He just likes irking people, that's all.

(February 18, 2011 at 7:20 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: He just likes irking people, that's all.

Ahhhh so he is "irksome"???

Irksome Ibby

Support it for the obvious reason that it's between two consenting adults who should be able to marry eachother if they so wish. Why the fuck not?

I oppose it since I oppose the government getting involved with any aspect of religion. The government should stay out of all types of marriage (including heterosexual marriage); it has no business being there in the first place.

Marriage isn't what it is, it should be legally recognised partnership or something. So I can't vote.

I completely support the right of people who love each other to get married, regardless of sexual orientation. If they choose a 'marriage' instead of just a 'civil partnership,' they should have access to it on equal grounds with heterosexual couples. I see absolutely no reason why they shouldn't.

Well Hi everybody!

You all know damn well ol' Dotard was going to show up in here voting 'against' and joining IB in some sort of baseless diatribe against homofags.

Guess again. I find myself unable to vote. If the poll would have been "Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion?", if you are a pro-choicer "Pro-Abortionist" is a bit misleading. It is the CHOICE you are pro for, not the abortions themselves.

I thinks if a couple of homos wished to put on paper their 'union' or partnership then the state should be bound to reconize it as a basis for shared insurance, death benifits etc. etc. If this is possible, why do gays place so much importance on having it reconized as a traditional 'marriage'?

It is of my opinion the push for 'marriage' is an attempt to normalize an abnormality.

It's not 'normalising' an abnormality minority position but recognising it and dealing with it fairly.

(February 18, 2011 at 6:44 am)Zen Badger Wrote: What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own damn business and no-one elses.

---

(February 18, 2011 at 6:43 am)Irksome Ibby Wrote: I oppose it, because there are better things to think about.

Seriously, WTF????

That is a crap argument.

I agree. I have heard some lame cop-outs before, but this has to be the worst I have heard so far

---

(February 18, 2011 at 8:34 am)Tiberius Wrote: I oppose it since I oppose the government getting involved with any aspect of religion. The government should stay out of all types of marriage (including heterosexual marriage); it has no business being there in the first place.

Adrian. The question was simple and had nothing to do with government. You voted "I oppose it", but in your post you argue that you support it.

---

(February 18, 2011 at 8:44 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Marriage isn't what it is, it should be legally recognised partnership or something. So I can't vote.

In this case, you would vote "I oppose it"

---

(February 18, 2011 at 10:13 am)Dotard Wrote: Well Hi everybody!

You all know damn well ol' Dotard was going to show up in here voting 'against' and joining IB in some sort of baseless diatribe against homofags.

Guess again. I find myself unable to vote. If the poll would have been "Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion?", if you are a pro-choicer "Pro-Abortionist" is a bit misleading. It is the CHOICE you are pro for, not the abortions themselves.

I thinks if a couple of homos wished to put on paper their 'union' or partnership then the state should be bound to reconize it as a basis for shared insurance, death benifits etc. etc. If this is possible, why do gays place so much importance on having it reconized as a traditional 'marriage'?

It is of my opinion the push for 'marriage' is an attempt to normalize an abnormality.

Then on this poll you would vote "I oppose it"