anyone not familar with gay folks should be thrown into a sweaty pit overflowing w/ homosexuality from both men and women.
i drove a semi truck for many years. for more than 2 or 3 years i worked w/ a young truck driver dude at two different companies. at the seafood company we were team drivers. he is about 6-8 yrs younger than i. i noticed things over the course of our working together. he never talked about women vs' i, where i am women women women.
he always told me if i knew his dark secret that i would kick him out of the truck. i flat out laughed at him and said no i wouldn't, unless you are a rapist and or a child molester, no i'd never kick your fat ass out of my truck.
one day while loading our trailer w/ shaved ice for the salmon we were heading after, he told me he is attracted to men. i said, "that is your dark secret that would get you tossed out of my truck?"
he said yes as he began to cry.
i said, " don't cry man, but it's ok if you cry, i cry all the time myself, im a poetry writer and have feelins to, man"
i told him as long as you don't try and hook up w/ me we're cool. and if you bring a man back to the truck i will give you space just please do not use my bed, your bedroom is upstairs, you can screw around up there all you two want. i do not care. just like i would never fuck around w/ some woman in your bedroom upstairs.
i told him i was going to fix a giant dark colored adult toy to the shifter beings he fondled the damn stick shift all day/night long. i told him, "maybe it'll shoot beep beep beep beep beep and edit." he laughed so hard he about fell out the damn truck
that man taught me a great deal about acceptance and he is the greatest navigator i have ever known. he guided me into some of the biggest most craziest city locations imaginable. the dude's brain is a rand mcnally commercial driver's road atlas
the dude was even a virgin in his mid 20s. women did nothing for him. the dude was simply turned on by men. he was soo misunderstood, mistreated and ridiculed by his father it was unreal. his father hated his son's guts because his son wanted to be a gay man.
.. I am also for equal rights for all and am very fine with marriage remaining as it was intended to be between a man and a woman ... I would cast for my vote for that today if it meant equal rights for gay unions
right now and stop the marriage battle. I have a feeling others would do the same.
The light is not what you think
and there we have it folks.... finally. pandora isnt a marriage preserver but she thinks marriage should remain the dominion of man-woman couples.
thanx for the clarity.
I just saw this, really :nono:
fair minded as always with the wrong clarity I might add
one that fits what you want to think ....
so thought I would point out my remarks in color there
never said should and said I would cast my vote today if it meant equal rights for gay unions,
and yes it would be a wonderful victory at hand! I think it would fit nicely right here
with Obama's recent move and it would be historical.
.. I am also for equal rights for all and am very fine with marriage remaining as it was intended to be between a man and a woman ... I would cast for my vote for that today if it meant equal rights for gay unions
right now and stop the marriage battle. I have a feeling others would do the same.
The light is not what you think
and there we have it folks.... finally. pandora isnt a marriage preserver but she thinks marriage should remain the dominion of man-woman couples.
thanx for the clarity.
I just saw this, really :nono:
fair minded as always with the wrong clarity I might add
one that fits what you want to think ....
so thought I would point out my remarks in color there
never said should and said I would cast my vote today if it meant equal rights for gay unions,
and yes it would be a wonderful victory at hand! I think it would fit nicely right here
with Obama's recent move and it would be historical.
If marriage was "intended" to be between men and women it's not a far stretch to assume you think that "should" stay the same. No?
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Yes, I believe civil gay unions with equal rights is exactly the right road
for the preservers of marriage, it is the only road and believe this is becoming
clear to them.
And no I'm stating my opinion on how to get resolution very soon
to equal rights ...
not just bitching and saying others are bigots and hoping
they change in the next decade or two. I'm not much for complaining I prefer
to find ways to fix things.
Once again, it cannot be EQUAL rights if they are called something different. How is this so difficult to understand?
PORTLAND - 18 JUL 98 // TAMPA - 12 AUG 00 // PORTLAND - 02 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 05 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 09 DEC 02 BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13 CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
what does ted nugent want for the gay citizens of this great planet? i ask this because many follow and believe exactly to a tee what mr. nugent approves of and does.
again, does t. nugent accept homosexual men and women as equals?
