excuse me but i dont give a fuck about thousands of years of tradition when it discriminates. and discriminitory tradition is DEvolution. oh and i think your theory is incorrect. gays want to be able to say theyre married just like the straights. any other label highlights a difference. we can call it a union(or whatever frothy name you thinks appropriate pandora) but its not a real marriage is it?
The word marriage is and was created for a man and woman union it does not discriminate.
The word by definition does not apply. And you may not care about history but many people do. Of course a gay union called _ _ _ _ _
will have the exact same meaning and rights as a marriage between a man and a woman
Can you not see into the future cate I thought more of you than that
it will be a beautiful word, many unions, much happiness and peace.
:fp: here we go again,same ol' debate same ol' out-come we all know where each other stand and we know we can't change each others minds so there is no reason to call each other names...am I right ?
"give me an AHMEN ! brothers and sisters" and lets go back to trashing politicans and such insted of each other....come on now ..let's play nice.
Godfather.
And sooner or later, it won't matter because everyone will have the same rights and will be allowed to marry. Even the republicans in NC said yesterdays amendment would be repealed within 20 years.
Here's to sooner rather than later.
On that note, I'm out. I'll sit on the sidelines while the good guys win this one.
excuse me but i dont give a fuck about thousands of years of tradition when it discriminates. and discriminitory tradition is DEvolution. oh and i think your theory is incorrect. gays want to be able to say theyre married just like the straights. any other label highlights a difference. we can call it a union(or whatever frothy name you thinks appropriate pandora) but its not a real marriage is it?
The word marriage is and was created for a man and woman union it does not discriminate.
The word by definition does not apply. And you may not care about history but many people do. Of course a gay union called MARRIAGE_ _ _ _ _
will have the exact same meaning and rights as a marriage between a man and a woman
Can you not see into the future cate I thought more of you than that
it will be a beautiful word, many unions, much happiness and peace.
it discriminates now. it discriminates cause a gay man doesnt fall in love with a woman. the person he falls in love with he can never marry cause its not allowed and if it ever is you want it called something else because why again...?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I agree with Pandora. That's how it will play out too. Not a touch of hate or inequality in the belief either.
If you see it, that's on you.
exactly ... who's hating here!
Most of the preservers of marriage do not hate, everyone wants a resolution.
I totally get why the law went through, not to keep gay people from their rights nor
from their unions, but to preserve the tradition, the history, the defintion of why the word
marriage was created a union of a man and a woman.
Change can come now even with this President, well if he hurries just kidding
we need a new word, a new definition and equal rights for all unions!
Weren't the people who banned interracial marriage saying the exact same thing?
No that was based clearly on race not gender
so it didn't apply
the term marriage was created thousands of years ago for the union of a man and woman no matter the race.
The preservers of marriage want to preserve the definition,
tradition and history as to why is was created as it was intended.
Not hinder those who wish to be in a union or have equal rights. This the key.
prog·ress (prgrs, -rs, prgrs)
n. 1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
intr.v. pro·gress (pr-grs) pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing, pro·gress·es
1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a rapid rate.
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily: as medical technology progresses.
3. To increase in scope or severity, as a disease taking an unfavorable course.
hey ... let's preserve the tradition of sending prisoners into arenas so they can fight for their lives against hungry lions ... i mean ... it's been around for thousands of years!! ... while we're at it ... let's keep black people on the back of the bus and keep women from voting!
while we're at it ... someone show me the OFFICIAL definition of marriage ... cuz obviously, showing that one respected dictionary sources that says it can be same sex is not valid ... there must be a definitive source from those thousand years ago where everything was cast in stone! ... :fp:
...
Can you not see into the future cate I thought more of you than that ..
i dont care what you think of me pandora. more or less i couldnt give a fuck.
sorry cate didn't mean to upset you :?
I am into seeing the future and really wanting it now!
I would love my bestest friend to have the equal rights JB and I share now in our lifetime
as she and I are both nearing 60.
While there is a strong, rightfully so, movement to preserve marriage as it was created,
the new term, amendment, and all equal rights granted
would be cause for the buzz twins to celebrate like school girls again!
Party!
:fp: here we go again,same ol' debate same ol' out-come we all know where each other stand and we know we can't change each others minds so there is no reason to call each other names...am I right ?
"give me an AHMEN ! brothers and sisters" and lets go back to trashing politicans and such insted of each other....come on now ..let's play nice.
Godfather.
And sooner or later, it won't matter because everyone will have the same rights and will be allowed to marry. Even the republicans in NC said yesterdays amendment would be repealed within 20 years.
Here's to sooner rather than later.
On that note, I'm out. I'll sit on the sidelines while the good guys win this one.
so from this point on you will join me in exercising my right to use the 5th ?
and you forgot to give me an AHMEN ! brother.
