|
Tuesday, 14 November 2017
quote [ Of the eligible Australians, the majority indicated that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, with 7,817,247 (61.6 percent) responding "Yes" and 4,873,987 (38.4 percent) responding "No."
Nearly eight out of 10 eligible Australians (79.5 percent) expressed their view. All states and territories recorded a majority Yes response. ] Eat a bag of dicks, bigots. Or sex clams, whatever.
|
1111 said @ 1:31am GMT on 15th November
I realize the folly inherent in trying to converse with anyone who types with the caps lock on, but I am genuinely curious - do you not think polygamy is the next "evolution" of marriage?
It's not a loaded question - the definition of marriage as strictly 1+1 on can be viewed as entirely arbitrary and exclusionary.
Any thoughts - big red letters or not?
1111 said @ 1:32am GMT on 15th November
I realize the folly inherent in trying to converse with anyone who types with the caps lock on, but I am genuinely curious - do you not think polygamy is the next "evolution" of marriage?
It's not a loaded question - the definition of marriage as strictly 1+1 can be viewed as entirely arbitrary and exclusionary.
Any thoughts - big red letters or not?
1111 said @ 1:42am GMT on 15th November
I realize the folly inherent in trying to converse with anyone who types with the caps lock on, but I am genuinely curious - Do you not think polygamy is the next "evolution" of marriage?
It's not a loaded question - the definition of marriage as strictly 1+1 can be viewed as entirely arbitrary and exclusionary.
Any thoughts - big red letters or not?
P.S. The question stands for bbqkink and steal as well. Either of you actually have an argument, or just a pull down menu?
(yeah - that's what I thought)
<-- Entry / Current Comment
1111 said @ 1:31am GMT on 15th November [Score:-5]
I realize the folly inherent in trying to converse with anyone who types with the caps lock on, but I am genuinely curious - Do you not think polygamy is the next "evolution" of marriage?
It's not a loaded question - the definition of marriage as strictly 1+1 can be viewed as entirely arbitrary and exclusionary.
Any thoughts - big red letters or not?
P.S. The question stands for bbqkink and steal as well. Either of you actually have an argument, or just a pull down menu?
(yeah - that's what I thought)
