What next, a race clause? "Under Australian law your husband or wife must be white. Dirty abo mongrels are not entitled to tax refunds." *throws up*
...and in the question "Did you have a married or de-facto spouse at any time in the 2006-07 tax period?", there's this lovely little bullet point down the bottom:
What next, a race clause? "Under Australian law your husband or wife must be white. Dirty abo mongrels are not entitled to tax refunds." *throws up* | |
Gay marriage has been a topic of debate in the U.S. as well. :P
| |
Gay marriage doesn't make sense and it definitely shouldn't be allowed.
My reasoning? Marriage is a system of control the church uses (/used, when most people still believed in no sex before marriage or they'd go to hell) to enforce alligence to the church in order to procreate. Thus, the church would control the very thing that keeps the human race alive. It's very clever, but ultimately archiac and should be abolished as it's no longer relevent. If you need a legal binding to keep your relationship together, you shouldn't be in that relationship. Gay marriage should be banned as should straight marriage. j/k i just hate homosexuals | |
Worldweaver wrote:
they put that there to stop false reports not incite blog posts. Oh, I know. I'm not blaming the tax office. But I do have a right to make blog posts about it, because I think it sucks. Elation wrote: Gay marriage should be banned as should straight marriage. OK. As long as they're treated the same. | |
They can't be the same sex, yet they HAVE to be the same species. It's such a contradiction!
| |
It's attribute-ism, that's what it is.
| |
I fully support gay marriage yadayadayada all that crap and everything but they put that there to stop false reports not incite blog posts.