is Australia which will have a marriage that is recognised by the state. If Christians want their names and details recorded on a public marriage registry like sex workers and sex offenders, then they will be forced to organise this practice for themselves, but Christians who understand the true meaning of laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries will completely ignore/reject a civil registered marriage practice.

        • Natureboi

          The Australian Marriage Law between 2 people no longer includes the criteria of sex/sexual intercourse,

          Then what’s the problem of gay marriage?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, I have told you numerous times, that this new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people has been created for gays, but at the same time this has given all man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) their natural right to ignore/reject the 2017 amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce law.

        • DingoJack

          Bwhahahahaha!
          And when your partner (presumably a man?) wants a younger, fitter, blonder model – how’s that gonna work out for ya?
          He’s still gonna need to divorce you if he wants the all the benefits of marriage with wifey number two. Or be prosecuted as a bigamist. One way or the other.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Barnaby Joice has already shown Australians that it is perfectly legal to have a civil registered marriage and children, as well as a partner with child. Centrelink gives legal marriage benefits to all partnered relationships whether they have a legal consent/contract or not. Most Australians know that a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony which comes with access to a legal divorce are all a big money spinner for the Australian economy. Time to get out of such rubbish.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. Until Barnaby divorces his current wife, his girlfriend has exactly zero official recognition.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack, Barnaby Joices partner Vicky isn’t recognised as his girlfriend in Australia, and they’re treated by Centrelink as a defacto (married) relationship.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. Centrelink only recognises one relationship at a time.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Centrelink is more complicated than your comment.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. Try again.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          In Australia, the majority of people don’t automatically assume that 2 people of the same-sex who share the same household are in a same-sex relationship, because most are only house mates. This means that same-sex partners are consistently having to show evidence of their relationship and this will most likely to happen until they become the majority as more single people live on their own, but my husband and I are instantly recognised as married/partnered/defacto and I don’t need to produce my church marriage certificate. Australians having individual taxation which allows people to include their spouse/partner/ defacto. It is extremely likely in Australia that our taxation system will change significantly in the coming years as more people identify as “single,” and taxation and benefits will go with each individual person, and household/family structures become irrelevant.

        • Natureboi

          my husband and I are instantly recognised as married/partnered/defacto and I don’t need to produce my church marriage certificate. Australians having individual taxation which allows people to include their spouse/partner/ defacto. It is extremely likely in Australia that our taxation system will change significantly in the coming years as more people identify as “single,” and taxation and benefits will go with each individual person, and household/family structures become irrelevant.

          What is the purpose of denying gay couples these perks, incentives, protections and advantages?
          What is accomplished by denying gay couples these perks, incentives, protections and advantages?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          I don’t view civil registered marriage as a perk, incentive, protection nor advantage. If I could identify myself as a “single” person, then I would be entitled to legal government benefits which I’m currently legally denied because the government takes into consideration my husband’s income/assets etc. There is no incentive to have a civil registered marriage in Australia, and this maybe the reason the practice has significantly decreased over the years. I believe my husband protects me, and I never want my husband to be forced by the state to give me money/assets etc. If my husband doesn’t want to give me money out of his own free will, then I don’t want it.

        • Natureboi

          I don’t view civil registered marriage as a perk, incentive, protection nor advantage.

          Are there perks, incentives, protections or advantages to civil registered marriage?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, The civil registered marriage is regulated by government, government authorities and the courts, so how much do you trust these institutions to give a civil registered marriage perks, incentives, protections and advantages? My 97 year old german aunt told me to “never trust the government,” and I believe her words and not the government’s words. They locked her parents and extended family in a concentration camp outside Melbourne during World War 1, and their only crime committed was their german surname was recorded on a public marriage registry. The government took their land from them and many other belongs, and they had to convince government authorities that the germans had no control over the area that they came from in order to get out. There was no court case as they was “guilty” until they could prove their innocence. My german forefathers hadn’t experienced any problem living in Australia for 50 years, until World War 1 then the predominately British government decided they didn’t trust the germans including those who identified as “Australian.”

        • Natureboi

          You are free to distrust the government.

          You are not free to remove governmental protections from gay people.

          That is evil and selfish.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          You’re thinking that gay people don’t exist unless they have a secular marriage between 2 people which is ridiculous. I can’t believe that LGBTIAQ+ activists are so insecure about themselves and their relationship/s that they have demanded the state to regulate and punish them by using government authorities to control them on a public registry, like sex workers and sex offender, as well as the courts having the power to punish them with an abiusive no fault divorce including legal fees/court costs, court proceedings etc, Whilst all man-woman married people have been forced by the state to be regulated and punished for their marriage/family breakdown. This means that same-sex partners aren’t equal to man-woman married people because the law is used in the opposite way, and supports my arguments that the state has lost their authority to regulate/punish man-woman relationships and their families because the secular marriage practice in Australia doesn’t deter nor prevent marriage and family breakdown.

        • Natureboi

          You’re thinking that gay people don’t exist unless they have a secular marriage

          Wrong. Marriage is a mere option.

          I can’t believe that LGBTIAQ+ activists are so insecure about themselves and their relationship/s that they have demanded the state to regulate and punish them by using government authorities to control them on a public registry

          None of your business.
          You have NO SAY as to what legal contracts others can choose to enter into.
          You are getting more and more absurd with each post you make.

          Secular marriage does not cause “family breakdown.”
          Bad parents cause this.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “In Australia, the majority of people don’t automatically assume that 2 people of the same-sex who share the same household are in a same-sex relationship, because most are only house mates. ”

          Once upon a time, Australians of European extraction considered the Native Australians and Native Australian culture to be inferior and wrote it into the laws.

          It’s called *progress*….try some, you regressive genetic mistake.

        • lady_black

          I do not believe you.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          I understand that you find this hard to believe, but this is how muslim families in Australia can get benefits for the wife, and their any other wives are treated as defacto (marriage) with any children.

        • lady_black

          So bigamy is legal in Australia? Yeah. I don’t believe you. We have lots of Muslim people in the United States. Like anyone else, they can have only one legal spouse at a time.
          Now Muslims, and Fundamentalist Mormons are free to cohabitate with as many people as they want, and to refer to them as “spiritual wives” if that’s what floats their boat. Legally speaking, they are NOT his wives. They are just women he sleeps with, and they aren’t entitled to anything.
          I think you confuse that with the concept of common law marriage. Where common law marriage IS recognized, you can still only have one, just the same as if you married legally, and a divorce is required before you can marry someone else.
          Common law marriage is no longer recognized here, because it’s just more trouble than it’s worth.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          The Barnaby Joyce case clearly showed evidence that he now has a civil registered marriage to his wife with 4 daughters, as well as a legal defacto (marriage) with his partner with child. So the meaning of “bigamy” has effectively become irrelevant in Australia. No one is forced to have a civil registered marriage anymore in Australia because the Christian/Catholic/Orthodox/Jew and Muslim beliefs systems have a different meaning of gender, sex, sexual intercourse, marriage, marry and family compared to secular laws. It isn’t a sin not to have a civil registered marriage in Australia. However, It is crime of bigamy to have two civil registered marriages or a civil registered marriage and a civil partnership registration, but a civil registered marriage and a defacto (marriage) isn’t a crime of bigamy. Many Religions aren’t against the practice of polygamy including Bigamy, but the crime of bigamy was introduced in secular law for other secular reasons.

          When I had babies the Australia government gave a baby bonus and this benefit had nothing to do with being married or single. I think single people are demonised in America more than Australia, as people referred to them as “unmarried,” as if being married is the preferred status. Maybe this is the reason a civi registered marriage has been pushed so much more than in Australia because the government, government authorities and courts are profiting from the cash cow “wedding” price tag and the lawyers/courts “love” making money out of marriage/family breakdown. America is a very different place when compared to Australia, as Australia has many public hospitals, schools, welfare and legal services which can be completely free of charge because taxpayers demand and want these services. The day is quickly coming when the majority will identify as “single” and those who are legally married will wish they could get all the special benefits for being single. Grass is always greener on the other side. American and Australian governments both penalise a disabled person who would lose their government benefits by having a legal marriage to a person who could financially support them, but this person can still be married in the eyes of the God/church. However, Australians have introduced a national disability insurance scheme to help give more financial support to the disable regardless of them being married/partnered/defacto or single.

        • Natureboi

          Allowing same-sex marriage doesn’t encourage or legalize bigamy.

          This is just another irrelevant slippery slope argument that has no weight.

          Keep trying, Sheryl, you have yet to provide ONE RATIONAL REASON to prohibit same-sex marriage.

          Just ONE.

          Side note:
          Barnaby Joyce was against same-sex marriage.

          You are demonizing a demonizer.
          A demonizer who shares your demonization.

          That’s ironic.

        • lady_black

          You are talking nonsense, and I have nothing more to say to you. Unmarried and single mean exactly the same thing. In the USA, no one is forced to be married, either. I have already told you this. But you cannot claim marriage benefits for multiple spouses to whom you aren’t married. I keep telling you this. And you babble back about “baby bonus” as though that has anything to do with the subject of marriage.
          Once AGAIN, I do not believe you. Bigamy is the crime of having more than one LEGAL spouse, simultaneously. In the USA, you can have as many “de facto” relationships as you want, and as many families as you want. Your partner(s) is/are STILL NOT your legal spouse. Nobody gives a damn about the eyes of your gawd, or the eyes of the church. It’s the government that matters. END OF DISCUSSION.

        • Natureboi

          Gays marrying has no effect on your “flesh” marriage.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          Not liking a law does NOT give you the privilege to ignore it, unless you’re willing to suffer the consequences of being a criminal.

          And YOUR KIND are too cowardly to accept consequences.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          In Australia, There are laws regarding abortion, euthanasia, marriage between 2 people, no fault divorce, prostitution etc that governments/government authorities/courts don’t force all people to participate in, so people have their legal right to ignore/reject it in order to have a live birth, man-woman “one flesh” (marriage), intact family, nature death etc. However, medical doctors are have only “state’s choice” to participate in a legal abortion in the state of Victoria, and people are criminalised punished with fines/jail if they deter/prevent a pregnant mother from “intentionally killing” her unborn baby within 150 metres to a legal abortion clinic.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You mean removing an invasive, unwanted parasite.

          And doctors realize that when they begin training…doctors who don’t want to can leave the profession, or leave Australia.

          As for forcing a woman to remain in a hostage situation (which is what an unwanted pregnancy IS), that SHOULD be harshly punished by law.

          YOUR KIND do NOT have the privilege of ignoring laws you find unpleasant if they’re compulsory upon you.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          There are medical doctors and registered nurses who are leaving Australia or the profession because they don’t want to be force by “state’s choice” to intentionally kill” any person with a legal consent/contract. There are heaps of jobs for these healthcare professionals in Australia, but the healthcare services have no option but to “attract/steal” other medical doctors and registered nurses particularly from developing countries whom can least afford this crime.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There are probably also medical doctors and registered nurses who wouldn’t want to treat any Native Australians out of racial prejudice.

          Same rules apply. If you don’t want to accept the responsibilities of a position or status, don’t take on the position or status.

          End of discussion.

        • DingoJack

          “Sibling marriage is prohibited due to consanguinity issues.”
          As expressly mentioned in The Marriage Act (1961, as admended).

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack, You refer to the Marriage Act in 1961 which doesn’t include same-sex marriage, so where does the 2017 amended Marriage Act between 2 people define sex/sexual intercourse or any sexual activity?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND have to learn there’s such a thing as *extension*, which augments without replacing what’s currently in place, concerning laws as well as everything else you’ve mentioned here.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Sheryl, here’s the problem in graphic form. What YOUR KIND see as bad v. good vs. what GOOD people see as bad v. good are very different:

          (from Libby Anne’s Love, Joy, Feminism)

          https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/166/2012/08/Sex.png

        • Pofarmer

          I saw a Fox news headline this morning about allowing Christians to “Serve their Neighbors Authentically.” Apparently, being a bigot and being seen to be a bigot is now to be desired

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Link, plz?

        • Pofarmer
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Thank you 🙂

        • lady_black

          Bisexuals have always had equal rights to marriage. Now they just have a wider variety of potential spouses to choose from. Think about that for a moment.

        • Kodie

          You’re, like, super-paranoid that the law could invalidate your marriage. I don’t know about Australia, but in the United States, the venue and the officiant hardly matter. Clergy are given status as some kind of courtesy, but the legality of marriage is entirely civil. You can get married in a church by a clergy person as much as you want, but if you don’t get the license from the clerk and then submit it with signatures, you aren’t legally married. The church can deny gay people marriage too. They can’t legally define anything and aren’t the legal definition of anything, but you seem really worried that your church-sanctioned marriage will not be legally recognized by a government. Why do you care what the government tells you when all you care is what the church tells you? You keep referring to the bible and god as though there lies the legal definition of marriage and impose it on everyone. You blather on and on about doctors and nurses, same-sex couples, one flesh, and divorce.

          Why do you think you have to impose your beliefs on what the government does, and why do you think the government will take away your right to marry a man, or remain legally married to a man who was your husband before they laughed in your face and told you none of it was real? What the fuck paranoid bullshit your religion worries you about, and you think any of us should care what you’re worried about? You just sound disturbed, paranoid, brainwashed, and obsessed about the mechanism of sexual activity to the point of perversion. Is that true Christianity? Is that what it’s like? I love how Christians try to be someone nobody would want to be like, and that’s supposed to convince us that you’re right.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Because she still wants the government benefits of marriage, while being disgusted that she has to use the same government procedure to get those benefits as same sex couples.

        • Sheryl

          Jack Baynes, Sanwichmaker,
          I didn’t create the rules that allowed defacto (married) people a legal right to government marriage benefits without them having a legal consent/contract, so it is obvious that a legal consent/contract to the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people isn’t the criteria for legal government marriage benefits in Australia.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          A marriage license IS a ‘legal consent/contract’, as you put it.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyredWordBombThrower,
          Australians don’t have a marriage licence, so a legal consent/contract would be my NSW Marriage Certificate with a number on it and I have never been forced to purchase it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I call bullshit.

          I just looked up the schedule of fees, and a marriage license is $58.

          The schedule is here:

          https://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Pages/about-us/fees-products-services.aspx

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          There is no marriage licence in Australia for a civil registered marriage, but Australians have to pay for a legal state marriage certificate.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie,
          I only have a church marriage certificate and I have never purchased my NSW Marriage Certificate from the NSW public marriage registry because this isn’t my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and I never got married for any legal government marriage benefits. I never needed my NSW Marriage Certificate to change my name nor for taxation, passport etc, and I could get my name changed by de-pole if I never choice to purchase my NSW marriage certificate. I don’t need nor want my NSW Marriage Certificate for a civil registered marriage. I am not legally married to a man because there is no legal definition of “man” nor “woman” in any laws, regulations, guidelines nor public registries in Australia. My man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) has now gained total “independence” from the 2017 amended marriage Act, Family law including no fault divorce law, and my man-woman “one flesh” relationship and my intact family are completely free to not be regulated by government authorities nor punished by courts. I would never choose to be regulated by government authorities nor punished with any legal fees/court costs for a legal divorce. The Australian Federal Parliament doesn’t include my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) nor intact family, and it can’t deter/ prevent marriage/family breakdown. Therefore, I’m not imposing my belief on the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people because I don’t excluded my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) nor intact family.

          I never made an informed decision about the 2017 amended Marriage Act, so I don’t have a valid legal consent to the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people. This is the unintended consequence for changing the definition of a civil registered marriage by removing the criteria of sex/sexual intercourse which is the exclusive union between one man and one woman for life. The Australian government allows my freedom to not purchase my NSW marriage certificate as this isn’t my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage). You believe, the state marries you in a legal marriage ceremony, as I believe my husband and I marry each other by consummating the marital act of sexual intercourse in private, and the church/minister can only witness our “wedding” ceremony to a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath. I am not pretending that my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) is the same as your civil registered marriage between 2 people, so the Australia law can regulate your civil registered marriage, as I have been easily self-regulating my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and intact family. You can have the legal status of “partner” and I’ll have my “independence” or “ind” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act, Family law including a no fault divorce law.

        • DingoJack

          I’ve got news for you Sheryl — BDM knows you’re married. Your priest narked on you! (Well, in fact, the whole ‘church’ bit is merely optional, signing the marriage certificate makes it a marriage. Has done so at least as far back as The Marriage Act of 1961 (as amended). So you narked on yourself – good going genius).

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Your funny, because the church I got married in is on a Hill in a paddock, as the town was never built, and this church was closed a number of years ago and it never had a priest.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Doesn’t matter.

          YOU claimed, elsewhere on this page, that you HAVE a marriage license (even if you apparently lied and said it was free).

          THAT LICENSE means you’re registered, even if you were married buck-ass nekkid in the middle of a stream.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          Australians don’t have a marriage licence, only people who want to be civil marriage celebrants/ priests etc need a marriage licence in order to conduct civil registered marriages.

        • lady_black

          It doesn’t matter. You are not legally married. Let me explain to you how this works… Government doesn’t really “regulate” your marriage. You’re free to conduct your own marriage as you wish. Live together or don’t. Have children or don’t. Have one breadwinner or two. Any way of conducting my own legal marriage is fine, so long as my husband and I both like it that way.
          Government serves to pick up the pieces when a marriage doesn’t work out. That’s why, when you’re legally married, you go to court to divorce, and not to your preacher.
          When one is not legally married, that frees your “spouse” to legally marry someone else, without the need to divorce you, and if everything is in one person’s name, the law considers it that person’s property and you have no legal rights regarding it. Your children will likely have rights to be financially supported, if they are minors. YOU will not. Not only won’t you be entitled to support, but any assets won’t be considered marital assets. If the man owns the home, he can legally kick out his ersatz “wife” with no more concern than any other tenant. If he dies, you will not be his legal heir. Relatives can come out of the woodwork and take from you whatever you worked for as a couple, and you will have no legal leg to stand on. In the USA, you would be in the position of being unable to collect Social Security survivor benefits, and your children will be put in the position of having to prove a biological relationship to the deceased.
          These are only a few of the protections people like you deny yourself for the sake of your superstitious beliefs. The intelligent people WILL protect themselves. If you’re OK with being taken advantage of, far be it from me to suggest that you are wrong. But don’t come crying to society when you get rear-ended. You could have protected yourself legally, and you chose not to. Sleep in the bed you made.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          I have my own money/assets/house/career, and my husband and I both have a living will, and I don’t ever want legal government marriage benefits because I never got married for this reason. My ex-tended family would support me, and I don’t expect society to give me a cent, as I have been giving lots of my money to charities that need it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And you can’t spell worth spit.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I do need a new Keyboard.

        • Natureboi

          What does “one flesh” mean?”

        • Sheryl

          Naturebol, refer to Matt 19: 4-6 which refers to the story of Adam & Eve in Genesis of Gd united man and woman as “one flesh” (sexual intercourse) in order to fill the earth with people.

        • Natureboi

          That’s only about procreation.
          There is no mention of legal marriage.
          Marriage has no procreative mandate.

          I see you are Jewish.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          The Bible doesn’t require Christians to have a legal (civil) marriage, “one flesh” means man-woman marry themselves using their male-female reproductive system, and this doesn’t always lead to having a baby.

        • Natureboi

          So what is the reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage?

        • Natureboi

          Are you legally secularly married?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, Yes, I have a civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and healthcare consumer because we have made a lifelong commitment to be faithful to love and take care for our healthcare and wellbeing needs, and our civi registered marriage means that we can exchange money for services without paying any tax. My husband will never divorce me because he would have to start paying for professional healthcare services which I have provided him over the years.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          What YOUR KIND call it, and what the *government* would call it, are two different things.

          And it seems YOU are fine with it because you claim to be in the power seat of the relationship (providER of health care)

          Do you have the *first* idea how callous & amoral you’re presenting yourself to be?

        • Natureboi

          Why did you marry your husband?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          The reason I married my husband was that he fixed a hose for me, got my answering machine to work and was extremely good with helping me with my computer. I thought I could do with a man around the home I owned, and if I never saw a need for a man, I would have never got married.

        • Natureboi

          So it was NOT only for flesh-sex and baby making?

          You just advocated for same-sex marriage!

          WELL SAID!

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I described briefly to you what lead to me to make a lifelong, faithful commitment to a man-woman “one flesh’ (marriage), but this isn’t a civil registered marriage. The government decides which people and their relationships they want government authorities to regulate (control) and courts to punish because their behaviours and practices harm the public and society, and if you believe that same-sex partners should be regulated by the state for this reason I have just mentioned, then you should advocate for same-sex marriage.

        • Natureboi

          How do you benefit from not allowing gay couples to marry?

        • Kodie

          Wait a fucking second, moron. Do you think if a gay couple can get married, then a man and a woman can’t get married because you think the government changed the definition to “you have to be gay to get legally married now”? I don’t know what you mean by “one flesh” at all. Despite your magic chant that it be so, two people (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, doctor/nurse) who marry do not become one person. Your superstitious definitions do not make your marriage to a man any different. If you and your husband are the same person, let’s see what he has to say – log him in and have him see your bizarre obsessive comments.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          Genuine Christians attempt to follow God/Jesus/HolySpirit word (Bible), and God’s intention for men and women were they would live in a lifelong, faithful man-woman “one flesh”
          (marriage) in order to fill the earth with people, such as the example of Adam and Eve’s “one flesh” (marriage) in the beginning of creation. Therefore, it was never God’s intention for a man to have a sexual relationship with a man, and a woman to have a sexual relationship with a woman. However, sin entered the world by man and woman (Adam & Eve) who were deceived into disobeying God’s command to not eat forbidden fruit, as God stated that they would surely die. Therefore, I can never advocate for a same-sex marriage because this goes directly against God’s intention for men and women.

          Since I’m a sinner which means I don’t always obey God’s word, nor do I behaviour in a way that isn’t pleasing to him, then all the reasons I decided to marry my husband aren’t pure in thought/action. However, the desire for my husband and I to be in a sexual relationship with each other which could possibly result in children, then we knew we had to be married in the eye’s of God, church and family (not law), and we wanted the blessing and support of our church for our marriage/family. Therefore, the State/government, government authority regulate (control) us as a legal “couple,” and if our marriage/family breakdown, then the Family court will want to punish us in a no fault divorce with legal fees, court costs, brutal lengthy court case, child support regulated by Department of human services etc, but we can ignore/reject the no fault divorce law/practice.

          I have spent enough time on this blog site answering people’s questions, but I have to return to my real work, as well as sound more time with my family, friends and community. However, I have realised that the true LGBTIAQ + activists use the word “gay” sarcastically. This means that these people are “happily excited” to attack, label and demonise anybody that disagrees with their way of feeling, thinking, behaving etc. Secular leaders such as Pol Pot were all guided by their own feelings, thoughts, behaviours and practices which is the real Fairy in the Sky. They have no true understanding of good/evil/wickedness etc. Pol Pot thought he was doing good, because if he thought it was evil/wickedness, then he wouldn’t have done what he did. The LGBTIAQ+ activists have confused the english language to the point of chaos. I’ve heard a “man” been defined with penis, vagina, breast, chest, long hair, short hair, prostate, cervix, dress, trousers, shirts, mensuration/periods, birth, ejaculation, sperm, eggs, ovaries, he, she, her, him, mother, father, as well as using men and women’s toilets, as well as the other 150+ pronouns. This means that a man has been reduced to a “person” because now it is impossible to discriminate a man from a woman. How did Americans create such madness? I believe too many Americans have spent far too long at Disneyland believing this was the real world.

        • Natureboi

          Your obsession with sex is creepy beyond belief.
          You may not advocate for something your slavery and rape condoning child murdering God allegedly wants society to do, but you have no right using that imaginary myth to advocate against LGBT rights.

          You need to mind your own damn business.

          Unless you can prove your slavery and rape condoning child murdering God exists, you hold an empty sack of vacuous bigotry and nothing more.

          Your anti-LGBT bigotry accomplishes nothing but makes people like you and the God you have selected out of thousands look like sex obsessed creeps.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          Marriage without sex is like fish without water for the majority of men and women around the world and over the centuries.

        • Natureboi

          Irrelevant to allowing same-sex marriage to be legal.

          There is NO sexual mandate is secular marriage laws.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So what?

          Australian *secular* law does, else you may be dumped like a piece of spoiled offal at the will of the more powerful / richer person in the relationship.

          Oh, and what you’re talking about is *fucking*, which does NOT necessarily include any emotional bond component.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I don’t have that problem of a more powerful/richer person in our relationship, so maybe the government/government authorities and courts could detect/prevent/criminalise these types of relationships in order to protect the public and society from harm.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          One word: Y-E-T.

          And I’ve *seen* YOUR KIND in action…and you WILL demand special, privileged treatment to succor you as the full impact of your law-evading idiocy falls upon you.

        • Natureboi

          I don’t have that problem of a more powerful/richer person in our relationship,

          Oh, but you do indeed.

          If you adhere to religious principles, then YES, you DO have a more powerful/richer person in your relationship.

          maybe the government/government authorities and courts could detect/prevent/criminalise these types of relationships in order to protect the public and society from harm.

          The government already does protect its citizens from harm.
          How?
          By keeping religion out of the equation.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          I don’t think you understand Christians/Catholics/Orthodox Christians/Jews/Muslims or any other religious person. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit doesn’t command any person to be more powerful/ richer in their relationship in order that the other person suffers. The Australian governments are full of people who identify with a religion, and our Prime Minister Scott Morrison has recently declared he is going to protect Australians’ religious freedom. Therefore, your comments on “keeping religion out of the equation” is completely inaccurate in Australian politics. If the Australian government wanted to start keeping religion our of secular law, then they would start by making civil registered marriages separated from all religious marriages such as man-woman “one flesh” (marriage), polygamous marriage etc. This would means that secular people can’t force their idea of civil registered marriage onto Christians/Catholics/Orthodox/ Jews/ Muslims and other religions and their places of worship. This may be the outcome of the Ruddock review into Religious freedom which the Australian Federal Parliament will debate into the new year.

        • Natureboi

          Secular people aren’t forcing anything on the religious.

          Are you the Kettle or the Pot?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          The majority of secular people in Australia have now forced the minority of secular people to have a civil registered marriage, because the minority of secular people are now prohibited from having a civil marriage celebrant declare their marriage is an exclusive union between one man and one woman for life, because now all Australian civil marriage celebrants must declare that the Australian Marriage Law is between 2 people. The means that these minority of secular married couples aren’t legally treated the same as Christians and other religious people, because the 2017 amended Marriage Law allows Christian churches and religious institutions their legal right to ignore this Marriage Law between 2 people by not declaring this in their “wedding ceremony,” as the minister/priest and other religious leaders have a legal right to have a marriage licence in order to marry a consenting man and woman under the customs/ rituals and beliefs of the church and faiths.

        • Natureboi

          The majority of secular people in Australia have now forced the minority of secular people to have a civil registered marriage,

          You are under NO government mandate to marry.
          If you don’t like the 2 people description, that’s YOUR problem.
          Other than that, secular marriage is exactly the same for heterosexuals as it always was.
          You are NOT treated any differently under marriage law.

        • Brisley Bear

          If you don’t want the benefits of a civil registered marriage to spoil (somehow) your religious penis-in-vagina-only-please marriage, then don’t claim those benefits. Simple, eh?

        • Sheryl

          Brisley Bear,
          You don’t make any sense because in Australia all defacto (married) couples can choose to claim legal government marriage benefits without a legal consent/contract with the state. So your comment about a civil registered marriage and are a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) are totally irrelevant to claiming benefits in Australia. Australian legal forms have one box for married/partnered/defacto people or “couple,” so there is no discrimination between the status of married/unmarried. I have never experienced in my life where a legal form discriminates the difference between married and an unmarried couple.

        • Brisley Bear

          You’re the one who suggested separating civil registered marriages from your preferred religious marriages.

          Did you expect religious marriages to be the ones who got the benefits after you did that?

        • Sheryl

          Brisley Bear, I haven’t been the first person to suggested separating secular marriage practice between 2 people from man-woman “one flesh” (marriage), but this is what is currently happening throughout Australia.

        • Sheryl

          Brisley Bear, In Australia all legal “couple” include married, partnered and defacto (marriage), and they can all have legal government marriage benefits, so it doesn’t matter if religious marriages are completely separated from a secular marriage practice/fantasy world between 2 people, they’re still entitled to legal government marriage benefit because a legal consent/contract with the state isn’t a requirement for benefits as a legal “couple.”

        • Natureboi

          So “one flesh” mean procreation.
          Is that it?

          What about those who don’t procreate…
          why are they allowed to marry?

        • Sheryl

          Naturebol, “one flesh” means sex/sexual intercourse using the complementary male/female reproductive system which doesn’t always lead to fertility.

        • Greg G.

          “I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs.” –Shakespeare: Othello: Act 1 Scene 1

        • eric

          …Which is another thing some conservatives would also happily criminalize (and lynch ‘the moor’ over), if they could.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re right, too, dammitsomuch 🙁

        • lady_black

          Of course it doesn’t. And straight couples ALSO practice other than penis in vagina intercourse. What’s the difference, if it doesn’t result in “fertility?”

        • Natureboi

          What does that have to do with giving gay couples rights and protections?
          What does that have to do with allowing gay couples to marry one another?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Gay partners rights, protection and a civil registered marriage are only provided by the state. in the past the state has given these things to Christians/Catholics/Orthodox/Jews and Muslims, but now Christians like myself want only natural rights and protection to sex/sexual intercourse, man-woman “one flesh” marriage and intact family because we’re self-sufficient and can self-regulate our marriage/family without state and courts interference.

        • Natureboi

          Christians like myself want only natural rights and protection to sex/sexual intercourse, man-woman “one flesh” marriage and intact family because we’re self-sufficient and can self-regulate our marriage/family without state and courts interference.

          What does your natural rights to have sex and make babies and worship the God of your choice out of thousands have to do with allowing gay couples the legal rights, perks, protections and incentives being married automatically brings?

          Are you saying that if gays can have all this, you cannot?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I believe these two things that you’ve highlighted are both completely different things, so the government, government authorities and courts will end up treating them legally as totally separate things.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND have fucked up ‘beliefs’, so you’re just flat wrong.

          If YOUR KIND want to consider them different, that’s your choice.

          Trying to prejudicially *discriminate* in your actions based on your hateful belief will earn you the criminal penalty that comes from flouting laws protecting people’s RIGHTS.

        • Natureboi

          I believe these two things that you’ve highlighted are both completely different things, so the government, government authorities and courts will end up treating them legally as totally separate things.

          What are these two things?

          1) Actual legal secular marriage.

          2) Flesh, sex marriage non-legally state recognized marriage.

          Did I get them correct?

        • Sheryl

          Not exactly, but you’re on the right path.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Her “man-woman one flesh sex marriage” is starting to remind me of Time Cube.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          …but less coherent…

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Fuck that nonsense.

          YOUR KIND will be the *first* to cry foul when, due to your flagrant flouting of the law, you find yourself in an unpleasant situation OF YOUR OWN MAKING, and will SCREAM ‘persecution’ at us for letting you swing by your own yardarm *after* hoisting yourselves on your own petard.

        • Brisley Bear

          In the past the state has recognized marriages in churches and without church involvement. This has not changed and is true even today. Now you want them to change their policy and ONLY recognize marriages that fit your definition of marriage.

          Too bad. You can’t always get what you want. But you get what you need.
          Your marriage will continue to be recognized by the government, but you’ll have to cry in your own little sad world wishing you could deny those rights to others.

        • Sheryl

          Bridley Bear, I practice my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) according to my beliefs, and I have my civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and a healthcare consumer. as this perfectly fits the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people. Therefore, I am not denying anyone their rights because this new law is currently in practice in Australia.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          You’re whining and trying to shove an irrelevance into the new marriage law. It’s two INDIVIDUAL ADULTS, and jobs have fuckall to do with it.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          Your marriage law might be “individual adults,” but the Australian Marriage Law clearly states between 2 people. You can try telling healthcare professionals and healthcare consumers that they’re not “people,” and they would laugh at you and tell you that you’re insane.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘People’ *also* doesn’t mandate any job requirement whatsoever.

          You’re not really good at this, are you?

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBomThrower,
          Your idea of “doesn’t mandate any job requirement whatsoever, as a wife never has the job of having a baby nor taking care of their children, nor does the husband has the job of providing for his family. It is obvious that American families aren’t an intact family of mother, father and their biological child/children.

        • Natureboi

          It is obvious that American families aren’t an intact family of mother, father and their biological child/children.

          WRONG.
          American families aren’t ALL “intact families” as you described. Many are, but not all.
          There are many other family constructs where there are single moms, single dads, grandparents, aunts, uncles and same-sex couples ALL RAISING CHILDREN.

          There is NO RATIONAL REASON to deny any of them rights that benefits the children in these non-traditional family constructs.

          You only do more harm than good by adhering to “tradition” when hundreds of thousands of children are being raised in non-traditional family constructs.

          You accomplish NOTHING by denying rights to same-sex couples other than harm.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Watch the movie “Instant Family,” and then you will see the future with the American “legal family.”

        • Natureboi

          Watch the movie “Instant Family,”

          There is no reason for gay couples to not be allowed to raise children.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          There isn’t a secular law, regulation, guideline nor public registry in America nor Australia which encourages nor promotes a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) with a nuclear family (intact family) of mother, father and their child/children and or adopted child/children. Therefore, it is very common in both of these western societies to witness broken-down marriages/families, and a significant increase in domestic violence.

        • Natureboi

          There isn’t a secular law, regulation, guideline nor public registry in America nor Australia which encourages nor promotes a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage)

          Prohibiting same-sex marriage doesn’t “promote” anything.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Prohibiting “oxymoron unborn neonate” and “oxymoron same-sex marriage” is promoting common sense, but for people who are insane this doesn’t make any sense.

        • Natureboi

          Gay people are insane.
          Thanks Sheryl.
          Flagged as stupid.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Why do you label “GAY people are insane?” You claimed to have a girlfriend and you never claimed to be “gay,” but some of your ideas are insane.

        • Natureboi

          Why do you label “GAY people are insane?”

          YOU did.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Stop labelling “GAY people are insane,” because it is you that believes in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage,” and this crazy idea of yours is insane.

        • Natureboi

          Sheryl, YOU are the nut case in this discussion.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I would be a nut case if I believed in your “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • Natureboi

          I would be a nut case if I believed in your “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

          You are under no obligation to believe or accept anything.
          Just as I am no obligation to believe in your imaginary slavery and rape condoning child murderer.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I don’t believe in an imaginary slavery and rape condoning child murderer, as secular men fit this description.

        • Natureboi

          The God you worship is imaginary, condones slavery and rape and murdered children.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I am only familiar with your description that perfectly describes many secular males (men).

        • Natureboi

          That’s because you choose not to read your bible.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Prove to me that secular men including Atheists don’t murder, steal, rape/abuse/assault men, women and children and or keep them as slaves.

        • Natureboi

          Irrelevant to a God who professes to be a moral guide.

        • Susan

          Prove to me that secular men including Atheists don’t murder, steal, rape/abuse/assault men, women and children and or keep them as slaves.

          Define “secular”.

          Under secular law, one isn’t allowed to do any of those things.

          Prove to me that christian men are held as accountable by their own systems as secular men are held by secular law.

          For instance, the catholic church protects men who do all of those things. That is well documented.

          Of course, I know you’ll just ignore my attempts to have a discussion and repeat your screed.

          Try not to do that.

          Please answer my questions.

          The whole thing about “secular” is that no one’s religion gets to throw its weight around. They are allowed to believe unsupported assumptions in peace, until they try to force those unsupported beliefs on people who don’t share their beliefs.

          Unless you can support your beliefs, and if you want the freedom to live by beliefs you can’t support, then you should embrace “secularism”.

        • Sheryl

          Susan,
          Secular mean these people have faith in their “Fairy in the Sky” which is their “inner feelings, thoughts and voices in their head.

          What is a secular laws? Answer: An “oxymoron same-sex marriage” or civil registered people marriage,” abortion law, no fault divorce law, euthanasia law and legalised prostitution practice. God’s commandments aren’t secular laws, such as “Thou Shalt not murder,” “Thou shalt not covet another man’s wife and their property,” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” However, there are many secular people who believe these commandments are good laws in western societies.

          Men can be Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim and secular etc. I have been reading the newspaper for many years, and I have never read an article about a Christian man murdering his wife/partner/spouse and children. However, I have read plenty of reports about secular men and Muslim men held responsible for murdering their wife/partner/spouse and children. The Catholic church has publicly admitted there is a significant problem of homosexuality in the priesthood and this harmful sexual behavioural practice has lead to the horrible crime of pedophilia. All men are sinful and they have faith in a man-god (themselves), so they will all try to cover/hide their sins in the church, schools, pride centre, hospital etc. However, Christian men seek the wisdom of the true and living God in order to be a better man, husband, father and friend.

          I will never support nor protect secularism because I don’t have faith in a “Fairy in the Sky.” “To avoid tyranny, William Blackstone (1723–1780) once declared that no human law could be valid if it contradicted God’s higher laws which maintain and regulate natural human rights to life, liberty, and property.” “According to Blackstone’s biblical understanding of the rule of law,”

          ‘No human laws should be suffered to contradict [God’s] laws … Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine.’

        • DingoJack
        • David Cromie

          Marriage is just that, marriage, and within the law when duely registered. There is nothing oxymoronic about it. You are the nut case, with your moronic, meaningless, ‘one flesh’ (WTF) BS meme.

        • Sheryl

          David,
          Take your “oxymoron same-sex marriage” out of America and see how genuine it is recognised in a Muslim country that criminalises sodomy between same-sex partners.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Many heterosexual couples enjoy and practice anal sex as well…

          Or weren’t you familiar with that fact?

        • Sheryl

          HalryEyedWordBombThrower,
          Your comment is irrelevant to man-woman “one flesh” (marriage).

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not a bit.

          YOUR KIND are trying to differentiate yourself by something other than preferred behavior…and that’s doomed to failure, because the range of pleasure behaviors is so rich and varied.

          YOUR KIND also can’t demand special privilege based on your hateful discrimination and wish to exclude.

        • DingoJack

          You are aware that the change in language has reverted to the situation prior to 1997, right? That’s when Howard changed the definition of marriage. If you’ve been married for more than 22 years — you’ve been living in a non marriage [cue spooky music].

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack, I don’t need nor want the new Australian Marriage Act between 2 people. I’m married like my german forefathers whom didn’t have a legal state marriage certificate. Get use to this new reality of “independence” because the Australian Federal Parliament/ government authorities will be adding apples with oranges and counting the fruit. This would be like placing the names and details of all medical doctors and registered nurses with all other healthcare professionals because the government believes they now belong to the same profession. This would make it impossible to educate future generation about the nursing practice and the professional behaviour of registered nurse.

        • DingoJack

          ‘Living in sin’ conveys only limited legal rights vis-à-vis end-of-life decisions, access to children, powers of attorney & so on.
          If the shit hits the fan (so to speak) in a legal sense – you could be seriously disadvantaged.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          The comment “living in sin” only refers to people not living under the authority of God’s law – 10 commandments. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit have never commanded his people to have a civil registered marriage with the state.

        • Natureboi

          Why is being gay a sin?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          The Bible doesn’t use the word “gay” to describe a person nor their behaviour, as this word historically meant “happy.” So humans being “happy” isn’t a sin. However, if you’re using the word “gay” to mean some type of immoral behaviour which is described in the Bible which God/Jesus/HolySpirit warned against, then this is known as a sin. The Bible clearly is against a man having sexual relationships with a man, as well as a woman having sexual relationships with a woman.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Your ‘bible’ doesn’t mention *soap*, either.

          I’m betting you USE soap, though.

          You’re not very good at this, are you?

        • Natureboi

          So why is homosexual behavior immoral?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, I explained to you the reason.

        • Natureboi

          Yes you did.
          You said:

          ~~ ” immoral behaviour which is described in the Bible which God/Jesus/HolySpirit warned against, then this is known as a sin. The Bible clearly is against a man having sexual relationships with a man, as well as a woman having sexual relationships with a woman.” ~~

          Why is it a “sin?”
          Why is it “immoral?”

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, Sin is immoral behaviour, and Sin is anything not pleasing to God/Jesus/Holyspirit.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You still have to demonstrate this ‘god’ is anything more than a shared hateful superstitious delusion.

          Until then, ‘sin’ also only exists inside the minds of those infected with your particular delusion.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          You do believe in god, but you don’t see him as anything more than a hateful superstitious delusion. However, to be a true atheist you must not believe in this god at all, in order to claim a non-belief in a god.

        • Natureboi

          Irrelevant to allowing gay people rights.

        • Natureboi

          Natureboi, Sin is immoral behaviour, and Sin is anything not pleasing to God/Jesus/Holyspirit.

          Why is it displeasing?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          You answered this question for yourself elsewhere on this blog.

        • Natureboi

          You answered this question for yourself elsewhere on this blog.

          I want YOUR answer, please.

          Why is homosexuality “displeasing” to God?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          God has told you via natural laws. you can search any medical/nursing text book because these are based on scientific laws – facts and reasons for natural behaviours and practices of humans. You won’t find any sexual activities between 2 men or 2 women, and western countries have found it extremely difficult to describe the sexual activities of same-sex partners compared to the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

        • Natureboi

          God has told you via natural laws.

          Why does it displease God?

        • Brisley Bear

          Why is displeasing God/Jesus/Holyspirit immoral?

        • Greg G.

          Have you ever wondered why tickling yourself is so hard? Maybe it is a horrible sin for ineffable reasons. If there was such a thing as inappropriate sex, could not God have made it as dull as tickling yourself?

          Traveling at light speed must be extremely immoral as it is impossible to do.

        • Natureboi

          Nobody is required to live under the authority of God.

          Unless you are Muslim.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope, not even muslims.

        • Natureboi

          Nope, not even muslims.

          Those living in Islamic Nations are not required to live under the authority of God?

          REALLY???

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I thought you were talking muslims outside theocracies.

          My bad.

        • Natureboi

          I thought you were talking muslims outside theocracies.

          It in unlikely a Muslim living outside a Muslim theocracy will convert as the penalty for doing so is death.
          There is no State requirement, but it is ingrained within the belief system.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Talisma Nasreem might want to have a word with that.

          Also https://exmuslims.org/

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          Until you *demonstrate* this ‘god’ of yours is more than just a figment of your hateful superstitious imagination, the rest of us are under no compunction to treat your hateful behavior with anything other than blistering scorn.

        • DingoJack

          Legally irrelevant. Get over it.
          The law couldn’t give a shit about your ‘crazy’ interpretation.

        • lady_black

          And, if you don’t have a legal marriage, as far as the government is concerned, you are NOT married, and the laws relating to rights within marriage don’t protect you.
          And your comparison to the nursing profession is ridiculous. Yes, they all provide medical care. BUT (and this is a big but), there are different practice acts for each profession. There are no “special” laws that apply only to certain marriages, like different health providers have, according to their licensure. Either you have a legal marriage, or you don’t. If you do, family law protects you. If you don’t, you’re on your own, because the law considers you unmarried. What your “god” says will never enter the legal picture.

        • eric

          A quick googling shows that Australia has some equivalents of common law marriage, so I guess it’s possible that she and her husband have some legal rights associated with marriage without ever going through the formal process.

          However, I’m not sure what such long anti-state-licensed-marriage diatribes have to do with a bakery baking a cake for a gay couple. Public accommodation laws in Australia may be different from those in the US, but hopefully they don’t buy the line that Sheryl and Skl have both used, that baking a cake for someone = “forcing them to participate” in the marriage.

        • lady_black

          Unfortunately, “common law” marriage also shifts the legal responsibility for proving it to the person asserting the rights that would have plainly been theirs if they had been legally married. That’s why no state in the USA recognizes it anymore.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Guess she just wants to brag that HER marriage is infinitely superior to same sex marriages or even heterosexual marriages that went procured marriage licenses through the government. And doesn’t want to accept it when she’s told that’s not true.

        • eric

          Until she meets a gay couple that are married through common law. 🙂

        • Sheryl

          Eric, There are plenty of same-sex partners in Australia in common law, this is known as same-sex house mates, and now they can have a civil partnership registration.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. ‘housemates’ ‘married/ defacto’

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          I don’t care if the government thinks I’m married or not as they don’t decide my sexual relationship nor intact family. I don’t get married because of the government, despite you want to please them. The US Family law isn’t the same to Australian Family law. Unmarried people are single people and they have rights here in Australia. You hypocrite, because you don’t believe people should be discriminated against, then you go on about how your American laws discriminate against unmarried people who are “single people.”

        • lady_black

          Marriage has nothing to do with sex.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, The Australian Marriage Law is between 2 people and has nothing to do with sex, so this is the reason it has been designed for same-sex marriage, but not man-women “one flesh” (marriage). Your comment completely supports my reason for having my civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and health consumer.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          You’re XOR-ing (exclusive) when you should be OR-ing (inclusive).

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          You don’t get to decide about my civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and healthcare consumer because you’re not forced to have it if you don’t like it.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Well, THAT was a non-sequitur.

          You’re trying to exclude and divide, rather than expand and enrich.

          And the fact you’d throw that non-sequitur in means you’re not trying for understanding, but merely to muddy the discussion & prevent clarity of statement and content.

        • lady_black

          Single people are not discriminated against. But, they cannot claim the legal benefits of being married unless they are actually married.

        • DingoJack

          Single people and single parent don’t get the same perks & tax breaks that couples do. But this is to serve a state purpose to encourage such couples (and to get politicians [re] elected).

        • lady_black

          NO. There is NO “tax break” for being married that happens while you are still married. The biggest tax break for married couples comes through the passage of jointly held real property to the surviving spouse without probate.
          As far as income taxes, there is no break provided, and for the longest time, there was actually a penalty. And, the lowest tax bracket of all goes to single heads-of-households with a child or children.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Well, it’s a mixed bag, as I understood it?

          Marriage tax ‘benefits’ usually come when one spouse earns MUCH more than the other…it’s almost like they *set it up* that way…fancy that?!?

          (Yes, I’m very cynical)

        • lady_black

          It doesn’t matter. The standard deduction is still double what it is for one person. And if you file jointly, the two incomes are combined.
          For a couple to benefit from filing separately is extremely rare. The marginal rates are higher if you do.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. There are tax breaks married couples get that single people don’t.

        • lady_black

          No, there are not. Name one.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,

          In Australia, we don’t pay probate or capital gains tax on one home. So if my husband and I were separated than we would have our 2 homes without paying capital gains tax, and that is why my husband & I would be better off separating 6 years prior to selling our 2nd home.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, This works both ways, as I can’t claim the current special government benefits for being “single” when the government authorities identify me as a married/partnered/defacto person. This is the reason for a significant change in the future of taxation and benefits in Australia, as the population of single people become the majority, then they will demand and want more taxpayers money for themselves.

        • Brisley Bear

          So you should be happy that a large number of people who had no choice but to be single now have the ability to marry and continue to support benefits for married people.

        • Natureboi

          as the population of single people become the majority, then they will demand and want more taxpayers money for themselves.

          If all gay couples are allowed to marry, wouldn’t this reduce your alleged tax burden?
          You just presented a valid argument to allow same-sex marriage.

          Oh, the irony.

        • Sheryl

          Naturebol,

          Your question can’t be easily answered because reducing the tax burden is a complex matter, as we live in an individualistic society defined by autonomy and self-determination. Steve Jobs understood our current world – iPhone, iMac, iPad. Therefore, today it’s more common the hear people say, “I want the taxpayer to pay for my lifestyle…”

          The Australian Marriage Law between 2 people is designed for a legal same-sex marriage, but not a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage). Same-sex partners will have to decide if they want their names on a public marriage registry. I would consider it a form of punishment to same-sex partners if the Australian government and government authorities were encouraging them to have a civil registered marriage or a civil partnership registration for the purpose of getting more money from them, then if they had the status of “single.”

          The way governments decide to tax people in order to provide welfare services will always depend on the natural established institutions/structures that are present in societies. It is impossible for governments to tax a business/company, relationship or person if they don’t even exist. Governments, government authorities and courts shouldn’t overburden the public and society with taxes, and this can be achieved by encouraging and supporting more self-sufficiency and self-regulation.

        • Brisley Bear

          By self-regulation, of course your mean, no regulation and letting businesses screw over the consumers and the environement.

          “I want the taxpayer to pay for my lifestyle…”
          You mean like YOU want to receive government benefits for you super special penis-in-vagina religious marriage, and to prevent those benefits from going to REAL marriages registered with the government that include same sex marriage.

        • Natureboi

          Is the above why you oppose same sex marriage?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, When secular people demand government to change a law to suit themselves, and then attempt to demand Christians and their institutions to follow the new law is what has created significant opposition to a same-sex marriage. The only reason the practice of marriage even exists in Australia today is because this was exclusively managed by Christian churches from 1788-1856. Christians had no problem with gays defining their own relationships, but to think we would identify our marriage with the word “people” is total nonsense. This would be equivalent to me self-identifying as a “father,” when clearly I know I am a “mother.” It might appear in our society that “fathers” have more privilege, power and status etc, but I’m not ashamed of being a “mother” as I understand my true worth as a human loved by God.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Try defending laws *allowing* slavery being revoked, using the same specious assertions.

          If you *don’t* see how substance-free and self-serving they are, you’re a positive danger to society.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower, The US government have laws against slavery in the US, but I’ve witnessed the American communities/societies, and they still has the mentality of slavery because when businesses/companies and Americans don’t pay someone a living wage for goods/services, then they have made this person their slave.

        • Greg G.

          they still has the mentality of slavery because when businesses/companies and Americans don’t pay someone a living wage for goods/services, then they have made this person their slave.

          The true definition of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay is the employee does just enough work to keep from getting fired and the employer pays them just enough to keep them from quitting.

          The big difference in your analogy is that the employee can leave the job. The worse a job is the more likely the next job will be better.

        • Sheryl

          Greg G. If employees or those working in the gig economy got more money, than they would experience real freedom in deciding to work or spend time with family and friends, but they’re a slave to work.

        • Natureboi

          to think we would identify our marriage with the word “people” is total nonsense.

          Why do you identify yourself that way?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I don’t identify myself this way, so this is exactly why I ignore/reject the secular marriage law/practice between 2 people.

        • Natureboi

          I don’t identify myself this way, so this is exactly why I ignore/reject the secular marriage law/practice between 2 people.

          You are free to do that.
          Just please don’t bother other citizens with your bigotry.

        • Brisley Bear

          Do you object when the school sends a note home with your kid addressed to “Parent or Guardian”? Does identifying as a Parent or Guardian somehow negate your status as “Mother”?
          Then how does acknowledging that you are presumably a person mean you’re somehow not also a woman or a wife?

          . The only reason the practice of marriage even exists in Australia today is because this was exclusively managed by Christian churches from 1788-1856.

          Ridiculous. We see marriage all over the world, even in countries that have no connections to Christian churches. If the churches hadn’t handled it, people would still have demanded the government recognize it and provide the benefits it currently provides.

        • Sheryl

          Brisley Bear, Australians don’t have Disneyland, So telling me that this fantasy world/practice exists all over the world is a lie, and that is the equivalent of the secular marriage practice between 2 people. What were these types of marriages all over the world, and how did they recognise it was a marriage? Was it two people of the same-sex living as house-mates, or men having multiple wives and affairs or a man and woman sexual relationship or 2 people having a business partnership like my parents or a woman with multiple partners or a marriage between a healthcare professional and a healthcare consumer? If the word “marriage” never identified a particular relationship, then any relationship was a marriage. Since the American understanding of civil registered marriage means a legal union between 2 people for government marriage benefits, now the US immigration authorities can’t even identify “sham marriages,” and there are reports that married couples who are in a genuine married relationship are even being rejected as fake.

          You’re extremely confused about the secular marriage practice because you think the people demanded the state/government and government authorities to regulate (control) them and they gave power to the courts to punish them in a no fault divorce. PLEASE ask American gun owners if they demanded the state/government to record their name and details on a public gun registry, so they could be deregistered if they didn’t obey the law and have their firearms taken off them. The American Law allows Americans the right to keep and bear firearms, so the American people see the good of owning firearms. So why is the American government and government authorities regulating (controlling) Americans who rightfully keep and own firearms? and why does the American courts punish American for using a gun? The state wants to detect/prevent harmful behaviours and practices in order to protect the public and society from harm. When you can understand the true meaning of the establishment of laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries, then you’ll have a chance at understanding that people would be crazy to demand to participate in a legal secular marriage practice/fantasy world between 2 people which accesses a no fault divorce law.

        • lady_black

          I’m NOT TALKING ABOUT money. So, that’s irrelevant.

        • Natureboi

          You hypocrite, because you don’t believe people should be discriminated against, then you go on about how your American laws discriminate against unmarried people who are “single people.”

          If you are not secularly married, there is no marriage law that discriminates against you.

          If you choose to not enter into a legal contract that protects you and your husband, that is your problem. Not the governments and certainly not of those who wish to attain those benefits and protections.

          You don’t get to control or own the definition of marriage simply because the current definition of marriage doesn’t suit your fancy.

          That’s NOT how secular law works.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          A legal contract/consent to a civil registered marriage doesn’t protect me. I would be entitled to legally claim special government benefits for a “single” if Centrelink didn’t identify me as a “couple.” I would legally be entitled to receive “single” benefits for living in our second home, but the government considers the income/assets of my husband, so I’m discriminated against receiving this “single” government payment because of marriage. Our 18 year old son is unable to claim government benefits for living in this second home because the government has assessed our combined income as a “couple.” If I legally separated from my husband, than I would be entitled to these special “single” benefits, and our son would be entitled to a youth allowance based on our individual income. However, we have to pay for two homes and our son’s living expenses because we’re considered as a legal “couple” in the eyes of the secular laws in Australia, as this makes our children dependent on our combined income as a “couple,” Our son is an adult, but he isn’t treated by the law as “independent.” The Australian government provides “single” people with a higher pension, than a person who is identified as a “couple.” The word “marriage” is used in the Bible, but the legal status of “couple” is most commonly used in practice within Australian secular laws.

          You should be extremely concerned about the future of laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries in your country, because the secular law can easily change such as a civil registered marriage, and you might then wish that you never voluntarily gave your name and details to be recorded on a pubic marriage registry like sex workers and sex offenders. The original reason all Christian church marriages were recorded on a public registry was this then allowed the courts a legal right to punish the harm of adultery and the harmful breaking of a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath, as the courts don’t have the legal power to punish these behaviours by using a private church marriage registry.

        • DingoJack

          So you want to have a ‘natural marriage’ so as not to have government inference in your ‘natural marriage’.
          And you’ve never wanted any government benefits.
          Except you were happy to get the government involved in your life, so you could try (& fail) to get benefits.
          So, which is it?

        • Natureboi

          Is all the above why you oppose same-sex marriage?

        • Sheryl

          Naturebol, I have obviously rejected the idea of a same-sex marriage for myself, so I’m not the Fairy in the Sky who was responsible for creating the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people for same-sex marriage, but this law wasn’t designed for man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) which is what I practice. This would be like the majority of registered nurses wanting to have the legal status of “medical doctor”because they believe this would give them more power, status, privileges etc, and the politicians decide that Australia does need more medical doctors because of the chronic shortage of medical doctors particularly in rural and remote area, so they change the laws in Australia to force the Medical Board to now regulate registered nurses. The Medical Board would need to decide if the practice of medicine is going to remain the same or will it change to accomodate nursing practice. The registered nurses who decided to have their name and details as a “medical doctor” with APHRA, may decide they’re going to practice medicine like nursing because they didn’t want to change as they only wanted the status etc, and there will be registered nurses who want nothing to do with the medical board, or the status of “medical doctor” because they have loved their own profession and want to be clearly identified as a “nurse,” as they’re not ashamed of the nursing practice.

          Christians now have a choice between the Marriage Law between 2 people which hasn’t been designed for a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) for the appearance of status, privilege, power etc, or they can ignore/reject voluntarily putting their name and details on a public marriage registry in order be free to practice their man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) with the blessing of the church under God’s laws in the Bible.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Christians now have a choice between the Marriage Law between 2 people which hasn’t been designed for a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) for the appearance of status, privilege, power etc, or they can ignore/reject voluntarily putting their name and details on a public marriage registry in order be free to practice their man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) with the blessing of the church under God’s laws in the Bible.

          Wrong.

          Tight-assed intolerant haters who use xtianity as an EXCUSE will follow the poison path you laid out here.

        • Natureboi

          1) Does the new 2 people marriage law detract rights, benefits, incentives and protections from man-woman marriage?

          2) Does it create harm for man-woman marriage?

          3) Does it deny man-woman marriage?

          4) Does 2 person marriage change existing man-woman marriage?

          These are simple yes or no questions.

          If you refuse to answer them, you must be dismissed as a manipulative bigot.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          The Australian Marriage Law between 2 people isn’t about man-woman “one flesh” marriage. The word “2 people” doesn’t mean man and woman.

        • Natureboi

          The Australian Marriage Law between 2 people isn’t about man-woman “one flesh” marriage. The word “2 people” doesn’t mean man and woman.

          Why aren’t men and women no longer allowed to marry?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, Men and women aren’t allowed to marry in the secular Australian marriage practice/ fantasy world because the words “man” and “woman” don’t exist in any law, regulations, guidelines nor public registries.

        • Natureboi

          How sad for men and women.
          What do they do instead?
          How do they protect each other, thier children and thier assets?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          What did Adam & Eve do when the state didn’t even exist? Answer: Adam & Eve didn’t create a civil registered marriage practice.

        • Natureboi

          OH MY GAWD.

          Are you off your meds???
          Society has a RIGHT to enter into contracts (marriage) to protect one another, thier children and thier assets.

          There is no reason for me to believe in the religion you chose to subscribe to out of thousands.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Sheryl, you’re adding up a bunch of zeros.

          That will NEVER get you anything BUT zero, or in this case, logical incoherence.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I have address your comments elsewhere.

        • Natureboi

          I have address your comments elsewhere.

          And proven nothing but your abject religion driven bigotry.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,

          Reflecting back over my comments on this blog, it is extremely obvious that the Australian government, government authorities & courts won’t be able to regulate same-sex partners on the same public registry nor the same practice as man-woman relationships because of extreme differences between behavioural practices which people have clearly highlighted on this blog. This is really no different to a secular legal abortion practice isn’t regulated the same way as a secular legal euthanasia practice, despite these practices have similarities such as “intentional killing,” legal consent/contract, death of a human. However, the differences between theses legal practices are much too great for the state to identify abortion as legally the same behavioural practice as euthanasia.

          Everyone on this site has shared a different perspective to the debate about whether a baker should be forced by the state to participate in a same-sex marriage. I don’t believe that my behaviour nor ideas are perfect, but I have studied the history of marriages and I believe that a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and their intact family are both self-sufficient and don’t need to be regulated by government/government authorities nor should they be punished by courts with legal fees, court costs nor long brutal court proceeding nor child maintence orders. It is absolutely ridiculous that a civil registered married person is forced to pay $900 for an application for a legal divorce, and yet a civil partnership registration can be revoked for only $75. There is no “equality” between a civil registered marriage and a civil partnership registration.

          There is not one special legal marriage benefit that civil partnerships doesn’t have access/receive, so I haven’t witnessed the benefits of a civil registered marriage. Australians have witnessed the deception of our politicians, churches, banks, superannuation, schools, aged care, mental health and welfare services, as well as lawyers/courts. I am not a fool to believe in the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people, as I don’t believe in any Sky Fairy, and it is obvious that this has nothing to do with my Christian faith in a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and intact family nor a Biblical divorce.

          This is the time for change because I’m not paying one more cent to any government authority regarding my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage). Also, with news reports that there is a 3 year wait for settlement of a legal divorce, it is obvious that married people would have moved on in their lives. I saved my girlfriend and her estranged husband from over $100 000 in legal/court cost by getting them to provide their own legal consent to divide up all their assets, and management of their children. People have told me of spending $480 000, $680 000 and $1.2 million on a legal divorce. I’ll let Australian governments boast about the dwindling numbers of civil registered marriage, but they shouldn’t be surprised that the next generations need to spend their money on a home, food and other basic things which are far more important than a civil registered marriage and a legal divorce. If same-sex partners didn’t create the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people, then I wouldn’t have my freedom today of “independence” like my german forefathers had over 162 years ago.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          TL;dr

          More broad-brush bullshit assertions without a speck of evidence, and only believed by YOUR KIND because you’re so *desperate* for some way to feel superior in a world where you’re usually the losers DUE TO your gullibility, as evidenced by your susceptibility to hateful religious superstitious nonsense.

          Watch folks…I’m bettin’ on a flouce.

          Think she (assumption) will stick it?

        • Sheryl

          HiryEyedWordBombThrower,
          I have realised from a lot of men’s voices on this blog, how much they hate women, so I’m not surprised that they have ended up in relationships with men. It is obvious that no respectful woman would put up with their crap. I’m in no tiny bubble because I work in a major healthcare network, but I have never come across any LGBTIAQ person who has been a HATER in my 25 years of service to the community. This blog has definitely open my eyes to another world which is along way from my life. At least I can warn my daughters to stay along way from males that can’t show any decent respect. It is obvious that we have different ideas about our world, but this shouldn’t mean we can’t live and let live.

        • lady_black

          Here’s a clue for you: Human beings are not LGBT because they hate the opposite sex. Just like straight people don’t hate members of the same sex. Take your childish “argument” someplace else. It doesn’t fly here.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          There isn’t only one definition for “opposite sex” nor “straight.”

        • lady_black

          Yeah, there pretty much IS.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          In which dictionary can I find your definition?

        • lady_black

          A legal dictionary.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Please quote.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          A legal dictionary in your fantasy world/practice? This means you can make it all up because there is no real truth.

        • lady_black

          Sure there’s real truth. You are just clueless.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          So you can’t find the real true and correct legal definition of “opposite-sex” and “straight.”

        • lady_black

          “Straight” is a euphemism for someone who is strictly heterosexual. This must have been “a thing” for quite a while, because I’ve used the term in conversation with people who are a generation or more older than me. And they were perfectly well aware of what I meant.
          Opposite sex means exactly what it sounds like. There are only two sex chromosomes, and with a few exceptions, most people are one or the other genetically. XX and XY are the karyotypes. They are opposite.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, you’re trying to pull my leg if you think this is a legal definition of “opposite-sex,” and “straight,” in American laws. The idea that people perfectly knew what “straight” meant and western now have forgotten the meaning of marriage, because of a legal oxymoron ‘same-sex marriage,” as this broke all the english language rule of laws. This practice has allowed people their right to believe in your idea of “opposite-sex” and “straight.” The legal Australian guidelines of sex for humans only states biological characteristics, gonads and chromosomes and gametes. This guideline does’t mention male or female nor their difference, because biological sex is irrelevant in Australian Law.

        • lady_black

          Those are NOT legal terms, therefore, they do not have legal definitions. Marriage is a legal term, and there is nothing oxymoronic about any marriage.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Americans have made a secular civil registered PEOPLE Marriage to mean a legal union, and this is equivalent to a secular civil union or secular civil partnership, and these relationships are equivalent to the secular legal PROSTITUTION Practice. However, man-woman”one flesh” (marriage) are completely “independent” from these legal “Harlot marriages.” Times have definitely changed with the 21st American fantasy. Americans worship the lawyers/courts by demanding to give them thousands of dollars in order to defend their right to get their way. However, Australian laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries were all originally established to protect the public and society from harmful behaviours and practices. You’re unable to discriminate the difference between a legal man-made “Harlot marriage” from a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage).

        • lady_black

          No. Marriage is marriage. A civil union is a civil union.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          My parents had a business partnership which is a legal (civil) union and they have a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage).

        • lady_black

          A business partnership isn’t a civil union.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          A legal business partnership between people is a legal (civil) business union between people, because people have a legal right in Australia to legally unite as one with a common purpose to managing a business, and people may want the protection of the law if these people can’t agree on the division of property and assets when the business fails or there is a breakdown in communication. However, in many states in Australia, people can have a domestic legal (civil ) union/partnership by registering their relationship as a “civil partnership.”

        • lady_black

          Yes, but they are not civil unions. They are partnerships. They are not any kind of union.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          What is the legal definition in America that meets the criteria of a legal partnership and civil union?

        • lady_black

          For business purposes? Partnerships, LLCs and such. For domestic purposes, it’s pretty much “marriage.”

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          In Australia, people can have a domestic “civil partnership” registration which can be established with a fee, as well as revoked for fee. This “civil partnership” is a civil union, but you’re ignoring that people can have both a domestic and a business partnership within their one legal union. How do you separate my parent partnership business from their domestic civil union? My parents farming business impacted every area of their life, including their home, health and wellbeing.

        • Cynthia

          My husband and I each own half the shares of our corporation. So yes, difference forms of partnerships can exist at the same time.

          As for your parents – well, it was a case involving a separated common-law farm couple that altered property rights of common-law couples in Canada. Because it is unjust to have only one person end up with the farm if both had jointly worked on it for years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pettkus_v_Becker

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          My dad bought the farm prior to my parents marriage, and the farm is the only form of income for my dad, and he would have lost his future income if he separated/divorced my mum. However, my mum was a qualified registered nurse, so she could have taken a significant amount of the farm and farm machinery/plant if they had separated/divorced, and she would have had her career to make future income. Therefore, farms are extremely complex when dealing with a domestic civil partnership/union with a business partnership.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          What is the legal definition in America that meets the criteria of a legal partnership compared to a legal (civil) union?

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          I don’t know why they haven’t included my comment.

        • David Cromie

          You are responding to an illiterate moron. that, like many religiots, think they can redefine words to suit their nefarious purposes, while hoping that the rest of us will be blinded by their decrepit intellect, and too stupid to notice.

        • David Cromie

          All marriages are ‘people’ marriages.

          By your definition, all marriages are legalised prostitution, no matter where, or by whom, they were performed, since every marriage is registered (a civil requirement).

        • Natureboi

          There isn’t only one definition for “opposite sex” nor “straight.”

          Nor is there any one single definition of being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender.

          Are you the Kettle or the Pot?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          I hate your hateful ideas, and what you stand for, but hating *women* just for that?

          As usual, YOUR KIND is painting with too broad a brush and ZERO evidence to support your wild-assed assertion(s).

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It is obvious that we have different ideas about our world, but this shouldn’t mean we can’t live and let live.

          ExACTly!

          So why are you fucking nattering on about denying LGBTQ people THEIR rights in the name of your immature butthurt hateful superstitious ‘religion’?

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWozrdBombThrower,
          I am not your Fairy in the Sky which gives LGBTIAQ+ people their rights.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope…your believed sky-fairy is a hateful, vengeful, *jealous* (by your ‘bible’s own admission) piece of shit, that, even if it did exist and there was evidence for it, would NOT be worthy of respect, but rather unending opposition.

          But since YOUR KIND have yet to demonstrate it exists, YOUR KIND simply use it as an excuse upon which to hang your hatred.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          Just a quick question (because reading your squiggles makes my head hurt): Do you believe that you are the kind of person that Jesus is looking for in Heaven?

          Because if you are,…well, let’s just say that you are making a helluva case for atheism.

          Thanks for stopping by. Help yourself to cookies before you leave.

        • lady_black

          Well, first of all, almost NO abortions result in delivery of a dead baby. Delivery applies medically to pregnancies after 20 weeks, and abortion to pregnancies prior to 20 weeks, regardless of cause or outcome, or life status of the fetus at the time.
          Second, I don’t know what the law says in Australia. But here in the USA, if you aren’t civilly married (i.e. have filed a license with the state) you are not married, regardless of what any religious shaman tells you. Your religious beliefs don’t exempt you from civil marriage laws.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,

          Have your ever witnessed an abortion? A fetus is an unborn baby. Australians don’t have a marriage licence as this is other unnecessary expense.

        • lady_black

          There is no such thing as an unborn baby. All babies have already been born.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,

          You don’t believe in an “unborn baby,” so I assume that you’re educating sonographers, doctors or other healthcare professionals that they can’t ever mention the word “baby” to a pregnant mother, as you believe they must only use the word “fetus” when discussing the gender or any other matter relating to the mother’s unborn “baby.’ I forgot that most Americans can be extremely fussy about their “bathroom,” if we Australians used the word “toilet.” I worked in neonatal intensive care, and staff used the words “unborn neonate,” but I am quite aware that Americans speak another language. Some American surgeons can now perform a mastectomy and hysterectomy for cancer treatment, sex-change, and they can no longer discriminate against people who want to be genderless like God and the Devil. These are surgeons who can no longer discriminate between healthy and abnormal cells, tissue and organs, and they even believe that surgery is appropriate care and treatment for psychosis/ dysphoria, despite there is no scientific evidence which shows that surgery is appropriate care and treatment for a mental illness. I believe these surgeons have visited Disneyland too many times and now they want to make all people “wishes come true.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          Calling out YOUR bullshit.

          Show me MEDICAL TEXTBOOKS that claim an unborn human is a ‘baby’ rather than a morula/fetus/proper clinical term, and maybe you’ll have some small smidgen of credibility.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I know a sonographer who would tell your kind of person that the gender of your “fetus” is one of the 150 genders, but for the majority of sonographers would inform a pregnant mother that the gender of her unborn “baby” is male or female, because her baby isn’t born as it remains in her womb. You can believe in “clumps of cells” for an unborn baby, but many abortions of babies can clearly be identified as a small human baby.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So you’re trying to dodge the issue with colloquialisms discussing a WANTED pregnancy *with* the pregnant person.

          That’s invalid when being medically precise, or discussing an UNwanted pregnancy with the pregnant person.

        • lady_black

          What healthcare providers say to laymen, you will find on no medical chart. They know the difference between fetus and baby. There are physiological and anatomical changes that occur with the first breath that cause a fetus to transition to neonate. If those changes don’t happen, death results.

        • Thanks4AllTheFish

          I’ve witnessed an abortion and all I saw was a lot of blood and a tiny bit of bodily tissue. I couldn’t locate an unborn baby anywhere. Could that possibly be because a zygote, blastocyst or embryo has little or no resemblance to real human beings?

          I’ll tell you what I did see though. I saw a woman receiving excellent health care of her choice from a licensed doctor in an advanced medical facility – something we won’t see if the forced-birther crowd gets their way and the government you so despise is mandated to remove that health care option. Why any woman prefers the government to mandate healthcare choices for themselves still baffles me. Once the government gets the power to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her own body, it’s a slippery slope that could lead to eugenics, forced sterilizations for minority or poor women, and forced birth quotas. A brave new world, indeed.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Look up ‘abortion remains’ on google.

          MOST of those, you wouldn’t be able to tell an abortion from a normal menstruation, you nerve-deprived nit!

          YOUR KIND *purposely* go out and search for 3rd trimester abortions that had to be done to save the life of the pregnant person , often *against* the pregnant person’s wishes as the pregnant person *wanted* to deliver a fetus to be a live baby.

          And that’s because ALL YOU’VE GOT is dishonest attempts at shock and horror, as YOUR KIND’s supposed ‘arguments’ (baseless assertions, more like) are UTTERLY unconvincing.

  • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

    How thoughtlessly rude it is to walk in to a cake shop and expect them to be willing to sell you a cake… Why, you should know to research ahead of time whether they were irrational bigots so you didn’t hurt their feelings by pointing it out to them when you asked for a cake.

    But seriously, Wedding Cakes don’t even tend to have writing on them, so the only difference between a cake for a same sex couple and the cake for a mixed sex couple is the cake topper, which the couple often provides and puts on themselves, anyway.

    • Sheryl

      Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker,
      The only difference between a “wedding” cake for same-sex marriage and a doctor-nurse marriage is a cake topper, but a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) doesn’t need a “wedding” cake. A Christian married couple no longer publishes “White magazine,” as man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) doesn’t need a magazine about “weddings.” The commercialisation of “weddings” and a “no fault divorce” have lead to businesses making money out of a civil registered marriage, as well as marriage and family breakdown. I won’t stop any person from having the experience of Disneyland, but they can’t make me think this isn’t a fantasy world. Therefore, I won’t stop any person from putting their name and details on a public registry like a sex worker and sex offender, but they can’t make me think that the government authorities aren’t regulating (controlling) them, and the courts aren’t punishing them with legal fees/court costs etc. I can do without the “wedding” cake if this means I’m legally free to ignore/reject being a legal “partner.”

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        YOUR KIND is *still* trying to demand we accept YOUR KIND’s definition of ‘sex’.

        Until that happens (the bookies won’t even give it trillion-to-one odds), you’re just another whiny weakling annoying people because that’s the maximum level of influence YOUR KIND can have.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I am not wanting nor demanding that you nor your kind accept the originally meaning of sex/ sexual intercourse because I am not wanting nor demanding a human right to a civil registered marriage.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Of COURSE you are…and YOUR KIND are, too..

          And your petulant butthurt is on full display here.

          Why don’t you just go out in meatspace and say this to people TO THEIR FACES, IN SECULAR PUBLIC SPACES??!!

          Probably because you’d be fired from any job you have for being a detriment to the business’ reputation, then shunned from society and (hopefully, considering how petulant and greedy you are) denied any government benefit that is in part derived from the TAXES of those who you’re so busy maligning here (the LGBTQ community).

          But you’re just a trolly coward, like *all* of YOUR KIND.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          My workplace knows that my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) has gained “independence” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce law. The Australian Marriage Law and no fault divorce law are completely voluntary because the courts no longer punish (criminalise) the harm of adultery nor the harmful practice of breaking a man-woman “one flesh” oath. I have my 25 year service award, so I don’t need paid work because I can depend financially on my husband.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I call bullshit.

          And you’re lying, unless you divorced BY LIVING SEPARATED FOR (I think) 18 MONTHS WHILE THE DIVORCE PROCEEDS.

          You can *claim* whatever your temper-tantrum worthless carcass wants, but it doesn’t make it true.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          Do you think that the American Immigration Department will accept my civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and a healthcare consumer? Would they require my husband and I to live separately for 18 months, even against our will? I must ask the Australian Federal attorney-general if my civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and healthcare consumer is invalid, because I can’t have a no fault divorce if the state doesn’t even recognise my civil registered marriage. This is an excellent argument to not have a valid civil registered marriage in order to gain “independence” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce law.

        • David Cromie

          What the hell are you confabulating about? Australia would be in deep shit if there were many bloviating simpletons like you in the population (dd you never go to an accredited school?).

        • Sheryl

          David Cromie,
          You have decided to ignore/reject the english language rules which are legal in Australia and around the world. Your lack of knowledge and understanding about the true and correct meaning of the word “marriage” and “oxymoron” has allowed you to accept an oxymoron “same-sex marriage” which no muslim country has accepted because same-sex partners aren’t the criteria of man-woman.

          I home-schooled my children when I lived in America, because they were more advanced than the American school curriculum. The principal of our local town school in America informed me that multiplication and cursive writing only would be taught in year 3, and he thought it was best that I should home-school my children based on the Victorian curriculum, because cursive writing was taught in their first year at school, and division and multiplication in year 2. Your use of the word “shit” in your comment, shows any respecting Australian that you’re not extremely intelligent, as well as you’re not wise to question my schooling. If you think the American school system is educating their students about real scientific facts, reasons and faiths, then it makes no sense that they’re education of boys can now have a period, as if they are the same as a girl. Also, some American schools are allowing biological boys who self-identify as a “girl” to use the female bathrooms, and compete in female sports competition, as well as receive money for female awards.

          The real reason you’re having a go at me, rather than the foolish education system of American, is your confused rules/laws about the definition of words makes it now impossible for you to identify the difference between real and fantasy language, because you believe these things should both have “equality status” or “same legal status.”

        • Natureboi

          Same-sex marriage isn’t an oxymoron.

          Your ignorance of transgenders is appalling.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Do you mean that surgeon can’t discriminate between a hysterectomy and mastectomy treatment for cancer, sex change and genderless like their god or the devil?

        • Natureboi

          You worship a slavery and rape condoning child murderer.
          You CANNOT be trusted to be a reliable source of “moral” advice.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I don’t worship your “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • Natureboi

          I don’t worship your “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

          You are under NO obligation to do so.
          You are free to mind your own damn business.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Your “oxymoron same-sex marriage” is equivalent to the legalised Prostitution practice for secular “adult consenting relationship between people.”

        • Natureboi

          Gay people are prostitutes.
          Thanks Sheryl.
          Flagged as stupid.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          There is no reason that a “gay” person can’t be a sex worker in NSW, Australia, and you’re stupid if you can’t believe that a “gay” person can’t be part of this legalised Prostitution Practice in NSW.

        • Natureboi

          There is no reason that a “gay” person can’t be a sex worker

          I never said that there are no gay…excuse me…homosexual prostitutes.
          You refer to homosexual marriage as “harlot” marriage.
          You repeatedly say:
          “PEOPLE MARRIAGE” is equivalent to the legalised PROSTITUTION PRACTICE.
          You are comparing ALL gays…excuse me…homosexuals to prostitutes.
          This indicates one of two things:
          Utter ignorance or
          Utter stupidity.
          It’s obvious which one you are.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          “People marriage” is a “Harlot marriage,” but the majority of gay people aren’t crazy enough to have their “adult consenting relationships” to be regulated by governments and government authorities including the courts. Therefore, I’m not ignorant nor stupid enough to believe in your “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • Natureboi

          Nobody cares what fundamental nut cases believe.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          You’re believing in a “fairy in the sky” by having faith in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • DingoJack

          Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Every accusation; a confession!

        • David Cromie

          You come across as a semi-literate (at best), deluded, moron.

        • Sheryl

          David,
          You’re the one who believes in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage,” so it is understandable that you’re semi-literate because you don’t understand the English word “oxymoron.” This means you’re deluded into thinking that same-sex partners can naturally marry, even when it is impossible for them to do the marital act of sexual intercourse and become “one flesh.” You have clearly awarded yourself with the TITLE “MoRoN.

        • Cynthia

          I’m quite familiar with Australia. Your issues with writing in a way that others can understand you has nothing to do with being Australian.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          Well I am glad to hear that you’re quite familiar with Australia, then you would understand the reason that the majority of Christians and their institutions have rejected the “oxymoron same- sex marriage.”

        • Cynthia

          No, not really.

          I mean, my religion doesn’t recognize marriage between someone of our religion and someone of a different religion, but I don’t call it oxymoron interfaith marriage. My religion and civil law simply have different requirements, and that’s ok.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          Does your religion believe in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage?” I was bought up in the Lutheran church, and I understood that I was never to marry a Catholic, but it was impossible to marry one of my girlfriends, because this wasn’t even the basic criteria of man-woman for a Christian marriage nor any type of marriage in the world.

          The civil law requirements for a “civil registered people marriage” is equivalent to a “civil partnership registration,” and these legal “adult consenting relationships” are equivalent to the legalised “prostitution practice.” My husband and I, and our 3 children, 15 nieces and nephews and extended family can completely ignore/reject “civil registered people marriage” for ourselves. We have never practiced “people marriages” in our church.

        • Kodie

          My workplace knows that my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) has gained
          “independence” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act and no fault divorce
          law.

          Is it because you never shut up about it?

          You are delusional that because the Australian Marriage Act includes things you don’t agree with, it suddenly excludes your marriage. Your cult still beholds your marriage as the only true kind, why are you complaining about government validation anyway? I assume your marriage is still valid and legal in Australia, and wherever you live now. I think you said you live in the US now? But you are whining endlessly about Australian law. I mean you are just whining endlessly as though you no longer have the right to divorce your husband if he is adulterous???? In America, you don’t need a reason, and neither does he. If you’re an insufferable pain in the ass that he no longer wants to cohabitate with… I’m not him, but you seem to have been triggered by a recent event and unleashing your insufferable ass on us? I mean, did he cheat on you? Why do you need the law to prosecute adulterers? Everyone knows cheating is not healthy to a monogamous relationship, why do you demand it be criminalized? You made a promise in church, which is not relevant to government law. In America, the government marriage is the legal one, and the cult ceremony is your personal preference. If your cult has extra laws: most fundamental Christians in the US would keep the wife submissive so she can’t divorce her husband, cult women who will even encourage her to stay in an abusive marriage. What else can she or you do if you are financially dependent? If your cult has extra laws, they tend to be lenient toward men and shame/spite-filled toward the woman who errs. He can cheat cheat cheat, fuck fuck fuck all the women women women he wants and you have to pretend that doesn’t bother you, but if you dress cheap or he is suspicious you are attracted to any given man, in your cult, you can be encouraged to stay with a beater, an abusive man, I mean, where are you going to go. I mean, you’re not going to cheat, you’re perfect! He only has to be insecure enough to delude himself that he noticed your eye movements at the stock boy at the grocery store and you’re in for a church-sanctioned beating. Who protects you from your man-woman one flesh intact family when things get real? Nothing?

          NO. The fucking law. You’re still entitled to legal rights, you fucking idiot.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        And who is arguing they don’t want to make a cake for a doctor nurse marriage?

        And nobody is saying yoy HAVE to buy a wedding cake.

      • Kodie

        You sound like a lot of fun. Keep saying the word “flesh” over and over again.

      • David Cromie

        What is this ‘doctor-nurse-marriage’ mantra all about?

    • Kodie

      Christians never think how thoughtlessly rude they are, either. I am thinking like when someone calls for a take-down of the 10 commandments on state property or school-led prayer or religious monuments or signs, they fuh-reak out and order death threats. So rude to presume their religion is correct or necessary, so rude to scream “victim” like they have to risk believing in private if they can’t retain control over everything. Hey, what’s it like to be an atheist anyway? Not-believing in secret for the most part. Not having the same social consideration that Christians take for granted. Taking a school prayer sign down isn’t the same thing as posting another one that says “there is no god”. I don’t know why they are so fucking thoughtless and insecure.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        I don’t know why they are so fucking thoughtless and insecure.

        IMHO, it’s because (as they accuse US of lying about in the opposite direction) they *mostly* don’t believe, except for the little nugget of terror they can’t excise.

        • Kodie

          They get really mean and sometimes violent about atheists though. The dogma they are fed about how their rights are being persecuted, how when someone wants to remove a cross from public land, what I used to call mild Christians, they get as hysterical as fundies. Yeah, I made the mistake of commenting on another forum (that’s not about religion) that some Christians don’t seem to have as deep beliefs. I forget how I worded it, but it opened up a sinkhole of umbrage. YES, they all seriously deeply and sincerely believe they are saved! There is no, well, they seem like they are more socially current and scientifically accepting, and they have no problem with abortion, gays, sex outside of marriage, or all that shit hardcore fundies go on about. They don’t feel the need to mention how Christian they are all the time, and they don’t really adhere to the bible all that much.

          This is the shit Christian I grew up amongst. They are so Christian, they just assume everyone else is too, without behaving anyway different from modern societal norms. They aren’t nicer, more charitable, or more repentant of behaving in general like a self-centered asshole, at least in public. They seem to hardly think at all about Jesus or heaven or god watching everything they do, but if you’re someone who doesn’t believe in god, they will get so defensive and horrified with your immorality, your assault of their beliefs, your trying to take away their rights. They are programmed that atheists are devils trying to attack them and humorlessly taking away their civil rights.

          I grew up in an era where people could be accepted for not being the norm, many religions are accepted by these Christians, they are the “COEXIST” bumper sticker Christians. I falsely believed atheism was something special about me I could openly share, but my personal experience is these stubbornly secret atheists are serious fucking Christians who will cut you if they find out.

  • Pope Hilarius II

    I think each customer should have to fill out a questionnaire detailing all their beliefs, likes and dislikes. It will make it easier to discriminate against them

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      I’d almost accept it if the *store* had to put up signs saying who they discriminated against.

      At this point, such firms would be out of business in a quarter if it took that long.

      • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

        Like to see that on yelp. Filters that weed out businesses that discriminate against gays, blacks, latinos, Jews, people of vaguely but indeterminant “foreign” ethnicities.

        All defaulting to on, of course, assume most people don’t want to patronize those kinds of businesses.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          In densely-populated areas, all groups rub elbows, so such a method would work.

          It’s in sparsely-populated flyover territory, where the authoritarian fundagelicals retain power, where it would have a bad outcome.

    • Sheryl

      Pope Hilarius 11,
      A surgeon refuses to perform a hysterectomy and a mastectomy on a woman if there is no evidence of disease such as cancer, but they now can no longer discriminate against a man with a illness such as psychosis/ dysphoria, despite there is no scientific evidence that surgery is appropriate treatment for a mental illness. Therefore, your idea of a questionnaire won’t make it easier for a surgeon to discriminate against people because “State’s choice” is forcing medical doctors to ignore/reject the scientific evidence in order to be politically correct.

      No Victorian medical doctor was forced to “intentionally kill” an unborn neonate until an abortion law was established by the Victorian government, as this law forced all Victorian medical doctors to participate. This means that medical doctors have lost their freedom of conscience because pregnant mothers have now a legal right to exercise their freedom of conscience to “intentionally kill” their unborn baby with their legal consent/contract. However, there has been no Christian baker in Australian who has been forced to bake a “wedding” cake for a same-sex marriage until the Australian Federal Parliament established the new Marriage Law between 2 people, but Christians/Catholic/Orthodox and other religious people can now freely ignore/reject the expansive cash cow “wedding” price tag with the no fault divorce lawyer fees/court costs. It is now extremely cheap to organise a church celebration for a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath like a baptism and confirmation, and they can have a dinner party with family and friends for a fraction of the price of a Marriage Law between 2 people. The governments aren’t forcing any Christian/Catholic/Orthodox nor religious person to support the “wedding” and or legal industries, as a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and their intact family are completely free to ignore/reject these legal practices. The Australian Federal Parliament can no longer force Church ministers/priests to record the names and details of a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath on a public marriage registry because the Marriage Law in Australia now prohibits the exclusive union between one man and one woman for life, and the courts no longer punish (criminalise) the harm of adultery and the harmful practice of breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath.

      • Pope Hilarius II

        you wrote all that to refute a sarcastic comment?

        • Sheryl

          Pope Hilarius,
          Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

        • Pope Hilarius II

          Sheryl, I don’t give a F*CK what you think

        • Sheryl

          Pope Hilarius 11,
          This is your sarcasm, and it is obvious that you don’t care what anybody thinks.

        • Pope Hilarius II

          Not true

          I just don’t give a F*CK what you think

        • Sheryl

          Pope Hilarius, Well you got your sense of sacasm.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And YOU need to learn to spell.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I wish computers didn’t have autocorrect these days.

        • Pope Hilarius II

          oh and it’s POPE HILARIUS II for the second, not 11th

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND don’t get to make that assessment.

          I consider humor-impairment a trait that suppresses human flourishing FAR more.

        • Kodie

          Christians are not known for their ability to detect humor.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        TL;dr…Another wall of bullshit.

        Citations or STFU & GTFO.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          I agree with you that a same-sex marriage is “bullshit” like a doctor-nurse marriage, and this is the reason the Australian Federal governments have established a new Marriage Law between 2 people in order to protect the public and society from this harmful “bullshit.” “Bullshit” is the equivalent of an “oxymoron” because same-sex marriage doesn’t make any sense like a doctor-nurse marriage doesn’t make any sense.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’ve made claims.

          Support them.

          YOUR KIND are peddling bullshit when all the rest of us, the GOOD people of the world, want is to extend the maximum freedom to the maximum number of people consonant with social cohesion…and equal marriage ENHANCES that, while YOUR KIND militate *against* it unless it’s under your authoritarian hateful thumbs.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          It is obvious that you don’t understand the true meaning of laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries which you think these things should be extended to all people, but you’re a hypocrite because “equal marriage” has discriminated against bisexual people. I don’t understand your definition of “GOOD people of the world,” but your kind aren’t the majority in this world. I haven’t demanded nor forced you to have a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) nor an intact famiiy, as these behavioural practices are self-regulated, so your claim that I’m “authoritarian” is rubbish because I haven’t stopped the government nor government authorities from regulating (controlling) same-sex marriage nor prevented the courts from punishing same-sex parteners with legal fees/court costs in a legal divorce. You think that I’m “militate” because I don’t agree with your definition of words, but your intolerant of all people who don’t agree with you, and your way of thinking isn’t the majority.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It is obvious that you feel justified in throwing out broad, unjustified assertions without backing them up with evidence in a vain attempt to buttress YOUR KIND’s foolish embrace of a hateful superstitious ideology.

          Bring EVIDENCE, or I’ll just continue mocking you as you so richly deserve.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          You’re the one that decided to ignore/reject the legal language rules which defined the true and correct meaning of the word “oxymoron,” in order to accept the oxymoron legal same-sex marriage. So you’re the foolish person here.

        • Max Doubt

          “I don’t understand your definition of “GOOD people of the world,” but your kind aren’t the majority in this world.”

          Actually our kind, those of us who aren’t bigoted against LGBT as you are, are the majority in this world. And with every passing day, people with your archaic ignorant bigotry are becoming fewer and fewer – and less relevant to the progress of humanity. Other than being slightly amusing in a sad pathetic sort of way, your bleating from your anti-gay soapbox has become virtually obsolete.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ^^^What Max Doubt said…

        • Sheryl

          Max Doubt, You’re a hypocrite because you’re bigoted against the other alphabet people by rejecting the IAQ+. Your evidence of the “majority” are all snowflakes because people who have the mental ability don’t pretend to have the same human rights as people who are insane or suffer a mental illness. Natural rights aren’t the same as human rights, and I don’t need nor want a human right to a civil registered marriage nor a legal family because I have a natural right to a man-woman “one flesh” and intact family. I don’t need nor want the government, government authorities nor courts to interfere with my natural rights.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          If you don’t want government’s benefits for marriage feel free to not get legally married. Nobody is interfering with your rights by recognizing same sex marriage.

        • Sheryl

          Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker,
          The legal government marriage benefits are given to defacto (married) couples and they don’t have a legal consent/contract, so your comment about me identifying as legally married is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with a same-sex marriage.

        • Sheryl

          Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker,
          Defacto (married) couples are all entitled to legal government marriage benefits, so same-sex marriage has nothing to do with a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) getting legal government marriage benefits. In other words, in Australia people don’t need to have a legal consent/contract with the state to receive legal government marriage benefits.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. Defactos get limited benefits. Try again.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack, This doesn’t matter to me because I never got married for any legal government marriage benefits. You can have all those legal government marriage benefits, but I don’t need nor want these things. I have a church wedding certificate with a date, and this is more evidence than a defacto (married) people have of a date for starting their relationship. I lived in America for a year and paid tax, and the American immigration authorities never even witnessed my church marriage certificate because everyone automatically assumes that I am married because I have the same surname as my husband. I am not denying that I’m married, but I don’t identify with the civil registered marriage practice as I’m self-sufficient and can self-regulate my own intact family.

        • DingoJack

          And when your partner (husband? I assume) wants a younger, fitter blonder model he’ll still have to divorce you (despite your delusions) or face charges of bigamy. Grow up & face reality.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          The government and government authorities can’t force my husband nor I to ever have another civil registered marriage because we totally reject the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people.

        • DingoJack

          Doesn’t matter one whit. The law doesn’t give a crap about your crackpot theories.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Even if these benefits are limited, doesn’t mean they can’t get government marriage benefits.

        • Natureboi

          Australia people don’t need to have a legal consent/contract with the state to receive legal government marriage benefits.

          Then why do people get married at all?

        • Sheryl

          Naturebol,
          Christians aren’t required by the living God to have a civil registered PEOPLE Marriage, as this is a “Harlot marriage.”

        • Natureboi

          Gay people aren’t prostitutes.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          The LGBTIAQ+ activists can’t discriminate against anyone or anything. A “gay” person is a “happy excited” person, and they can be fathers, mothers, brothers, sex workers, sex offenders, grandparents, aunts, uncles, children etc. You don’t get to choose who is and isn’t a “gay” person.

        • Natureboi

          The LGBTIAQ+ activists can’t discriminate against anyone or anything. A “gay” person is a “happy excited” person, and they can be fathers, mothers, brothers, sex workers, sex offenders, grandparents, aunts, uncles, children etc. You don’t get to choose who is and isn’t a “gay” person.

          Homosexual people aren’t prostitutes.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          You prove to me that a homosexual can’t be a sex worker, because I don’t believe you.

        • Natureboi

          You prove to me that a homosexual can’t be a sex worker, because I don’t believe you

          Listen you bigot.
          I never said that there are no gay…excuse me…homosexual prostitutes.

          You refer to homosexual marriage as “harlot” marriage.
          You repeatedly say:
          “PEOPLE MARRIAGE” is equivalent to the legalised PROSTITUTION PRACTICE.

          You are comparing ALL gays…excuse me…homosexuals to prostitutes.
          This indicates one of two things:
          Utter ignorance or
          Utter stupidity.

          It’s obvious which one you are.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          You didn’t prove to me that a homosexual person can’t be a sex worker. You’re a bigot for believing a sex worker can’t be a homosexual.

        • Natureboi

          You have no idea how stupid you come across as being.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          It is obvious that I’m not as stupid as you, as you have faith in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • Natureboi

          What is an “oxymoron” marriage?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Marriage isn’t an “oxymoron,” but “same-sex marriage” is an “oxymoron” because it doesn’t make any sense.

        • Natureboi

          You don’t understand the definition of oxymoron.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          The “oxymoron same-sex marriage is like saying the “Jumbo Shrimp,” “unborn neonate” and “dark light,” as these words don’t make any sense.

        • Natureboi

          The “oxymoron same-sex marriage is like saying the “Jumbo Shrimp,” “unborn neonate” and “dark light,” as these words don’t make any sense.

          That’s only if you presume that entering into a marriage contract brings a prerequisite of procreation.
          Marriage contracts don’t carry that prerequisite.

          However, marriage does bring many protections, incentives and benefits for children that have already been born whose parents are entering into a new relationship.

          There is no logic in denying these many protections, incentives and benefits to existing children whose parents enter into new relationships. Many gay couples already have children from previous heterosexual relationships.

          Therefore, your “oxymoron” justification to deny marriage to gay couples with children becomes an irrational counterproductive hardship to children that you hypocritically pretend to care about.

          This clearly demonstrates your concerns are not in the best interest of children, but for prejudiced and bigoted reasons only to harm gay people.

          It is clear that it is more important to you to harm gay people than it is to be caring and protective of children.

          This makes you a nasty person.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Children from previous relationships are covered under adoption, divorce, separation, IVF and surrogacy laws. However, children born naturally through a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) they now have to claim their natural right to their biological father and mother, because a “civil registered people marriage” has legally separated a child from their biological father and or mother.

          It is obvious that the new “civil registered people marriage” is established for the purpose of “adulterous marriage,” “same-sex marriage,” “cuffing marriage,” and “Harlot marriage.” Your comment completely confirms my strong belief in a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and their intact family must now claim “independence” from the 2017 amended Marriage Act, because this new law can’t support,protect nor provide any incentives nor benefits for a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and their intact family.

        • Natureboi

          Children from previous relationships are covered under adoption, divorce, separation, IVF and surrogacy laws.

          Wrong.
          Marriage takes care of all that.
          You are throwing children in same-sex households under a bus under a phony pretense of caring for the well-being of children.

          You have no moral compass.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          In Australia,
          The new secular “civil registered people marriage” doesn’t mention a child, but the laws on adoption, divorce/separation, IVF and surrogacy all discuss the rights of a child. Therefore, Your comment, “marriage takes care of all that” was removed by the “oxymoron same-sex marriage.” I don’t have your moral compass and this is a very good thing.

        • Natureboi

          Your comment, “marriage takes care of all that” was removed by the “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

          How do you rationalize that all the benefits, rights, incentives and protections are removed when a couple with children enters into a marriage?

          This is the stupidest argument to prohibit same-sex marriage.
          Utterly stupid.
          And INCORRECT.

        • Natureboi

          “civil registered people marriage” has legally separated a child from their biological father and or mother.

          Does this “separation” occur if a divorced parent remarries someone of the opposite sex?

        • DingoJack

          Bwhahahaha!!
          From a person who’s under the delusion that words have fixed meanings, your first example is a classic ‘own goal’.
          If you called a person ‘jumbo’ in 1835 they would assume that you meant they were clumsy or unwieldy. As an adjective meaning ‘large’ it only came into English after P. T. Barnum bought an Elephant called ‘Jumbo’ from London Zoo in 1876 (curiously the name could have derived from the Hindi for chief). [Also note this is refering to a comparative size not an absolute size]
          ‘Shrimp’ in English comes from various Gothic languages, but probably most from Danish. In this case it has connotations of thinness — eg shrimpe, thin cattle. It entered the English language in the early 14th century as a name for various kinds of edible decapods and only came to mean puny some 80 years later.
          Also ‘Jumbo Shrimp’ (ie relatively large kinds of edible decapod) is well attested:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qe_W390KpQ
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpymBiEnRQs
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF4p5Y8SX7k [Now that’s a big shrimp – 20 or 25 cms]
          [Oh and I’d stay away from Jacksonville Baseball fans if I were you: https://www.milb.com/jacksonville%5D
          [Also 1e65 = ‘Jumbo Shrimp’ http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Jumbo_shrimp (don’t recommend looking up on Urban Dictionary)]

        • Greg G.

          He never said or even slightly implied that a homosexual can’t be a sex worker. Your “harlot marriage” comment implies that all people in a same sex marriage are sex workers. That is what he objected to. You can’t follow that?

        • Sheryl

          Greg G,
          The Australian Federal Parliament recently created an “adult consenting relationship between people,” and this is a “Harlot marriage.”

        • Cynthia

          So consent = harlot to you?

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          The new “civil registered people marriage” can’t discriminate against a sex worker and their client, because they meet the new criteria of “2 people can marry.” Also, they meet the only criteria of a no fault divorce, as their “commitment” and “love” can be “irretrievably broken down” with court costs and lawyer fees, and this is equivalent to the civil partnership registration which can be revoked for a fee. The Bible recorded the “Harlot marriage” in the Old and New Testament. However, a legal consent is based on an informed decision about the 2017 amended Marriage Act and the no fault divorce law, and I reject these secular legal practices for myself in order to protect my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and our intact family.

        • David Cromie

          You really are a very mixed up child. No wonder you post such drivel.

        • Sheryl

          David,
          I’m sure people describe you as an old man who has lost his mind, and I hope you find it.

        • Cynthia

          None of that made any sense. I mean, you can define a house sale as harlotry with that logic too, since both involve consent.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          A sex worker and their client are 2 people, and the Australian Marriage Law doesn’t prevent 2 people from a civil registered people marriage if they meet the criteria.

        • Cynthia

          So, you think any agreement between two people is harlotry? That’s a rather unique definition.

        • David Cromie

          It means that Sheryl is a harlot, by definition.

        • Sheryl

          David,
          Your Kind shows their real meaning of “love,” “tolerance,” “kindness,” and “peace” by their words and action including the word, “Harlot” because this does describe their “oxymoron same-sex marriage,” as it only needs to please their “Fairy in the Sky” which is their “inner feelings, thoughts and voices in their head.”

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          Prove to me that a legal consent based on an informed decision between a sex worker and their client doesn’t meet the criteria of a civil registered people marriage practice and the no fault divorce law.

        • Cynthia

          How are you defining sex workers, prostitution and harlotry?

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          Define the Canadian laws between these things and where they overlap.

        • Cynthia

          I’m not the throwing these terms around, you are. So, what do you mean when you use them?

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          An “oxymoron same-sex marriage” makes about as much sense as allowing Americans to drive in Australia on the right side of the road.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          The English language discriminate the words “homosexual people”as different from the word “prostitutes,” otherwise there would only be one word to describe them as being the same type of person.

        • Natureboi

          Irrelevant to allowing gay people rights.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Then stay the fuck off public roads, don’t use currency, and make all your necessities from scratch.

          If you’re going to refuse to be part of society, don’t be a hypocrite, go whole hog.

          Oh, and in Australia, YOUR KIND don’t get the choice of whether you’re married if you’re raising kids, if I recall correctly, some of your equally-idiotic group said they were going to get legally divorced but continue to live together and raise their kids, but AU law doesn’t allow for that.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          A man-woman “one flesh” are naturally married like defacto (marriage) and they can easily ignore/reject the 2017 amended Marriage Law between 2 people, as well as the no fault divorce law because it doesn’t prevent a marriage/family breakdown. A defacto (marriage) doesn’t have a legal consent/contract, but they still have a choice for legal government marriage benefits. My husband wouldn’t want a legal divorce to end our civil registered marriage between a healthcare worker and a healthcare consumer because he would have to pay for professional health advice. It is really easy to get a no fault divorce in Australia because a civil registered marriage can be “irretrievably broken-down” with legal fees/court costs, and this is equivalent to a civil partnership registration which can be easily revoked for a fee. The majority of Australians understands the evil of a civil registered marriage practice, so there has been a significant decrease in civil registered marriage. You should read the 2017 amended Marriage Act and Family Law including the no fault divorce law, and then you would understand why my 3 children and 15 nieces and nephews would never accept such “bullshit.”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          This married couple in the telegraph article aren’t in the same legal position as my civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and healthcare consumer, as this legal union can be legally defined by Australian laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries, and now can be legally treated as the same as same-sex marriage, and we don’t need this legal union to end in a legal divorce because our man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) has now gained “independence” from a civil registered marriage practice. I agree with same-sex partners that my civil registered marriage between a healthcare professional and a healthcare consumer has nothing to do with sex/sexual intercourse which is the exclusive union between one man and one woman for life. The Australian laws allow my husband and I the freedom to give our own legal consent to divide money/property/assets for services, as well as we can decide for ourselves the best way to manage our children without lawyer fees/court costs/ child maintenance if we choose to breakdown our man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and intact family. Therefore, your wrong to suggest that my husband and I are in the same legal position as the married couple in your article. Therefore, not every married person is treated equally the same in a legal divorce.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Wrong.

          They’re married, and unless they follow the rules, they must REMAIN married, and they refuse to follow the rules.

          So they ARE secularly married since they won’t take on the hardships necessary to free themselves from secular marriage.

          YOUR KIND don’t realize your privilege…but seem VERY disturbed that we’ve decided you don’t deserve it so we’re making you deal on a level playing field with the rest of society by giving every adult the privileges that you selfishly arrogated to your worthless selves.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,

          You make me laugh that you think that I am privilege. I don’t follow any stupid rules/laws such as the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people nor no fault divorce law. The 2016 ABS census, I was informed to pick a box and or describe my relationship, so I don’t have to identify with a civil registered marriage nor “partners.”

        • Natureboi

          there has been a significant decrease in civil registered marriage.

          What is the reason for the decrease/delay in marriage?

        • Sheryl

          People don’t want the government, government authorities and courts involved in their adult consensual relationship nor family, and Christians don’t want the state forcing secular laws on them and their institutions.

        • Natureboi

          People don’t want the government, government authorities and courts involved in their adult consensual relationship nor family, and Christians don’t want the state forcing secular laws on them and their institutions.

          Correct.
          Aren’t you glad gay people can marry without affecting you?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          LGBTIAQ people are having legal civil partnership registration, so that government authorities can regulate (control) them, and they can pay a fee to revoke their partnership.

        • Natureboi

          LGBTIAQ people are having legal civil partnership registration

          Civil partnerships are inferior to full legal marriage.
          There is no reason to prohibit gay peoplesame-sex marriage.

          Aren’t you glad gay people can marry without affecting you?

        • David Cromie

          You are becoming more and more irrational with your every post. Seek help soon!

        • Natureboi

          You are free to reject government recognition of your flesh union.
          You are NOT free to deny it to others.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          How has equal marriage discriminated against bisexual people? They now have the right to marry whoever they love, man or woman, the same as straight or gay people

        • Sheryl

          Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker, Bisexual people may desire to marry 2 people, but the current Australian Marriage Law is only between 2 people, and this law is only new and isn’t supported by the historical meaning of “marriage.”

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          Straight people may also desire to marry 2 people. What does bisexuality have to do with it?

        • Sheryl

          Jack Baynes, Sanwichmaker,

          The original meaning of the word “heterosexual” was a person attracted to the same-sex and the different sex or bisexuality, so what is your meaning of straight?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Look up Abraham, and Kings David and Solomon from your ‘bible’.

          They were all ‘married’, to multiple women as *wives* (or the female slaves of their wives, or just bought female slaves, or female war prisoners, etc.)

          Remember that little phrase about “700 wives and 300 concubines”?

          Note: NOT bisexual, but STILL married to multiple people, the two WOMEN were married as well as ‘sister-wives’

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          i know that these men had wives and concubines, and Abraham got his wife Sarah’s maid pregnant, and King David had an adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, but Jesus stated that their relationships weren’t as the Creator had originally intended, and Jesus gave the instruction in Matt 19: 4-6 about the beginning when the Creator united one man and one woman as “one flesh” in order to fill the earth with people.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Stuff and nonsense.

          Your ‘bible’ says that your ‘god’ would have given King David MORE if he’d asked…

          And your ‘jesus’ also approves of slavery and a hereditary aristocracy, so don’t try to hold that character up as any paragon of virtue.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          Please refer to my comment I recently made above to David Cromie about a an atheist has scientific evidence of more “faith” than Christians, to believe that God doesn’t exist.