Well done, Mr. President. Mayor Bloomberg put it best
"No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people - and I have no doubt that this will be no exception," Mr. Bloomberg said.
He continued: "The march of freedom that has sustained our country since the Revolution of 1776 continues, and no matter what setbacks may occur in a given state, freedom will triumph over fear and equality will prevail over exclusion. Today's announcement is a testament to the President's convictions, and it builds on the courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching all the way back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village."
I'm disappointed but not surprised that a Democrat president was the first to support gay marriage. I had really hoped (futile hope with the turn towards the religious section of the party it seems) that a Republican president would have come out in support of this, marking a shift in the party for the better.
Oh well, it's a big win for Obama and the Dems. Oh, and a big win for gay people that wish to marry. So good for them and good for Obama for finally saying it. I gotta admit, I'm pretty surprised that the last election the Dem candidates didn't jump all over this topic.
I know people stay away because of the fear of losing voters, but it's what good leaders would do. But we don't have any of those left it seems.
When I got married, I NEVER ONCE thought to myself that the requirements aside from being in love, was that it must be a woman. Thats just the way it happened. I naturally chose that person that I married and it happened to be a woman. I myself, nor anyone I know, ever consulted the dictionary for the requirements.
Im pretty sure most people who get married do not think that their first requirement is that it must be a man or a woman. It just happens -- usually without thought as to gender preference. Their first requirement is usually love (outside of vegas )...so to say that marriage should stay as union of a man and a woman because of the tradition of the definition and how it was intended is somewhat of contradiction... and furthermore, if a person is satisfied with their own rights, why in Gods name would someone simply want to prevent others from having the same right?...partners are chosen out of love, not chosen out of tradition (in many places that this argument is taking place).
Either way, as Cliffy said, I am confident that one day gay marriage will be universal in most US states, if not all.
you people do understand that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, right? and you also understand that their fellow animals don't prevent them from being together, right?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Actually, its pretty far from a dead horse considering what happened in NC and what Obama has just said. In fact this issue is on the brink of a pivotal time, which will see much debate. But yeah, i'll take a beeer.
but who "intended" this definition in the first place? who created the idea marriage? was it the church? was it god? as any historian will tell you, NO ONE KNOWS. so to claim there was some intention of its definition and purpose is false from the beginning.
it means different things to different cultures, and has evolved over time. why do we wish to stop this evolution?
and I completely disagree with the assertion that the "preservers of marriage do not hate..everyone wants a resolution". I can guarantee you MOST of the "preservers of marriage" don't believe that homosexuality is an orientation, but a choice. if they did, what would be the issue? if they believed god created homosexuality, why would god not want these people to have equal rights?
Most of the preservers of marriage do not hate, everyone wants a resolution.
I totally get why the law went through, not to keep gay people from their rights nor
from their unions, but to preserve the tradition, the history, the defintion of why the word
marriage was created a union of a man and a woman.
Change can come now even with this President, well if he hurries just kidding
we need a new word, a new definition and equal rights for all unions!
No that was based clearly on race not gender
so it didn't apply
the term marriage was created thousands of years ago for the union of a man and woman no matter the race.
The preservers of marriage want to preserve the definition,
tradition and history as to why is was created as it was intended.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
and if it ever is you want it called something else because why again...?
You presume I want this ...
I am speaking of the preservers of marriage those who voted loud and clear yesterday,
I understand their position and see the hinderance that is happening
continuing down this path.
My stance is I would like to see gays have equal rights today and by all means not less rights
for people as the vote brought yesterday.
By making a new gay union term to take into all the future years to come
leaving marriage as it was created and intended, a union of a man and woman,
equal rights will not be lost but gained and perhaps even very soon....
not decades.
That would be good for all unions and the country.
no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
do your gay and lesbian friends agree that a new term would be better and giving gays rights to the term marriage would mean less rights for straight people?
I don't even like the word straight. It makes it sound like anything other than heterosexuality is crooked.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
having a different word for marriage for gays and calling it beautiful is the same as "letting" black people sit at the back of the bus and calling it "more comfortable".
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
having a different word for marriage for gays and calling it beautiful is the same as "letting" black people sit at the back of the bus and calling it "more comfortable".
Well said. Equal but different is not equality people.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies
It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.
Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.
no, thats just not true - if it is a different union then it isn't equal.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies
It will be equal in all ways, all rights ...
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.
Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.
But why? Why are you so attached to a word? People and definitions evolve. We didn't change the word "vote" for women or black people when they got that right.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Comments
they threw Galileo in prison for daring to challenge the fact that the Earth moved and that it wasnt the center of the universe.
The word by definition does not apply. And you may not care about history but many people do.
Of course a gay union called _ _ _ _ _
will have the exact same meaning and rights as a marriage between a man and a woman
Can you not see into the future cate I thought more of you than that
it will be a beautiful word, many unions, much happiness and peace.
And sooner or later, it won't matter because everyone will have the same rights and will be allowed to marry. Even the republicans in NC said yesterdays amendment would be repealed within 20 years.
Here's to sooner rather than later.
On that note, I'm out. I'll sit on the sidelines while the good guys win this one.
Right and Wrong
Tolerance and Bigotry.
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
it discriminates now. it discriminates cause a gay man doesnt fall in love with a woman. the person he falls in love with he can never marry cause its not allowed and if it ever is you want it called something else because why again...?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i dont care what you think of me pandora. more or less i couldnt give a fuck.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
so it didn't apply
the term marriage was created thousands of years ago for the union of a man and woman
no matter the race.
The preservers of marriage want to preserve the definition,
tradition and history as to why is was created as it was intended.
Not hinder those who wish to be in a union or have equal rights. This the key.
prog·ress (prgrs, -rs, prgrs)
n.
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.
intr.v. pro·gress (pr-grs) pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing, pro·gress·es
1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a rapid rate.
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily: as medical technology progresses.
3. To increase in scope or severity, as a disease taking an unfavorable course.
:fp:
I am into seeing the future and really wanting it now!
I would love my bestest friend to have the equal rights JB and I share now in our lifetime
as she and I are both nearing 60.
While there is a strong, rightfully so, movement to preserve marriage as it was created,
the new term, amendment, and all equal rights granted
would be cause for the buzz twins to celebrate like school girls again!
Party!
so from this point on you will join me in exercising my right to use the 5th ?
and you forgot to give me an AHMEN ! brother.
Godfather.
"No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people - and I have no doubt that this will be no exception," Mr. Bloomberg said.
He continued: "The march of freedom that has sustained our country since the Revolution of 1776 continues, and no matter what setbacks may occur in a given state, freedom will triumph over fear and equality will prevail over exclusion. Today's announcement is a testament to the President's convictions, and it builds on the courageous stands that so many Americans have taken over the years on behalf of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, stretching all the way back to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village."
"To question your government is not unpatriotic --
to not question your government is unpatriotic."
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel
Oh well, it's a big win for Obama and the Dems. Oh, and a big win for gay people that wish to marry. So good for them and good for Obama for finally saying it. I gotta admit, I'm pretty surprised that the last election the Dem candidates didn't jump all over this topic.
I know people stay away because of the fear of losing voters, but it's what good leaders would do. But we don't have any of those left it seems.
Im pretty sure most people who get married do not think that their first requirement is that it must be a man or a woman. It just happens -- usually without thought as to gender preference. Their first requirement is usually love (outside of vegas
Either way, as Cliffy said, I am confident that one day gay marriage will be universal in most US states, if not all.
youve never seen me upset pandora. dont presume to know me.. you dont.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
How else can Britney Spears marry her friend as a joke but two gay men who have been in love for 30 years not marry?
Godfather.
Actually, its pretty far from a dead horse considering what happened in NC and what Obama has just said. In fact this issue is on the brink of a pivotal time, which will see much debate. But yeah, i'll take a beeer.
or how about north carolina's own john edwards...now there's a torchbearer for the sanctity of marriage
it means different things to different cultures, and has evolved over time. why do we wish to stop this evolution?
and I completely disagree with the assertion that the "preservers of marriage do not hate..everyone wants a resolution". I can guarantee you MOST of the "preservers of marriage" don't believe that homosexuality is an orientation, but a choice. if they did, what would be the issue? if they believed god created homosexuality, why would god not want these people to have equal rights?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I am speaking of the preservers of marriage those who voted loud and clear yesterday,
I understand their position and see the hinderance that is happening
continuing down this path.
My stance is I would like to see gays have equal rights today and by all means not less rights
for people as the vote brought yesterday.
By making a new gay union term to take into all the future years to come
leaving marriage as it was created and intended, a union of a man and woman,
equal rights will not be lost but gained and perhaps even very soon....
not decades.
That would be good for all unions and the country.
the choice if you actually want equality is to allow gay marriage, or to remove marriage completely (obviously it could still be a religious ceremony but not state endorsed) and have everyone have civil ceremonies
I don't even like the word straight. It makes it sound like anything other than heterosexuality is crooked.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Well said. Equal but different is not equality people.
a different word in place of marriage, a new term, a new definition, a new amendment,
a new century with all equal rights equal unions.
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.... the word created thousands of years
ago with the intended purpose.
Perhaps hundreds of years from now the word marriage will not exist except in historical books,
all unions will be gay with a term now created to bring equality to all.
But why? Why are you so attached to a word? People and definitions evolve. We didn't change the word "vote" for women or black people when they got that right.