Yes of course why the law was passed yesterday with more states lining up to stop it.
Just curious what you meant here -- More states are lining up to stop a law like this from passing, or more states are lining up to pass the same law?
I don't know all the particulars but yes the preservers of marriage
will be getting ballots for the fall
defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, in some states,
some even override pro gay legislation in place .
38 states have bans in place but the new amendments will define marriage as in NC.
Now would be a good time for the administration to recognize as a first step gay civil unions
and give them equal rights under the law. It is a good example for the states, good timing
and a great first step.
Yes, I believe civil gay unions with equal rights is exactly the right road
for the preservers of marriage, it is the only road and believe this is becoming
clear to them.
And no I'm stating my opinion on how to get resolution very soon
to equal rights ...
not just bitching and saying others are bigots and hoping
they change in the next decade or two. I'm not much for complaining I prefer
to find ways to fix things.
Once again, it cannot be EQUAL rights if they are called something different. How is this so difficult to understand?
I am hoping for legal civil rights for gay unions at this point, it is good timing midst
what is going on with the preservers of marriage working against the marriage issue.
The legal rights are the same.
My stance is this. No compromise. I am not accepting anything until it is marriage. I don't think civil rights for human beings are something to be negotiated and compromised on. Are civil unions a step in the right direction? Sure. But it's not the endgame and my passion for this issue will not change one bit until it's marriage.
Post edited by strilo on
PORTLAND - 18 JUL 98 // TAMPA - 12 AUG 00 // PORTLAND - 02 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 05 NOV 00 // SEATTLE - 09 DEC 02 BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13 CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
gay civil union? no. it is called being married, not a gay civil union.
at least that is how i am understanding this.
married or not married. that is all we have, that is all we need. single, married or widowed. gay men and women do not need to be seperate from the rest of society. gay men and women are rooted deep in our society and they are not leaving and do not need to leave.
If marriage was "intended" to be between men and women it's not a far stretch to assume you think that "should" stay the same. No?
I didn't invent the word.... it was created, intended and defined thousands of years ago.
Now there is a movement as we saw in NC to go state by state
and redefine by law what marriage is, to protect that.
I care not if marriage is used only to the point of it hindering legal rights for gay unions now.
This the entire point of all my posts
though people repeatedly want to see me as being against gay marriage
alrighty then.
By "preservers of marriage" do you mean republicans? If not then who? Do these POM have a leader or office or something?
Please research on line there are many articles, everyone should.
You will see how the ballot got there in NC, who put it there and why
and what states are next.
The margin is narrowing with actually less people in favor of gay marriage than in 2011,
the vote for the NC law much better than anticipated.
Many Americans are opposed to the changing of the traditional term of marriage
when it comes down to it. Has nothing to do with legal rights or prejudice but tradition.
This opinion appears to be growing why I say again gay legal civil unions with rights preserved
now a great first step showing support from our government for equality.
By "preservers of marriage" do you mean republicans? If not then who? Do these POM have a leader or office or something?
Please research on line there are many articles, everyone should.
You will see how the ballot got there in NC, who put it there and why
and what states are next.
The margin is narrowing with actually less people in favor of gay marriage than in 2011,
the vote for the NC law much better than anticipated.
Many Americans are opposed to the changing of the traditional term of marriage
when it comes down to it. Has nothing to do with legal rights or prejudice but tradition.
This opinion appears to be growing why I say again gay legal civil unions with rights preserved
now a great first step showing support from our government for equality.
I'd be willing to bet most of these preservers are also birthers.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
By "preservers of marriage" do you mean republicans? If not then who? Do these POM have a leader or office or something?
good question. what is a preserver of marriage? sounds like those freaky religious folks that stalk military funerals to do picketing...............(i remember there name)
By "preservers of marriage" do you mean republicans? If not then who? Do these POM have a leader or office or something?
Please research on line there are many articles, everyone should.
You will see how the ballot got there in NC, who put it there and why
and what states are next.