        • Natureboi

          If you wish to involve God in public legal policy, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your imaginary God actually exists.
          Otherwise, you hold an empty sack to back up your policies.

        • David Cromie

          There is no evidence, whether written or archaeological, that any man-god named JC ever existed. Nor are ‘believers’ able to adduce the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for their favourite supposed ‘god’s’ real existence.

        • Sheryl

          David Cromie, You have greater faith than Christians in order to believe that a Creator of the universe doesn’t exist, because the western world laws are based on the Judaeo-Christian laws (God’s law on nature), but your non-belief in a God or atheist belief isn’t based on any real science (facts nor reasons) nor faith, so this is the reason that it would require me and others to have more “faith” to believe that a God doesn’t exist.

        • Natureboi

          Idiotic statement.
          Faith means believing is something without evidence.
          Being an atheist is simply not believing is your imaginary slavery and rape condoning child murdering God.

          Not believing in something is NOT “faith.”

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Show me your evidence of why you have faith in your “inner feelings on conscience, thought, speech, language, values, morals, culture, behaviours and practice.” What guides your thought process to believe that your doing good and not harm? If there is no living God, then what would make you decide to give to the poor or homeless people in the world? What is the purpose of doing honest work, as it doesn’t matter when you die. Why do you search for true meaning and a purpose to your existence, especially if you only believe your a bunch of matter put together by chance. Why do cells of the heart only opportune within a limited range for electrolytes? How is it possible for a sperm to fertilise an embryo, and this can’t be seen by the naked eye, but it grows in the correct environment to have a conscience of right and wrong behaviours and practices, and even a faith in a living God, and he declared he made the whole creation of the universe.

        • Natureboi

          Your argument from ignorance is pathetic.

          You worship a slavery and rape condoning child murderer.
          You CANNOT be trusted to be a reliable source of “moral” advice.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. Heterosexual was coined in 1892 when C G Craddock translated Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis into English. It always meant ‘attracted sexually to the opposite sex’ (as is evident). It had nothing to with who one married (excactly the same as in the case with homosexuality as well, BTW).
          I think you’re confusing sex with marriage. Sexuality has nothing to do with those that are polyamorous [1972], polygamous [c1610], polyandrous [flora 1764; humans 1854] or polygynous [c1845].

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Thank you, DingoJack!

          “Knowledge is Good” — Motto on statue in Animal House

          😉

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,

          You have fallen into the same trap, “Who discovered Australia? Captain Cook, The Dutch or the Aborigines? Also, The German population also had people before this time that you quoted, and they behaved similarly to people like Kerryn Phelps (ex-President of the AMA, and currently an independent politician) and Christine Foster (Tony Abbott’s sister – ex-Prime Minister) are both public figures in Australia, and they have been legally married to a man, and they had children. Later they divorced their husband, and both are now in a civil registered same-sex marriage. So are these women either heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual? The most common thought in the 1800s were people were naturally attracted to the different sex – male or female, but “heterosexuality” was originally used by german people originally to describe people who had same-sex attractions. The majority of German people didn’t talk of themselves as “heterosexual,” because they believe themselves as a “normal man” or “normal woman.”

        • DingoJack

          Nope. Your failure to understand how a blog works is on display yet again.
          You claimed “The original meaning of the word “heterosexual” was a person attracted to the same-sex and the different sex or bisexuality“.
          It wasn’t. The word always meant sexually attracted to the opposite sex — as it’s etymology clearly demonstrates.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          You can think what you like. When people first started using the word “email” it wasn’t in the dictionary, but according to you words are only used after someone records them down in a dictionary. This is quite typical of your logical reasoning.

        • DingoJack

          Nope.
          a) You’ve failed to present even the faintest whiff of evidence of that which you claimed.
          b) Psychopathia Sexualis isn’t a dictionary. Analogy fail.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Your pretending that words are in the dictionary prior to be used in society first. The word “nursing” existed in society before the profession and nursing practice was legalised and regulated by government, government authorities including the courts. I don’t refer to myself as a “straight woman,” or “heterosexual woman,” as the majority of people all over the world and over the centuries, and every Muslim country would identify me as a healthy, normal, natural “woman.” Therefore, using a psychiatric/psychological word “heterosexual” to identify complimentary sexual relationship between a man and a woman doesn’t make any sense to them nor to their society.

          The 2000 report on Homosexuality in Sydney found that women and men who claimed to be same-sex attracted had more experiences of sexual relationships with people of the different sex, than people who only self-identified as “heterosexual.” Therefore, same-sex attraction is quite rare compared to bisexuality, as this is much more common in society, so it isn’t surprising that “heterosexual” was first used to describe people who had more relationships with the different sex, but were occasionally same-sex attracted., There is no reason the majority of “people” to identify with psychiatric/psychological words, because a minority group doesn’t define them. I don’t read reports on “heterosexuals” because I don’t know anyone who self-identifies themselves with this word.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. Not what was claimed. Deal with it
          [Or at the very least, provide creditable citations for your totally unsupported claims!]

        • DingoJack

          “The 2000 report on Homosexuality in Sydney…”
          Link required.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          I’ve read the 2000 report on Homosexuality in Sydney, so you can search it up on the web yourself. Lady Black believes the laws and courts in Australia and America are now about protecting people’s rights, rather than protecting the public and society from harmful behaviours and practices. Therefore, it makes sense for my husband and I to have our legal right to define our man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) relationship and intact family the way that we want and we can break it down how and when we choose, and we don’t want nor need the expensive cash cow “wedding” price tag nor lawyer fees and court costs. We can leave secular people to have a legal right to a civil PEOPLE MARRIAGE which is equivalent to the legalised PROSTITUTION practice, as these secular civil relationships are for the purpose of “adult consenting relationships between people.”

        • DingoJack

          I’m not in the least bit interested whether you’ve read it, rendered it into a interpretive dance, or composed it into a libretto.
          Link required.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          I don’t care if you don’t read it. I know from experience this year when I helped a girlfriend legally separate from her ex-husband, and she has a friend who is a lawyer, and she told her that I had saved her well over $100 000 because I didn’t get the Family Court involved and she saved significantly on lawyer fees. Australian Christians have gained “independence” from the civil PEOPLE marriage practice, as well as the no fault divorce law, and now they can legally separate themselves with their own legal authorities, and can avoid lawyer costs and Family court costs. Australian Christians have left secular people with their “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • DingoJack

          Again, don’t care in the least about your friends friend’s alleged comments:
          Link required!

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          You should read Vector (2017, October 26 ) LGBTQIA+ people’s experiences of and barriers to healthcare retrieved from vector.amsa.org/au/2017/10/26/lgbtiq-health-and-the-medical-profession/

          LGBTQIA+ individuals have poorer mental and sexual health than the heterosexual community. LGBTQIA+ are five times more likely to attempt suicide in their lifetimes with transgender people eleven times more likely (Vector, 2017).

          LGBTQIA+ people are also twice as likely to be diagnosed and treated for mental health disorders, and about a quarter of LGBTQIA+ people aged 16 and over experience a major depressive episode (Vector, 2017).

          Along with poor mental health it has been identified that women who have sex with women are at higher risk of cervical cancer, and men who have sex with men have greater prevalence of HIV, HPV, and other sexually transmitted infections (Vector, 2017). Anal sex predisposes men who have sex with men to anal cancer. The LGBTQIA+ also has an increased incidence of certain chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, asthma and diabetes (Vector, 2017).

          Here is a more recent report than the 2000 report: sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual experience: the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships

          Juliet Richters A J , Dennis Altman B , Paul B. Badcock C D , Anthony M. A. Smith C I , Richard O. de Visser E , Andrew E. Grulich F , Chris Rissel G and Judy M. Simpson F

          + Author Affiliations

          Sexual Health 11(5) 451-460 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH14117

          Submitted: 18 June 2014 Accepted: 23 August 2014 Published: 7 November 2014

          Abstract

          Background: Behavioural and other aspects of sexuality are not always consistent. This study describes the prevalence and overlap of same-sex and other-sex attraction and experience and of different sexual identities in Australia. Methods: Computer-assisted telephone interviews were completed by a representative sample of 20 094 men and women aged 16–69 years recruited by landline and mobile phone random-digit dialling with a response rate (participation rate among eligible people) of 66.2%. Respondents were asked about their sexual identity (‘Do you think of yourself as’ heterosexual/straight, homosexual/gay, bisexual, etc.) and the sex of people with whom they had ever had sexual contact and to whom they had felt sexually attracted. Results: Men and women had different patterns of sexual identity. Although the majority of people identified as heterosexual (97% men, 96% women), women were more likely than men to identify as bisexual. Women were less likely than men to report exclusively other-sex or same-sex attraction and experience; 9% of men and 19% of women had some history of same-sex attraction and/or experience. Sexual attraction and experience did not necessarily correspond. Homosexual/gay identity was more common among men with tertiary education and living in cities and less common among men with blue-collar jobs. Many gay men (53%) and lesbians (76%) had some experience with an other-sex partner. More women identified as lesbian or bisexual than in 2001–02. Similarly, more women reported same-sex experience and same-sex attraction. Conclusion: In Australia, men are more likely than women to report exclusive same-sex attraction and experience, although women are more likely than men to report any non-heterosexual identity, experience and attraction. Whether this is a feature of the plasticity of female sexuality or due to lesser stigma than for men is unknown.

          Additional keywords: asexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality, same-sex attraction, sexual behaviour, sexual orientation.

          References

          [1] Durso LE, Gates GJ. Best practices: collecting and analyzing data on sexual minorities. In Baumle AK, editor. International handbook on the demography of sexuality. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. pp. 21–42.

          Please refer to the original report.

        • DingoJack

          See – that wasn’t too difficult, was it?
          Preliminary: You are drawing inferences of causality, the authors are not. They are not assuming the results are being caused by being part of the LGBTQIA+ community, or vice versa. They are not even assuming that is the sole variable, unlike yourself.
          Attempting to shoe-horn in that basal assumption is leading you to draw conclusions not in evidence.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Your claim of LGBTIAQ+ community turns out be only ordinary people (men, women and children), as any person can have “inner feelings, thoughts, and voices” in their head and have LGBTIAQ+ behaviour and practice, but not identify with the LGBTIAQ+ people nor LGBTIAQ+ activists.

        • DingoJack

          Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
          Non sequitur.

        • DingoJack

          OBTW – the first link is 404, the second is behind a paywall. Not very convincing ‘evidence’ — try again.

        • Sophotroph

          That’s not a rebuttal. He called you out for being wrong, he showed how you were wrong, and now you’re ignoring that and mounting another attack.

          You don’t get to just gloss over when you lose because you don’t like losing.

        • Sheryl

          Sophotroph,
          You’re not the judge between DingoJack and me, you’re wrong for sticky your nose into this matter. I haven’t lost a thing, because he is trying to claim that an “oxymoron same-sex marriage” is the same as a “marriage,” but he can’t even prove that the word “male” and “female” doesn’t include LGBTIAQ people. DingoJack is trying to pretend that LGBTIAQ people are a special type of persons needing rights that a single person shouldn’t get these same rights of government benefits.

        • DingoJack

          Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
          Reading comprehension isn’t your forte is it? Do try and stick to the subject.
          [BTW Except for two defunct pensions, now open to only those already receiving it, there aren’t any benefits specifically for married persons].

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          There isn’t anything to comprehend about an “oxymoron same-sex marriage” because this crazy idea doesn’t make any sense to the majority of people in the world nor over the centuries, and there isn’t a Muslim country in the world which is bothered with such madness. I don’t see any government benefits from any secular civil “adult consenting relationships between people” including “PEOPLE MARRIAGE,” CIVIL PARTNERSHIP REGISTRATION nor legalised PROSTITUTION PRACTICE. Therefore, my husband and I can declared “independence” from these secular civil practices, because we can self-regulate our man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and our intact family. I’m not sticking to your “oxymoron same-sex marriage” because this subject is only for secular people like yourself.

        • Sophotroph

          I certainly am the judge. Now, stop being a coward and rebut his argument or admit you are wrong and slink away.

          You’re not arguing. You lost the argument ages ago. Now you’re trying to weasel out of the loss.

          I will not permit it.

        • Sheryl

          Sophotroph,
          You’re not a judge, but you can judge yourself to see if you have wet your pants or not.

        • David Cromie

          All very true, when they have been persecuted and vilified by religiot bigots all their lives.

        • Cynthia

          Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?

          I can’t pull up the link you posted. I can, however, reason that if any group is more likely to experience things like discrimination or rejection from loved ones and community, there are likely to be health consequences.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          Women who have sex with other women have a higher risk of cervical cancer, and anal sex predisposes men who have sex with men to anal cancer, these things aren’t caused by discrimination or rejection from loved ones and community.

        • Cynthia

          Do you understand what leads to the cervical cancer risk? It isn’t than sex with a woman is inherently riskier, it’s that the health care system does a poor job of educating lesbians that they are still at risk and ensuring that they get the Pap smears that heterosexual women get routinely. https://www.verywellhealth.com/lesbians-hpv-cervical-cancer-3133195

          So yes, structural bias leads to lack of appropriate health care and education which leads to higher risk.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          Pap smear tests are equally available for all sexually active females in Australia, as they haven’t been for only “heterosexual women” or whatever that means. There was no mention of “heterosexual woman” on a recent pamphlet from the Victorian Cervical Cytology registry. Victorian girls’ schools aren’t separated into LGBTIAQ girls and heterosexual girls, so they equally get the same information about health services, sexual activities, as well as sexual intercourse. You claim structural bias leads to lack of appropriate health care and education which leads to higher risks, but you have completely ignored scientific evidence, such as there is no risk of getting pregnant if you aren’t having sexual intercourse or using IVF. Therefore, certain sexual behaviours such as anal sex does increase the risk of anal cancer, and this isn’t a result of structure bias. I haven’t come across a case of anal cancer which hasn’t been caused by anal sexual activity. This doesn’t mean anal cancer is always caused by anal sex, but most investigations find that this is the major cause.

          Australians understand the significant problems associated with smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol, and all school students have a unit of study in high school to help students make an informed decision about these harmful behavioural practices. Smoking cigarettes or any drug is very much discouraged in Australia because of the harmful problems including emphysema and lung cancer. Also, alcohol consumption is a very big problem throughout Australia including the Aboriginal communities. There are babies born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), and this problem isn’t caused by drinking orange juice nor a result of structural bias in society. FASD is a result of a pregnant mother consuming alcohol which impacts negatively on her developing baby whilst inside and outside her womb. You can focus on societies positive/negative attitude to people who identify with LGBTIAQ behaviours and practices, but healthcare professionals don’t focus on a person’s title, because men who have sex with men aren’t tired “heterosexual,” “gay,” “straight,” “cisgender” etc.

          The scientific evidence shows that women are at a higher risk of dying from a complication during pregnancy, than women who never get pregnant. Also, men who have sex with men have a higher risk of getting a STD/HPV/AIDS/HIV, than males who don’t practice sexual activities nor sexual intercourse. Plus, it is impossible to get a STD/HPV/AIDS/HIV in a faithful man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) for life, and this is because the scientifically evidence shows it is impossible to pass a sexually transmitted disease between 2 virgins who haven’t been infected with HIV blood products. We live in a society which may like to think everyone is sleeping around, but there are many people who don’t and so they never experience treatment for STDs.

        • Cynthia

          Last point first – yes, it is possible for married people to get HIV. There can be a needle stick injury, a tainted blood transfusion or IV drug abuse. As well, one spouse can be perfectly faithful and not realize that the other wasn’t, and therefore there is no condom use.

          Lesbian sex itself is not inherently riskier.

          If you look at cervical cancer stats showing a difference, did lesbian women get advised to have Pap smears as often as heterosexual women, even if they had only female partners?

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          You repeated scientific evidence that I had provided, and I had deliberately removed people who are unfaithful and exposed to blood contamination. My husband and I are faithful to each other and we haven’t exposed ourselves to the risk of contaminated blood or IV drug abuse, so it is impossible for him or me to spread/contract an STD between each other, but for the majority of secular people they find it much harder to avoid the risk of contracting and spreading an STDs/HPV/AIDS/HIV.

          Australian health services have treated all females equally the same regarding access to Pap smear tests. Your idea of division – “heterosexual women” and “lesbian women” makes absolutely no sense, because all sexually active females (young and old) are offered a Pap smear test. A 20 year old girl who claims they’re asexual or not sexually active isn’t offered a Pap smear test, even if they self-identifies as “lesbian,” “heterosexual,” “bisexual,” “transgender,” “intersex,” or “queer.” I have told you that all girls/women are advised the same about Pap smear testing because all girls/women can practice homosexual behaviours.

        • Natureboi

          these things aren’t caused by discrimination or rejection from loved ones and community.

          How does prohibiting same-sex marriage prevent diseases and cancer?

        • Cynthia

          I’m a family lawyer. Canada, not Australia, but the legal systems are similar enough.

          The actual divorce is the least expensive part of the process. The most difficult and often most expensive is a dispute over the children, and that can happen whether or not the parent are legally married.

          Of course, if there are no safety issues, couples (whether legally married or not) can save themselves a lot of stress and money when separating if they use some form of alternate dispute resolution, like collaborative family law or mediation.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          Thanks for your comment. This year, I helped my girlfriend legally separate from her ex-husband and I saved her over one hundred thousand dollars, as she didn’t pay court costs and lawyer fees. They both gave their legal consent to sell 2 properties which were in their names, and they changed ownership of the cars because she needed the bigger car for their 3 children. They have now separate bank accounts, and have divided up household furniture. They have needed mediation in working out their arrangement with their 3 children, as they communicate via phone/text messages. They discuss the children’s school fees and other expenses, and agree on sharing the bills. Australia introduced secular civil people marriage law in 2017, and this made it extremely easy for Christians to gain “independence” from this people marriage practice and the no fault divorce law.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          The Blog site didn’t allow my comment.

        • DingoJack

          A veritable slurry of bullshit!
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdMZtcKFNME

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Why does this blog site allow you to say whatever you want, and they don’t give me the same right of reply?

        • David Cromie

          Please explain what you mean by historical ‘marriage’, starting from before the 13th cent.

        • Sheryl

          David Cromie, I have recently explained this historical “marriage” as the true and correct meaning of marriage in British law based on the Judaeo-Christian law (God’s law on nature). You need to understand the real definition of the word “oxymoron” to be able to identify an oxymoron same-sex marriage.

        • Natureboi

          You need to understand the real definition of the word “oxymoron” to be able to identify an oxymoron same-sex marriage.

          Call it what you want.
          Gays marrying affects NOBODY.
          Get over it.
          You are sounding childish with your hate-filled rants.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          In their Virtual Marriage World between 2 legal persons.

        • Natureboi

          That “virtual world” protects those entering into marriage.

          Your imaginary world “marriage” doesn’t protect those entering into your imaginary religious marriage.

          Your “husband” was smart to talk you into an imaginary religious “marriage” devoid of any legal secular protections.

          When he tires of you and leaves you for another woman, you get nothing.

        • Natureboi

          In their Virtual Marriage World between 2 legal persons.

          Your religion exists only in a virtual manner.
          Are you the Kettle or the Pot?

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Therefore, you’re now seeing I am identifying that the “Kettle” (man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) will be treated as the opposite of “Pot (“Harlot Marriage” – same-sex marriage and secular Cvil People Marriage) in the spiritual world.

        • David Cromie

          You have not addressed the question of ‘historical marriage’, much less explained it. You have, on the other hand, made unsubstantiated claims/statements about it, based on your mere beliefs about what it should be.

        • Natureboi

          your intolerant of all people who don’t agree with you, and your way of thinking isn’t the majority.

          I can say the exact same of religious people.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, I agree with you that their are intolerant religious people just like there are intolerant secular people. A religion doesn’t make people intolerant, as this behaviour of “intolerance” is chosen by the person.

        • Natureboi

          Any religion that teaches that a demographic group of people (gays) are immoral, sinners, abominations, etc. is indeed teaching intolerance.
          There is no other reason to teach this about people.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, LGBTIAQ actvists are teaching that Christians and other religious people are “HATERS, HOMOPHOBES, BIGOTS, etc. This is indeed teaching intolerance. There is no other reason to label and demonise Christians and other people that have a different idea, feelings, beliefs, values, behaviours and thoughts to them.

        • Natureboi

          There is no other reason to label and demonise Christians and other people that have a different idea, feelings, beliefs, values, behaviours and thoughts to them.

          Not true.
          Activists reject religion driven discrimination.
          Nobody cares what imaginary god you believe in.
          We only care how you behave.

          Your behavior is demonstrably hateful towards others..
          Your inspiration is irrelevant.

          Don’t even try to play the religious victim card.
          You have choices.
          You CHOOSE to abuse your religion to persecute gay people. You aren’t fooling anyone.

          If you don’t want to be labeled a homophobe, a bigot, or a hater, DON’T BEHAVE LIKE ONE.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I am not obeying your law for my behavour nor practices, as I have my equal right to religious freedom which protects all other rights including freedoms of speech, thought and feelings, conscience. You’re not the living GOD that created the universe, as he has the right to rule over me with his real Truth, because he knows what is correct and right, as you’re only a little god known as man, and you have only “inner feelings of good and evil;” “right and wrong;” “normal and abnormal,” “healthy and unhealthy,” “true or deception/false/lie.” This is known as our conscience, and you choose to accept or ignore and reject it.

        • Natureboi

          Your judgment of others has been poisoned by your ridiculous religious nonsense.

        • Pope Hilarius II

          and why do you care?
          HOMOPHOBE

        • Sheryl

          What is a Homophobe? I am not scared of people who don’t want a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and intact family, as these behavioural practices are now self-regulated, and I’m not stopping any civil registered married person who wants their name and details on a public registry like a sex worker and sex offender. I don’t identify a knife as a gun, nor do I identify a same-sex married person as the same as a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage). It is now impossible to identify the type of sexual behaviour practiced for a public marriage registry, so it makes no sense that the NSW/VIC governments continue to discriminate between the type of sexual behaviour practiced by sex workers and sex offenders by placing them on separate public registries. Lets government authorities record the names and details of sex workers, sex offenders, civil registered married people, as well as homophobes on the same public registry because people can no longer discriminate against any person.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Homophobe’ also, *by dictionary definition*, refers to those who HATE the subject in question as well as ‘fear’ it.

          And there’s ZERO doubt you HATE LGBTQ folks and wish to deny them their secular rights as human beings.

        • Sheryl

          HariryEyedWordBombThrower,

          I don’t understand your meaning of “HATE” nor “Fear it,” as there is nothing to hate nor fear about people including people who think differently to me. Your claim that I “HATE” doesn’t make any sense because the word “HATE” is a feeling and you’re the last person who would understand my feelings. I haven’t denied any LGBTIAQ people their name and details recorded on a public registry like sex workers and sex offenders, but your ignorance of the true meaning of laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries means this isn’t going to end well.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Buy a dictionary.

          YOUR KIND claim *far* too often to “love the sinner but hate the sin”.

          Which is gibberish to allow you to hate a person for being him/her-self.

        • Michael Neville

          Your hatred of LGBTQs shines through every post you make. Please take your hatred and go elsewhere. You’re not going to convince us to join you in hating others nor are you going to convince us that you’re not a hater.

        • Sheryl

          Michael Neville,
          It is obvious that you HATE LGBTIAQ people because you desire that government and government authorities would regulate (control) them and you desire that they’re now punished by the courts with lawyer fees and court costs for a legal divorce. Your using the laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries to HATE LGBTIAQ people.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          By THAT standard, you and YOUR KIND **HATE** heterosexual couples because you demand that THEY jump through not just the government hoops but YOUR KIND’s idiotic SUPERSTITOUS hoops as well.

          Do *try* to be consistent and coherent, would you? It’s depressing seeing a rabid fuckup keep trying to attack with their Nerf foam teeth and salt-water-taffy jaw muscles.

        • Sheryl

          HairyEyedWordBombThrower,
          I have never met any person who has told me they’re a “heterosexual” nor “heterosexual couple.” The Australian governments has decided to establish laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries in order to protect the public and society from harmful behaviours and practices, so there is no jumping through government hoops. I’m not demanding that man-woman defacto (married) couples have a man-woman “one flesh” and intact family, as I’m live and let live.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Look up ‘black swan’.

          Once upon a time, ‘swan’ was enough, because no black swans had ever been found.

          When black swans were found in the Pacific, the extra specification was necessary.

          Also, unmarried men used to be referred to as ‘Master’ the way unmarried women were referred to as ‘Miss’…how many young men get mail addressed to them as ‘Master &ltFirstName&gt &ltLastName&gt’?

          Conventions change. Keep up or get left behind to wither.

        • DingoJack

          I think Cicero mentions a black swan as being ‘a rare bird’, implying it was something that didn’t exist.
          Of course these rare birds do exist, Cygus atratus the Southern Swan, has adult plumage that is black*.
          —-
          * hence the binomial name: Swan dressed in mourning.

        • Kodie

          If you’re live and let live, then fuck the hell off. I was at the grocery store this evening, and some lunatic walking by said Jesus loves me, that is what lunatics do. You are what lunatics do. You think repeating and blurting your ideas is somehow necessary for some reason, but that is not how one lives and lets live. That is how you loon it up.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie,
          Then don’t demand that Christians and their institutions have to participate in the secular marriage practice “between 2 people” when this doesn’t recognise their man-woman “one flesh” (marriage).

        • Kodie

          Nobody is demanding that you participate in the secular marriage practice unless you want your marriage to be recognized legally in the government of the land where you live. I mean, that’s your own choice. If you don’t like the laws, well, that’s too bad, go live in a theocracy, where people are forced to live by the laws of the religion the government forces them to believe. You’re free in America and probably Australia to fantasize that your marriage is between one flesh, which is not true.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie, The legal Disneyland practice/world is a real place with real people, and it is even govern by real laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries, and people pay real money, and it has to pay real taxes to the state, but this place and practice still remains a fantasy world. The state could establish laws to force the Catholic church to marry Cinderella and Prince Charming, but this would still not be identified as a real genuine marriage in the real world. This means that the Australian Federal Parliament decided to create a legal secular marriage practice/world between 2 people because people had fantasied about a same-sex marriage, healthcare professional-healthcare consumer marriage, doctor-nurse marriage, harlot marriage etc. Americans and Australians are free to fantasise about a 2 people marriage, so now a legal fantasy marriage practice/world now exists in both America, Australia and other western countries.

          I am not forced to participate in the legal secular marriage practice/world between 2 people because the Australian government doesn’t force anybody to participate in any of the legal fantasy practices/worlds such as Disneyland including a haunted house, Dreamworld, Movie World etc. My man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) exists naturally in the real world whether it is or isn’t supported by the state. Disneyland is within the real world, but it is impossible to discriminate a fantasy world from the real world, if you have never lived in the real world.

        • Kodie

          If you think you are the same person as your husband, get your brain scanned for damage.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie,
          I’m a biological woman, so I’m not the same as my husband who is a biological man, but people didn’t previous use “two words” to describe a “man” and “woman,” because the biological sex and gender of humans and animals were based on a male and female reproduction system that was scientifically measured and tested all over the world and over the centuries.

          A male and female reproductive system is complementary for human reproduction or naturally procreating new-life (babies). Americans previously believed that babies needed both a “father” and a “mother” to procreate, nurture and raise children, because this behavioural practice was how babies were made, nurtured and raised over centuries and all over the world. However, 21st century Americans now believe in the scientific experimentation of human reproduction in order for babies to be made for 2 people of the same-sex or legal “couple” and or a legal “person” which are all created by laws for same-sex marriage. This means that the American governments are no longer protecting babies from being legally separated from their biological father and mother, as they must treat equally the “fantasy world/practice” as the same as reality.

          The American government can’t agree on scientific facts and reason for natural human reproduction, so have created the idea of a legal “couple” and “person” who can now be identified as a legal “parent.” 21st Americans believes that a “natural parent” and a “fantasy parent” must now be treated equally as a legal “parent” for all babies, because of equality between the fantasy/virtual world and real world.

          Americans have now entered the 21st century of fantasy world/practice, and this is creating madness and chaos. The American governments have started to allow a biological woman to legally self-identify as a “man,” as well as a biological man to legally self-identify as a “woman.” The majority of the world can’t understand what the hell Americans are talking about, because their english doesn’t make sense because they have equalised man and woman as a legal “person.” Americans are now fools to believe in “inner feelings,” as a real reality, as they’re now experiencing bathroom wars about what kind of toilet can be used by all people, because they can no longer identify the difference between a “male” and “female.”

          The American government is now allowing biological boys to legally self-identify as a “girl,” so they’re free to enter a “female private space” such as a female bathroom, as well as female sport competition etc. The state previously treated girls differently from boys in order to protect them from harmful behaviours and practices, as well as sex, size and strength. 21st century Americans have ignored the scientific evidence of biological which showed it is more likely that a sexual relationship will develop between an unrelated, male and female than two people of the same sex. Therefore, the American government can no longer detect/prevent females from being sexually assaulted by biological males who can now self-identify as a “female,” as they’re free to enter a female toilet. The American government are now treating all males and females as only a legal “person” with a right to believe in whatever they think is a “boy,” “girl,” “father,” “mother,” “son,” “daughter,” “husband,” “wife” etc. This practice is all madness and has resulted in chaos in America. I’m not surprised by the high rate of murders, crime, homelessness and poverty that exists in America, because they have equalised good and evil because people can no longer identify a harmful behaviour and practice because good and bad have been equalised as the same.

          21st century American believe in “inner feelings” of gender because they can believe that male and female is whatever they want it to be. These ideas are based on autonomy and self-determination, and nobody can tell them they’re wrong, evil or wicked. Pol Pot had fantasy autonomy and self-determination to create absolute chaos in the world, and it was obvious to the majority of people that government authorities and the courts didn’t have the power to deter/prevent his evil behaviours, feelings, ideas, practices, thoughts, and values. The LGBTIAQ+ activists are different from LGBTIAQ people because the activists attempt to confuse the real meaning of word by focusing on “equality,” but words have been created on difference.

        • Michael Neville

          Now you’re just talking nonsense. I want LGBTQs to have the same rights as everyone else. It doesn’t cost lawyer fees to get married and any couple, regardless of gender, gets hit by lawyer fees to get divorced. Stop saying hateful things and stop saying silly things. For that matter, just stop saying anything because all you’ve done is written hateful, silly nonsense.

        • Sheryl

          Michael Neville,

          You want to get yourself and all LGBTIAQ people tied up in the law, and I’m glad to have gained “independence” from such HATRED.

        • Michael Neville

          LGBTQs will have to pay to get divorced is the most stupid argument against same-sex marriage I’ve ever read.

        • Sheryl

          Michael Neville, Are you trying to tell me that LGBTIAQ people don’t have to pay to get a legal divorce? A legal same-sex marriage with access to a legal divorce is a package deal, like a legal same-sex marriage is ends when one person dies.

        • DingoJack

          It’s only expensive, if you want it to be.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Bitter joke:
          “Why is divorce so expensive?”
          “Because it’s WORTH it…”

        • Michael Neville

          No, I’m trying to tell you that your argument that people in same-sex marriages who get divorced will have to pay exactly the same lawyer fees as people in other marriages is a STUPID argument. But then you seem to be a stupid person, so I shouldn’t be surprised.

        • Sheryl

          Michael Neville,
          Man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) can ignore/reject lawyer fees/ court costs etc to breakdown their marriage/family, but civil registered marriages between 2 people only have “state’s choice” to pay.

        • Michael Neville

          If the man-woman “one flesh” have a legal marriage then they have to pay lawyer fees and court costs if they get divorced. It’s true that an unmarried couple of any gender composition can walk away from each other without paying a lawyer. But if a couple is married they need to get divorced if the marriage breaks down.

          Tell me, are you being stupid on purpose or does it just come naturally to you?

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          It’s strange that someone obsessing over a man-woman “one flesh” religious Christian marriage is also extremely interested in preserving her ability to get a cheap divorce. Her Jesus Christ had some pretty strong words that he didn’t like that.

        • Sheryl

          Jack the Sandwichmaker,
          a legal no fault divorce law isn’t a biblical divorce.

        • David Cromie

          There is no such thing as a ‘biblical’ divorce. Are you are referring to the hypocritical sham of a papal annulment (only available to the rich), from an organisation that claims not to believe in divorce? Otherwise you are talking complete BS once again.

        • Sheryl

          David Cromie,
          A Biblical divorce is based on the harm of adultery and the harmful practice of breaking a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) oath, but the no fault divorce is only based on “irretrievably broken-down.”

        • Sheryl

          Michael Neville,
          Are you trying to telling me that all man-woman married unions who have a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding celebration are a civil (legal) registered marriage, so they require a legal divorce? What is the definition of a “sham marriage” which is voided by the state?

        • Michael Neville

          Yes, you incredibly ignorant person, I am telling you that if a legally married couple want to get divorced then they have to get a legal divorce? Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

        • Sheryl

          Michael Neville,
          People whom are in a People Marriage need a legal divorce, but my husband and I aren’t in a
          legal People Marriage, so we can ignore/reject this law, as well as the no fault divorce law, and we can decide for ourselves the best way to breakdown our marriage and intact family. You may find this concept so difficult to understand, because the People Marriage law is a new law based on autonomy and self-determination, but you weren’t hoping that everyone else would decide to use their own autonomy and self-determination to decide their own marriage and divorce.

        • Michael Neville

          Who, besides you, cares about your particular arrangement with your husband? We’re talking about same-sex marriage.

        • Sheryl

          Michael Neville,
          Your oxymoron “same-sex marriage” doesn’t make any sense to the majority of people all over the word and over the centuries, and this fantasy marriage doesn’t exist in any Muslim country, so it is obvious to the majority of people that your fantasy marriage Isn’t going to be an accepted practice. Therefore, Christian bakers such as Mr Phillips should only make man-woman tops for “man-woman marriage cakes.”

        • DingoJack

          Yes – as soon as you sign the paper, you’re married (everything else is unnecessary, legally).
          Try reading the Marriage Act (1961) — there’s a whole section on invalid marriages.
          Invalid marriages don’t lead to divorce, they are simply annulled.

        • Sheryl

          Dingo-Jack,

          In Australia in 2017 the secular marriage law was changed to be between 2 people, so there is no history of this Marriage World prior to 2017. This means my man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) in the real world has gained “independence” from the Virtual World. There are legal definitions of “person,” “personhood” and “couple.” The English language rule of law shows evidence that a same-sex marriage with an exclusive union between a man and a woman for life is the definition of an oxymoron as this behavioural practice never existed, nor make any sense whatsoever to the majority of people in the real world and over the centuries, and there is not one muslim country in the real world who has recognised a legal same-sex marriage, because they have ignored and rejected the fantasy English language rule of laws, because they can clearly identify an oxymoron “same-sex marriage” is the same as an oxymoron “unborn neonate.”

          The 2017 amended Marriage Act is a secular civil Marriage World between 2 people (Virtual World) between “2 consenuous adults,” because Australia changed the marriage rule of laws in order to reflect their own imagine of relationship. My civil marriage between a Healthcare Professional and Healthcare consumer will “irretrievably be broken-down” when I resign from being a healthcare professional, and lawyer fees/ court cost will be paid with Bitcoin, and that means nothing in the virtual world. I should complete my next ABS census using my Virtual World information, as Australian authorities will request my “inner feeling of gender,” and legal status in my Marriage World fantasy, so I thought whilst I was dreaming of this that I might as well finish the form in my Virtual World, as it appears that the state no longer wants my real details about myself, my family, nor my real money. I am positive that this new Marriage World will lead to absolute madness and chaos, but that has always been the plan of the LGBTIAQ+ activists, because they’re the true secular atheists who totally having faith in themselves, and they never doubt themselves, as well as completely ignore/reject the live God.

          Your type have demanded evidence of the living God, and the Holy Spirit living in Christians such as me, and I have spent time on my long service leave, and this must have costed me lots of time and money, but somehow the living God wants you to think about your language, thoughts, speech, behaviours and practices because he does want you to be in his Kingdom which has no end. I haven’t needed to have as much faith as you, because I have been reassured by family, friends, church, community, government, government authorities, courts, welfare services, hospitals and schools. I have little faith in myself because I know I’m not perfect as I get angry and impatient about little things which annoy me. I was forced to witness an abortion when I was a student, and I can never forget seeing a small baby in a kidney dish because it wasn’t planned nor wanted by their mother nor the state. Therefore, I’m your legal murderer, so I am kind of like the Apostle Paul who legally killed Christians. God can forgive any sin, accept the rejection of the Holy Spirit because this makes it impossible to be a child of the living God.

          I wish you well into your future, but I’m not surprised if your finding your life confusing because all you can go on are your “inner feelings” of right and wrong, and this is like “hit and miss,” as sometimes it will work for you and other times you’ll miss, but you don’t know the reason. I know the living God has gone to the end of the world including this Virtual World.

        • Sheryl

          Michael,
          It sounds like your a lawyer or you work in either the “wedding industry” or divorce courts, and you want and desire their money, because man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) can’t trust the government, government authorities nor courts regarding their intact marriage nor family.

        • Michael Neville

          As it happens, you stupid person, I don’t work in the “wedding industry” (whatever the fuck that is) nor do I have anything to do with any courts. It shows how stupid you are that you “think” my support for anyone getting married has anything to do with me getting paid for it.

          I’m a supporter of equal rights for everyone. You’re a stupid bigot who would deny people rights because you hate them.

        • David Cromie

          Are you feeling OK? If your problem continues, see a shrink.

        • Sheryl

          David Cromie,
          You’re needing real help if you can’t identify an oxymoron “same-sex marriage,” because this nonsense is the reason people seek mental health services.

        • lady_black

          Nobody is “punished” for marriage by having access to court benefits for divorce. And OF COURSE you have to pay for the services. The thing is, nobody is forced to be married at all. Couples marry for the legal protections marriage provides. Only one thing changes upon marriage… a legal stranger is now your legal next of kin through a consensual act. If your relationship is bad, it’s still going to be bad, and if it’s good, it’s still going to be good. Only the legal nature of the relationship will change.
          LGBT people have rights they want protected, too, as they enter into a stable legal relationship. And there is no reason to deny them these protections. END OF DISCUSSION!

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, This is your idea, but I am completely against the civil registered marriage practice.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, Your reasoning describes a legal “sham marriage” practice.

        • lady_black

          No, it does not. Getting divorced doesn’t mean the marriage was a sham. It means the marriage didn’t work out.

        • Natureboi

          It is obvious that you HATE LGBTIAQ people because you desire that government and government authorities would regulate (control) them and you desire that they’re now punished by the courts with lawyer fees and court costs for a legal divorce. Your using the laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries to HATE LGBTIAQ people.

          OH MY GOD!

          Allowing equality for gays = hate?

          Explain.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,

          “equality for gays” isn’t the Australian Marriage Law between 2 people. Identifying same-sex partners as now only “2 people” is real HATE.

        • Natureboi

          Identifying same-sex partners as now only “2 people” is real HATE.

          Jesus.
          Don’t presume to suddenly “care” if gay people are hated. You already established your hate.
          You aren’t fooling anyone.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, Telling lies to people is real HATE.

        • Natureboi

          Natureboi, Telling lies to people is real HATE.

          Calling out your hate is not telling a lie.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          I guess unlike HER, LBGTQ people cannot make the decision to not get legally married to the people they love. Once that option opens to them they HAVE to do it, and can’t instead choose her smarter plan of legally marrying a doctor or nurse.

        • Natureboi

          She doesn’t even know why she is anti-gay.

        • Sheryl

          JACK,
          This idea of “same-sex partners being legally married to the people they love” has never been the criteria of a civil registered marriage practice. The laws, regulations, guidelines, and public registries are only occur after a natural harmful behaviour and practice happens to a person within the public or within society.

        • David Cromie

          What is the basis for your insistent comparison of homosexual people, married or otherwise, with ‘sex workers and sex offenders’? The same query arises for your lumping in sex workers with sex offenders (such as paedophile RC clerics, for example?).

        • Sheryl

          David Cromie,
          LGBTIAQ+ activists can’t discriminate whatsoever between any type of sexual behaviour and practice.

        • David Cromie

          What the hell are you babbling on abut?

        • Sheryl

          David Cromie,
          Your crazy idea of an “oxymoron same-sex marriage,” and now you’re identifying it as babbling “Bullshit.”

        • lady_black

          What does type of sexual behavior matter??? Does ANY marriage registry tell anyone what kind of sex acts the people engage in? Maybe they don’t have sex at all. They are STILL MARRIED, and you are still a moron.

        • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

          She can’t keep herself from thinking about all the dirty dirty sex that other people are having in their marriage beds, can she? Quite an obsession.

        • Sheryl

          Jack the Sandwichmaker,
          An oxymoron “same-sex marriage” isn’t a sexual relationship as this is only a legal union according to current British marriage law. However, a man-woman marriage is a sexual relationship according to current British marriage law, as adultery is grounds for a divorce, and the courts can refuse a legal divorce for a man-woman marriage because one spouse doesn’t want to be married anymore. Your the person communicating dirty dirty sex, so this must be your “inner feelings, thoughts and voices” expressed in words.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Nothing matters in a secular marriage practice/fantasy world between 2 people because it is like Disneyland based on real fantasy laws to include a real fantasy civil registered marriage between a Healthcare professional and Health consumer.

        • lady_black

          My 31 year civil marriage is NOT “practice”, NOT “fantasy”, and not based on “Disneyland fantasy laws.”
          Now you are reduced to nonsense. SEEK MENTAL HELP. You are obviously not “all there.”

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Your civil registered marriage if it is really 31 years, this had to be based on the true and correct definition of the word “marriage” because the oxymoron same-sex marriage didn’t even exist at that time, unless you’re now confessing to me that you and your husband have had a “sham” marriage.

        • lady_black

          What is a “sham” marriage?

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Now I know you haven’t studied Law.

        • lady_black

          Well, NO. You seem to have an “unusual” set of definitions for things, and a poor grasp on law. I know what a sham marriage is for legal purposes. I also KNOW that “sham” marriages are legally valid, and not a crime unless they are entered into for the sole purpose of deceiving immigration officials. Other than that, people are free to marry for any reason they like. So, to answer your question, NO, neither my husband or I are in need of a green card, nor were either of us EVER in need of a green card. The law cares NOT for anyone’s reasons for marrying another.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          A sham marriage is when a couple decide to have a civil registered marriage, but they’re not in a genuine relationship, but they entered this relationship to get benefits from the government. The couple have a real state marriage certificate for a real public wedding ceremony. You have totally supported same-sex partners right to marriage based on gaining legal government marriage benefits. However, it is impossible to identify a type of sexual behaviour which is practiced in a Public Marriage Registry, but the NSW state government can discriminate the type of sexual behaviour which is practiced by placing sex workers and sex offenders on separate public registries. This means that an idea of “not be able to discriminate whatsoever” is a dangerous idea.

        • lady_black

          It is perfectly legal to marry to get benefits from the government. That was, in fact, one of the points I used to persuade my husband toward marriage.
          Furthermore, that has nothing to do with “not having a ‘real’ relationship.” Obviously, we DID have a real relationship, and marriage changed nothing BUT the government benefits (and other benefits) associated with marriage in this country. Much like a neutered dog, you don’t “get it.”
          A “sham marriage” is one entered into with the intention of divorcing at some point, after the parties have obtained whatever benefit they expect to gain, and there is never a genuine relationship. And, it’s not illegal other than being used as a means to gain immigration shortcuts.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Your comment isn’t completely true/accurate, because the state wasn’t giving benefits to all 2 people “adult consenting relationships,” such as sex work and their client, as clients have to pay tax on the service of sex from the sex worker, but my husband and I aren’t required to pay tax on the exchange of money for services we give each other, because the state recognises our legal “couple,”and this exempt us from paying taxes. Australian taxation system is designed on making people pay tax on goods and services between unrelated people, as well as corporations & businesses. Therefore an oxymoron “same-sex marriage,” makes it harder to discriminate the difference between a family from people living as housemates or unrelated and related people.

          If my husband needed a visa for work in the US, The US Immigration department wouldn’t accept my civil registered marriage is between a healthcare professional and a healthcare consumer, because they wouldn’t view our relationship as a genuine marriage deserving me to get a visa. My husband and I have no intention of getting a legal divorce. The very fact that you and I are discussing the true meaning of “marriage” should clearly sound a clear warning to you that the English language rule of laws have broken-down, and this means that communication is now much more harder for everyone. You could identified a significant problem with the oxymoron “unborn neonate,” and the difficulty this behavioural practice would cause in the healthcare profession and healthcare services.

          My cat and dog’s registration with my council has gender: “female,” but my cat and dog can’t self-identify nor verbalise their gender. In Australia all animals sex and gender are the same thing because these things are based on the male and female reproductive system which has been scientifically measured and test all over the world and over the centuries. However, humans and all animals aren’t treated equally the same for sex and gender. The Australian guidelines of sex and gender, and the guidelines doesn’t mention that it is only refers to humans nor does it say that it is for all humans. Gender is defined by an “inner feelings of gender,” and sex doesn’t mention male nor female, so there is no differences mentioned between anatomical characteristics, gonads, and chromosomes and gametes, as sex is only defined as a legal “person.” There are people who can’t self-identify nor verbalise their gender such as people who are unconscious, inherent, confused, newborn, unborn, dead, delirious, demented etc. These people are losing their most basic human right to be identified by their biological sex which isn’t protected in any laws, regulations, guidelines nor public registries in Australia.

          The LGBTIAQ+ activists are confusing the language about sex and gender. My cat and dog are both de-sexed, but they’re still legally identified on their registration as gender: “female” as our family can’t request the council registration to change them to be a “male,” nor do we have a legal right to request a veterinarian surgeon to make them “male.” However, a biological man can have his sexual reproduction system removed, and can self-identify as a “man,” “woman” or “other,” depending on his “inner feelings of gender.” The very fact that I need to say 2 words for “biological man,” rather than just one word “man,” clearly shows evidence that communication is breaking down. A Dr does a pap smear on a woman, and this is a legal and consenting sexual medical procedure, but a Dr could be changed with sexual assault if they don’t have a legal consent/contract or they have a fake qualifications. An oxymoron “same-sex marriage” makes it harder to trust the institution because mored unrelated people are becoming related by law rather than by nature. Unfortunately, the consequence of the breakdown of the English language rule of laws has made communication more difficult, as well as trust others and politicians, corporations, businesses, institutions. This means our families, communities, societies and western countries will all suffer from poor communication because of including LGBTIAQ+ activists’ english language rule of laws.

        • lady_black

          Because a sex worker and a client are not married. Because all adults in consensual sex relationships are not married. Married requires specific intent. Think “corporation,” only in miniature.
          I have no idea why you keep coming back to sex activity. Sex activity has NOTHING to do with marriage, and you have already been told that.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Your claim that sex activity has nothing to do with marriage, so this means that you were living with your house-mate in a defacto (marriage).

        • DingoJack

          Nope.
          Family Law Act (1975). Volume 1, Part 1, Section 4AA, paragraph 2(c).
          [Sexual relationship between parties is something the court can consider to determine if two persons are in a defacto relationship, if it desires to do so].
          Marriages can’t be annulled on the basis of non consummation. (Marriages don’t require a sexual relationship).

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          In Australia, the Catholic church has cannon laws which are different to the Australian People marriage law. The Civil registered marriage can’t be annulled n the basis of nn consummation, because same-sex partners can’t consummate a marriage, but the Catholic church can annul a man-woman civil registered marriage which hasn’t been consummated.

        • DingoJack

          Yep – and that is totally irrelevant – once you sign the papers you are married — everything else – Buddhist, Catholic, Rastafarian, Jedi or Jewish ceremonies is your choice, but not at all legally important.
          All are still legally bound.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Sham marriages aren’t legally bound and it doesn’t matter what religion participates in them.

        • DingoJack

          Nope — you’ve got it completely arse-backward.
          It doesn’t matter in the least what ‘religious’ icing you want to add. Signing the paper is what makes it a marriage.
          Everything else is totally irrelevant. You can do whatever you like. It ain’t marriage. Signing the paper is marriage.
          Deal with it.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          Your comment, “signing the paper is marriage” is equivalent to saying, “nursing is only a registered practice,” and this isn’t true because mothers can nurse their baby, so they don’t need to be registered with the state.

          nursingDictionary

          noun

          1.

          the profession or practice of providing care for the sick and infirm.

          “not enough people are entering nursing”

          adjective

          adjective: nursing

          1.

          (of a mother) breastfeeding a baby.

          “nursing mothers need to replace lost fluids”

        • DingoJack

          Yep. You could get the religious types to declare you never married.
          Then try re-marrying. Bigamy is 10 years. Try to make friends with Queen Bee.

        • lady_black

          No, it does not. Common law marriage, where it is recognized (not here) requires a specific intent to be married. There have to be vows. You must present yourselves to everyone as married. “Housemates” doesn’t make the cut.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Common law marriage never required an intent to be married nor vows, but people did recognise them as the same as a legally married couple, but they never had a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony. My husband and I are recognised by our society as a married couple, but we have never purchased our civil NSW Marriage Certificate.

        • David Cromie

          Then you are living in ‘sin’, as your supposed ‘god’ would say, according to the christer creed.

        • Sheryl

          David,
          You don’t understand what “living in sin” means. I’m married under the true and living God’s law regarding coveting/adultery, but my civil registered marriage between an engineer and client is completely an asexual civil marriage, because the state doesn’t force me to pay any tax on the money I give my husband for his services in fixing my computer.

        • David Cromie

          “I’m married under the true and living God’s law regarding coveting/adultery…”.

          Since you have failed to provide the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence showing that your favourite supposed ‘god’ actually exists, then you are not actually ‘married’, in the legal sense. What has ‘coveting’ have to do with anything marital? Adultery is against the law of the land, and thus is already a crime, in fact.

        • DingoJack

          Well in the US – it’s complicated. In Australia it’s not illegal.

        • Cynthia

          Is it a crime? I haven’t looked it up in Australia but it isn’t a crime in Canada, just one of the grounds for divorce (which almost nobody pleads; because divorce on the grounds of separation is just easier).

        • DingoJack

          No, it isn’t. States abolished state adultery laws and finally it was abolished federally by section 4 of HUMAN RIGHTS (SEXUAL CONDUCT) ACT 1994.
          [Apologies for the all caps, that’s how the title appears in the original].

        • Greg G.

          Your husband charges you for fixing your computer? Don’t be lecturing others about how to do marriage.

        • Sheryl

          Greg G,
          The government and government authorities including the courts are regulating and punishing a “civil registered people marriage” with costs/fees, so people need a lecture about how this legal practice protects the public and society from harmful behaviours and practice.

        • David Cromie

          Sham marriage? True christians that are homosexual, and marry , even have children, to try to dupe others into believing that they are ‘normal’. True christians that think rape within marriage is their right. True christians that seek the solace of prostitutes, male of female, True christians that abuse, both sexually and mentally, their own offspring, and/or the offspring of others, and so on…

          All of these are upstanding pillars of their brands of ‘true’ christianity, and of society, until they are found out (the 11th Commandment; Thou shalt not be caught out), and all are in sham marriages (being deceitful) from the word go. Of course, clergy of the ‘one true’ Roman church are absolved of the need to enter into sham marriages to be able to act out their sexual preferences, with respect to their objective demographic (even popes may sire illegitimate children, or cavort with altar boys with impunity).

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, You might claim all these things, but the secular PEOPLE MARRIAGE LAW changed a civil registered marriage for everyone because it is only between 2 people.

        • lady_black

          Doctors and nurses can marry.

        • WallofSleep

          “Another wall of bullshit.”

          Absolutely no relation to WallofSleep. Just sayin’.

          😛

      • lady_black

        For your information, speaking as a nurse, there is no such thing as “an unborn neonate.” ALL neonates have already been born. This is NOT a thing.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, I’ve responded to this comment elsewhere that Americans are fussy about their words including “bathroom,” when Australians use the word “toilet.”

        • lady_black

          I also use the word “toilet.” Medical terms are rather precise. “Neonate” is literally “newborn” in English, and medically applies to the infant for the first month following birth.
          Do you see how silly you sound, speaking of an “unborn newborn?” That’s called an oxymoron. A total contradiction in terms. IOW, words have meaning. They do not mean whatever you want them to mean. If you can’t use medical terms accurately, don’t use them.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Australian nurses use the word “neonate” to mean “pre-term baby” or “not fully developed baby.” Therefore, neonatal intensive care is predominately caring for pre-term babies. The English language isn’t consistently used the same in all places in the world. My brother-in-law is a cardiologist, and when he lived in America as a child according to his teacher he needed speech therapy for pronouncing his R incorrectly. My mother-in-law who is a retired lawyer informed his teacher that no self-respecting Australian pronounced their R correctly. What words do you used to describe an “unborn pre-term baby” to their mother? Do you say “your baby” or “your fetus?”

          You better not offend the people who are self-identifying as a “female,” despite them having a male reproductive system by labelling them as an oxymoron. Also, you shouldn’t offend the people who use the words “they” or “them” as pronouns incorrectly. Plus, you shouldn’t offend the people who make up their own pronoun because words have meaning. If you’re so concerned about the English language becoming confusing, then please use the original meaning of “marriage” according to British law was an exclusive union between one man and one woman for life, as “marriage” was based on the Judaeo-Christian law meaning God’s law and natural law. Therefore, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, and you clearly understand what this means, but you believe the sexual relationship between same-sex partners is the same as the sexual relationship between man and woman. If you can’t use the english legal term for “marriage” accurately according to the historical meaning of marriage, then don’t use it. This means that same-sex partners need to find another word to describe their sexual relationship, but they just won’t listen to your advise about a “total contradiction in terms.” I think Americans should start to practice what they preach because the LGBTIAQ+ activists are completely confusing the english language.

        • lady_black

          No, they DO NOT.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Prove to me that 21st American don’t believe that boys can now have a period, as they are teaching this nonsense in American and British schools? The majority of people in the real world don’t believe boys have a period, and there isn’t one muslim country in the world that believes in such nonsense. Maybe, the Americans will create a fantasy “muslim world/practice” for same-sex marriage and educating boys that they now can have a period. What is the difference of a boy period from a girl period?

        • Kodie

          You’re living in the past, man.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie,
          21st century Americans are living in a fantasy world/practice, and they think this is the real world because they don’t live in the real world, but only a real fantasy.

        • Kodie

          You can’t realize how batshit insane you are, so there is nothing left to discuss.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, There is one word to describe a “newborn baby” and that is “newborn,” However, a preterm baby or premature baby are two words which are shorten to just one word called “neonates.” Therefore, the specialised area of care and treatment for predominately sick “neonates” is called neonatal intensive care. This makes sense to Australian healthcare professionals. To describe neonates in a mother’s womb is called “unborn neonates.” Otherwise a person needs more words than are necessary when “one” word can be used. This is one reason the majority of countries in the world have rejected same-sex marriage. In countries which have included a secular marriage practice/fantasy world between 2 people, it takes lots more words to describe a lifelong, faithful, committed complementary sexual relationship between a man and a woman which is the foundation in forming an intact family, because they can procreate new-life, this has been called one word “marriage.”

          The legal practice of Disneyland and same-sex marriage is only recognised in a minority of countries in the real world, and they don’t exist at all in any Muslim country. It is obvious that you know somethings about real truth, but you don’t under the difference between fantasy and reality, nor the Australian way of life. This is because you’re living in America, so you’re much more exposed to living in the virtual worlds and fantasy worlds, as if these worlds were the world, and you don’t use the word “neonates” like we Australians do to describe a pre-term baby or premature baby, but I don’t know what “one” word Americans use instead to describe “pre-term babies or “premature babies.” These days there are Americans who demand to use lots of words because I think they like to hear the sound of their own voice, even when no one is listening. In other words i think they talk to themselves like mentally ill people.

        • lady_black

          WRONG! All newborns are neonates. Not only the sick, and the pre-term. Let me ask you something. Are you a nurse? I am. 32 years and counting, now. I also have a paralegal degree, because I once thought of being a legal nurse expert, but it turns out that my heart was never in that. It also might help if I wanted to be an administrator.
          Nursing education is pretty universal. So is medical terminology. You are simply wrong. And one other thing… my argument was with your use of the term “unborn neonate.” There is no such thing. What does a pre-term infant, a full term infant, a healthy infant, and a sick infant all have in common? They have ALL BEEN BORN. The medical term for an unborn is embryo or fetus, depending upon the stage of development.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, so you have no single word in America for a pre-term baby?

        • lady_black

          NO. And neither do you.

        • DingoJack

          Well let’s see how the Royal College of General Practitioners defines ‘neonate’:
          “Common neonatal (first 28 days of life post-term) presentations to general practitioners (GPs) include fever, respiratory symptoms, feeding difficulties, unsettled babies, vomiting, constipation, jaundice and rashes. This article will discuss these clinical presentations and how to approach them in general practice.” [from AJGP https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2018/april/common-neonatal-presentations%5D
          Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne:
          “Neonate: An infant, less than 28 days old ” [https://www.rch.org.au/rchcpg/hospital_clinical_guideline_index/Ward_Management_of_a_Neonate/]
          WA Health Department:
          “2.1.1 Neonate A neonate is any infant aged less than 28 completed days. Neonatal units may provide care for infants up to 6 months postnatally or two months of age corrected for prematurity.” [https://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/Files/Corporate/general%20documents/Health%20Networks/Womens%20and%20Newborns/Framework-for-the-Care-of-Neonates-in-WA.pdf]
          But pfft, what would they know? Right?

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          You, as well as Lady Black (person who has commented on this blog site) have both fallen on your own sword, because I have clearly identified that both of you are hypocrites. Your comments here has clearly showed me that you have a clear understanding of the correct (true) meaning of the word “neonate” by supplying real supporting scientific evidence (facts and reason) that a “neonate” means “newborn.” Therefore, when a person such person including Healthcare professional, makes a claim such as an “unborn neonate,” you clearly identified that this idea is an oxymoron, because it doesn’t make any sense as you, because your willing obeyed the language rule of the correct (true) meaning of the word “oxymoron.” This means that you know that the definition of “truth” means “correct,” despite many 21st century Americans claim today, “There is no real truth, and truth is whatever somebody feels.” These people mistakenly think that the word “marriage” has evolved with time, and they’re willing to ignore the language rule, by believing that “marriage” is now based on a person’s feeling, rather than scientific facts, reason and faith. The idea that “marriage” includes a non-sexual partnership is ridiculous for a faithful man-woman relationship. Therefore, the idea of “same-sex marriage” is incorrect (false) because it ignores/rejects the language rule of the correct (true) meaning of “oxymoron.”

          Please refer to my comments below to Lady Black, as I explained to her how she has broken the language rule for the correct (true) meaning of the word “marriage” because of her feelings about the word “marriage.” She has claimed on this blog site that marriage has nothing to do with sex. “Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron which has been correctly identified by the majority of people around the world and over the centuries, because the correct (true) meaning of the word “marriage” is “an exclusive union between a man and woman for life” this mean a lifelong, faithful, sexual relationship between one man and one woman, as this sexual relationship is the foundation to forming an intact family (natural human reproduction) based on a complementary male and female reproductive system which naturally procreates new-life. This definition of “marriage” was recorded in British laws based on common laws and was even inherited in Australian laws, as this was based on the Judaeo-Christian law (God’s law of nature).

          The Australian Federal Parliament with lawyers clearly understood the correct (true) definition of “marriage,” and when some Australians became confused about “marriage” because of marriage and family breakdown and some people demanding an oxymoron “same-sex marriage,” the Australian Federal Parliament with lawyers decided to clearly remind all Australians about the correct (true) meaning of “marriage,” so it was clearly recorded in the Australian Marriage Law in 2004. ”

          Prior to 2004, Australians government hadn’t found the need to remind Australians about the correct (true) meaning of the word “marriage,” like they wouldn’t need to put the definition of “gravity” into Australian Aviation laws, because the majority of Australians understand the correct (true) meaning of “gravity.” The 21st century American idea of including the minority people for “marriage equality” means they have ignored laws/rules of language, nature, science, This means that LGBTIAQ+ activists have now legally created fantasy words for a legal fantasy world such as a legal secular marriage practice between 2 people, and this isn’t based on real (true and correct) facts, reason nor faith. If you consistently decide to follow the language rules, rather than what you feel like, then your likely to be able to identify an “oxymoron” such as same-sex marriage.

        • DingoJack

          Awww Pet, have you forgotten how a blog works?
          The arguments you’ve made don’t disappear into thin air you know.
          It was you who was insisting that ‘unborn neonates’ was an actual medical term*. But neonates can’t be unborn, by definition.
          So now you’re trying to shift the goalposts, hoping no-one notices. Not gonna work Sheryl.
          ——–
          * “To describe neonates in a mother’s womb is called ‘unborn neonates.'”

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          The only way to expose your oxymoron “same-sex marriage” is with another oxymoron “unborn neonate,” that someone may really be offended by which was a nurse who was also a para-lawyer, but I haven’t found a real Lawyer who would take me on, because they know they would never win.

        • DingoJack

          Nope. ‘unborn neonate’ was an oxymoron coined by you. Own it – or be owned by it.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack, I have the same right as same-sex partners to deliberately make ideas appear rational and logical, and hope others will believe in my desired rights to give an unborn or fetus their right to live by giving them the name “neonate.” I have read about lots of oxymorons, so I can’t remember when I first read about an “unborn neonate” is a true oxymoron, but this exposed the oxymoron “same-sex marriage.” This makes you all look quite foolish as you bought their deception of lies.

        • The only way to expose your oxymoron “same-sex marriage” is with another oxymoron “unborn neonate,”

          A better oxymoron is “unborn child.”

        • Sheryl

          Bob Seidensticker,
          I agree with you, but a nurse or lawyer would never have taken this bait, as it is too obvious to know this is absolute rubbish or nonsense.

      • lady_black

        Also, adultery isn’t a crime, and shouldn’t be a crime. The legal recourse to adultery is divorce.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, It depends which country you live in.

  • Grimlock

    What if someone wanted to celebrate a bromance with a wedding cake; obviously with decorations of two guys on it.

    Would it be okay for certain same-sex marriage opponents to make such a cake, when the intent is to celebrate a bromance, and not a wedding?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7hjdC8-jbw

  • Jack Baynes, Sandwichmaker

    I wonder if bigoted Christian bakers feel that they’ve been deceived if one of the intended spouse orders and picks up the cake and the baker doesn’t find out until after that the cake was for two grooms or two brides.

  • epicurus

    Christian baker’s should have a policy of – If you are divorced and getting married a second time – no cake for you

    • And assuming that the Colorado baker didn’t check for those other things that make baby Jesus cry, wouldn’t that sink his defense? He claims that he’s following the Bible’s plainly stated rules, but he discards some based on some non-biblical metric (likely his own personal homophobia, but the reason why isn’t relevant).

  • Foxglove

    Liberals say the conservatives are haters. But when they disagree, they’re just as hateful.

    In my view this is the fundamental bit of dishonesty that the anti-LGBT crowd refuse to face. We call them haters because they act like haters: they’ve erased us, they’ve driven us underground, they’ve stripped us of all the rights other citizens take for granted, they’ve harassed and bullied us to no end, etc. Those are the actions of haters.

    But we LGBT people have never done that sort of thing to them. We LGBT people are not anti-straight or anti-cis. We’re not attacking straight marriage, e.g. We’re not proposing legal restrictions for people who are and live straight and cisgender. We don’t have national organizations that campaign against straight, cisgender rights. In accordance with the example given in this blog: no gay baker is going to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple. We support LGBT rights, but we don’t oppose the rights of straight, cisgender people.

    But when they disagree, they’re just as hateful.

    This is in line with the dishonest dodge, “You’re calling me a hater just because I disagree with you!” But what is this disagreement about? We say we should have equal rights. You say we shouldn’t. And when you’re advocating denying others civil rights, that’s an act of hatred, which earns you the title “hater”. When we disagree with you, it’s because we’re claiming equal rights. If we were trying to deny you equal rights, then you could call us haters.

    It’s similar to the old mantra, “They’re just as intolerant as we are!” But when you’re intolerant, it means we have no civil rights. Where we’re intolerant is refusing to tolerate your efforts to deny us equal rights. We’re not trying to deny you your rights.

    It’s hard to understand how people can be so blind and stupid: they want to deny people civil and human rights, but they still want to label as “hateful” or “intolerant” people who are claiming those rights, but who are not trying to deny rights to anybody else.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      “It’s similar to the old mantra, “They’re just as intolerant as we are!””

      Thus the Paradox of Tolerance…

      • Foxglove

        That’s it. It infuriates them when we refuse to tolerate their intolerance.

    • Michael Neville

      Hear! Hear!

    • yes, it’s important to deny a claimed symmetry of argument when that symmetry isn’t there.

      • There can’t be a symmetrical argument when one sides “facts” are handwavinJEEZUZisticKKKrap.

    • They’re not JUST as hateful.

      I have yet to find an instance of roving bands of HS Home-ec homoz catching a lone star athlete and bullying, bludgeoning or sodomizing them. Maybe it just doesn’t make the news?

    • aCultureWarrior

      Perverse behavior throughout history was “underground”, i.e. kept to the dark alleyways and seedy houses of ill-repute.
      And then we got civilized.

      • Foxglove

        Thanks, “Culture Warrior”. I suppose it’s just my mood this evening, but you’ve given me a good laugh. “Perverse behavior”? That sounds like something a parrot could say:

        “Awk! Perverse behavior! Awk!”

        You guys are so immature. Who knows? Maybe you’ll make a bit of progress as you grow older.

        And then we got civilized.

        Yep, we did. And I can picture someone like you wrapped up in an animal skin, hunched over a fire in a cave, gnawing on a bone and picking the fleas out of his hair and armpits.

        What a pathetic little life you lead. Have you really got nothing better to do with yourself?

        • aCultureWarrior

          You’re welcome foxglove. People these days really don’t use the word “pervert”, as in today’s moral relativist society, perversion seems to be a subjective term, if it exists at all.
          *Regarding our supposed “civilized” society, how about we talk about how your LGBT movement ‘molests’ the minds of young children instead of arm pit flee pickin cave men?
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=82&v=JxdvOLdG_34

        • Foxglove

          You know something, Culture Warrior? I’ve always wondered why people like you think that a god loves them. What have you got to offer him or anybody else but your poisonous, hate-filled soul? Why would you think he’d love that?

          I think the reason is because you figure, who else is going to? It’s like on the old “Mary Tyler Moore Show”, that character Ted Baxter who was such an awful jerk. But at last he’d found a woman who wanted to marry him. And one of her friends asked her, “Do you really love him?” And she replied, “Somebody has to.”

          And if I were to ask your god, “Do you really love people like that Culture Warrior fellow?”, he’d reply, “Somebody has to.” Fair enough.

          But for me you’re kind of the Mike Huckabee of haters. Totally hapless, not the sort anybody could take seriously. It’s like, “Are you kidding me? Is that really the best you can do?” You’re the sort that gives a haters a bad name. I’d imagine you’re quite an embarrassment to them. Well, that’s for you to worry about if you want to.

          But for now, Culture Warrior, you run along and find somebody else to bother. I’m not impressed with your sort, and I’ve got better things to do.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *God loves me for repenting. I think He loves me standing up for HIs Word as well and sharing His Truth with others.
          *From arm pit flee pickin cavemen to 70’s sitcoms, you’re quite the entertainer with your (lame) analogies.
          *Sigh, yet ANOTHER atheist who doesn’t believe in God but for some reason believes that he is an expert on Him.
          *I call him “Mike Hucksterbee”. Poor guy, his daughter works for that rainbow flag waving degenerate Donald Trump (you do know that Trump is a strong LGBT ally don’t you?).
          Regarding “better things to do” : While I would suggest going to a counselor to overcome your confusion on human sexuality, I know that you won’t do that. How about “getting tested”, as that’s part of the LGBT culture isn’t it foxglove?

        • Foxglove

          Sigh! Culture Warrior, you haters for Jesus are such a pain in the ass. You’re like children. You just don’t know how to go away and stop bothering people. These are atheist forums here. Go back to your Jesus forums and you can rant all you like about how awful atheists and LGBT people are.

          But if you’re going to insist on being a child, I’ll do the same thing with you I did with my son when he was being a bit of a bother. I’ll send you to your room. You’re blocked.

        • aCultureWarrior

          *Come on foxglove, you know that it would be extremely boring for you God HATERS if you just sat around all day chatting with one another about how God doesn’t exist, all the while, competing to see who is supposedly the most knowledgeable about Him.
          Blocking me or banning me won’t change the truth. You still have to deal with the lie that you’re living whether or not I’m the one telling you about it.

        • Greg G.

          He doesn’t have the power to ban you. That power belongs to the moderator. He can only block you which means he does not see your messages. It is pointless to reply to him but it makes you look petulant.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Who hates this ‘god’ of yours?

          It would have to EXIST first, and there’s no evidence you’ve presented yet that it’s anything more than your hateful superstitious meme.

          Hating YOUR KIND’s behavior, on the other hand, is easy because you’re worthless fuckups with a lust to power, who shouldn’t even be trusted to clean up dog shit.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nonsense.

          *Demonstrate* this ‘god’ is anything other than a hateful superstitious meme that you use to take permission to attempt to abuse people.

          Until then, you’re just an asshole with no excuse at all.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR KIND’s perversion is trying to assert authoritarian control over people who are living their lives, hurting nobody and nothing but your overweening authoritarian urge to force control on the unwilling.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s the Religious Virus attempting to spread.

      • T9R

        So that’s why slavery was so popular!

        • aCultureWarrior

          Yes, being ‘enslaved’ to sin is very popular in today’s sick society.

        • Greg G.

          Jesus endorsed slavery, even thought beating slaves was so fine he used it as a parable for God.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Your vast ignorance of my Lord and Savior is duly noted Gregory.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Ephesians 6:5-9

          5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

          You were saying again?

          If YOUR KIND have to ‘apologize’ away the black-letter text here, the problem is your terror of realizing what a fucked-up vile mentality your ‘jesus’ would have had to have, quite beyond whether or not it ever existed in the first place.

        • Huh? Slavery is a bad thing? Tell that to God next time you chat.

          Lev. 25:44-46.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        SOMEbody has never studied the Greeks, among other ancient civilizations.

        • aCultureWarrior

          I stand corrected. By studying the Greeks, the modern day LGBT movement fine tuned their practice of pederasty.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You left out King David & his lover, Jonathan…

          Please realize that I gleefully wallow in schadenfreude at your disgust of people living their own lives without YOUR KIND’s permission.

          YOUR KIND don’t get to define right & wrong because you SUCK at it.

          Do better or stop complaining when you’re rightly derided, mocked, and ignored, as the circumstances indicate.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Can we both agree that the homosexual founded North American Man Boy Love Association (and Pedophile Information Exchange/P.I.E in the UK) most likely studied pederasty from the Greeks Harold?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          I won’t take YOUR KIND’s word for anything.

          Provide a peer-reviewed resource demonstrating that, or I’ll know you’re just trying to lie your assertion into (specious) existence.

        • aCultureWarrior

          Oh my, Harold wants a peer-reviewed resource (i.e. biased studies done by the rainbow flag waving APA’s) showing that pederasty runs rampant in the LGBT movement.
          Gosh Harold, you got me there, as the fox that is in charge of watching the henhouse never reports how many chickens are missing.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          YOUR KIND can’t wriggle out by claiming bias.

          If YOUR KIND has better scholarship and evidence, you’ll win.

          It’s just that YOUR KIND (superstitious religionist terrorist wannabes) have been losing ground to science ever since it was developed, and have yet to win ONE battle…superstition has NEVER supplanted a scientific answer. When scientific answers are supplanted, it’s by *science* finding the new better answer.

        • Sheryl

          HairEyedWordBombThrower,
          King David and Bathsheba had an “adulterous relationship,” so your comment about Johnathan has no support for an oxymoron “same-sex marriage.”

        • rubellapox2

          No sweetie, pederasty/pedophilia is the churches thing.. has nothing to do with gay couples marrying..

        • aCultureWarrior

          I’m glad that we both agree that homosexual pedophiles/pederasts will go anywhere to find ways to have sex with little boys (i.e. the Catholic Church, the Boys Scouts of America, aka “The Boy Sodomizers of America”).
          I’m glad that we’re able to come to an agreement on that. Now let’s work on how proud and unrepentant homosexuals ‘molest’ the minds of innocent children.

        • Ignorant Amos

          But for idiotic homophobic bigoted fuckwits, it’s all about blaming the geyz.

        • AJFlambe

          Again, with the simplistic conclusions..

        • rubellapox2

          It’s the truth dear, sorry if it ruffles your feathers….

        • Doesn’t it just follow from definitions that pedophilia has no closer connection to same-sex marriage as opposite-sex marriage?

        • AJFlambe

          Exactly.

        • AJFlambe

          That wasn’t my point.

      • And look who turns up! I’m sure you made a new year’s resolution to be more constructive and to adapt when your ideas are shown to be flawed.

    • Ken Campbell

      Well stated

  • RichardSRussell

    Retail stores have rights to free speech

    Well, yeah, since the Supreme Court’s atrocious Citizens United decision in 2010, corporations have been legally declared the equivalent of human beings in the United States, crazy as that sounds (and is). So, as the legal equivalent of human beings, they have human rights as well. That’s equally nuts, but the Supremes have applied the principle consistently, ruling in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell that these bodiless, brainless, thotless, conscienceless artificial entities nonetheless have religious opinions which they’re entitled to impose on their employees and customers because “free speech” and “freedom of religion” are human rights under the 1st Amendment, doncha know?

    Completely aside from the perverse interpretation of “religious liberty” as meaning “I can force you to live according to my standards”, there’s the whole idea of why corporations should ever be considered to have rights of any kind. Privileges, yes. Privileges extended to them by the states under whose laws they are created. Privileges that come with certain specified powers, yes, but also with limitations and duties. Privileges that can be different for, say, non-profits vs. for-profit organizations. Privileges which can be revoked or modified under certain conditions. Privileges which are defined by the state legislature and subject to revision by the legislature or courts. But only privileges.

    Privileges are not the same as rights, and those of us who are trying to preserve the distinction between actual living, breathing, thinking human beings and fake people are doing our damnedest to point out the difference, lest we fall down the rabbit hole that George Orwell pointed out in a society where war means peace, freedom means slavery, and ignorance means strength.

    • Kodie

      I don’t know why a company can break the 1st amendment, per se, by establishing a religious belief for its employees, who lose their rights by agreeing to work there. I mean, if a bakery refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, but one of the bakers agree to make the cake for the couple, or is basically saying they won’t hire anyone who is gay or an ally. I was thinking if I were a baker, and someone wanted to celebrate someone’s holy communion, I would have no trouble baking that cake. If someone wanted to write “Jesus is the only way” on a cake, I would write that cake for them. I don’t have to believe what I make. It’s not the kind of art that is my personal expression where I believe what I make, it’s the kind of craft that I can turn stuff into things for people who want them. I don’t like the color red that much, but if someone wanted something red, I would support that and whatever they wanted to pay for. I wouldn’t bake a file in a cake to help someone escape prison. I wouldn’t add poison or something that someone is allergic to, if the cake is meant to hurt someone or pull a prank on them.

      If working somewhere means the company can pay a pittance to take over the worker’s civil rights, that just not cool. That means they have more rights than people do.

    • Those people who happily declare corporations as persons also declare that microscopic cells are persons. Methinks something is messing with their judgment.

      • RichardSRussell

        Tho I’m sure you mean nothing personal by that.

      • Sheryl

        Bob Seidensticker,
        So you understand that the word “persons” is the same as “people” and this word doesn’t only include live human beings, because Australian banks have a legal right to personhood. Therefore, the new Australian Marriage Law between 2 people has now significantly changed for all people because this law has removed the historical meaning of “marriage.” There is now very little Australian government and government authorities can do to deter/prevent a future legal human-robotic marriage. All Australians should be prepared for the virtual world because it has human relationships.

        • Robots can’t consent.

        • David Cromie

          Nor may they enter into a contract

        • Sheryl

          David,

          In Australia, Banks have a legal right of personhood and banks can legally enter a contract/consent with a consenting customer. My Council allows me to have a legal consent/contract (registration) to become legally responsible for my cat and dog. Therefore, the Australian Federal parliament does have the legal power to decide if consenting adults can have a legal right to a marry their robotic-sex doll. The Australian Federal Parliament is going to find it extremely difficult to maintain any resemblance to the historical meaning of “marriage” because they opened pandora’s box to people’s autonomy and self-determination.

        • RichardSRussell

          Ah, the near-sacred “historical meaning of ‘marriage'” once again. It calls to mind this paean to the glorious days of old:

          “At every crossway on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past. Let us have no fear lest the fair towers of former days be sufficiently defended. The least that the most timid among us can do is not to add to the immense dead weight which nature drags along.

          “Let us not say to ourselves that the best truth always lies in moderation, in the decent average. This would perhaps be so if the majority of men did not think on a much lower plane than is needful. That is why it behooves others to think and hope on a higher plane than seems reasonable. The average, the decent moderation of today, will be the least human of things tomorrow. At the time of the Spanish Inquisition, the opinion of good sense and of the other good medium was certainly that people ought not to burn too large a number of heretics; extreme and unreasonable opinion obviously demanded that they should burn none at all.

          “Let us think of the great invisible ship that carries our human destinies upon eternity. Like the vessels of our confined oceans, she has her sails and her ballast. The fear that she may pitch or roll on leaving the roadstead is no reason for increasing the weight of the ballast by stowing the fair white sails in the depths of the hold. Sails were not woven to molder side by side with cobblestones in the dark. Ballast exists everywhere; all the pebbles of the harbor, all the sand of the beach, will serve for that. But sails are rare and precious things; their place is not in the murk of the well, but amid the light of the tall masts, where they will collect the winds of space.”

          —Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949), Belgian playwright, poet, and essayist, “Our Social Duty”, in The Measure of the Hours (1907)

        • Sheryl

          The original historical meaning of marriage was recorded in British laws based on the Judaeo- Christian law (God’s law of nature), as the fantasy legal same-sex marriage is created by the Fairy in the Sky or people’s feelings, imagination, thoughts, values, beliefs and behaviours.

        • RichardSRussell

          Of course, all laws are based on “people’s feelings, imagination, thoughts, values, beliefs and behaviours.” That’s why they change from time to time.

        • Sheryl

          RichardSRussell,
          It is obvious you’re not very educated because all laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries were originally established by governments all over the world and over the centuries to detect/prevent harmful behaviours and practices in order to protect the public and society from harm.

          Western countries including Britain established laws from the Judaeo-Christian laws (God’s law in the Bible and nature). Harmful behavioural practices include murder (firearm control); crimes (stealing); unexpected deaths caused by healthcare professionals or workplace injury/death; adultery (unfaithful marriage); divorce (irretrievable breakdown of a man-woman “one flesh” marriage, as well as their intact family consisting of biological father, mother and their child/children; Prostitution known as sex work (spread of illness, disease, infertility and death; sex offender); sex offender (sexual assault, rape, sexual abuse, pedophilia) etc.

          There are no secular laws against the fruits of the spirit which include love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, forbearance, goodness, faithfulness and self-control. Your idea that the english language laws/rules change for including people’s feelings, imagination, thoughts, values, beliefs and behaviours, clearly shows evidence that you’re living within a your imagination as fantasyland like the legal “Disneyland” or the legal virtual world. The LGBTIAQ+ activists can’t discriminate the difference between a “fantasy and the real world,” because there is no discrimination whatsoever in a legal secular registered marriage practice between 2 people as the Australian Federal Parliament has created a legal “couple.”

        • RichardSRussell

          It is obvious you’re not very educated …

          So which one are you, Dunning or Kruger?

          … because all laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries were originally established by governments all over the world and over the centuries to detect/prevent harmful behaviours and practices in order to protect the public and society from harm.

          Ah, if only that were the case. Unfortunately, many of those laws were designed to enrich the lawmakers (or further entrench them in their power) at the expense of the common people. For example, in medieval times there was the jus primae noctis, which gave the local lord the legal right to spend a bride’s wedding night boinking her. Later, in colonial times, the law allowed the commander of the local British garrison to appropriate living quarters in the homes of private citizens as a place to billet his troops. Even after the USA was founded on the ostensible premise of democracy, among Congress’s earliest enactments were the repressive Alien and Sedition Acts. There are hundreds of additional examples like these, none of which have any basis in Judeo-Christian heritage.

          So, before you go insulting other people’s lack of education, you might want to do a little more research of your own.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “originally established”

          O RLY?

          Then what were they originally *based* on (I see you tried to avoid that with the phrase above)?

          For a basis, how about “people’s feelings, imagination, thoughts, values, beliefs and behaviours.” ??

          Sounds reasonable to me…why would YOUR KIND think it UNreasonable?

          Maybe because it demonstrates that your supposed ‘god’ really DIDN’T hand down a bunch of ‘laws’? That it was just power-hungry leaders of the group at the time the rules were formulated?

        • DingoJack

          Nope. Marriage laws in Commonwealth countries are based on English Common Law, which derived from the Saxon Law.
          Christianity didn’t care about marriages until the 13th century.

        • Sheryl

          DingoJack,
          You mean that man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) wasn’t regulated by the state, as well as by the state Church. Your claim that British Law came from Saxon Law and they had inherited the Judaeo-Christian Law (God’s Laws in the Bible and God’s natural laws in his creation). Who’s Law was it, that told a man and a woman that they had to be married?

        • DingoJack

          Nope. no marriages whatsoever were regulated by the Christians prior to the early 13th century. Try again.
          [Saxon Law was what you would call — pagan].

        • Who’s Law was it, that told a man and a woman that they had to be married?

          Well, there’s God’s law in the OT that says that a woman must marry her rapist. Is that what you were thinking of?

        • Sheryl

          Bob Seidensticker,
          Your an secular atheist, so you have told me who is the secular person who created a law which told secular people that they should be married?

        • DingoJack

          Well, in this specific case, that’d be the seventh Menzies ministry.

        • No idea. I never knew that secular people should be married.

        • Greg G.

          Wow, every group of letters Sheryl posted corresponds to the correct spelling of an English word, yet when I try to work the grammar into a sentence, it makes no sense.

        • Are you seeing with the eye of Faith? If not, whose fault is that?

        • Sample1

          We had a person at the other network or maybe it was an author of something we were all critiquing. Anyway, one of us found an online engine that spat out grammatically correct word salads. Sometimes they were more coherent than the original post.

          Mike

        • Sheryl

          Greg.G,
          What were you expecting from an “oxymoron same-sex marriage?” It was obvious that the English Language rule of laws would become irrelevant by introducing this crazy/mad idea into real laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries, because it is now based on people’s “inner feelings.” If your children feel like writing “your” for “you’re,” then they have the same rights as same-sex partners to change the English Language rule of laws.

        • Greg G.

          It was obvious that the English Language rule of laws would become irrelevant by introducing this crazy/mad idea into real laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries, because it is now based on people’s “inner feelings.” If your children feel like writing “your” for “you’re,” then they have the same rights as same-sex partners to change the English Language rule of laws.

          Don’t be a fuddy-duddy. Languages change over time. I remember when “groovy” was new and now it is out-dated. (My sister, when she was 8, wrote a fan letter to the Beatles to say their records were groovy.) I remember when a goat in sports was the player who lost the game in a team sport. Now kids call use it as GOAT, for “Greatest Of All Time”. Now “bad” can mean “good”. Kids today don’t know how to put a record on a turntable to get music. They don’t know how to “dial” a phone.

          Times change. It wasn’t long ago since slavery was legal in the US. The US and Australia were slaughtering the native people of the land. We are getting better now. You should, too.

        • Sheryl

          Greg.G,
          Your comment explains the reason an “oxymoron same-sex marriage” has now become part of laws in western countries, as people including children ignore/reject the English Language rule of laws, as well as healthy sexual behaviours and practices. Western societies now have words such as “biological man,” “heterosexual marriage,” man-woman “one flesh” (marriage), and these are more than one word to describe a man or marriage. There wasn’t a legal PROSTITUTION practice nor a secular civil PEOPLE marriage in NSW when I was a child. Unlike now, secular people have a right to choose an “adult consenting relationship between people” as these civil practices are regulated (controlled) and punished by fees, but are available to all adults (humans) for a cost. Times have changed, and the 21st American century means that the legal Disneyland fantasy world is becoming a reality in every western country in the form of a fantasy same-sex marriage. I’m not a slave to neither the legalised Prostitution Practice nor the civil People Marriage.

        • Greg G.

          the English Language rule of laws

          Why do you keep saying that? There is no rule of laws. Language changes. Read Chaucer and Shakespeare. Compare the King James Version with the New King James Version. I watch movies from the 1940s that didn’t seem odd when I saw them in the 1960s but now the speech patterns are different than today’s speech but the changes has been so gradual, it went unnoticed. I see speeches from the 1960s and 1970s that I heard live, but now that speech seems antiquated.

          We are abandoning moral thought that is unfair to groups of people. The world will change with or without you. If you do not change, the world will be better when you die off.

        • Natureboi

          Chaucer?
          Yikes.
          She can’t even comprehend stereo instructions.

        • Sheryl

          Greg G,
          The majority of the world is better off for ignoring and rejecting the “oxymoron same-sex marriage,” because this is only for secular people who believe in a “civil registered people marriage.” When the western governments combines this oxymoron with the legalised prostitution practice, then I’m sure all same-sex partners will demand their right be in a secular civil “adult consenting relationship between people.”

          The world is a much safer place now that sex workers, sex offenders, as well as civil registered married people are all on public registries, so that government and government authorities including the courts can regulate and punish them when they harm the public and society.

        • Natureboi

          Cue cuckoo clock sound byte now.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          Please don’t get affectionate with me as we’re not in any type of relationship.

        • Natureboi

          Don’t flatter yourself.
          You attitude makes you ugly and in attractive.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          I have lived long enough to understand men don’t care about appearance nor brains when it comes down to their animal instincts.

        • Cynthia

          You don’t have a very high opinion of men, do you?

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          I don’t have a very high opinion of secular men who rape, assault, abuse, murder and harm women and children.

        • DingoJack

          Religious men who do these things on the other hand…

        • David Cromie

          Except when it occurs within ‘one flesh’ marriage.

        • Sheryl

          David,
          You don’t understand the natural behavioural practice of a man-woman “one flesh” (marriage).

        • David Cromie

          Marriage is marriage, whether civil or religious, no matter what, as long as it is lawfully registered.

          It takes two living, separate, ‘fleshes’ to make a marriage, unless you mean that one flesh is subsumed by the other, so that one participant becomes a mere cipher, and doormat for the other.

        • Sheryl

          David,
          A “civil registered people marriage” only is a legal union with a legal consent/contract to a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony.

        • David Cromie

          Change the record, it is badly cracked!

        • Sheryl

          David,
          Mind your own business in your “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • David Cromie

          Another moronic, nonsense post, as is expected from you (I am not even married).

        • Sheryl

          David,
          it was obvious that you’re not in a secular “civil registered people marriage,” but you act as if you are.

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          I had difficulty responding to your comment at the end of this blog site, so I decided to include it here. The common marriage law didn’t include same-sex partners, so now this law is irrelevant for the new “people marriage.” The Canadian courts have increased their legal power to remove a child from their biological parents if they don’t encourage and support the LGBTIAQ ideology, including sex change surgery, hormone therapy, sexual orientation and gender fluidity. Canadian parents have lost their natural rights to their biological child/children because they’re now only a legal parent, because a child of a same-sex partners have legally been removed from their biological father and or mother.

          My comment about natural human reproduction is that there is no longer a Canadian law which can support and protect this natural behavioural practice, so fertility rates will be decrease by the new idea that a “lawful husband has their legal right to sodomise their lawful spouse with their consent.” It doesn’t matter how many times a husband sodomises his wife, this behavioural practice doesn’t lead to the procreation of new-life. You can’t claim that a husband will have sexual intercourse with his wife because this natural behavioural practice is offensive to same-sex partners because they can’t practice this behavioural practice. You can pretend that a man-woman can mix sodomy and sexual intercourse together, but this practice has significant harmful consequences. You can refer to the current Canadian sex education programs which confuses the meaning and purpose of sex and family, and Canadian parents have now lost their human right to remove their children from this type of sex education program, even if parents believe this sex education program is abusive for their child’s wellbeing.

        • Cynthia

          There is a lot here which doesn’t seem to be based on anything resembling evidence.

          1. Absolutely nobody is saying that opposite-sex couples can’t have vaginal sex or claiming offence if they do.

          2. A couple can do whatever they want sexually if they both consent. If they want to have a baby, they will do what it takes to have a baby. Are you claiming that people who want to have a baby somehow won’t figure out how to have vaginal sex? Or that people who do anything else in bed won’t feel that they can only have vaginal sex if they are horny and will therefore be less likely to get accidentally pregnant? Because there is zero evidence for any of this and nothing associating this with fertility rates.

          3. Are you thinking that the role of the state is to police what consenting adults may do in the bedroom, but that the crime of rape can’t exist if a couple has a Christian marriage? If not, what exactly are you saying?

        • Sheryl

          Cynthia,
          There is no legal definition of “opposite-sex” nor “vaginal sex.”A finger in a vagina is sexual activity, but it is 100% infertile vaginal sex. The Reproductive Act in Western Countries doesn’t protect the unborn’s right to live their life. It is obvious that the next generation don’t understand the meaning of sexual intercourse, because there are 13 year old girls whom are presenting to Melbourne health services with faecal incontinence after anal sex, and women are presenting with green-vaginal discharge after having anal sexual activity, then sexual intercourse. It’s impossible for 2 men or 2 women to figure out how to have vaginal sex that will result in a baby. A fertile man and woman is the only couple whom can potentially have new-life without scientific experimentation of human reproduction. The domestic violence rates in Australia would scare most people from living with another person, and this is one reason I’m glad my son is living on his own. The newspapers and health services are continuously informing the community that STI/STDs are becoming difficult to treat, as some STDs have become drug-resistant, such as the Superbug Gonorrhoea. Infertility is becoming a significant problem in western countries such as Australia due to risky sexual behaviours and practices.

          A man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) is a voluntary, faithful and exclusive sexual union between man and woman, and they both want this consenting sexual relationship, but this doesn’t mean that Christians are perfect. They do have their free will to behave against the law such as rape. You can pretend that a man-woman sexual relationship is the same as all other “Adult consenting relationships,” but this is like believing a legal Disneyland is the same as the real world.

        • Natureboi

          I have lived long enough to understand men don’t care about appearance nor brains when it comes down to their animal instincts.

          Animal?
          I thought God created men in His image.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          A majority of secular men behave like animals because they ignore/reject the true and living God’s image for themselves.

        • DingoJack

          So a majority of men reject drowning almost every living thing out a fit of pique — and that’s a bad thing?

        • Natureboi

          God’s “image” is a slavery and rape condoning child murderer.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi,
          The majority of secular men totally ignore/reject the true and living God’s image.

        • David Cromie

          ‘Image’ is very apt in this situation, since there is no irrefutable evidence for any ‘true and living ‘god’, apart from the superstitious and deluded image in the religiot’s head.

        • Sheryl

          David,
          Do you have a brain? If your answer is “yes,” then please use it to say something intelligent.

        • Kodie

          I consider your religiious views of marriage perversion. You are in an abusive relationship, absorbed into your husband for his own pleasure, so that you and your needs don’t exist. What a shitty system!

        • Sheryl

          Kodie,
          You’re only thinking of your pleasure with masturbation, and touching yourself is a shitty system of pleasure.

        • Kodie

          I don’t think this concept is getting through to you at all. You describe a system where you are part of your husband, so he is masturbating with you every time he fucks you. You describe a system where you don’t independently exist as a person.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie,
          I don’t think this concept of “one flesh”is getting through to you at all, because you don’t practice an exclusive union of sexual intercourse between one man and one woman for life. Therefore, masturbating is the only sexual activity you’re practicing in private, and this practice can be done independently by yourself or with your same-sex partner.

        • Kodie

          Your description of one flesh makes it sound like you are only an accessory for your husband and not a partner. Your description of one flesh as opposed to a partnership marriage, is that you don’t belong to yourself anymore, but are absorbed into your husband, the person, during sex and otherwise.

        • Sheryl

          Kodie,
          My parents had a business partnership, so they were legal partners in their business, and this was only a legal (civil) union, and their partnership was completely an asexual relationship because it was all about making money from their produce/labour/services. Therefore, I don’t have a partnership marriage with my husband, as we don’t together own a business partnership. This means you described the masturbating sexual activities for same-sex partners in their “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • David Cromie

          My parents’ ‘partnership was completely an asexual relationship’ (no ‘one flesh’ crap there, then)! That being the case, were you conceived by a ‘holy ghost’, and was your mother also a virgin her whole life?

        • Sheryl

          David,
          My parents business partnership was “independent ” to their man-woman “one flesh” (marriage) and intact family.

        • David Cromie

          That sentence is meaningless, which you would have known if you had had an education.

        • Sheryl

          David,
          You’re a “man” or a “woman,” but these words in English are meaningless because now you’re only a “legal person.” It is obvious that you’re not well educate because you believe in an “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • Sheryl

          Greg G,
          I’m not sure why this blog site didn’t include my comment.

        • Greg G.

          I got the email notification for the previous post 13 minutes before this one. Sometimes they don’t show up right away. If you refresh the page, you may not get the downthread posts, depending on the number of posts in the thread. I have found posts responding to me right after they were posted but not getting the email notification for days.

        • Sheryl

          Greg G,
          It is obvious that the “oxymoron same-sex marriage” has now been included in laws, regulations, guidelines and public registries in western countries, because many secular people who understand the English language rule of laws no longer care about the true meaning of words, such as “man” and “marriage” are now based on people’s “inner feelings” rather than a biological reality. The “Thugs of Melbourne” have redefined the word “stealing” to now mean “borrowing with no return.” The Victorian government has redefined “murder” by giving “mother’s choice” and terminally ill patients a choice to a legal consent/contract based on an informed decision to “intentionally kill” their unborn baby or themselves with assistance from healthcare professionals. Western societies have changed to a culture of harm/death by practicing behaviours which result in death such as abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, People Marriage, homosexuality, fornication, robotic-person sex, pornography, and other deviant sexual immorality.

          Times have changed, but people have remained a slave to their “inner feelings, thoughts and the voices” in their head, and they’re not getting better now because more people are being diagnosed with a significant mental illness, and this significant health problem has lead many of them to be placed in jails, hospitals and homelessness. Victoria is having a Royal Commission into mental illness because the situation is extremely bad, and there is a Royal Commission into Aged Care because the elderly are being abused. The Australian Federal government effectively told Christians that they were changing the Australian Marriage Law to be equivalent to the Civil Partnership Registration, as well as to be fair with the legalised Prostitution Practice in NSW, because these civil practices are all based on “adult consenting relationships between people. Therefore, the Sydney Anglican Churches changed their property laws to prohibit an “oxymoron same-sex marriage,” and these churches informed Australians that they hadn’t changed the meaning of “marriage,” but the government now has a new meaning about a civil registered marriage – PEOPLE MARRIAGE as this is only for secular people.

        • Sophotroph

          Hey, out of curiousity, where did you find “inner feelings” in the Obergefell opinion?

          You did read it, right? All 100+ pages in small font on A4?

          I mean, as that’s the basis for gay marriage being the law of the land, it couldn’t possibly be that you invented a fake reason and ascribed it to your opponents because you couldn’t be arsed to learn the actual legal reasoning and argue with that.

          Right?

        • Sheryl

          Sophotroph,
          Tell me where the “inner feelings” of an “oxymoron same-sex marriage” came from? It wasn’t in any law in the world until the Netherlands introduced a “civi registered people marriage.” The majority of the people all over the world and over the centuries and not one Muslim country believes in the crazy idea of an “oxymoron same-sex marriage.”

        • Sheryl

          Bob Seidensticker,
          You claim that “I never knew that secular people should be married, and yet you believe in an oxymoron “same-sex marriage,” so you’re losing your mind to insanity.

        • David Cromie

          Sin same sex couples can, and do, get married, wherein lies the ‘oxymoron’ you keep blabbing about?

        • Sheryl

          David,
          Same-sex partners can never get naturally married because they can’t consummate the marital act of sexual intercourse, but the Australian government has allowed them a civil PEOPLE MARRIAGE with the status of civil registered marriage and access to a no fault divorce law, because secular people accepted an “oxymoron same-sex marriage” in order to confuse the English language rule of laws.

        • lady_black

          In a word, NO. I’m pretty sure your marriage laws only apply to human beings of legal age, and not to animals, children, or inanimate objects like sex dolls or vacuum cleaners.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, The current Australian Marriage Law between 2 people could be interpreted by future governments to include robotic-sex dolls by giving legal protection to robotic-sex dolls to have a legal status of “people.”

        • Natureboi

          Dolls cannot give legal consent.

          You just bottomed out in credibility.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, Dolls can’t give legal consent, but the government can establish laws to give “state’s consent/contract.” This is how the Communist governments like China have forced pregnant mothers to “intentionally kill” their unborn babies without their legal consent/contract.

        • Natureboi

          the government can establish laws to give “state’s consent/contract.”

          WRONG.

          You just went below bottoming out in your credibility with this LIE.

        • Sheryl

          Natureboi, You don’t believe that the german government (Adolf Hitler) didn’t give the Nazis a legal consent/contract to kill the Jews, but history shows evidence that the Nazis killed Jews under german law without the Jews Legal consent/contract.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          How does killing people against their will somehow equate, in your twisted hateful mind, with ensuring people have access to rights from which they were unjustly denied by YOUR KIND?

          You’re a textbook case of the derangement caused by privilege distress.

        • lady_black

          Just STOP, OK? That’s never going to happen, and you know it. Machines are never persons, and never will be.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          You claim to be a nurse, so I’m sure you have heard about the Japanese are developing robotic “people” who are in the shape of person, and they will be identified as a “nurse” in order to care for the expanding Japanese elderly society. Robotic “people” have human characteristic, so they will be treated as a human rather than a thing or object.

        • lady_black

          They are machines. Not people.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          To you they’re machines, but to the Japanese they’ll be identified as “robotic people,” otherwise why make a machine in the shape of a person?

        • lady_black

          Why make ANYTHING in the shape of a person? Silly question. Statues, dolls, wax figures, and lavatory signage are also human-shaped. So is a human fetus. None are persons.
          Personhood, as you have already noted, is a legal concept. It applies to breathing members of the species H. sapiens, and businesses that have been incorporated (i.e. given legal identity separate and apart from that of the owners/stockholders). Machines do not make the cut. Machines do what they are built, or programmed to do. Machines do not think independently, or make judgment calls. Human nurses do.
          Therefore, if a machine does nursing work, it’s still a machine. Human nurses are persons. Human nurses will always be needed to direct machines, regardless of what purpose it serves. They can design a machine that does medication rounds, for example. But they will need a trained human nurse to decide whether a medication ought to be given or held, observe patients for reactions, etc.
          The real key lies in responsibility. You cannot sue a machine for making a screw-up that kills someone. My hysterectomy was performed by a robotic surgeon. However, the robot still required a human trained surgeon to direct it. Get the picture?

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, then you need to explain how banks in Australia have legal personhood status, as well as a river in New Zealand etc. You have most likely heard in the news that British children are now learning that boys can have a period. The idea that a biological girl can now self-identify as a “boy,” means that robots in the shape of a person will be able in the future to be legally identified as a robotic person. In the future, people may have more robotic devices impacted within them, so the line between what makes a person” human” and “machine” becomes difficult to discriminate. Americans can no longer discriminate the difference between male and female, man and woman, boy and girl, as they have made everyone a “person.”

        • lady_black

          Corporations? I said that already, oh illiterate one.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, The word “person,” “personhood,” “couple” and “single” are all legally defined words in Australian laws, regulations guidelines and public registries, but the word “man” and “woman” are not.

        • David Cromie

          So there are no men or women in Australia, then?

        • Sheryl

          David Cromie, There are no definition of “man” and “woman” in Australian laws, regulations, guideline and public registry, despite men and women have naturally existed in Australia over the centuries.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, You made out that only “people” can be “humans,” but you knew that corporations had legal “personhood” status, and this goes against argument that machines can’t ever be given a legal “robotic people” status. I’m as illiterate as you’re a fool.

        • lady_black

          No I did NOT. Having studied law in college, with a concentration in business law, I would never make such a mistake. I said only living, born human beings, and corporations can be persons. “Person” is a legal term. It can never apply to a machine.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, A corporation isn’t a human person which is like a machine isn’t a human person, so in the future the government can decide to change the law of “personhood” to include “machines” such as a robotic-person marriage. I thought you followed rational logic and reason.

        • lady_black

          Does a corporation spring into existence without human action? Of course corporations are not the same as natural persons. They are fictitious persons, formed for the purpose of separating the legal identity, assets and liabilities of the corporation from that of it’s owners or directors. They do not exist without human beings. Machines can and do build other machines. I would say that what differentiates person from non-person is separate legal identity, along with mind and will (at the most basic level). Robots have none of that!
          This is obviously too big for you to understand. I suggest you take a few college courses and come back, properly prepared.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black,
          Your comment, “Machines can and do build other machines,” Who created the machine? This liken to Who created a corporation? Answer: person/people. You claimed to be a “Para-lawyer,” and a registered “nurse,” but I would never seek your services, because I know you can’t discriminate the difference between the “correct truth or the only truth “unborn neonate” and an oxymoron Same-sex marriage,” and I now know you can’t identify the sameness of a “machine and a robotic.” Has the American education system deteriorated so badly over the past years since my husband went to school there in the 1980s? I think you should spend some more time in the real world, because I believe your time in the fantasy world/virtual world are now becoming your reality within the real world, and this can only lead to madness (mental illness) and chaos of the english language rules/laws.

        • lady_black

          Lady, YOU’RE the one with English language difficulties. Unborn neonate IS an oxymoron, since there are no unborn newborns. Same-sex marriage is a marriage between two men or two women. Marriage is a matter of law. The law doesn’t care who you have sex with, how often, or in what fashion. Only YOU seem to care about that, but it’s irrelevant to the issue of marriage.
          You are very confused.

        • Sheryl

          Lady Black, If you studied Law, then you would know that the state and government authorities and the courts only governs harmful behaviours and practices in order to protect the public and society from harm. Therefore, you don’t know the true meaning of marriage, because you claimed that a Law created marriage, and who was the person who declared that people should be in a legal People marriage? Also why should people follow and obey this new Law?

          You should know, a defacto (same-sex marriage) is two people of the same-sex living as housemates or otherwise everyone would have automatically identified “same-sex marriage” as a “real marriage,” by calling them “married,” rather than a “sham relationship.” Your current logic doesn’t explain the reason marriage records were only in the Christian church from 1788-1856 in Australia, because these churches aren’t the state. Your reason for the oxymoron “unborn neonates,” isn’t been applied to a ‘same-sex marriage.” I proposed the idea that “premature babies” could be changed to “neonates,” as I thought this was a good name for a “pre-term baby,” but I deliberately broke the healthcare english language rules of Law to get you to understand that you’ve made this mistake by allowing your feelings, thoughts and speech to accept same-sex partners as “married” because American live in the 21st century of fantasy and Virtual Worlds are within the real World. Therefore, you should apply the same principals of the English Language rule of laws, as this deception is a lie about the truth of marriage. This Law has lead to a harmful consequence as now a child no longer has a legal right to be nurtured, raised by their natural parents, and their natural parents deciding the education for their natural children. Therefore, you have been deceived by a lie (oxymoron same-sex marriage).

        • Natureboi

          What is the rationale in prohibiting same-sex marriage?
          What does it accomplish?

        • lady_black

          Nonsense. The laws and courts exist to protect rights.

        • Sheryl

          How does the law and courts protect my right to have a baby? The Victorian legal abortion practice is designed for the possibility that any pregnant mothers may “intentionally kill” their unplanned/unwanted baby at some point in the early part of her pregnancy. Is your answer, I can ignore/reject my right to this legal abortion practice, so I can have a live birth? How does the law protect all father’s right to be treated equally the same as the pregnant mother, so he can have their right to “intentionally kill” his unplanned/unwanted baby in a legal abortion with his legal consent/contract. Why don’t doctors have a right to their conscience in Victoria to decide if they want to participate in a legal abortion in Victoria? Why are Judges with Lawyers and the Courts deciding who has more or less rights than others?

          The Courts have allowed some adults their legal right to legal consenting harmful behaviours and practices such as men are allowed to have sex with men, but there is no accountability nor responsibility to the public and society regarding this harmful behavioural practice. Today, the laws and courts have become all about protecting rights, but this means that unwanted/ unplanned babies don’t have the same right to life as planned and wanted babies. Today, the secular lawyers, Judges and the courts are now made in the image of man, and their own “inner feelings” of right and wrong. God’s laws are designed on his Truth, and his word is always correct and true, as he has the true knowledge of good and evil. Australians have lost their trust in lawyers, courts, government authorities, politicians, as well as Institutions because of deception of lies including a secular civil people marriage betwee