Marriage for All! will it ever happen in America?

[Coral]

I know its legal in California, but are there any other states where its legal?

To those who want the "traditional" definition upheld, why do you think your personal definition should come before equal rights and opportunities for all Citizens in America?

A few videos I had to laugh at:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A7addd1-SY8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A7addd1-SY8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j7DHscURg3E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j7DHscURg3E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Hate Speech Much?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q-RGWXMGKq0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q-RGWXMGKq0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Debate. Discuss.

[chipotleattack]

lol that last video had me laughing. "The average gay is not happy...there's a dark cloud there...turmoil..confusion."

I think gay marriage will be legalized in our lifetime. It's only a matter of time till gay people are more accepted in society. It's definitely more acceptable today than in the past so it'll get there eventually.

[ReaganYouth]

That is why I plan to move to Cali by next year.

[JValone]

It'll be allowed in all 50 states within a few decades minimum. I honestly think if Obama sticks around for an entire 8 years with a left-leaning Senate it could be done within that time frame as well. The prejudice will be around for a long time though, and I think that's the bigger problem.

[Darc Requiem]

I don't know about that JV, we are both from the South. I doubt it would happen so soon here. In the Northeast and the West of the country sure. The South and the Midwest will fight it with all they have though.

I do agree on the prejudice part of your post though. There are parts of the South that I wouldn't go to now. Too many "stars and bars" for my liking.

[Lizzaroni]

Yes, it'll happen.

[MAX]

I don't see why it wouldn't happen.

[Tanooki]

It will happen eventually either as a civil union having 100% of the same rights but not the 'word' being used, or it'll be the whole thing. Hopefully it will be the first choice and not the second because a marriage is between a man and a woman. I think everyone should have 100% protection and rights under the law, but the act of actual title based 'marriage' should be left in the traditional sense. I'm sure this will start yet another fight like all the other topics that hit it, but whatever. I guess it will depend if I and other people who care will play into it to have one or not.

[HGW XX/7]

I would agree with Tanooki, only because I view Marriage as a religious thing, not a political thing. Though that might just be me.

Honestly I don't care whether or not they use the word marriage, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a fight to keep the word as man/woman 'cause of religion. Other than that, yeah, it'll happen.

[Tanooki]

Ahh see you mostly get me then that's good. Though I was thinking mostly in the traditional sense since I don't mind much of intolerrant religious pricks, but yah both do fit. If we can get it 100% but preserve the 'word' I think would be the best compromise as you'll get a lot more of any religion on board to ratify any law seeking 100% equal protection/rights under the law for a same sex couple.

[Darc Requiem]

The gay marriage issue should be a non issue. The government can't force churches to perform them. We live in a supposedly secular society and if two men or two women want to get married out side of the religious arena there should be no opposition to it. It's hypocritical for us at as country to chide other countries for enforcing religious law as state law and do the same thing ourselves.

[Tanooki]

That's a good point. This country was founded in part to stupid religious intolerrance cramed down peoples throats by the British King. As such, this nation has been designed to have a general concept of a seperation of church and state, as such politics have no right getting involved in this. Churches of any religion should not be forced by law to wed same sex people into a civil union, but at the same time shouldn't be barred from it either. The concept of marriage is religiously rooted and also rooted in tradition, though much of that is the religious and shouldn't be meddled with. Like I said the best solution is to have 100% full protection as marriages to under the law as a civil union for same sex groups as to appease both sides except their fringe crazies and the moderates to get a majority.

[MAX]

Social Anthro 101 shows us that marriage was (and still is in many places) a business transaction, and not rooted in religion.

[Darc Requiem]

My problem with calling a gay marriage a civil union is that it reeks of the "separate but equal" nonsense of the segregation era.

[Lucas]

ROFL! Oh man, that Pat Robertson video had me laughing hard. Some Churches are so good at preaching hate. "Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate....but Jesus loves you". What a crock. Oh well, you can't end 2000 years of bigotry overnight I guess. I'm glad there are some Churches out there trying to reach out and embrace those who are different from them. It took a long time to get even to that point.

The term "marriage" symbolizes a commitment between two people in love. That much, at least, cannot be argued. But to say that definition should only be reserved to a man and woman is to say that love itself is no deeper than vaginal sex. It's just a way for Christians to find yet another way to put themselves over people they think of as heathens. Isn't that "animalistic" definition the exact opposite from which the above loonies were preaching?

Marriage has nothing to do with religion in my opinion. People just use religion as a shield to protect them from things foreign to them. If Obama is elected and sticks around for the full eight years, we'll probably see the political legitimization of gay marriage within his term (not to mention some rabid crazies coming out of the woodwork with hate speech we haven't seen since the 1960's). If McCain is elected, we can expect gay marriage's political suppression to continue and probably worse. He tries to walk the non-offensive line for now, but his dissenting views will probably come out more if he gets in the big chair.

I'm hardcore pro-vagina myself, but I'm sick and tired of people trying to find some historical legitimization to hate and persecute fellow human beings who live a different private life than most.

[Lizzaroni]

My problem with calling a gay marriage a civil union is that it reeks of the "separate but equal" nonsense of the segregation era.
Not if civil unions are the legal standard for all couples. Marriage is nothing more than a religious sacrament, just like religous orders which, by the way, is closed to women.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

If Obama is elected and sticks around for the full eight years, we'll probably see the political legitimization of gay marriage within his term (not to mention some rabid crazies coming out of the woodwork with hate speech we haven't seen since the 1960's).

