If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Massachusetts legalises gay marriage
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Massachusetts has become the first US state to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. Full story
No doubt the god-botherers will try to reverse the decision but well done to the State! If only this would start a snowballing effect and other States (and countries!) followed suit...
Poor Bush is splitting blood and some people believe his bigotry will actually play against him at the election.
Isn't this your home State Clan? A toast to your folks!
No doubt the god-botherers will try to reverse the decision but well done to the State! If only this would start a snowballing effect and other States (and countries!) followed suit...
Poor Bush is splitting blood and some people believe his bigotry will actually play against him at the election.
Isn't this your home State Clan? A toast to your folks!
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Its a shit, but thats how its going to work. They've tried this in California before and it was over turned.
State law is over ruled by National law which is in turn over ruled by international law, thats how it works. So, what we need to do is sneek a bit about gay marriage into an international treaty which the US signs.
I guess it depends partly on how the 2004 elections affect the congress' political colours, but from what I know it shouldn't be hard to get 3/4 legislative approval if 3/4 of the states agree. I dunno much about it... but it doesn't look good.
2004: George W. Bush, President of the United States of America and Republican, calls for amendment to the constitution to make sure one group of people can not live as another would live.
You don't base the totality of who you are on your sexual preference, so why define a homosexual purely on the basis of his or her's? Most of decent people like anyone else.
Just ask her bro to respect your preference as you respect his right to his own (so long as its someone other than you).
A lot of what you said doesn't seem entirely relevant to the debate, either, to be honest (the stuff about people solving problems with violence) and the comparison between Magic Mushrooms and gay relationships is illogical. Yes, before people were aware of the risk, Aids killed a lot of people. Yes, most of them were gay men. But now the world is changing. Straight people get Aids, too (and, for that matter, always have).
And who cares if your girlfriend's brother fancies you? I bet it bothers him more than you - there's nothing like fancying a straight person!
And what you said about people being gay - I do firmly believe that it's not a choice so there's no logic in your suggestion that "if 2 people want to be gay that's up to them" - and how precisely does it affect you?
And?
Whats your point, every action is a choice, what difference does it make to you if I fuck a man or woman in my bed?
To be honest I thought it was taking the piss from the start, I've been surprised it took them this long to get round to making a ruling.
The two active drugs in mushrooms have been class A for years.
And, this ruling will NOT make the possession of fresh mushrooms illegal.
But, thats drasticly off topic.
if people + churches find it relgiously wrong, they can get married in a civil service or find a church that does let them!
Church groups which teach Christianity, the Christian teachings which are based on forgiveness.
Love thy neighbor comes to mind.
Even if God did hate 'fags' as some of the protesters put it so nicely. Would it not be better to let them do it, then you could be safe in the knowledge that they are going to hell.
Or is it your unease at the definte nature of hell or even its existance which makes you want to judge and condem them now?
Do you really think they are going to see the sign and think, "blimey, god hates fags? I never knew that, I better stop"
There are many things I don't subscribe to either. Which! for example.
I don't see how that is relevant here though, just as I don't see how your comment is.
Marriage isn't involuntary either.
Most homosexuals believe that their experience of love is 'natural'. Their attraction to the same sex feels just the same as the attraction between straight people and the opposite sex. There is nothing they can do to change how they love or how they feel.
I am sorry that you had a bad experience with homosexuals when you were younger but I object to the statement that gay men are all after 'young boys'. Most are not like that at all. Many old straight men chase young girls so what's the comparison? You had a bad experience. Perhaps you gave out the wrong signals for whatever reason and perhaps the reaction you display is down to you having a deep-rooted feeling of guilt because you actually wanted a same-sex experience? Does that sound harsh? Well, no more than some of the sweeping assumptions you have made.
How do you explain the attraction for straight couples for each other when they both have sagging bellies and tits? What makes them so much more attractive than gay men of the same age? You're being illogical and blinkered.
Oh spare us the violin strings. Grow up and move on. Sort out your own psychological scars before trying to impart your irrational thoughts on others. Only then will you be able to help.
I do not believe that they are asking for anything more, just equality in the law - especially for things like pensions, inheritance etc.
Why should they be treated any differently Kermit?
Granted Churches may not want to allow the services there, but why not allow them to have the same rights as hetrosexuals.
Why the difference?
Which means the right to marry?
Because I believe marriage is about a man and a woman getting together for procreation and to create a stable family unit- there is no place for homosexuality in marriage.
I see homosexual relationships in the same way as I see common law relationships- about security, but not about marriage.
It's difficult to explain because the terminology is always so vague, but I believe that gays should have the same protection with regards to next-of-kinship and other protection as do unmarried common-law couples, but I believe that the family is the most important social foundation and should have more benefits, and I believe that marriage is the basis of the family.
Of course there are people who marry for other reasons, but most people marry to have a family with their partner. That is how it should remain.
Not everyone gets married just to have kids, most people do it because they want to publicly show their feelings for each other.
It has far more to do with the couple themselves than about future kids.
I think most people do do it in order to create a family, but as neither of us can prove the argument it doesn't really matter. There's no point it turning into "I say X, you say Y, I say X LOUDER..."
Whilst I have every sympathy with homosexuals who want to marry, I don't think that the point of marriage rests anywhere except with a family. It should be between a man and a woman like it always has been; gays should be afforded protection, but no more protection that any other unmarried couple.
So much seems to rest on the interpretation of the word 'marriage'. As 'marriage' has traditionally involved some religious ceremony in the past, it seems that as most people in this country are not religious, there is no requirement to hold onto it as the domain of straight couples only.
That's not very much though, is it?
In health terms your next of kin would be a parent, sibling or child rather than common-law relationship. If I'm not mistaken it's that way with the law generally, isn't it?
As far as I am aware after seven years a relationship is considered "marriage", but I'm unsure, tbh.
The protection without the tax benefits is what I think.
But they didn't come from the gay couple, did they?
Apropos of nothing, I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt or have surrogates either...
It's more than about religion, it's about the whole basis of marriage as an institution.
I just feel that gays shouldn't be allowed to "marry"; more than anything it's an argument about semantics rather than anything else, but it is what I feel. Any argument is based on personal opinion rather than any "proof"; I just interpret marriage as being about the family not about equal rights. Otehrs may not, but they are wrong:p