I saw that... almost responded to him but didnt have the energy at the time..

If it was a choice I'd be with men in a second... they are MUCH easier to deal with than women IMO... less hormonal changes and what not. :p

Men are easier to understand (again my opinion) - and maybe that is because my brain works like a mans.


But then again... I do have the choice to be with a man regardless of how my heart and sex organs feel. But then I'd be uncomfortable my whole life and living a lie.

along with the marrying pets sentence... :eek:

people like Wingnut and cmfwhatever and Bush make me feel ashamed to be a republican :(

I will add that I agree with Wingnut... that if gay couples in a domestic partnership are allowed to get med insurance benefits... than straight couples in domestic partnerships should also get the same benefits.

I'm for equality for all.. not more rights for gays, and less rights for hetero's.

Equal for all.


but wingnut.. that choice comment you made was absurd & and sure as heck doesnt help your argument or cred.

I'll accept the two person marriage rule. There is the problem of multiple social security checks for the widows and widowers. Then, that brings up the whole problem of everyone within the polygamous marriage needed to have a contract with each and every other individual involved in this "marriage".

Now, let's talk about age of consent for marriage. Do we all agree that 16 years old is the right choice? Or do some think it should be higher? Lower? Different for boys than girls?

Whoever said gays and lesbians wanted to get married in a church anyway?
Maybe they want to go to Vegas and get drunk like a movie star and get married :D .

There should be a little provision saying that churches would reserve the right to not marry gays. But I don't see the problem in letting a government official marry them.

They already reserve the right not to marry people ,usually people who want to get married in a church have several meetings with the pastor or priest , if the pastor or priest doesnt see fit that they should be married they can say no.
Its sorta like the right to refuse service to anyone.

When are we getting married?:{>:

When your joint falls off.

Git outta here:mad: :mad:

Fine.

You may not really be here but it's nice to see your humor lingers on my friend.:)

:(

When you promise me a rose garden :{>:

churches have the right to turn down anyone already. my husband and i got turned down by the priest at the roman catholic church where he grew up-we hadn't gone thru the six months of 'instruction' that they supposedly require. hell, we hadn't even known each other six months when we got married!! :D

i say supposedly because a few years later, his younger bro got married to a non catholic, no instruction, in the same church-but a different priest. now, she was knocked up...maybe he was just in a hurry to get her married and converted?

anyway, we got married by the judge, now the mayor of el dorado. almost 23 years later, and it's all good.

You got it babe;)

Thank you.

And thanks for noticing I m not here.



:) :)

does a rabbi have to marry a couple that's not jewish? does a priest have to marry a couple that's not catholic?

do we need to have provision's that make those answer's clear?

there's a difference between public and private space in the law. churches are private.

if i own a restaurant, under the law i can't discriminate. that doesn't mean when i go home i have no choice in whom comes to dinner.

why would a church need clarification on this point? if i'm a priest i can refuse to marry you because you didn't get baptized. or because i don't think you're in love. or because i'm busy. or because i just don't like you. or for no reason whatsoever.

do you still think a church that didn't want to would have to marry a gay couple? any examples anywhere that this has happened?

I always notice when you're not here.



Or there.:)

Thanks again








:zz:







thud