you're a complete idiot for making this statement. my step-father used to beat my mother and myself as well and the best thing my mother did was get the hell outta that relationship. she probably saved both of our lives. and this guy was a cop.. hell.. he's still a cop. he's a police chief now in a town in Michigan!

sexy as hell and a liberal!

somebody make me a time machine - i wanna shave 20 years off!

the convo never involved abuse.. it was a simple response to couples sticking to marriage even though they don't love each other... READ before commenting genius :winkwink:

we just need to impeach that fucking moron

On what grounds?

As a straight white Christian conservative pro-lifer male, I whole heartedly disagree with same-sex marriages. If we, as a proud Christian nation, were to allow this ungodly union to occur, we would be no better than that free loading country Canada. And what?s next? Marriage between animals and human beings? Look, I?m all for that Indian lady who married the snake and that Jew that married the dolphin, but what are you going to do when people want to marry CATS? And that isn?t even the theoretical limit of the insanity that would happen if we were to allow same-sex marriages, oh no friend, not by a long shot. After the pro-bestially manage to get inter-species marriages rectified, it?s only a matter of time before people start marrying rocks and trees and other inanimate objects. But you would think that?s the worst of it? haha, not by a long shot. Soon people will start marrying the pure elements. You?ll see singed cocks and burnt pussies from people trying to have sex with fire, you?ll see idiots sky diving without a parachute because they wanted to get to know wind a little bit better ?in that way?.

No friend, we have to stop this now before it gets out of hand. Marriage is between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, not between people and animals, not between people and inanimate objects and certainly not between people and the elements. If we don?t stop this travesty from occurring in our lifetime our children will have to deal with this issue of whether or not to allow the inclusion in the constitution of allowing people to marry bacteria and viruses. However, polygamy should be allowed because polygamy rocks. :thumbsup

i dont know.

Perhaps he thinks that gays will molest the children even though the overwhelming % of child molesters and particularly child murderers are straight males. Maybe we should ban any household that has a straight male between 18-50 from adopting children since they are the most likely to rape and murder children.

You're completely right. I retract my statements about gay marriage all together. I should have remembered that all animals are able to sign legal documents, and the elements have the same rights to a place in society as humans. It must have slipped my mind! :upsidedow

I can understand people being afraid of change, and uncertain about whether or not gay marriage is something that is "right"...

...but not too long ago, people were afraid of giving african americans rights because they were afraid of the change...

..people were afraid of giving WOMEN rights, because they weren't sure if it was right or not.

Just because you don't understand it, don't condone it, don't like it, doesn't mean you should prevent other people from HAVING RIGHTS.

Or maybe its because children can't survive in homes that don't have male and female parental figures..

We should ban all single-parent families in the US too.

nope, lets just have murder mean "the showing of naked pictures" so we can all be thrown in jail.

changing the meaning of words to fit the latest fashion is not the right way to go.
Call it a civil union and move on.

don't think I will

100% AGREE!!!!! You would think that most peeps would agree with you on here too. Being that this *should* be an open minded industry!!

I just don't understand why people are so insecure about change! I have been married to Stewie for 17 years!! But what if we were a gay couple??? We still would love each other same... but now we can't get married? WTF? Why not? Who are you to tell me that I can't marry the person I love? :2 cents:

like i said before, to me it has nothing to do with rights. if it is not for religious reasons and it only has to do with someone just wanting to be able to claim the tax breaks and benefits of a "married couple", i think thats bullshit. now if they are getting married truely for religious reasons then i support that 100%. it just seems to me that most of them are fighting only for the benefits, and to me thats wrong. that would be like me as a single person fighting to get the same breaks and benefits that married couples get and claiming discrimination against singles if they said no.

if its solely for love thats one thing. if its only for the government tax breaks and benefits thats something completely different.

In another thread about this subject, someone posted that this whole "marriage" thing was a religious ceremony and should have no impact or relation on how the US government should recognize a "couple".

I totally agree with that and wish that was the case. However, that is not so.

In my opinion, I don't give a shit who marries who. I just got married because my wife dreamt of that since she was playing with barbies. By law, were were married "by common law" many years before without signing a paper and again a few years after that when I had a common law paper notarized so I could get her on my health benefits. Did getting "married", traditionally, change anything ? No.

There are many forms a "marriage" or a recognizable status of being "married" in the US (as I see it, though it could just be my perspective). The only issue here is that the conservative public and the conservative government that plays to them are mistaking what a legal union between two engaged in a binding relationship that engage in sex is.

That's how I see it. If the thought of marriage had nothing to do with who fucks who, it would be more like a business partnership and thus not frighten anyone.

Imagine a couple.. one of them has a well paying job (possibly for the government, with a pension plan), and the other a job they love.. (such as an artist) that doesn't pay much. They've been living together for 30 years, and by "common law" they WOULD be a married couple.

But they are the same sex... shouldn't the one who has a very well paying job be able to support their partner by contributing health care, medicare, social security, etc.?

Its not JUST about "getting a tax break". Its about being recognized by society as an officially married couple. Gays love each other JUST as much as straight people, or bisexual people, or black people, or people who don't believe in god.. so why are they denied the BASIC right to get married, and recognized by the state as a married couple?

yeah i agree with most of that. i dont know maybe its just because im against government handouts in general. here's the way i look at it (not saying im right, just what i believe in):

- i dont rely on social security for my retirement. if i want to have money to retire on, thats up to me to be responsible and save for it.

- i dont rely on medicare. if i want medical coverage, i pay for a health insurance plan. now i understand that not everyone qualifies for health insurance, so medicare is good for them and im ok with that.

- i try not to rely on the government for anything. if i need something for me or my family, i take responsibilty for myself and go out and work for it. its not fun and its never easy, but that is what being a responsible adult is about.


i guess if i could sum it all up in one question it would be: if gay marriage was legalized and their union was recognized "by society" but they did not get any of the "married" government benefits, would they be ok with that? if yes, cool im behind it all the way. if no, then I dont personally agree with the reasons.

bottom line, most of those "married" benefits are relics from back when the wives used to stay home with the kids (not being sexist, that was the initial reason for the benefits). these days times are different. these laws should apply to parents, not married couples. but thats just my opinion.

What about retarded human beings? No offense to them, but some retarded humans have the mental capacity of a chimp. Should they be allowed to get married? If so, why not a chimp since it shares a similar capacity in brain function? Is it because it's of a different species? If that's the case that's just being a dirty speciesist. You can't discriminate between species now can you? I mean after all it wasn't too long ago that Americans were being discriminated against for having a different colored skin (oh wait... it's still happening today. Never mind :1orglaugh ). Seriously though, if an overly retarded person can enter to a marriage 'legally' then I really don't see how you could say it would be any different than a chimp, which has almost an identical mental capacity.

'It could never agree to it! It can't speak yada yada yada'

What about mutes?

'They can still write lalalala'

What about deaf, mute, and blind people?

'Uh... They can do the whole hellen keller thing...'

What if they are quadriplegic?

'... Uhm.. they can't get married.. .. I guess.'

How DARE you say that a HUMAN BEING can't get married. You sir are sick and deranged with you putting limitations on marriage between humans!

Um no offense.. but you're proving my point about how ridiculous the ban on gay marriage IS.

Why is it that a straight male can marry a straight female? Even if one of them is paralyzed, deaf, blind, and can't speak, mentally disabled, has a disease, any combination of these? If they love each other, its okay right?

So why can't two people, just because they were born of the same sex, get married?

then how would that person say "i do"?









:1orglaugh sorry couldn't resist.

Sign language.

Yep. I'm a single a parent. I guess my child will grow up mentally fucked up because of it. Better take him away from me and give him to a married couple.</sarcasm>

I don't usually agree with 12clicks on much, but his I do. Gays get "married" now and say they are "married" even though they legally are not. So why not get a civil union and call yourself married?

Gays insistance on being married is only making the republicans stay in control that much longer. One would think if you wanted to get the rights you think you are being denied it's better to get people in office that will actually do that for you. Even Dick Cheney said civil unions are ok. And in fact enough republicans think so too that if gays would settle for that this won't even be an issue.

Having been married and divorced I can tell any gays reading this that it aint what it's all cracked up to be. Consider yourself lucky.

Here's the end to this discussion:

"Marriage" is a religious union under god of a man and woman, somehow (yea, we know how), adopted by a government to mean something more than the religious aspect of that.

A dude on dude / chick on chick "marriage" union does not fit that definition of union because it does not lead to procreation.

Fundamentally: marriage of a man and woman = procreation under the consent of god.

Either deal with that in regard to our current political system or fucking get out there and vote. Discussion of this is otherwise useless.

I refuse to go fuck myself until I marry myself, and I'm still waiting for the right me to come along.

Gays have got it wrong. Marriage is a union between a male and a female. Go call it something else and you don't have a problem.

Call it 'twinkletoes' and we're all happy, but marriage...no way.

Lyn

lol honestly who cares if its a man and a woman, woman and a woman, or man and a man? if they want to get married let them. i don't see how it effects you in anyway.. too many stubborn closeminded people..

im not even gay and i still don't see where the problem arises..

do you people have nothing better to worry about other than gay marriage? go bake some cookies or something you're making me tired..

lol i wasn't bashing you dumb fuck. i already stated i wish they would let gays get married because i don't see a problem with it. :error

BoyAlley, man.... I see why the gay community is bent; they don't get the same couple rights as "married" heterosexuals do. But fuck man, this whole "marriage" thing the gay community fights against is, inherently, a religious institution of which you're pretty much fucked to even fight against: You can't fight a belief; you just can't. However, and I could be wrong, I think the union you (and other homosexuals) want is just one that is recognized by the government much like "marriage" is among heterosexuals.

I'm all about getting the church separated from the state, as I hate hearing political speeches that bring god / religion into the mix. Fight against that, against what a "union" of two individuals mean and perhaps that'll work.

However, trying to re-work a religious covenant between a man and woman to also include a man & man / woman & woman is pretty much insane.

couldn't have said it better myself... :thumbsup

Damn, BoyAlley's on the warpath!!! Death to all Breeders!!! Hey wait a minute, I am teh straight! :uhoh


:1orglaugh :winkwink: