Dear Arjay,

I agree with David F., gay abandon is a great girl indeed,
and she is also welcomed in my house. How can you not
welcome someone who displays - "uninhibited enthusiasm,"
or "Jolly impulsiveness."

Dear Lexi,

Our member of parliament in general doesn't represent us. In the words of Sullivan in Pinafore over a hundred years ago:

"I always voted at my party's call
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all."

The Westminster system in that respect is unchanged.

Tossing out a rep because he votes the party line doesn't affect the basic lack of representation in the system.

The only reason homosexuals want to be able to 'marry' is to use it to gain a measure of respect.

If they simply want their union recognised by law they can do that withou the use of the word marriage, which has a defined meaning of a union between a man and a woman.

I do not care what they do, or how many legal partners they have, but leave the word marriage alone. They can think up another word or two to describe their union.

Why don't we make some suggestions. The gay have already used words without thought for any-body. Why not Gay union, and lesbean union, and if one got together with the other it could be a reunion.

To all you people that are up-set about another persons sexual preferences....its you that has the problem. Why are you sick bunch of whinges even thinking about what people do in the bad-rooms, and when it comes marrage....well......its just a contract between two people that your showing by taking the vowel.....that one will be faithful to the one's that agree to wear the rings of of fore-ever partnering with the one person you love.

Go and get a life, you bunch of Ezmay Watson's:) ( The old busy-body from a Country Practice )....lol....true!....some of you are that bad.

All right:).....here's a joke just to break up the bad vibes..............Ready:)

1..What is the definition of Lord of the Rings?

2..The leader of the gay mardi gra:)....boom boom!

Have a nice day:)

CACTUS

Dear David F.,

Yes, I agree with you. However that's where the
"Conscience Vote" comes into play. The MPs can
vote against the "Party line" and according to
their "conscience." That was the point I was trying
to make but perhaps I didn't express it very well.