by Johno6 » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:52 am
by Psyber » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:56 am
by Leaping Lindner » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:57 am
by Booney » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:00 am
by Wedgie » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:09 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Psyber » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:15 am
I tend to agree with you but think those who want to should have the option.Wedgie wrote:I voted NO but only because I dont think anyone should get married.
by Johno6 » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:17 am
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:22 am
Johno6 wrote:So Pysber does booty calls then?
my brother just got married in canberra or something like that but then had the "commitment" ceremony or whatever u call it over here....
i was a bit upset tho... no guys tried to hit on me... am i that hideous?
by The Sleeping Giant » Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:39 am
by FlyingHigh » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:03 am
by The Sleeping Giant » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:27 am
by Mythical Creature » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:30 am
FlyingHigh wrote:Psyber wrote:I too agree it should not be an issue.
People should be able to formalise their partnership and have it recognised as such regardless of gender.
(However I do oppose public funding of IVF services - for anyone - in an overpopulated world.)[/quote]
Beat me too it Pysber
Not concerned about gay marriages one way or the other, but fully agree with this last line.
by Booney » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:56 am
The Sleeping Giant wrote:Over populated world yes. Over populated Australia no. Anyone who needs IVF to have a child should have the right in this country.
by Wedgie » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:00 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Johno6 » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:06 am
by Wedgie » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:07 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by pale ale » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:51 am
by Pseudo » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:00 pm
CK wrote:Yes. Shouldn't even be an issue in this day and age, amazed it still seems to be on a political level at some levels.
by FlyingHigh » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:07 pm
Mythical Creature wrote:FlyingHigh wrote:Psyber wrote:I too agree it should not be an issue.
People should be able to formalise their partnership and have it recognised as such regardless of gender.
(However I do oppose public funding of IVF services - for anyone - in an overpopulated world.)[/quote]
Beat me too it Pysber
Not concerned about gay marriages one way or the other, but fully agree with this last line.
Maybe if a couple is on their 3rd or 4th child, but for a couple who are trying for their 1st or 2nd child IVF should definately be a valid option no question.
.
by Zelezny Chucks » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:12 pm
FlyingHigh wrote:Mythical Creature wrote:FlyingHigh wrote:Psyber wrote:I too agree it should not be an issue.
People should be able to formalise their partnership and have it recognised as such regardless of gender.
(However I do oppose public funding of IVF services - for anyone - in an overpopulated world.)[/quote]
Beat me too it Pysber
Not concerned about gay marriages one way or the other, but fully agree with this last line.
Maybe if a couple is on their 3rd or 4th child, but for a couple who are trying for their 1st or 2nd child IVF should definately be a valid option no question.
.
Preface this by saying I am not in that situation, I just don't believe because we CAN do it that we SHOULD do it. In addition to the population argument, I believe that is the hand nature has dealt someone, put up with it.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |