gay marriage banned

[lucky-E-leven]

I'm sorry but two human beings in love merits the rest of the world to decide whether they can share a life in unity?

Why should he be worried? His wife and kids will have all the health benefits and legal protections you can shake a stick at.

~lucky

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Why should he be worried? His wife and kids will have all the health benefits and legal protections you can shake a stick at.

~lucky

Quite true even though these 'people' are no different then anyone else, they work good jobs, commit no felons....hmmmm, makes me wonder.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by lucky-E-leven
How nice for you.

~lucky

Sarcasm noted, I suppose. I took BlackSnake's point about him voting it up to mean that was alright to talk about. If I was wrong, I really am sorry.

 

[McKenna]

It's not about who you fuck, it's about who you love. No one has a right to legislate that.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Sarcasm noted, I suppose. I took BlackSnake's point about him voting it up to mean that was alright to talk about. If I was wrong, I really am sorry.

Perfectly fine for you to talk about it. You stated your opinion. I stated mine. We're even, no?

Not sure what you meant by, "I felt that there wasn't enough ground covered on the components to warrant a "previous question", yet."

I didn't mean to imply that you were wrong in stating your opinion or stance, but if you get to come off like a smug sonofabitch on an issue that doesn't seem to affect you too directly, then I should be equally as free to come back like a sarcastic bitch and say I think your stance/opinion stinks on an issue that affects me in many, very personal ways.

~lucky

 

[McKenna]

Perfectly fine for you to talk about it. You stated your opinion. I stated mine. We're even, no?

Not sure what you meant by, "I felt that there wasn't enough ground covered on the components to warrant a "previous question", yet."

I didn't mean to imply that you were wrong in stating your opinion or stance, but if you get to come off like a smug sonofabitch on an issue that doesn't seem to affect you too directly, then I should be equally as free to come back like a sarcastic bitch and say I think your stance/opinion stinks on an issue that affects me in many, very personal ways.

~lucky

I think he has a crush on you, Lucky.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I think he has a crush on you, Lucky.

I rather doubt it, but I'm too busy staring at your ass to notice one way or the other.

*drool*

~lucky

 

[McKenna]

I rather doubt it, but I'm too busy staring at your ass to notice one way or the other.

*drool*

~lucky

*blushing again*

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Um...sluts? wanna get a room?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by lucky-E-leven
Perfectly fine for you to talk about it. You stated your opinion. I stated mine. We're even, no?

I suppose. But if the label "opinion" means people can be less than civil to each other, or downright mean, then I'm not sure I'm an advocate of "its all equal"... only because I don't see "the Jews deserved to die" being equitable with someone's preference for strawberry cheesecake over chocolate cheesecake.

Not sure what you meant by, "I felt that there wasn't enough ground covered on the components to warrant a "previous question", yet."

I meant that it seems to be to be a band-aid for the symtoms, and not addressing the underlying issues, in addition to instituting something that I don't feel has been discussed nearly enough (certainly not in my state of Mississippi). I'd rather it were presented in a much more thorough form than it is for any number of reasons.

I didn't mean to imply that you were wrong in stating your opinion or stance, but if you get to come off like a smug sonofabitch on an issue that doesn't seem to affect you too directly, then I should be equally as free to come back like a sarcastic bitch and say I think your stance/opinion stinks on an issue that affects me in many, very personal ways.

~lucky

I said that I voted it down and why. If that's a problem for you, then I'm going to have to ask for a much clearer explanation of what does and does not constitute "smugness" or being a "sonofabitch"... because, honestly, it wasn't my intention to come across as either and I'm having a hard time seeing why I came across as both.

The issue affects you personally. I can understand that. Believe it or not, it affects me personally as well. Its why I voted about it. But "deeply seated personal attachment" ought not be a sole justification for being a "bitch" (your words).

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Once again juan has caused a ruckus and disappeared back to his troll bridge.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by ABSTRUSE
Once again juan has caused a ruckus and disappeared back to his troll bridge.

