Gay Marriage Ban

pandora

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

your answer was there you perhaps just didn't want to see it :?
blinded by the light? mama told me not to look into the sun ...
but that's where the answers are

too much of a "diminishing circle" for ya ... always true to character cate,
not a good thing at all, your bias is showing yet again.

oh for fucks sake pandora why cant you ever just answer the question and stop hiding in the shadows the way you do. i know you support equal marriage.. we ALL know. but do you support gay marriage BY THAT NAME? or are you one of the 'preservers'? i dont see the question being a diffcult one. i get more sense out of my 5 year old grand daughter than i get from you... probably cause she has not yet learnt the art of obfuscation the way you have.


and if me wanting clear answers is me being true to my character then yahoo for me cause i will do it every time.

I am not a preserver of marriage but certainly understand their point
and I have already stated this numerous times.

This is beginning to get personal cate ... it should not matter if I was a preserver of marriage.

Better question is...

why are you questioning me personally? that is against posting rules! :?

No you being true to character and asking personal questions
comes from the personal conflict you have with me.
Everyone sees this with your rudeness and bias, it is embarrassing
and it is showing once again.
Give it rest cate... really I do not treat you like this.

polaris_x

it's like sometimes you are traveling and you decide to take a road because you think it will get you to where you want to go ... but you drive and drive and you are nowhere near where you want to go but you keep driving anyways ... passengers in the car start telling you that you are going the wrong way ... you ignore them ... they start pointing to maps ... ignore ... they show you their smartphones with gps showing that you are way off course ... but you just keep driving that road ...

pandora

MayDay10 wrote:

This vote in North Carolina is most disappointing.

It is far more that, it is a message, a firm one that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It has nothing to do with prejudices, equal rights, gay unions or desegregation.

People will not allow and will fight to have marriage remain as it was created
and intended. This is a set back as the marriage preservers solidify their cause.

The gay rights people should jump on this and demand a gay union amendment,
without the term marriage, demanding equal rights. There is no opposition
that could oppose that.

gimmesometruth27

pandora wrote:

MayDay10 wrote:

This vote in North Carolina is most disappointing.

It is far more that, it is a message, a firm one that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It has nothing to do with prejudices, equal rights, gay unions or desegregation.

People will not allow and will fight to have marriage remain as it was created
and intended. This is a set back as the marriage preservers solidify their cause.

The gay rights people should jump on this and demand a gay union amendment,
without the term marriage, demanding equal rights. There is no opposition
that could oppose that.

i am demanding nothing less than gay marriage. if you don't like it, that is your problem. the movement is now. the time is now.

it is nobody's place to segregate or subjugate anyone because of how they were born.

equality is equality. this legislation and your justification of it is clearly in support of inequality.

redrock

pandora wrote:

marriage is the union of a man and a woman
this where the conflict lies...

but using and changing the heterosexual union that was created for,
has existed for thousands of years.

This is not correct. This vision of 'marriage' (the word and institution) is recent (talking in centuries and not millenia). Something that has evolved to reach this point and shall continue to evolve. Or maybe going full circle as if one wants to go back millenia, there were same sex unions (ie marriages) that were sanctioned (recognised ceremony, etc.).

But I've said this before so I'm guessing that some may have me on ignore as this mis-information about 'marriage', it's etimology and history has been repeated several times.

MayDay10

pandora wrote:

MayDay10 wrote:

This vote in North Carolina is most disappointing.

It is far more that, it is a message, a firm one that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It has nothing to do with prejudices, equal rights, gay unions or desegregation.

People will not allow and will fight to have marriage remain as it was created
and intended. This is a set back as the marriage preservers solidify their cause.

The gay rights people should jump on this and demand a gay union amendment,
without the term marriage, demanding equal rights. There is no opposition
that could oppose that.

you do realize that historically, these human rights issues always increase in support, not decrease... as the old curmudgeons die off and progressive thinking takes a firmer hold. They say support for gay marriage increases about 2% per year and as of now, the majority in the USA already support it. Certain states are just a little slower to get with the program. Was the same way with the Civil Rights movement in the 50's and 60's.

Godfather.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

untell God is blammed anyway or someone like Cliffy and a few others comes on here calling people names in support of gay rights and feelings he couldn't possibly understand unless they are gay themselfs...so that's it in a nutshell understanding is a two way street.


Godfather.

I'm gay now? Or am I just not reading this correctly?

nooooo "feelings he couldn't possibly understand unless they are gay themselfs"
you I believe come on this thread calling people bigots and assholes I think ? whats up with that ? is that how you see the world..people that don't support gay rights are bigots and assholes ? judging by your comments you lack the understanding you seem to demand for yourself and others..do two wrongs make a right ?

Godfather.

catefrances

pandora wrote:

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

your answer was there you perhaps just didn't want to see it :?
blinded by the light? mama told me not to look into the sun ...
but that's where the answers are

too much of a "diminishing circle" for ya ... always true to character cate,
not a good thing at all, your bias is showing yet again.

oh for fucks sake pandora why cant you ever just answer the question and stop hiding in the shadows the way you do. i know you support equal marriage.. we ALL know. but do you support gay marriage BY THAT NAME? or are you one of the 'preservers'? i dont see the question being a diffcult one. i get more sense out of my 5 year old grand daughter than i get from you... probably cause she has not yet learnt the art of obfuscation the way you have.


and if me wanting clear answers is me being true to my character then yahoo for me cause i will do it every time.

I am not a preserver of marriage but certainly understand their point
and I have already stated this numerous times.

This is beginning to get personal cate ... it should not matter if I was a preserver of marriage.

Better question is...

why are you questioning me personally? that is against posting rules! :?

No you being true to character and asking personal questions
comes from the personal conflict you have with me.
Everyone sees this with your rudeness and bias, it is embarrassing
and it is showing once again.
Give it rest cate... really I do not treat you like this.

i wasnt aware that asking where you stand and what you think were personal questions. guess i should stop doing that.

im not rude and biased. im blunt and inquisitive. you see me as rude cause you dont like the questions. as for biased.. well.. yeah i guess i am... im biased towards equal rights for all and the acknowledgement of such as well as the destruction of bigotry and ignorance..


so i see then that youre in agreeance that it should be termed gay MARRIAGE?
that is most excellent and very cool. . welcome to the light pandora.

chadwick

i love gay people. i want them treated exactly the same as the rest of us. people are people regardless of who they have romanticly involved with. who they are sleeping with doesn't matter as long as both parties are adults, both men and women.

even steven.

gay men & women should be able to put one another on their spouse's insurance plan and other bullshit everyone else gets to do.

gay ass men & gay ass women really don't bother me so much as to withhold benefits and to not ever recognize them as a legal full on couple.

they are human and free to do as they wish with who they're banging

catefrances

chadwick wrote:

i love gay people. i want them treated exactly the same as the rest of us. people are people regardless of who they have romanticly involved with. who they are sleeping with doesn't matter as long as both parties are adults, both men and women.

even steven.

gay men & women should be able to put one another on their spouse's insurance plan and other bullshit everyone else gets to do.

gay ass men & gay ass women really don't bother me so much as to withhold benefits and to not ever recognize them as a legal full on couple.

they are human and free to do as they wish with who they're banging

but.. but chad... what if someone loves ice cream.. should they be allowed to marry that ice cream?? i heard some numbskull ask that question on jon stewart last night..

chadwick

catefrances wrote:

chadwick wrote:

i love gay people. i want them treated exactly the same as the rest of us. people are people regardless of who they have romanticly involved with. who they are sleeping with doesn't matter as long as both parties are adults, both men and women.

even steven.

gay men & women should be able to put one another on their spouse's insurance plan and other bullshit everyone else gets to do.

gay ass men & gay ass women really don't bother me so much as to withhold benefits and to not ever recognize them as a legal full on couple.

they are human and free to do as they wish with who they're banging

but.. but chad... what if someone loves ice cream.. should they be allowed to marry that ice cream?? i heard some numbskull ask that question on jon stewart last night..

catefrances, the almighty traveler from down under.... you are fantastic.

now about loving ice cream. yes a couple or lone person may make passionate fiery love to a bowl of ice cream.
one being gay may use his or her beloved ice cream as a stimulant to their flower or junk.

one may turn a banana split into exactly that.

at some point well into this manuver... orgasms

thank you.


p.s. i am not gay and i do enjoy ice cream and women. i would suggest dumping ice cream on a women and go to town. if ice cream is to cold pudding can be used instead. i do hope gay men and women use ice cream and pudding and other foods in their love making sessions. food is sex.

wait...


food is for sex

catefrances

chadwick wrote:

catefrances wrote:

chadwick wrote:

i love gay people. i want them treated exactly the same as the rest of us. people are people regardless of who they have romanticly involved with. who they are sleeping with doesn't matter as long as both parties are adults, both men and women.

even steven.

gay men & women should be able to put one another on their spouse's insurance plan and other bullshit everyone else gets to do.

gay ass men & gay ass women really don't bother me so much as to withhold benefits and to not ever recognize them as a legal full on couple.

they are human and free to do as they wish with who they're banging

but.. but chad... what if someone loves ice cream.. should they be allowed to marry that ice cream?? i heard some numbskull ask that question on jon stewart last night..

catefrances, the almighty traveler from down under.... you are fantastic.

now about loving ice cream. yes a couple or lone person may make passionate fiery love to a bowl of ice cream.
one being gay may use his or her beloved ice cream as a stimulant to their flower or junk.

one may turn a banana split into exactly that.

at some point well into this manuver... orgasms

thank you.


p.s. i am not gay and i do enjoy ice cream and women. i would suggest dumping ice cream on a women and go to town. if ice cream is to cold pudding can be used instead. i do hope gay men and women use ice cream and pudding and other foods in their love making sessions. food is sex.

wait...


food is for sex

i woulda thought guys would go for cones over a bowl.

chadwick

catefrances wrote:

chadwick wrote:

catefrances, the almighty traveler from down under.... you are fantastic.

now about loving ice cream. yes a couple or lone person may make passionate fiery love to a bowl of ice cream.
one being gay may use his or her beloved ice cream as a stimulant to their flower or junk.

one may turn a banana split into exactly that.

at some point well into this manuver... orgasms

thank you.


p.s. i am not gay and i do enjoy ice cream and women. i would suggest dumping ice cream on a women and go to town. if ice cream is to cold pudding can be used instead. i do hope gay men and women use ice cream and pudding and other foods in their love making sessions. food is sex.

wait...


food is for sex

i woulda thought guys would go for cones over a bowl.

you're right. i was just being piggy; what with the oveflowing bowl of ice cream and all. that's how we do it here catester....huge ice cream for lots of huge sexual pleasure and fat butts


small cones are banned. no one enjoys a small cone. ask any gay person

catefrances

chadwick wrote:

you're right. i was just being piggy; what with the oveflowing bowl of ice cream and all. that's how we do it here catester....huge ice cream for lots of huge sexual pleasure and fat butts


small cones are banned. no one enjoys a small cone. ask any gay person

quality over quantity dude.

chadwick

catefrances wrote:

chadwick wrote:

you're right. i was just being piggy; what with the oveflowing bowl of ice cream and all. that's how we do it here catester....huge ice cream for lots of huge sexual pleasure and fat butts


small cones are banned. no one enjoys a small cone. ask any gay person

quality over quantity dude.

what about both? large cream cone and very good amount. im not gay but if i were then i'd be gay.

pandora

catefrances wrote:

i wasnt aware that asking where you stand and what you think were personal questions. guess i should stop doing that.

im not rude and biased. im blunt and inquisitive. you see me as rude cause you dont like the questions. as for biased.. well.. yeah i guess i am... im biased towards equal rights for all and the acknowledgement of such as well as the destruction of bigotry and ignorance..


so i see then that youre in agreeance that it should be termed gay MARRIAGE?
that is most excellent and very cool. . welcome to the light pandora.

I had answered that question numerous times throughout the thread and it was a personal unnecessary question to ask if a I was a marriage preserver. :nono:

Yes I guess you can see yourself as you wish ...

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

NewJPage

pandora wrote:

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 am confused...who intended it as such, and why was I never given a memo?

JonnyPistachio

pandora wrote:

No legally everything will be equal...
equal amendment, equal rights, an equal union only different by name because
marriage is the union of a man and a woman
this where the conflict lies...

not in granting equal rights nor the union of gays
but using and changing the heterosexual union that was created for,
has existed for thousands of years.

The word gay had been a slang term long before it became more popular in use
in the 50's 60's and has grown from there. It is a perfect example of a new term
for group of people identifying themselves, defining themselves and showing pride
for who they are.
Now a defining term for their union needs to be found so equal rights
are given now, so in 50, 60, 100 years the use will be as gay is now,
comon place and accepted. Perhaps even, as I have said, outnumbering the
traditional word, union of marriage.

Beyond that as humanity grows to a one gender, sexuality will no longer be an issue at all
and hopefully we can let go of the hate and find peace as a species.

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition.

While its not recognized on a federal level in the US, I think six states have accepted gay marriages....So NO, marriage is NOT the union of a "man and a woman"...it is in some places maybe...

And if you look at the trends (decline in religious following, increases in % acceptance of gay marriage over the years) it will be legal throughout the US one day, just like Canada, without the sticky, slimy, ridiculous need for a separate term for the exact same thing.

I've never heard of this idea -- creating a new term for the exact same thing (marriage) -- is it something people are really trying to do, or is it just your personal suggestion?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

asking someone to explain their stance on an issue on AMT is against guidelines now?? might as well shut the whole place down then. :?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

JonnyPistachio wrote:

On July 20, 2005,

my, Cornell, and Stone's birthdays.