Oh, to find the remnants of micktiegs' drunken excesses from yesterday in every thread. :) :)

wait... it was just two threads wasn't it? Sorry, everyone.
It's was six beers and two OP rums if you were wondering, Tauto :p

Strange ideas we have believing in the sanctity of male and female marriage and not letting a minority run our country.

If I had a dollar every time this was brought up in the media then I would be very,very rich.

The very, very rich are exactly the minority that's running the country.

... For every song I've sung
Every time I had to play
While people sat there drunk
You know, I'd catch the next train
Back to where I live
Oh Lord, I'm stuck in the GOG forum again.

(OK, bit of a CCR misquote, but what the heck!) :-P

I liked listening to the Australian Magpie! Very pretty song.

It's finally getting to be spring here, so our migratory birds are coming back. Here are a few interesting ones near me:

Killdeer: pretty song, and it plays wounded if you go near it's nest:
Song
protecting nest

Eastern Blue bird saw one yesterday <3 <3

Oriel (only had one stay onces :(

Northern Magpie

Whip poor will

Theres my little tickle monster!

Good, hopefully it will stay that way.

It's funny, prior to the Marriage Act change in the early 2000s, they could have legally married here.

Yet nobody did, not a single same sex couple married.

But now the act has been further defined to exclude same sex, they all want to get married and can't stop whining about it.

That's all you ever hear, marriage equality.

There is equality, all men are treated the same and all women the same.

What these people want is not equality, but special provisions just for them.

Why is it good that the law specifically only allows some people to marry and not others?

How would opening up marriage to more people destroy the sanctity of the most common case?

Also, this isn't about letting a minority run the country; it's about giving people the rights they deserve.

It doesn't allow "some people", homosexuals can still marry within the act's definition.

It allows any man to marry any woman to the exclusion of others (the "exclusion of others" was added in relatively recently) and mentions nothing about sexuality.

Therefore, I'm treated no differently to any other person of my gender, just because it doesn't suit someone's sexuality doesn't make it inequality.

If you support same sex marriage, then I assume you also support polygamy and marrying relations?

After all, they're consenting adults and love each other.

Come on... Tauto had a decent thread going. dtgreene can make their own if they want to talk about this shit.

If I had a dollar for every time *someone* got all bent out of shape over another's opinion...

lol

hello :) i've been mia due to lots of personal stupid and work.

Except that it doesn't allow a woman to do the same.
You shouldn't be treated any differently than someone of any gender, even if it's not your own.

Also, under the law transgender people who share your gender are treated differently.
If I had a dollar for every time someone calls discussion of someone's identity "political"...

If I had a dollar for every good post of mine that ended up "low rated"...

It allows any woman to marry any man, doesn't get more equal than that.

So are polygamists and relatives who want to marry each other.

You still haven't answered my question, do you think that should be allowed, or only people who fit your sexuality?