Forum Post: The Chaser team on gay marriage
Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 26, 2012, 7:43 p.m. EST by Builder
(4202)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Australian commentary on the divisive "debate" dragged out for every election campaign. Politicians are being dismissed here over their comments.
Humour, the Aussie way...... enjoy.
I can't wait 'till they pass this sh*t... I'm suing for another wife, well, actually I was thinking two more wives and a transsexual crossdresser; if "anyone" can marry "whoever," than I guess anyone can marry whoever, right? Anything less is discriminatory.
You sound a bit masochistic.
Two more wives? And a tranny?
I guess some people like pain.
I'm telling you right now, I'm going to challenge the issue of polygamy disguised as a temporary polyamory. And I'm going to win.
You do have a point actually.
Good luck with that.
I'm not sure what point your are trying to make though.
Saying yes to unions between two consenting adults has what to with polygamy?
Having more than one wife would be a tough sell with Christians. I could be wrong but Islam might allow up to four.
Please more than one wife is a one way ticket to crazyville. It's hard enough to keep one wife happy, I can't imagine trying to do that with multiple ones. Like the old saying goes be careful what you wish for you may just get it
And Mormonism. I think.
I wouldn't expect you to understand. Saying that we are to redefine marriage, which in America has always been very uniquely defined, the result of religious community, to mean the public ceremonial declaration of the union of a particular man and a particular woman as a reproductive unit.... to now include the ceremonial union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman, under the guise of "equality" - we should all be allowed to marry whomever we want - licenses all to do exactly that. The courts will not be able to deny those women who choose to marry me because they, too, are entitled to whomever they like.
I'm going to sue on this and I'm going to win.
And the only other thing I would add to this is that when it comes to language and usage, we define nouns by consensus - the word "marriage" in the US will never be granted a majority definition to include any and all; if such were to occur then the word itself would no longer be of value... If I as emperor or even supreme Casanova have the ability to marry each and every woman within society, and I will have this ability, then the word is of no longer of value.