He does this often?

 

[Belegon]

I only support gay marriage if both chicks are hot...(with apologies/credit to T-shirt Hell )


like Lucky and Vella...

seriously, give me a fucking break. Two lesbians or gay guys spend twenty years together, it means the same as a man and a woman. we need to protect all of us from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

He does this often?

yes sweetie, he does.........he goes right for the sick lesbian thing and then writes about how he has sex with his father....he's like the crazy person in your town....smelly and sometimes amusing.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: gay marriage banned

I'm flattered



P.s. canI wear the dress or do you wnat to or should we both?

We should both wear a dress and be as girly as possible to leave no doubt whatsoever about what is going on. And we should both carry a bouquet as well. Do you know where to get girl/girl caketoppers???

 

[Belegon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: gay marriage banned

We should both wear a dress and be as girly as possible to leave no doubt whatsoever about what is going on. And we should both carry a bouquet as well. Do you know where to get girl/girl caketoppers???

can I give away a bride?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: gay marriage banned

We should both wear a dress and be as girly as possible to leave no doubt whatsoever about what is going on. And we should both carry a bouquet as well. Do you know where to get girl/girl caketoppers???

Given a little time I know where to get most anything girl/girl

 

[sweetnpetite]

He does this often?

I'm confused Joe. What was the Proposition were you are and which way did you vote for it?

ps yes he does and hedon't neveruse no good punctuation neither.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: gay marriage banned

can I give away a bride?

*snicker*

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
I'm confused Joe. What was the Proposition were you are and which way did you vote for it?

ps yes he does and hedon't neveruse no good punctuation neither.

Constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage., basically. I voted it down.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage., basically. I voted it down.

Not trying to seem impertinent, in 100 words or less, may I ask why?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by ABSTRUSE
Not trying to seem impertinent, in 100 words or less, may I ask why?

Well, it raises a bunch of interesting questions, really... several big questions came up for me. What are we legislating? Is the legislation a solution? Are there any hazards in the adopting of the legislation? Amongst others.

Firstly, some people have told me "we shouldn't have to vote for two people to love each other" and "its not fair that we can't let two people be together just because they are the same sex". But... honestly, that's not the issue. We don't (and I don't think ever will) legislate people being in love or being together. The law currently does not legislate me being in love with my girl, nor does it legislate my being with her. It deals, specifically, with marriage. So, stripping all the emotives out of that... we should only deal with marriage as the issue. Love is not the issue. Marriage is the issue.

That being said, where do we get marriage? It certainly is greatly considered a religious union. Some churches won't perform a same-sex marriage. If same-sex couples have a problem with that, they can go cry at home. Private institution, private rules. Its why we can't gripe if the Boy Scouts want to make the merit badges all blue. Constitutionally protected, and I wouldn't have it any other way. By that same notion, those churches that honor same-sex marriage ought not be ruled by the government to stop. This amendment wasn't doing any of that. It isn't about religious marriage. It's about civil marriage.

A whole 'nother issue. People that want to argue about religious marriage can shove it. That's not what's on the table. Civil marriage is. You can still have the ceremony and be "married" if your church will allow it.

So, civil marriage. Tax breaks seem to be the biggest deal, in that, along with inheritance and certain facets of property law and the like (I feel fortunate I know law professors). What we're legislating is whether or not same-sex couples can take advantage of the benefits that come with being a part of the legally reconized category that is "marriage".

That's the issue.

Is it a solution? I don't know that blanketedly allowing same-sex couples to get married, without legally refining what we mean by marriage, is going to solve much. It will solve the emotional needs of those that want to get married, and benefit them financially, but essentially... we're not really demarcating "marriage-worthy" and "not-marriage-worthy", which I think is the important issue--we're simply adding another group of people to the list of those allowed to take advantage of it.

For instance. What about three people wanting to get married? Ten? Why only two? What about relatives? Brothers and sisters? Etc. In passing legislation that says "same-sex couples can get married", the issue of "what is marriage?" isn't dealt with. We're tossing out a verdict on the matter without spending any time analyzing the question.

Are there any hazards surrounding the adoption of the legislation? Several, I think. I come from a political family, my friends are lawyers, and I'm a logician. When talk about "the law" comes up, I've been blessed with the opportunity to hear a lot of excellent concerns from the people that deal with them daily.

There are a ton of examples of the passing of a law as a band-aid, without dealing with the issue. Mississippi is famous for a few, I don't mind saying. We have an inordinate number of universities in Mississippi, because a predominantly black school (Jackson State) wanted to be one. So, instead of formalizing procedures for determining who ought and ought not be a university, we made them all universities (and crippled a lot of our educational potential in the process, due to costs of attendance and salaries). I don't believe that we are in a better place for allowing same-sex marriage, unless we're prepared to deal with the issue of "defining marriage" first.

Beyond that, the issue of their being allowed to be married is the simple one... but I fear that in the amendment's current form might allow marriage but still leave legal gray areas concerning those benefits that differentiate civil marriage from religious marriage. If we grant merely "marriage certificates", it may be years and years of hard legislation before Mississippi is ready to extend the same rights--if ever--because "Well, we already gave them X, and now they want more Y".

No.

I just didn't agree that it was the right time or the right form for the amendment. I think it could have dealt with the issue--as I see it--much more thoroughly, that the law could deal with it much more thoroughly. I feel that voting for it was doing a disservice to the problem, by patting ourselves on the back for fixing a symptom.

 

[Guest]

what a happy day that they finally banned gay marriage it's sick seeing same couple get married only one men and women are allowed to marrygood thing both bush and kerry go againist gay marriage is sick seeing two guys or two women kiss in a chruch

And this, your very own story, is a fine example of such wholesome and pure moral standards, isn't it?

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=130736

Father and son love, such a fine thing.

Lou

P.S. Edited to add: don't bother sending me threatening and obscene messages through my site again. It really isn't necessary, I already have your IP.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Joe, how would you reccomend the "question of defining marriage" be answered by a state?

Also, is not the legislation itself a definition? Since church recognized marriage has no written barriers outside what a pastor is willing to preside over and societally recognized marriage has no barriers outside what the community will applaud and personally recognized marriage has no barriers outside what the people involved find acceptable, is not legally accepted marriage the only thing that has barriers of definition and thus require a legal solution versus a debate?

Minor questions as I'm trying to understand your point. Feel free to "Jane, you ignorant slut" me about it.

P.S. It's more than just tax breaks. Legally recognized marriage allows couples to share in the health plans of the best employed spouse, grants custody of child nearly automatically to the outher spouse if the first dies, allows the parents to have legal precedent over their own child (there was a case in I think Kentucky not too long ago that granted custody of the child to the grandparents because of a loophole in the rights given married couples and mere life partners), and much much more. Sure the emotional is the most visible and tangible, the part that receives actual respect and which people see the most of, but there is also a lot that is given in terms of purely legal. Some of it is based on assumptions made about married people, some the mere output of years of legislation. I'm sure you already knew all that however.

 

[sweetnpetite]

P.S. It's more than just tax breaks. Legally recognized marriage allows couples to share in the health plans of the best employed spouse, grants custody of child nearly automatically to the outher spouse if the first dies, allows the parents to have legal precedent over their own child (there was a case in I think Kentucky not too long ago that granted custody of the child to the grandparents because of a loophole in the rights given married couples and mere life partners), and much much more. Sure the emotional is the most visible and tangible, the part that receives actual respect and which people see the most of, but there is also a lot that is given in terms of purely legal. Some of it is based on assumptions made about married people, some the mere output of years of legislation. I'm sure you already knew all that however.

And being able to visit your child/spouse in the hospital, being able to have a say in there medical caare, being able to have access to low income housing in some cases, or family zoned housing.