Roger Brisbane,
On same sex union, this is not the biological concept of marriage that is accepted by most. It is popularism policy gone mad. I could never support such perversions. The State should only be interested in the births produced by a couple to track population growth and the death of any. Social contracts can be drawn up between people to cover all relationships.

Josephus, it seems your objection is one of title, since you appear to support "social contracts".
So why not marriage & the benefits that are automatically granted to a spouse (medical, financial etc). Who loses if it's called marriage? Other 'contracts' do not convey these privileges. The only difference IMO, is sexual preference.

Roger,
My objection to same sex 'marriage' is entirely on the use of the word marriage. It means a union of a male and female, no ifs or buts about that and spin will not alter that.

Persons of the same sex can find their own word for their union. They have already hyjacked the word 'gay' and now they want the word marriage because it projects a better image for their lifestyle.

Roger,
Please identify the medical and financial benefits that a man and woman have in a marriage that cannot be identified in a contract? The contract that a couple sign and register with the State of itself is not a marriage. The marriage is the actual sexual act, covered by a permanent agreement under law that the couple make to engage lawfully in sex. Anal sex does not fulfil the biological act of marriage. An act of Parliament does not change the meaning of the history of the term. It cannot change the facts of science or biology.

Adopting such a policy might have some popular support, but it is based on ignorance of history and biological fact. Same sex couples should adopt an historical term commonly applied for such sex relationships.

..but I can assure you there is a negative financial incentive in my case.
vs
...hope to get AEC tax deductible status when we reach 500 members
Roger Brisbane,
That's the standard Eh ?

Yuyutsu, it may be technically possible for millions of people to vote on everything.
But you don't want people to tire of direct democracy.

Too many votes too often and people will be begging for “representatives” again, and we're back to Tweedletown.
That's why I think a smaller (but still significant) random vote is better.

Paul1405, I don't deny Take It Off is “extreme” or “right”.
It's fairly obvious it is “right”. And proposes some very radical changes.
But it is truly “Rightist”.
The fascists/Nazis were actually LEFTISTS.
They were the “right wing” of the LEFT.

If you read the entire page (and policies), you'd see how ridiculous it is to call Take It Off “fascist/Nazi”, precisely why I wrote the page.
Take It Off is almost anarchist/libertarian, but not naive enough to be so.

Of course, I don't expect to make an impact on people like you.
I have no hope for people like you to ever *think*.
You only *react*, as programmed by your owners.

There is a symbol, that of red-tape-white-background/object, which can be used in various promotional contexts.
A little more flexible than a static shape, yes?