|
On October 21 2011 14:06 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:02 mcmartini wrote:On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:43 tso wrote:On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong. barren women? eh? I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means. lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke. Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference. You're only reinforcing his point. (lol)
I'm far from reinforcing his point. He said he doesn't like something because it's not natural. I'm saying he should dislike EVERYTHING that isn't natural if that's the case. How in any way am I reinforcing his point
|
On October 21 2011 14:03 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 14:00 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:43 tso wrote:On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong. barren women? eh? I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means. lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong. ..... There? So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me. Are you serious? You stated that the REASON YOU WERE AGAINST GAYS RAISING CHILDREN WAS: "Because they are incapable of having children together naturally" So if a heterosexual couple can't have children naturally, do you think they have no right to raise a child? Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:02 Waffnub wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion. I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems. Read the thread, he was banned for saying "I hope I dont get banned". That right there gives you an ban, every time.
People having a defect in their body is not the same as being gay, don't you get it ? You can't just exclude multiple words from peoples sentences and then use them against them, it's no basis for discussion. Unless you're a politician or in a kindergarden. Anyway, I'm off you guys can continue hunting down people with none 'open-minded' opinions in the hope that it makes you more 'open-minded'.
|
On October 21 2011 14:09 mcmartini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:06 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 14:02 mcmartini wrote:On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:43 tso wrote:On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong. barren women? eh? I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means. lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke. Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference. You're only reinforcing his point. (lol) I'm far from reinforcing his point. He said he doesn't like something because it's not natural. I'm saying he should dislike EVERYTHING that isn't natural if that's the case. How in any way am I reinforcing his point
expand the quotations and search for this line: If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words.
(haha)
|
On October 21 2011 13:48 TyrantPotato wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote:
am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps? we do have gays on our soapies. but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go  jokes aside. i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure. i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood?
The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything.
I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah).
|
|
|
On October 21 2011 13:28 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 13:01 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote:
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me. By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults? There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays. By definition of hundreds of years of experience and existence. By definition of legislation in this country: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html. Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage. Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:
I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same. Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all. What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
|
On October 21 2011 14:14 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:48 TyrantPotato wrote:On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote:
am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps? we do have gays on our soapies. but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go jokes aside. i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure. i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood? The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything. I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah).
Depends on the wording of the question imo.
|
On October 21 2011 14:14 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:48 TyrantPotato wrote:On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote:
am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps? we do have gays on our soapies. but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go jokes aside. i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure. i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood? The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything. I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah).
I would rather vote for our carbon tax at this point, all this Marriage stuff for gay people are diversions to deflect the heat from the introduced carbon tax which the people are not allowed to vote for. Don't even mention the border protection, our prime minister is jumping in circle cuz her Malaysian solution was slam by High Court. Political Circus at it's best, that's all it is.
|
On October 21 2011 14:06 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:02 mcmartini wrote:On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:43 tso wrote:On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong. barren women? eh? I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means. lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke. Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference. You're only reinforcing his point. (lol)
No... he isn't in the slightest...
|
On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:28 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 13:01 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote:
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me. By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults? There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays. By definition of hundreds of years of experience and existence. By definition of legislation in this country: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html. Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage. On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:
I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same. Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all. What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples? This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind. What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples. My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference. In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
Well said Brett Holman.
|
Why not let them get married, if they wanna be miserable like everyone else then let them!
|
On October 21 2011 14:10 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:03 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 14:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 14:00 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:43 tso wrote:On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong. barren women? eh? I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means. lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong. ..... There? So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me. Are you serious? You stated that the REASON YOU WERE AGAINST GAYS RAISING CHILDREN WAS: "Because they are incapable of having children together naturally" So if a heterosexual couple can't have children naturally, do you think they have no right to raise a child? On October 21 2011 14:02 Waffnub wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion. I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems. Read the thread, he was banned for saying "I hope I dont get banned". That right there gives you an ban, every time. People having a defect in their body is not the same as being gay, don't you get it ? You can't just exclude multiple words from peoples sentences and then use them against them, it's no basis for discussion. Unless you're a politician or in a kindergarden. Anyway, I'm off you guys can continue hunting down people with none 'open-minded' opinions in the hope that it makes you more 'open-minded'.
Defects sometimes occur naturally, so you would have to concede that if you're against gays having kids but fine with infertile women having kids then you're against it for the fact that they're gay not because they can't naturally have a child together.
|
i can't believe that this is actually an issue. it's so clearly backwards and discriminatory to bar gay people from getting married
|
On October 21 2011 14:18 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:14 Probulous wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 TyrantPotato wrote:On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote:
am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps? we do have gays on our soapies. but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go jokes aside. i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure. i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood? The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything. I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah). Depends on the wording of the question imo.
As do all polls. It is neither here nor there really. The question right now is whether the labor party will be taking this a policy platform. Doubt it, which is really sad for a party with its history.
|
On October 21 2011 14:22 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:18 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 14:14 Probulous wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 TyrantPotato wrote:On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote:
am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps? we do have gays on our soapies. but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go jokes aside. i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure. i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood? The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything. I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah). Depends on the wording of the question imo. As do all polls. It is neither here nor there really. The question right now is whether the labor party will be taking this a policy platform. Doubt it, which is really sad for a party with its history.
Whatever happens, hopefully Gillard stays as Prime Minister (as much as I dislike her) as Tony Abbott is a moron.
|
On October 21 2011 14:17 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:28 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:On October 21 2011 13:01 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote:
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me. By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults? There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays. By definition of hundreds of years of experience and existence. By definition of legislation in this country: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html. Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage. On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:
I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same. Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all. What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples? This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind. What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples. My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference. In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
|
It's pathetic how our supposedly "progressive" party in Labor is so against a law that is simply humane and supported by the vast majority of Australians. Just pass the law and be done with it, ignore the hysterical conservative dominated media and listen to the people for once.
|
the labor party is all about giving dole money to westies can i get an amen?
|
On October 21 2011 14:21 GG_NO_RE wrote:
i can't believe that this is actually an issue. it's so clearly backwards and discriminatory to bar gay people from getting married
Funny you should say that, when your listed country doesn't allow gay marriage and doesn't seem to be looking to legalize it anytime soon either.
|
I would have thought it was already allowed in Australia, I wonder if it's allowed here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