The margin is narrowing with actually less people in favor of gay marriage than in 2011,
the vote for the NC law much better than anticipated.
Many Americans are opposed to the changing of the traditional term of marriage
when it comes down to it. Has nothing to do with legal rights or prejudice but tradition.
This opinion appears to be growing why I say again gay legal civil unions with rights preserved
now a great first step showing support from our government for equality.
I'd be willing to bet most of these preservers are also birthers.
If some new term, or civil union is created (lets face it, that wont happen though) for equal rights for gay marriage (for discussions sake)...lets call it EGAIRRAM...that will be the gay marriage term (of equal rights).
If EGAIRRAM is passed, I promise to legally divorce my wife and get re-unionized with her under federal or state EGAIRRAM. Will straight people be allowed to marry under this new definition/term??
By "preservers of marriage" do you mean republicans? If not then who? Do these POM have a leader or office or something?
Please research on line there are many articles, everyone should.
You will see how the ballot got there in NC, who put it there and why
and what states are next.
The margin is narrowing with actually less people in favor of gay marriage than in 2011,
the vote for the NC law much better than anticipated.
Many Americans are opposed to the changing of the traditional term of marriage
when it comes down to it. Has nothing to do with legal rights or prejudice but tradition.
This opinion appears to be growing why I say again gay legal civil unions with rights preserved
now a great first step showing support from our government for equality.
it is not. is is showing our government is frickin stupid as shit and extremely prejudiced. tradition is bullshit in this arena. tradition in this arena is hateful and controlled by religious radicals against opening their blinded piss poor eyes
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?
Should be valid
Should not be valid
No opinion
2012 May 3-6
50
48
2
2011 Dec 15-18
48
48
4
2011 May 5-8
53
45
3
2010 May 3-6
44
53
3
2009 May 7-10
40
57
3
2008 May 8-11 †
40
56
4
2007 May 10-13
46
53
1
2006 May 8-11 †
42
56
2
2006 May 8-11 ^†
39
58
4
2005 Aug 22-25 ^
37
59
4
2004 May 2-4 ^
42
55
3
1999 Feb 8-9 ^
35
62
3
1996 Mar 15-17 ^
27
68
5
28 pages and things that are completely being ignored by the anti-same sex marriage "crowd":
1. the definition of marriage includes same sex couples by many different sources
2. marriage as an institution has evolved to the point where many practices such as marrying your child to a stranger at the age of 12 is looked down upon.
3. calling it marriage has no impact to anyone anywhere
Slavery happened in our past. We changed that. It's really not that difficult. The longer it goes on the more embarrassed we will be about it later.
that was a war though :shock:
and the rest of the world only 10 nations accept gay unions, only 6 states here
there is a long way to go ...
give equal rights to gay civil unions today!
Here are the problems I see with the State bans on gay marriages, and I’m just an outside observer, so image what your legal mines could do, if you stopped relying solely on politicians, use some of that collective clout and money on the judicial system.
1. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
--NC will argue that due process was obtained because it was voted on by the people of that State, to which the 1st Amendment comes into play
2. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--the State’s use of a religion to deprive and suppress the rights of a select group of citizens of their life, liberty and property is a violation of the Constitution.
--by denying your right to marry, the States deny you equal access to life experiences, liberties and property entitlements granted to those group of people that are permitted to marry.
3. Issue for the U.S. Supreme Court – What is marriage?
--There is no law within the U.S. that legally requires a person to be married, therefore, a State cannot selectively determine who qualifies to be married based on their sexual activity.
--Therefore, the act of marriage can deemed as entering into a ‘legal obligation; -any two people- can enter into ‘legal obligation’.
--The religious aspect of getting married is nothing more than a ‘personal’ preference because even within a religious setting that marriage IS NOT LEGALLY VALID without a STATE issued license.
--The States have already acknowledged the right of a man to get married and a woman to get married, that’s where their legal obligation stopped.
– The States overstepped their authority by injecting their personal religious preference to infringe upon the right of others by defining and limited marriage to a man and woman WITHOUT addressing the sexual activity that bars a gay couple from being married, in relation to those same activities when performed by a ‘married couple – man/woman’ upon each other.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
By "preservers of marriage" do you mean republicans? If not then who? Do these POM have a leader or office or something?
Please research on line there are many articles, everyone should.
You will see how the ballot got there in NC, who put it there and why
and what states are next.
The margin is narrowing with actually less people in favor of gay marriage than in 2011,
the vote for the NC law much better than anticipated.
Many Americans are opposed to the changing of the traditional term of marriage
when it comes down to it. Has nothing to do with legal rights or prejudice but tradition.
This opinion appears to be growing why I say again gay legal civil unions with rights preserved
now a great first step showing support from our government for equality.
it is not. is is showing our government is frickin stupid as shit and extremely prejudiced. tradition is bullshit in this arena. tradition in this arena is hateful and controlled by religious radicals against opening their blinded piss poor eyes
I am not seeing it a totally religious division
and I have no idea how it plays out by political persuasion.
On a side note, after this thread I now hate the word preserve, in any form.
I also hate the phrase "as it was intended between man and woman".
I'm also confused as how the word marriage has always been defined as being between man and woman, when so many have clearly shown some of us that that clearly isn't the case, yet the has been ignored, and the phrase has been repeated over and over to the point of noisom.
Peace, Love.
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
Comments
Just curious what you meant here -- More states are lining up to stop a law like this from passing, or more states are lining up to pass the same law?
i drove a semi truck for many years. for more than 2 or 3 years i worked w/ a young truck driver dude at two different companies. at the seafood company we were team drivers. he is about 6-8 yrs younger than i. i noticed things over the course of our working together. he never talked about women vs' i, where i am women women women.
he always told me if i knew his dark secret that i would kick him out of the truck. i flat out laughed at him and said no i wouldn't, unless you are a rapist and or a child molester, no i'd never kick your fat ass out of my truck.
one day while loading our trailer w/ shaved ice for the salmon we were heading after, he told me he is attracted to men. i said, "that is your dark secret that would get you tossed out of my truck?"
he said yes as he began to cry.
i said, " don't cry man, but it's ok if you cry, i cry all the time myself, im a poetry writer and have feelins to, man"
i told him as long as you don't try and hook up w/ me we're cool. and if you bring a man back to the truck i will give you space just please do not use my bed, your bedroom is upstairs, you can screw around up there all you two want. i do not care. just like i would never fuck around w/ some woman in your bedroom upstairs.
i told him i was going to fix a giant dark colored adult toy to the shifter beings he fondled the damn stick shift all day/night long. i told him, "maybe it'll shoot beep beep beep beep beep and edit." he laughed so hard he about fell out the damn truck
that man taught me a great deal about acceptance and he is the greatest navigator i have ever known. he guided me into some of the biggest most craziest city locations imaginable. the dude's brain is a rand mcnally commercial driver's road atlas
the dude was even a virgin in his mid 20s. women did nothing for him. the dude was simply turned on by men. he was soo misunderstood, mistreated and ridiculed by his father it was unreal. his father hated his son's guts because his son wanted to be a gay man.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
fair minded as always with the wrong clarity I might add
one that fits what you want to think ....
so thought I would point out my remarks in color there
never said should and said I would cast my vote today if it meant equal rights for gay unions,
and yes it would be a wonderful victory at hand! I think it would fit nicely right here
with Obama's recent move and it would be historical.
If marriage was "intended" to be between men and women it's not a far stretch to assume you think that "should" stay the same. No?
Once again, it cannot be EQUAL rights if they are called something different. How is this so difficult to understand?
BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13
CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
again, does t. nugent accept homosexual men and women as equals?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
will be getting ballots for the fall
defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, in some states,
some even override pro gay legislation in place .
38 states have bans in place but the new amendments will define marriage as in NC.
Now would be a good time for the administration to recognize as a first step gay civil unions
and give them equal rights under the law. It is a good example for the states, good timing
and a great first step.
what is going on with the preservers of marriage working against the marriage issue.
The legal rights are the same.
BERN, SWITZERLAND - 13 SEP 06 // PORTLAND - 26 SEP 09 // CHICAGO - 19 JUL 13 // PORTLAND - 29 NOV 13
CHICAGO - 20 AUG 16 // CHICAGO - 22 AUG 16 // PHOENIX - 09 MAY 22 // CHICAGO - 05 SEP 23 // CHICAGO - 07 SEP 23
Hopefully "preservers of the bullshit" or whatever they are called stay home.
at least that is how i am understanding this.
married or not married. that is all we have, that is all we need. single, married or widowed. gay men and women do not need to be seperate from the rest of society. gay men and women are rooted deep in our society and they are not leaving and do not need to leave.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
or as i say...
"keep fucking that chicken!"
Now there is a movement as we saw in NC to go state by state
and redefine by law what marriage is, to protect that.
I care not if marriage is used only to the point of it hindering legal rights for gay unions now.
This the entire point of all my posts
though people repeatedly want to see me as being against gay marriage
alrighty then.
You will see how the ballot got there in NC, who put it there and why
and what states are next.
The margin is narrowing with actually less people in favor of gay marriage than in 2011,
the vote for the NC law much better than anticipated.
Many Americans are opposed to the changing of the traditional term of marriage
when it comes down to it. Has nothing to do with legal rights or prejudice but tradition.
This opinion appears to be growing why I say again gay legal civil unions with rights preserved
now a great first step showing support from our government for equality.
I'd be willing to bet most of these preservers are also birthers.
Thats great.
westboro baptist church
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
If EGAIRRAM is passed, I promise to legally divorce my wife and get re-unionized with her under federal or state EGAIRRAM. Will straight people be allowed to marry under this new definition/term??
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
1. the definition of marriage includes same sex couples by many different sources
2. marriage as an institution has evolved to the point where many practices such as marrying your child to a stranger at the age of 12 is looked down upon.
3. calling it marriage has no impact to anyone anywhere
and the rest of the world only 10 nations accept gay unions, only 6 states here
there is a long way to go ...
give equal rights to gay civil unions today!
1. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
--NC will argue that due process was obtained because it was voted on by the people of that State, to which the 1st Amendment comes into play
2. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--the State’s use of a religion to deprive and suppress the rights of a select group of citizens of their life, liberty and property is a violation of the Constitution.
--by denying your right to marry, the States deny you equal access to life experiences, liberties and property entitlements granted to those group of people that are permitted to marry.
3. Issue for the U.S. Supreme Court – What is marriage?
--There is no law within the U.S. that legally requires a person to be married, therefore, a State cannot selectively determine who qualifies to be married based on their sexual activity.
--Therefore, the act of marriage can deemed as entering into a ‘legal obligation; -any two people- can enter into ‘legal obligation’.
--The religious aspect of getting married is nothing more than a ‘personal’ preference because even within a religious setting that marriage IS NOT LEGALLY VALID without a STATE issued license.
--The States have already acknowledged the right of a man to get married and a woman to get married, that’s where their legal obligation stopped.
– The States overstepped their authority by injecting their personal religious preference to infringe upon the right of others by defining and limited marriage to a man and woman WITHOUT addressing the sexual activity that bars a gay couple from being married, in relation to those same activities when performed by a ‘married couple – man/woman’ upon each other.
and I have no idea how it plays out by political persuasion.
I googled "preservers of marriage".
Lots of sites on how to save your marriage, preserve your wedding bouquet, preserve your wedding dress, shit like that came up.
Only one came up about this issue.
It was a site by the church of latter day saints.
It's http://WWW.preservingmarriage.org/
So where are all these "preservers of marriage"?
On a side note, after this thread I now hate the word preserve, in any form.
I also hate the phrase "as it was intended between man and woman".
I'm also confused as how the word marriage has always been defined as being between man and woman, when so many have clearly shown some of us that that clearly isn't the case, yet the has been ignored, and the phrase has been repeated over and over to the point of noisom.
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel