@Hoop: You cute hoor, you miss nothing. Tippex was down to an annoying grammatical error.
Bob
It would be funny if it weren’t what a lot of no campaigners have been saying will happen.
donkey_kong
if the horse is willing then why not let them ….
equality and all that lark….
Gers
Genuine question, how do you guys feel about polygamous marriage? Next logical step to have equality with our Muslims brothers, right?
Spaghetti Hoop
Having two partners sounds perfectly reasonable and interesting. Any more than that would be just unmanageable, and probably very expensive too.
St. John Smythe
what’s that? …listen …. listen… there it is again, it’s the rustle of a strawman clumsily trying to clamber his way into the comment thread.
Don Pidgeoni
I can’t tell if this is serious or trolling..
Daisy Chainsaw
Three husbands. One on, one off and one in the wash… Don’t mind if I do.
Rob_G
I think that would be ok, why don’t you tell us what you think, Gers?
ReproBertie
A man can have children with more than one woman and a woman can have children with more than one man. If some collection of those men and women and their children all live in the same house and are one big happy family then why can’t the adults all marry should they chose to? Even if there are no children involved, why is marriage limited to two people? There’s no law, that I know of, to stop 3 or more people living together so what’s the big deal?
Anon
I understand there is a requirement to be able to adequately support all wives. Not sure how that works in practice though.
Corky Duke
Slippery Slope says it all….Vote no.
Turd Ferguson
I like the idea of a Yes campaign poster of “ONLY FAGGOTS WILL VOTE NO”
Joe the Lion
I thought the horse one was quite good Mick but the second one is a bit obvious to be honest, not really funny.
Sorry.
Anon
I think what the No campaign is suggesting is that the referendum could possibly maybe mean (even if all other things were equal, which they rarely are) that a homosexual couple could be given precedence over a heterosexual couple in adoption cases.
I don’t think most people care what combination of two people are parents, but since we already have gay parents and we already allow single parent adoption it is still missing the point.
Joe the Lion
I get that I just figure mick laid it on with the trowel in that one
Fair play like.
Genius, Mick :-D
Heheh. Tis the “mince” that makes it.
And the flopping wrist in the same panel.
The artwork is getting better. Love the tippex ;)
That’s not tippex. It’s not unusual for great artists to reach elevated levels of exitement when they finish a great piece.
Oooooh, that calls for a Pampers….
@Hoop: You cute hoor, you miss nothing. Tippex was down to an annoying grammatical error.
It would be funny if it weren’t what a lot of no campaigners have been saying will happen.
if the horse is willing then why not let them ….
equality and all that lark….
Genuine question, how do you guys feel about polygamous marriage? Next logical step to have equality with our Muslims brothers, right?
Having two partners sounds perfectly reasonable and interesting. Any more than that would be just unmanageable, and probably very expensive too.
what’s that? …listen …. listen… there it is again, it’s the rustle of a strawman clumsily trying to clamber his way into the comment thread.
I can’t tell if this is serious or trolling..
Three husbands. One on, one off and one in the wash… Don’t mind if I do.
I think that would be ok, why don’t you tell us what you think, Gers?
A man can have children with more than one woman and a woman can have children with more than one man. If some collection of those men and women and their children all live in the same house and are one big happy family then why can’t the adults all marry should they chose to? Even if there are no children involved, why is marriage limited to two people? There’s no law, that I know of, to stop 3 or more people living together so what’s the big deal?
I understand there is a requirement to be able to adequately support all wives. Not sure how that works in practice though.
Slippery Slope says it all….Vote no.
I like the idea of a Yes campaign poster of “ONLY FAGGOTS WILL VOTE NO”
I thought the horse one was quite good Mick but the second one is a bit obvious to be honest, not really funny.
Sorry.
I think what the No campaign is suggesting is that the referendum could possibly maybe mean (even if all other things were equal, which they rarely are) that a homosexual couple could be given precedence over a heterosexual couple in adoption cases.
I don’t think most people care what combination of two people are parents, but since we already have gay parents and we already allow single parent adoption it is still missing the point.
I get that I just figure mick laid it on with the trowel in that one
I like…
I thought…
I think…
All you Bullsheet commenters are the same…No backbone.
….looking for approval, acceptance into the gang.
How many of you will actually get up off your fat asses and get out and vote?