Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
mump boy wrote:it's my understanding that all the rights and responsibilities are the same but nobody wants to marry (sorry civily partner) me so i haven't put it to the test yet :cry
I'll do it mump boy, if we get to 40 and we're both still single! Then at least we've got a back up! (I wonder how many people would freak out reading a gay marriage proposal on the internet? Disclaimer: I have never met mump boy or even had a conversation with him outside the confines of various message boards. Goodness only knows what we'd be letting ourselves in for).
"Will you civilly partner me?" just doesn't have the same touch of romance about it though. Do gays get down on one knee? Is it acceptable for a man to wear an engagement ring? On the other hand, if you've been disinherited by the in-laws for being gay then at least you won't have to spend Christmas with them. In separate rooms.
hey don't laugh you may have a deal
T&FN first wedding you're all invited i want to hold it during a major champ and Merlene Ottey, Anna Quirot and Turinesh Dibaba as brides maids
Helen S wrote:I keep hoping for some scientist to accomplish human parthenogenisis by somehow bringing an unfertilized egg to adulthood (or a sperm cell) so then the evangelicals will have to consider the destruction of all unfertilized eggs or unused sperm MURDER also. That will shake things up a bit!
I believe that the catholics once considered masturbation and coitus interuptus evil, because it deprived a child of the chance of being born. The concept would then not be entirely new. (Obviously, extending it to each individual sperm/egg would be.)
The Catholic church is still against birth control, but I don't know of any Catholics who have families the size of the families that Catholics from my grandparents' generation had. And the leaders of our faith are unequivocal in their opposition to the death penalty, but I know many Catholics who support it.
Comedian Wanda Sykes once said, "I don't why so many people are worried about gay marriage. Gays didn't wreck my marriage, it was divorce that wrecked my marriage."
Helen S wrote:I keep hoping for some scientist to accomplish human parthenogenisis by somehow bringing an unfertilized egg to adulthood (or a sperm cell) so then the evangelicals will have to consider the destruction of all unfertilized eggs or unused sperm MURDER also. That will shake things up a bit!
I believe that the catholics once considered masturbation and coitus interuptus evil, because it deprived a child of the chance of being born. The concept would then not be entirely new. (Obviously, extending it to each individual sperm/egg would be.)
SQUACKEE wrote:Biden says he and Obama do not support redefining marriage.
They don't have to support it. They just have to let the states decide issues like that. It isn't, and shouldn't be, a federal issue.
By the way, that is apparently McCain's position on this. He opposes same-sex marriages but voted against making that a Federal law on the grounds that this was something that should be left to the states.
How can it possibly NOT be a federal issue??? If a gay married couple move from state to state is their relationship defined by the laws of the new state or the old? Can a marriage contract be invalidated by moving from one state to another? Is it possible to be married in California but not in Utah?
Does the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution apply? Isn't throwing this to the states sort of the same as allowing states to make their own laws about slavery? Dred Scott in 1857 presented the same issues... was Scott a freeman forever because he had lived in a free state, or a slave forever because he had that status in slave states? Some politician back then said something about a house divided against itself not standing... how can we have different rules from state to state about such a basic social and legal contractual relationship?
jhc68 wrote:Does the "full faith & credit" clause of the Constitution apply?
How about the inalienable right to 'pursuit of happiness'? I still don't understand how a gay marriage infringes on other people's rights. No one has to associate with people they don't want to. If my religion bans shellfish, can I insist you don't eat crawdaddies?
Here is Obama's response about prop. 8 which would ban gay marriage...
"I think it's unnecessary," Obama told Sway, in response to a question sent in by Gangstagigz from San Leandro, California. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
This is political speak at its finest. He is keeping his "religious core" in tact while at the same time maintaining his intellectual constitutional integrity.
We know where he really stands. He understands civil liberties and is a constitutional scholar.
The opposition to gay marriage is strictly religiously based and has no place intermingling with constitutional liberties.
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"
That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"
That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.
Man's best friend? The happy couple, Larry and Rover?
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"
That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.
Man's best friend? The happy couple, Larry and Rover?
More likely Emily and Rover. The men will be too busy protecting the homesteads.
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"
That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.
because gay marriage is the slipperly slope towards polygamy, incest and bestiality !??!?!
the real interesting question is not when people in the us will stop rejecting gay "marriage" it is when will the (blue) state higher courts stop rejecting the peoples decision?
kuha wrote:This is one of those issues that, in the not too distant future, the huge majority of people will simply shake their heads and say, with disbelief and pity, "Why was there any fuss at all about this back then?"
That's because we will probably have legal adult Polygamy and legal adult incest. I'm not sure what will come after that though.
because gay marriage is the slipperly slope towards polygamy, incest and bestiality !??!?!
And miscegenation but surely that will never happen!!!
paulthefan wrote:the real interesting question is not when people in the us will stop rejecting gay "marriage" it is when will the (blue) state higher courts stop rejecting the peoples decision?
Without weighing in on the current debate here, allow me to say methinks we should all be thankful that higher courts are in place to undo mistakes made by the general populace.
If something doesn't pass a legal test it shouldn't be law; the whims of the general populace are to fickle to become the standard by which laws are made. Long live checks & balances.
i want to hold it during a major champ and Merlene Ottey, Anna Quirot and Turinesh Dibaba as brides maids 
Then at least we've got a back up! 
