I for one don't care much about it, but I have met people who are fervent believers that they should get married. I agree with what most has been said.

marriage is great. it's not easy, but it's worth it.

although I do not see any difference between me being married (with a certificate) and two gay people simply saying "we're married", however it's more of an equal rights issue isn't it?

honestly, I'm really not sure why sanctioned-bigotry is even legal in Amerika today. most gay people I know will say that they didn't choose to be that way, and that they were born into it. my point is: this is not simply some behavioral issue that "requires" restriction by the law and it shouldn't be anybody's business but those that are involved.

although I have no personal stake in this issue, I have a lot of gay friends and I live in the middle of Amerika's bible-belt. ignorance is rife here, and it tends to get under my skin.

i dont know about marriage, i mean its all very well showing your love but when it doesnt work then or when things have taken there toll and your only doing it for someones elses sake then its better to let go and live your life the way you want to. i think its sad if people marry young and then regret it later but then are stuck in their situation, it must be hard to get out of but not impossible. when things are too hard, even though your married then it should end because then you are just wasting your life for something thats not worth it.

time does take its crazy toll.

marriage is not about men & women or churches or any of that. what we're talking about here is forming a family and having the rights, protections and obligations of a family.

what's being questioned is the right of gay people to form a family. and currently they are being denied. the rest is all a bunch of semantic bullshit.

besides: the state is not a church & it never has been. you don't need a marriage license from the state to have a religious ceremony. and you don't need a religious ceremony to have a civil marriage.

funny how quickly we forget history-- in the XIX century, the catholic church (and other churches) fought against civil marriage because they saw it as a loss in their power and influence. they argued that marriage was a church affair not a matter of state. yet the state has its own reasons to recognize people as members of a family, and so civil marriage is a prevailing feature of life everywhere.

curiously enough, the state of israel is probably the only democracy that does not have civil marriages. the religious orthodox camp has the monopoly on marriage, so than even conservative and reform jews have to have an orthodox marriage. many israelis therefore chose to marry outside their country (cyprus being a favorite due to its proximity) , the state of israel then has to recognize the foreign marriage because of diplomatic reasons.

now i don't know who in america wants to give churches power over matters of state-- wait! republicans do! but sorry, there is separation of church & state, so the chuch should shut the fuck up on who gets a marriage license from the state. they in turn are free to set up their own requirements for marriage upon which the state has no say.

A "union" that grants gay couples the same rights as married couples would then technically be a marriage because IT WOULD BE THE EXACT SAME THING AS A MARRIAGE. It seems like you have a problem with the word "marriage" being used to describe the union of a gay couple, as opposed to a problem with wanting to separate "marriage" from "union" because of a deeper meaning "marriage" might have. Or is it a Church issue?

Basically what I'm saying is that your post is whack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui7pfVXFUqM

see how easily marriages fall apart?? :eek:

I'm telling you people....it's SERIOUS BIDNESS.

It proves that internet marriages are weak. They've only been married for just over a week and the cracks are already starting to show.

!@#$%! will be happy to know they are having marital problems.

ha ha ha you're more instigator than rob. of course i did. posted 3 times and i'm done with it. :D


i just want what's best for luxy, and crypto is a huuuuge playa. but she's stone-cold, so they can probably inflict equal harm on each other. oy...!!

Oh that is my nature, to be an instigator, and let the events follow through and me watching from the bench. Mostly cause I am a writer.

It was doomed from the moment I insisted on having a gay cake-topper.

And i thought that it was the ensuing argument because of the photo arrangements. Did you refuse to hold a bottle of vodka in your hand or something similar?

You must spread before giving it to Porky again.

Surely it'd be he giving it to you? You must spread though. ;)

Ah yes, I think they call this "irreconcilable differences."

okay, i'll admit, it was pretty whack.
i didnt think that one through quite well.

who said that matriarchy was a thing of the past?



:D

Pony play!!!!!!!!

She said no, didn't she?

Don't worry, Argos will give you a refund on the ring.