grodscorp@grods.comEveryone wants to live like Bolt, don’t they?
 | Posted by Scott on Wednesday 5 December 2007, 7:06 am Categories: Media, Politics Tags: AndrewBolt, DeFactoCouples, GayMarriage |
And in one simple sentence Andrew Bolt demonstrates his complete inability to see the world through any moral lens other than his own.
A sensible move:
GAY couples and de factos will have their relationships officially recognised and registered with a certificate under planned Victorian laws.
The State Government’s move means unmarried couples will not have to repeatedly prove they are in committed relationships when dealing with property, superannuation, inheritance and medical emergencies.
But how commited must couples really be to sign this register? If a de facto couple, for instance, were truly committed, wouldn’t they get married instead, and at least get the benefit of bells and confetti?
The least he could do is respect the way other people want to live and relate, even if he doesn’t understand it.
Wednesday 5 December 2007, 8:45 am #Goobermetrics
He’s found me out! Shit!
Wednesday 5 December 2007, 8:54 am #The Editor
It’s people like you who tear the social fabric of this country, Goober.
Wednesday 5 December 2007, 9:00 am #Goobermetrics
I’m damaging community cohesion, just like the Tuki wind farm.
Wednesday 5 December 2007, 1:52 pm #Skeptic
What a maroon!
Goober - but are you in a defacto relationship with kids on the way? Now that’s damaging community cohesion!
Wednesday 5 December 2007, 2:36 pm #Bridgit Gread
Not only that, you can have the benefit of confetti made from shredded Bolt columns.
Wednesday 5 December 2007, 4:59 pm #Bruce
If a de facto couple, for instance, were truly committed, wouldn’t they get married instead, and at least get the benefit of bells and confetti?
If only gay couples were given the option of marriage. How does Andrew stand on this topic? Oh, yeah. That’s right.
“Gays should be seen as serious couples by the state only if they get married, and the state must not allow them to get married” is just a categorical syllogism with an extra term to obfuscate its intent, which put more simply states that “the state must prevent gays from forming serious couples with each other“.
Andrew should stop hiding behind sophistry and be open about his homophobia, and why precisely he wants homosexuals from having serious relationships with each other. How is he threatened?
How has any gay couple hitching up in any serious respect seriously had deleterious effect on his life, or that of any other for that matter? Neither imaginary, cooked up, cherry picked think-tank statistics, nor slippery slope fallacies counting of course.
Wednesday 5 December 2007, 5:56 pm #Mikey
Ah Bolty. Is he still convinced letting two people have a legal union is a stepping stone to polygamy?
I have no problem with polys BTW. Each to their own I say.
Wednesday 5 December 2007, 5:56 pm #brokenleftleg
Silly me, and I thought the hole (pun) conservative ideology was about choice. I guess basic bigotry, pandering to small-minded folk, and religious fundamentalism trumps their choice doctrine every time.
Wednesday 5 December 2007, 6:14 pm #krypto
Bolt is a perfect example of how to be comitted…to a lunatic assylum.