Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

*Moved to the Pub*

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

the whole thing is actually pretty amusing in a disturbing way. The idiots in San Fransisco boasted about how their unions would be better than the straight "sham marriages"... now half of them are wanting divorces.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

oh so in other words you dont so much care that they are getting married but that they use the term 'married'. Well, unfortunalty language conventions being what they are, what they are doing is CALLED marriage. If they own a cat, its still a cat whether or not you want some fudge packer owning such a furry varmint formally addressed by such label.

Im not calling you a bigot because you dont like homosexuality because i for sure dont understand why a man wouldnt want to bone a fine looking woman. Im calling you a bigot because you say the same things the likes of David Duke Bull Conners and their ilk always proclaim

That what 'those' people are doing is wrong evil and should be stopped

That 'those' people are an affront to God and all that is decent

That 'those' people dont deserve to be protected by, and enjoy the same rights as 'our' people.
The only difference between you and them is that instead of bashing a person based off of the melanin content in their skin you base it off of whom they want to f-k. People like that always start off talking about doing it for decency and clean living but given a little time they always resort to murder and savagery to get their way. You can call that trendy but if equal treatment under law as defined by a 200+ year old document is 'trendy' to you then the debate is already over.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I don't have a lot of time and didn't manage to read all of this, so I'll say this now before I forget.

I'm pretty sure a civil union provides the same legal benefits as a marriage, and civil unions can be between any number of people and has no gender restrictions.

Don't fowel the holy sacament of a man and a woman.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

The definition of the word marriage is defined by society. It is not a static thing, we've grown above that. Pretty much everything in our current society is dynamic, and that's a good thing. I honestly wonder why you're so upset that they get to use the same word for a legal bond. It's been 'marriage' here from the start, and no one ever complained about it. Oh well.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Hey, Beef Flaps, what's the weather like back there in the 1800s?

Gay or straight, it's no more "normal" or "nasty" than blue or brown eyes. That's a fact. Frankly your narrow mind disgusts me.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

'Normal' is in the eye of the beholder.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Actually, there are places in this country where all of these liberal principles on family have been applied in full.

They are called "ghettos".

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

MY beleif is that the government should not play ANY role in marriage. The government should offer up civil unions for both heteros and homos, and through that system give out the same tax breaks or whatever that are givin out now, for both couples. But the term marriage is an entirely religous one. Each individual religon has it's own concepts of marriage, and it is the church that should be the one who marries two people.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?