I'm not so sure. Obama has gone on record saying he defines marriage as one man and one woman, though he did vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment, and he supports "100% equal" (read: separate but equal) civil unions for LGBT couples. It seems like he's just pandering to religious voters by not supporting full-fledged marriage, but that's the way it is in politics.

Anyway, here's something I don't get. Even if marriage were purely religious in nature, what if two men or two women are members of a religion that is fine with homosexuality (e.g., UU, some schools of Buddhism and Hinduism, most Quakers, etc.)? What if they're atheists? Should the title "married" be withheld just because more conservative religious people might oppose it? Aren't both religion and love personal matters, rather than something onto which the majority can impose their own views?

[MR EPIC]

The US goes by Catholic standards, although Church and State are supposed to be separate.

[Lucas]

Haha, Church and State haven't been separate in this county for a long time.

[Smokey]

I actually went up to a group of religious preacher types yesterday and said "I sin in the name of Allah!". Ah man, their reactions were ****ing hilarious.

Congrats, you behaved like an ass.:dry:

I believe that homosexual unions will happen in all fifty states, and should. There is no excuse for denying civil rights to anyone, regardless of their sexuality.

That being said, I object to the use of the term "marriage". If they come up with another word, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever. Marriage, however, is a religious and a traditional practice, and should be applied only to a union between a man and a woman.

[MR EPIC]

That being said, I object to the use of the term "marriage". If they come up with another word, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever. Marriage, however, is a religious and a traditional practice, and should be applied only to a union between a man and a woman.

I personally agree with this, but as KK said, some religions accept same sex unions as "marriage" and who's to say which religion is more important?

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

Smokey, does that mean atheists should also have to use a different term?

Marriage means the union of two people, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Not "The union of two people for the glorification of Jesus/Allah/YHWH/Vishnu/etc."

Edit: MR EPIC posted before me...

[Smokey]

Whoa, I missed that post. I'll admit I was only taking Christianity into consideration, mainly because I wasn't really aware of any religion accepting same sex unions. Then again, I did say traditional, as well. The traditional marriage is based on Christian precepts and values, not Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim/etc values, and only allows for heterosexual unions.

EDIT: KK posted before me. I hope this isn't a trend...

Anyway, if they are homosexual, I believe so.

[ReaganYouth]

Congrats, you behaved like an ass.:dry:

I believe that homosexual unions will happen in all fifty states, and should. There is no excuse for denying civil rights to anyone, regardless of their sexuality.

That being said, I object to the use of the term "marriage". If they come up with another word, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever. Marriage, however, is a religious and a traditional practice, and should be applied only to a union between a man and a woman.

Yes, and I feel no shame in it either.

[Smokey]

That's what disturbs me.

[virion]

I'm hardcore pro-vagina myself

...

[virion]

Social Anthro 101 shows us that marriage was (and still is in many places) a business transaction, and not rooted in religion.

exactly. long before religion was involved, families married off their children as business transactions.

let the gays be 'married'.. it's just a word. merriam-webster defines, as follows,--

Main Entry:
mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

also apparently law is more recognized than the religious side of it anyways.

[JValone]

I don't know about that JV, we are both from the South. I doubt it would happen so soon here. In the Northeast and the West of the country sure. The South and the Midwest will fight it with all they have though.

I do agree on the prejudice part of your post though. There are parts of the South that I wouldn't go to now. Too many "stars and bars" for my liking.

I know what you mean, rural NC isn't exactly the standard for tolerance and most southerners consider us the most "yankee" state in the region. I noticed a ton of Confederate monuments in my limited time in Virginia, it was really weird to me considering how they're more geographically north.

I think that the South will be forced to comply, kicking and screaming of course, and it will be a similar atmosphere to desegregation though I don't think it will be quite as bad because people will realize they're on TV. The difference between "civil unions" and "marriage" seems insignificant to me. As long as both types of couples are given the same legal terminology I'm ok with it, a church can deem you "married" if they see fit. Aren't there several denominations that allow gay couples to marry in their buildings? So overall it would be as equal as it could get without forcing a religion to change its doctrine.

[ReaganYouth]

That's what disturbs me.

Yes, fight fire with fire. Or in this case, fight bigotry with bigotry.

[JValone]

But not every religious person is automatically a bigot....

[ReaganYouth]

^True. But it's still fun to piss off the really preachy ones. Those types make my ****ing skin crawl.

[Tanooki]

I can't find anything to disagree with in that sentence above as there's little worse than persecuting douchebag intolerant religious pricks whatever the century or millennia.

[virion]

why does everyone have to pick on intolerant religious prick douchebags like me?

[Darc Requiem]

I know what you mean, rural NC isn't exactly the standard for tolerance and most southerners consider us the most "yankee" state in the region. I noticed a ton of Confederate monuments in my limited time in Virginia, it was really weird to me considering how they're more geographically north.

I think that the South will be forced to comply, kicking and screaming of course, and it will be a similar atmosphere to desegregation though I don't think it will be quite as bad because people will realize they're on TV. The difference between "civil unions" and "marriage" seems insignificant to me. As long as both types of couples are given the same legal terminology I'm ok with it, a church can deem you "married" if they see fit. Aren't there several denominations that allow gay couples to marry in their buildings? So overall it would be as equal as it could get without forcing a religion to change its doctrine.

Virginia was the central part of the Confederacy. Richmond was the capital of the C.S.A. The military bases in Virginia are named for Confederate generals. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson have a holiday. US Route 1 is called Jefferson Davis* Highway in Virginia. Gay marriage isn't happening in Virginia any time soon. Interracial marriage was illegal her until 1970 in Virginia.

*Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederate States of America.

[virion]

Interracial marriage was illegal her until 1970 in Virginia.

as it should be! whoa. kidding. i totally support interracial happenings. i'm of mixed race. native american and a lot of white things. i expect my woman to be mixed as well. although i would like a nice catholic mexican chick or a jewish girl... yeah.

[Tanooki]

Nothing wrong with a mixed race girl at all...had one before my current lady who was a mix of black and native american blood that was exported to the dominican republic in the age of slave trade. She was one hell of a looker, fiery personality, but she was ultimately a ghetto pathological liar so she went heave ho out the door, literally. My best friend's wife who died a few months ago from cancer was a mexican-french girl who was petite and drop dead gorgeous and had the most caring, fun, smart, giving, and energetic personality right up to the end.

[virion]

mexican-french girl who was petite and drop dead gorgeous and had the most caring, fun, smart, giving, and energetic personality right up to the end.

jessica alba is mexican, french and dutch.. nice.. kristen kreuk who i adore is chinese and dutch.. my last girl was half jap and native american.. ended up getting a restraining order on that crazy bitch.

[Lovebird]

The state has no place to say what defines marriage. Marriage is a personal matter and the state, which represents the people, should respect that.

Period.

And I give a hearty "**** You." to anyone who says otherwise.

[Lizzaroni]

Did someone say America was adheres to a Catholic standard??? You're ****ing mad. It's amazing that JFK was even elected as a Catholic.

[Smokey]

Yes, fight fire with fire. Or in this case, fight bigotry with bigotry.

That is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have heard from you. It is never, I repeat, NEVER okay to be a bigot. You do remember how you felt about Carlos, right? In this case, turnabout is not fair play. Yeah, screw with them, but don't mock their beliefs. I know you can be a bigger man than that.

I don't recall who said it, but I have not heard of any Christian denominations sanctioning gay marriages. I have heard of gay ministers, but that's it. Finally, concerning that dictionary definition of marriage. It's an Anglo-French word, originating from the 14th century? Guess what the predominant religion in that area was then? Gentlemen, I rest my ****ing case.

[ReaganYouth]

^I mock their "beliefs" because from my experience (of which I have PLENTY), they "believe" that gay marriage is wrong. And many of them use their religion as an excuse to do horrible, unspeakable things (see Iraq War, Holocaust, persecution, the list goes on and on). Be lucky I'm only taunting them and not smashing their heads open with metal baseball bats like I should.

But please note that I am aware that not all Christians are bad. It's just that any group that has the nerve to tell me my lifestyle is wrong and sinful doesn't deserve to be alive. Sorry, but that's the way I see it and nothing will change that.

[Smokey]

Of course they're wrong. Again, screw with them. Still, you have no right to behave the same way they do. Be intelligent, be creative. In short, be better than they are and show it.

[ReaganYouth]

Well, I'm not better than them. Seriously, I have a burning urge to be violent with some of these sorry excuses for human beings.

[Smokey]

Find an outlet. Take up martial arts. Play a sport. Punch your pillow or sommat. Or you can take an aluminum baseball bat to the lot of them and get extended jailtime, thus proving that you are not only NOT better than them, you are worse than them, seeing as you're in jail and they aren't.

[ReaganYouth]

^I never said I would actually be violent with them. Do I want to? Of course I do, but I'm not gonna get myself thrown in jail over that. I'll just have to hope that some kind of anti-Hitler comes around and wipes out all of these ignorant people.

[Smokey]

Well, that's good to hear. You'd probably drive the warden insane.:P

[ReaganYouth]

Yeah, but till then I'll just spray paint a crossed out cross on my local church. :D

[Smokey]

Vandalism is a whole 'nother animal, though I'm not certain blasphemy is the best way to go.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

Anyway, back on track...

I don't recall who said it, but I have not heard of any Christian denominations sanctioning gay marriages. I have heard of gay ministers, but that's it. Finally, concerning that dictionary definition of marriage. It's an Anglo-French word, originating from the 14th century? Guess what the predominant religion in that area was then? Gentlemen, I rest my ****ing case.

Some Christian denominations that sanction LGBT marriage:
- UFMCC (Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches)
- Religious Society of Friends (a.k.a. Quakers)
- UU (Unitarian Universalism; only loosely considered Christian these days)
- USC (Unity School of Christianity, a non-Nicaean denomination)
- United Church of Canada

There are also some flavors of Baptist, "Old" Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christianity that allow it, but they're about as few and far between as possible.

[Rensa]

Civil union rights for everyone, sure. 'Marriage', as in the specific religious ceremony that accompanies legal union, is for the practitioners of each religion to decide (though use of the term 'marriage' is just semantics, really). Abstract the legal details away from the ceremonial ones and your Christian weddings/Jewish weddings/Hindu weddings/fancy-dress-with-a-carnival-theme weddings just become different flavours of civil union. Happy for all.

EDIT: And, to answer the actual question, yes, it'll happen. Western society is suffering from an inexorable moral decay, right? ;)

[HGW XX/7]

Reagan and Smokey, please bring it back on topic. I believe the question was about gay marriage being allowed in America, not Reagan harassing religious folk.

I still say it'll happen under a different name. I don't think it'll get the title of "Marriage" just because people think of it as a religious thing (I know I'm not the only one).

[Darc Requiem]

Wel,l I guess atheists can't get married either. I hope they are okay with "civil unions." I find the semantics of this situation laughable. What if a religious person marries an atheist? Is the religious partner part of a marriage and but the atheist is part of a civil union. Can they receive marriage counseling if only the religious party is truly the married?

[MAX]

^
Clearly, the only thing to do is start a religion where any two individuals can get "married," regardless of religion, orientation, etc...

"Marriage" is an English word which happens to mean a binding or permanent union. It is the only appropriate word for a particularly binding union. The term "civil union" is a less accurate term. It doesn't have "permanence" as part of its definition, whereas "marriage" does. So, aside from the fact that marriage has a tradition further back in history NOT rooted in religion, there is also the fact that the two terms don't even mean the same thing.

[Smokey]

Anyway, back on track...



Some Christian denominations that sanction LGBT marriage:
- UFMCC (Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches)
- Religious Society of Friends (a.k.a. Quakers)
- UU (Unitarian Universalism; only loosely considered Christian these days)
- USC (Unity School of Christianity, a non-Nicaean denomination)
- United Church of Canada

There are also some flavors of Baptist, "Old" Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christianity that allow it, but they're about as few and far between as possible.

I wasn't aware that Quakers were still around. As for those others, I still don't think that "marriage" should be used for homosexual unions. Remember that I said that "marriage" is a traditional thing as well.

"Marriage" is an English word which happens to mean a binding or permanent union. It is the only appropriate word for a particularly binding union. The term "civil union" is a less accurate term. It doesn't have "permanence" as part of its definition, whereas "marriage" does. So, aside from the fact that marriage has a tradition further back in history NOT rooted in religion, there is also the fact that the two terms don't even mean the same thing.

According to that dictionary definition, it's rooted in the 14th century, which was time when religion (Christianity) was everyone's everyday life. The concept of two people joining for life may predate Christianity, but "marriage" does not.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

According to that dictionary definition, it's rooted in the 14th century, which was time when religion (Christianity) was everyone's everyday life. The concept of two people joining for life may predate Christianity, but "marriage" does not.

Maritare is Latin for "to marry," and I think it's a pretty safe bet to say it predates the entire French language, and probably the spread of Christianity, as does the concept of marriage. Saying concept = modern word is ridiculous.

[HGW XX/7]

^Exactly. Saying that the the majority of American people somehow thing the latin root > modern word is more absurd.

Nobody cares where the concept comes from, but what it's perceived as now.

[MAX]

According to that dictionary definition, it's rooted in the 14th century, which was time when religion (Christianity) was everyone's everyday life. The concept of two people joining for life may predate Christianity, but "marriage" does not.

I'm pretty sure "marriage" as a word was used by other religious and non religious groups during that time period.

YAY FOR SMOKEY'S FLAWED LOGIC!

Let's stick to marriage as a social mechanism (and stop being a dictionary whore) which predates Christianity and has been found in many cultures as a non religious concept.

How it's perceived now (one man, one woman) is completely bigoted, whether you use the 'rooted in religion' argument or not. Two people of the same sex marrying will in now way invalidate a heterosexual marriage.

[HGW XX/7]

^True, 'cause 'traditional' marriages are already worth next to nothing. What with the divorce rate and all that.

[Smokey]

I'm pretty sure "marriage" as a word was used by other religious and non religious groups during that time period.

YAY FOR SMOKEY'S FLAWED LOGIC!

Prove it.

Let's stick to marriage as a social mechanism (and stop being a dictionary whore) which predates Christianity and has been found in many cultures as a non religious concept.

Excuse me? Me being the dictionary whore? Who brought it up in the first place? Certainly not me. Of course, I'm probably just the dictionary whore now because you can't use that argument anymore (read: You were wrong, now you're resorting to attacks).

Also, I can't imagine a culture that didn't tie marriage to religion at some point.

How it's perceived now (one man, one woman) is completely bigoted, whether you use the 'rooted in religion' argument or not. Two people of the same sex marrying will in now way invalidate a heterosexual marriage.

Again, the concept of marriage as a religious item is not the only issue. There is also the issue of tradition to think about. Traditionally in America, marriage has been between a man and a woman.

Honestly, I don't see why using the term "civil union" is a problem.

[virion]

i was the dictionary whore. the term marriage came around the 14th century.. but the term 'to marry' came, as kouji pointed out, from latin.. and was used way before the spread of christianity, before the holy roman empire.

[MAX]

Prove it.

Take an anthro class, I'm not going to sit here and try to 'prove' something to you that you can just google.

Excuse me? Me being the dictionary whore? Who brought it up in the first place? Certainly not me. Of course, I'm probably just the dictionary whore now because you can't use that argument anymore (read: You were wrong, now you're resorting to attacks).

Yes, the fact that you are sitting there perpetuating your stupid bigoted attitude with an effing english dictionary entry makes you a dictionary whore. Regardless who started it, you're parroting it, which makes you just as guilty.

Also, I can't imagine a culture that didn't tie marriage to religion at some point.

Surprise, Smokey. Just because you can't get out from under your christian rock and imagine something happening, doesn't mean it didn't!

Again, the concept of marriage as a religious item is not the only issue. There is also the issue of tradition to think about. Traditionally in America, marriage has been between a man and a woman.

Honestly, I don't see why using the term "civil union" is a problem.

Let's talk about tradition. It used to be tradition that women not have any rights, and tradition that black people didn't have any rights. So yeah, let's continue bringing up 'tradition' argument, because obviously you have thought that one out. Open your ****ing eyes, traditions change with the times.

[Lizzaroni]

I don't think it'll get the title of "Marriage" just because people think of it as a religious thing (I know I'm not the only one).
It is religious. See Rensa's post. There's a difference between a religious sacrament and the union MAX is referring to; people using the two interchangeably is why we're (the US) having this stupid conversation anyways. If we'd kept the legal and religious unions divorced from one another as soon as it lost its 'transaction' element, this problem would be solved.

[HGW XX/7]

^Agree 100%

[Coral]

To keep mariage exclusive to specific people is discrimination. If Americans don't want people fighting for equality then get your charter or bill of rights changed. There shouldn't be a single thing one group of people should be able to do that another can't.

Slot of Christians and other religious groups like to pick and choose which rules they're going to follow. Instead of fighting something people have the right to be able to do, look at the fact that more people will make a special commitment to each other. And I know you can make the same commitment in a civil union but if they aren't called the same thing then certain people will view what they have as being above what other people have. It's quite sad that America is always beaten by Europe and Canada on these issues, yet America is suppsedly the greatest country in the world.

[Lizzaroni]

To keep mariage exclusive to specific people is discrimination. If Americans don't want people fighting for equality then get your charter or bill of rights changed. There shouldn't be a single thing one group of people should be able to do that another can't.
I think you've missed the point: legally speaking, there is no reason to deny gays the right to a legal union. There is no reason to refer to a LEGAL union between a man and a woman as "marriage" and the same LEGAL union between same-sex couples as "civil union" - in this sense, your argument is correct, but that is not what I'm advocating. I am simply stating that there is no room for marriage in the legal system, period, and that all couples should be held to the same legal standard.

Were I in absolute control of the Church, I'd advocate the same standard, much the same way I'd advocate allowing women to participate in Holy Orders (ie. be a priest, deacon, whatever.) As far as Church bizness goes, though, let them deal with their own problems.

Slot of Christians and other religious groups like to pick and choose which rules they're going to follow. Instead of fighting something people have the right to be able to do, look at the fact that more people will make a special commitment to each other. And I know you can make the same commitment in a civil union but if they aren't called the same thing then certain people will view what they have as being above what other people have. It's quite sad that America is always beaten by Europe and Canada on these issues, yet America is suppsedly the greatest country in the world.
Again you've missed the point. I am not arguing that it should be called a civil union because I want to appease religious folk. I am arguing it should be called that because we should have separated religious rituals from legal unions starting at Day 1.

[Smokey]

Take an anthro class, I'm not going to sit here and try to 'prove' something to you that you can just google.

You made the assertion, you back it up. Burden of proof is on you.



Yes, the fact that you are sitting there perpetuating your stupid bigoted attitude with an effing english dictionary entry makes you a dictionary whore. Regardless who started it, you're parroting it, which makes you just as guilty.

1) Bigoted, my ass.
2) You do it all the time, so I don't want to hear it.
3) I still think you're only saying this because you're miffed about being proven wrong.


Surprise, Smokey. Just because you can't get out from under your christian rock and imagine something happening, doesn't mean it didn't!

Then I'm afraid you're going to have to, once more, back up what you said. Stuck under my rock as I am, I can't be bothered to back up your assertions for you.:rolleyes:

Let's talk about tradition. It used to be tradition that women not have any rights, and tradition that black people didn't have any rights. So yeah, let's continue bringing up 'tradition' argument, because obviously you have thought that one out. Open your ****ing eyes, traditions change with the times.

I knew this was going to come up (see, I did think this out!:rolleyes:). Tradition isn't bad in itself. Those traditions were based on denying groups their civil rights. The idea of not using "marriage" to refer to a civil union between two homosexuals isn't bad.

If a homosexual union is referred to as a "marriage", you're going to have a huge uproar that could have easily been avoided by simply referring to it as a "civil union".

[MAX]

You made the assertion, you back it up. Burden of proof is on you.

The History of Human Marriage. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London. ISBN 1402185480


1) Bigoted, my ass.
2) You do it all the time, so I don't want to hear it.
3) I still think you're only saying this because you're miffed about being proven wrong. [

1) accept it, you are
2) I don't advocate 'separate but equal', that's you.
3) Not really, I just get miffed about you spreading stupid 'facts' you and your religious friends spread.

Then I'm afraid you're going to have to, once more, back up what you said. Stuck under my rock as I am, I can't be bothered to back up your assertions for you.:rolleyes:

For ****s sake. Yes, marriage was an ancient hebrew custom but it was hardly unique to them and they certainly weren't the ones who invented the concept. Hera (who was worshipped LONG before christ) was the goddess of women and MARRIAGE. There is even a chinese goddess of marriage that's older than the entire hebrew culture. God damn.

I knew this was going to come up (see, I did think this out!:rolleyes:). Tradition isn't bad in itself. Those traditions were based on denying groups their civil rights. The idea of not using "marriage" to refer to a civil union between two homosexuals isn't bad.

Discrimination is discrimination.

If a homosexual union is referred to as a "marriage", you're going to have a huge uproar that could have easily been avoided by simply referring to it as a "civil union".

*looks at Massachusetts, California, etc*

Wow...look at that uproar. :rolleyes:

Will there be people protesting against it? Of course, there are people that are going to protest against everything. I doubt there will be an uproar outside of those who are upset they're bigoted views aren't being enforced by the government,

[Smokey]

The History of Human Marriage. Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London. ISBN 1402185480

Well, at least you went to the effort, despite the fact that I can't be bothered to read a book because of an online argument. *shrugs*

*snip*

For ****s sake. Yes, marriage was an ancient hebrew custom but it was hardly unique to them and they certainly weren't the ones who invented the concept. Hera (who was worshipped LONG before christ) was the goddess of women and MARRIAGE. There is even a chinese goddess of marriage that's older than the entire hebrew culture. God damn.

You went and proved my point. China is one of the oldest cultures in history, with only Egypt and India possibly being any older. A goddess implies a religious order. According to you, marriage (between a man and woman, mind you) and religion have been tied together since history began.

Discrimination is discrimination.

But it's not discrimination when the alternative is the exact same thing with a different name.

*looks at Massachusetts, California, etc*

Wow...look at that uproar. :rolleyes:

Will there be people protesting against it? Of course, there are people that are going to protest against everything. I doubt there will be an uproar outside of those who are upset they're bigoted views aren't being enforced by the government,

It's not surprising to me that that happened with those states, and probably not to most others, what with Mass and Cali being arguably the most liberal states in the Union. Besides, I was speaking in a national sense. If "gay marriage" is enforced throughout the nation, especially in the Deep South, heads will roll.

[Lovebird]

But it's not discrimination when the alternative is the exact same thing with a different name.

White bathroom.

Negro bathroom.

Not discrimination, right?

C'mon Smokey. I understand you believe that "marriage" is between man and woman, but marriage has different histories in different cultures, and the definition is open to interpretation. As such, the state has no right to limit us as to who we are allowed to marry, as it is the states duty to accept and recognize the different interpretations of the act. Unless the constitution you're reading says "Liberty and justice for breeders only."

Besides, like I said before, I don't feel the state has any say in the matter, as it is strictly personal and private.

[Lovebird]

It's not surprising to me that that happened with those states, and probably not to most others, what with Mass and Cali being arguably the most liberal states in the Union. Besides, I was speaking in a national sense. If "gay marriage" is enforced throughout the nation, especially in the Deep South, heads will roll.

Just like when segregation was outlawed.

Are you saying that if change causes a stir, it shouldn't be?

Get a grip, Smokey.

EDIT: Sorry for double post.

[Smokey]

White bathroom.

Negro bathroom.

Not discrimination, right?

Not if they're the same. "Separate but equal" failed largely because things were not equal.

C'mon Smokey. I understand you believe that "marriage" is between man and woman, but marriage has different histories in different cultures, and the definition is open to interpretation. As such, the state has no right to limit us as to who we are allowed to marry, as it is the states duty to accept and recognize the different interpretations of the act. Unless the constitution you're reading says "Liberty and justice for breeders only."

Like I said, I'm not opposed to homosexual unions, I merely object to the terminology.

Besides, like I said before, I don't feel the state has any say in the matter, as it is strictly personal and private.

In a way, I agree with you. The state does lend it some legitimacy, though, to those who don't recognize religious authority to be binding.

Just like when segregation was outlawed.

Are you saying that if change causes a stir, it shouldn't be?

Get a grip, Smokey.

EDIT: Sorry for double post.

Not at all. Segregation needed to be done away with, as it was clearly an act of malicious prejudice and was creating a sub-citizenry. This is not the same, though. White people and black people are intrinsically the same, with the only difference being skin color. A heterosexual union and a homosexual union, however, are two completely different things. To apply the same label to both would imply that there is no difference, which is certainly not the case.

[Lovebird]

Not if they're the same. "Separate but equal" failed largely because things were not equal.
Civil unions and marriage are not equal. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage.


Not at all. Segregation needed to be done away with, as it was clearly an act of malicious prejudice and was creating a sub-citizenry. This is not the same, though. White people and black people are intrinsically the same, with the only difference being skin color. A heterosexual union and a homosexual union, however, are two completely different things. To apply the same label to both would imply that there is no difference, which is certainly not the case.

The difference only difference between blacks and whites is color, right? Well the only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is sexual preference, correct?

Marriage is a symbol of love, I think we can all agree on that. Are you telling me that homosexuals are incapable of expressing the same amount of love for one another as heterosexuals, therefore they should not be allowed "marriage" per se, but "civil unions"?

Listen man, you can slice it how you want, but it is discrimination. You say it's not discrimination if it is equal, correct? So if you follow your own logic, you should believe that it is discrimination.

Marriage is NOT the same as a civil union, if you are going to stand so adamantly against this, please get the facts straight.

Wikipedia is a click away man:

Defense of Marriage Act-

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2.The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

[virion]

Besides, like I said before, I don't feel the state has any say in the matter, as it is strictly personal and private.

but it isn't just personal and private. the government gives tax breaks to people who are married. that's why marriages are recognized by law.

[ReaganYouth]

Haha, no wonder Smokey always dogs me when I bag on religious people. He's just like the preachers I hate.

MODS: DON'T KILL ME!

[MR EPIC]

Did any of you ever consider that the person who created this thread and posed this question doesn't even live in America? :)

[Coral]

Did any of you ever consider that the person who created this thread and posed this question doesn't even live in America? :)

=) I visit it tho. I want my marriage status recognized when i goto the states. Else Max will just have to stay in Canada forever.

[ReaganYouth]

Did any of you ever consider that the person who created this thread and posed this question doesn't even live in America? :)

Canada is often considered the 51st state of the US so....:rolleyes:

Still, it's a shame that Canada and Europe have more freedoms for gays than the self-proclaimed best country on Earth. What a load of ********.

[virion]

America **** YEAH!

[Rensa]

Don't feel too bad, Reagan; Australia still hasn't gotten homosexual union rights going, either.

I wonder how the law falls in such territories when transsexual people are involved?

Note that in my previous posts I was using legal union and civil union interchangeably; I don't understand the difference. But I think my opinion's still pretty legible... it pretty much mirrors Liz's.

[Smokey]

Civil unions and marriage are not equal. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage.

The concept is the same. I know they are not equal yet, but they will be.

The difference only difference between blacks and whites is color, right? Well the only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is sexual preference, correct?

I don't think that sexual preference is the only difference, but even if it were, black people and white people are essentially the same. I think you'll agree that heterosexuals and homosexuals are a little bit different.

Marriage is a symbol of love, I think we can all agree on that. Are you telling me that homosexuals are incapable of expressing the same amount of love for one another as heterosexuals, therefore they should not be allowed "marriage" per se, but "civil unions"?

If a civil union holds as much legitimacy and grants the same rights, than yes, "civil union" should apply to homosexuals, not "marriage". I know perfectly well that homosexuals are capable of showing love. They're not deformed or twisted. They are different, though, from heterosexuals, and I don't think that the same label should apply to both unions.

Listen man, you can slice it how you want, but it is discrimination. You say it's not discrimination if it is equal, correct? So if you follow your own logic, you should believe that it is discrimination.

I understand that, at the moment, a marriage and a civil union are not equal. If a civil union had all the rights of a marriage, though, would it be discrimination to label a hetero union "marriage" and a homo union "civil union"?

Marriage is NOT the same as a civil union, if you are going to stand so adamantly against this, please get the facts straight.

Wikipedia is a click away man:

Defense of Marriage Act-

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2.The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

This is why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. The wording there is quite a bit different from the wording here.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:

Basically, this act handicaps the federal gov't, saying that it can't force any definition and that such decisions are up to the individual state. And while I do agree that marriage should not be used to define a homosexual union, I don't agree that "spouse" should be limited to marriage. It was my understanding that the word "spouse" was meant to apply to a homosexual union as well as a heterosexual union.

[Darc Requiem]

I will say it one last time. Seperate but Equal is never equal. We've been through this type of nonsense and not all that long ago. You think recent history would impart more of a perspective on this type of ludicrous ideal.

[MAX]

You went and proved my point. China is one of the oldest cultures in history, with only Egypt and India possibly being any older. A goddess implies a religious order. According to you, marriage (between a man and woman, mind you) and religion have been tied together since history began.

Oh really? Wasn't your 'point' that marriage is more or less a christian tradition because the word was put in the dictionary in the 14th century when 'christianity was popular', thus making it a 'christian tradition'? Hence we shouldn't change it? I gave an example of why you were wrong, and that we shouldn't be using the 'christian' definition to motivate what laws we do or do not pass. I gave an example of marriage being around long long before christianity to show that your assertion is completely dishonest. Get your head out of your ass. Like Liz already said marriage as a SACRAMENT was practiced first by the Hebrews and then the early Christians. But marriage as a SOCIAL CONTRACT has been practiced by many societies throughout history.



But it's not discrimination when the alternative is the exact same thing with a different name.

It's NOT the same thing, *******. If they were, then you'd have no issue allowing the words to commensurate with the actions. SCOTUS has already decided that Seperate But Equal is unconstitutional. Also, if the only issue is with words, it makes you wonder what the problem with even gay civil unions was in the first place. :rolleyes:


It's not surprising to me that that happened with those states, and probably not to most others, what with Mass and Cali being arguably the most liberal states in the Union. Besides, I was speaking in a national sense. If "gay marriage" is enforced throughout the nation, especially in the Deep South, heads will roll.

Do you have evidence for this, or is this just bigoted conjecture. Israel allows gay marriage, and they're arguably more set in their ways when it comes to 'tradition'. Same with Spain.

Smokey's Cognitive Dissonance in 10, 9, 8..

[virion]

I think you'll agree that heterosexuals and homosexuals are a little bit different.

other than sexual preference, how are they different?

[Lovebird]

The concept is the same. I know they are not equal yet, but they will be.

**** you.

Rights for gays, right now.

[Tanooki]

I agree with that statement 99.99~% ...marriage in title is a man and woman thing. :D I don't buy the separate but equal argument either as that was largely different as that was giving people secondary rights, secondary placement in society, and various other civil and service issues. I'm sure I'll get quoted and crap over the statement but I stand by it.

[Lizzaroni]

Civil unions and marriage are not equal. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage.
They are if the only legal standard is a civil union for all couples.

I agree with that statement 99.99~% ...marriage in title is a man and woman thing. I don't buy the separate but equal argument either as that was largely different as that was giving people secondary rights, secondary placement in society, and various other civil and service issues. I'm sure I'll get quoted and crap over the statement but I stand by it.
You're retarded. If you legally refer to a union between gay people as a "civil union" and legally refer to a union between a straight couple as "marriage" it's separate but equal. When you assert that there are two standards (one being a civil union and the other being a marriage) they are SEPARATE and when you assert the difference is in name and construction only (they are "EQUAL") that constitutes as separate but equal. If the legal standard is the same for ALL it is legitimately equal - something "separate but equal" is not because equality requires a single LEGAL RIGHT for all individuals where no one is given preference.

[Sascha-AMN]

I think it will happen eventually. The world has been heading that way for a long time. There was a time when two people from different social classes couldn't get married. There was a time when two people of different races couldn't get married. Now we're stuck at two people of the same sex. Eventually people will realize that some of the customs and traditions they were born into just don't make much sense in the context of the modern world. Once the number of people in that group outnumbers the traditionalists, we progress forward.

Personally, Im apathetic to the use of the word marriage. I dont even know if I will get 'married' myself. As much as I dont understand how people could have a problem with two people of the same sex getting married (it doesnt effect them), I also dont understand how people on the other side of the fence could get so hung up on the use of the word. If you are afforded all the same benefits (and burdens) as a married couple, then why piss and moan just so you can use the word? Its just another way that a preoccupation with tradition is impinging on people. Just let the word go, move on from it.

[Nismo]

Why would anyone want to get married? It all goes down the shitter.

Just make love baby.

[originalself]

I can not believe separate but equal was even used in this argument. That is just sad.
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2192/jimcrowpic3ca9.jpg

[Tanooki]

Whatever liz, if that's what you wish to think so what. Never will two people of the same sex coming together in a so-called marriage be the same as a traditional standard marriage whether held to a religious standard or not as it's not normal. It's safe to say a majority of this nation at this point and time won't go for it for either valid reasons, religious intolerance, or just redneckish bs. As original said, I can't believe even separate but equal was even brought up with this argument. I'm not even in my argument denying any legal rights or privileges in the least bit, hell I said clearly short of the word itself everything should be equal across the board in all fairness. Hell honestly if it has to be changed as such by law which is sad too, I do agree in what you said that ALL joinings of two people should hereforth be called a civil union and those who care to off the books or within religion or personal practices call it a marriage.

[Lizzaroni]

Whatever liz, if that's what you wish to think so what. Never will two people of the same sex coming together in a so-called marriage be the same as a traditional standard marriage whether held to a religious standard or not as it's not normal.
Not normal? The same way it was abnormal for women to have the same professional goals as men? The same way it was abnormal for races to mix? The same way it was abnormal for people of different religious sects (ex. Catholic vs. Protestant) to mix?

It's safe to say a majority of this nation at this point and time won't go for it for either valid reasons, religious intolerance, or just redneckish bs.
This is where I stopped reading. America's foundation is protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority, and to act as if that peoples' rights should be trampled on solely because the majority has a completely irrational reaction is contrary to the very principles America was founded on.

[Tanooki]

Wow you're fantastic at spin, that's a credit. Defiling the meaning of marriage has nothing to do with the job ambitions of women. Women having employment is nothing I'm against, let alone them being paid the same or any other issues they've had to put up with. Also religious people getting together, married, whatever that's not the same either, that's just a belief system.

I'm aware of the principles this nation was founded on thanks. I was just making the point a lot of people won't put up with it which was made very clear in the 04 and 06 vote where state after state banned gay marriage. Some of them took it as use of the name, other jerkoff states did it with that and denying rights which is wrong.

[Lizzaroni]

Wow, you're fantastic at being deliberately obtuse.

[Tanooki]

Do you ever think maybe I make the tone of my posts on purpose to piss people off that don't agree with me by going that way with it?

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

Defiling the meaning of marriage has nothing to do with the job ambitions of women.
How very telling.

Also religious people getting together, married, whatever that's not the same either, that's just a belief system.
So, people who choose to believe in different religions should be allowed to marry and use the term, but two people who are homosexual/bisexual by nature shouldn't be allowed that right?

[Lizzaroni]

Do you ever think maybe I make the tone of my posts on purpose to piss people off that don't agree with me by going that way with it?
Yes, ever notice how that doesn't work and people still respond to you with legitimate criticism?

[Tanooki]

Well at least you realize it's intentional. And to them, yes it's legit, but it doesn't mean I'll agree to make you happy either. And Kouji I wouldn't call it telling, I'd call it restating the obvious. And yes I don't believe that homosexuals should be using the word marriage for their civil unions, and if it means that by law all joinings of two people end up being deemed as civil unions to be 100% equal that's fine by me as it would be a solution. Religious and traditional types can preserve the word for whatever their intent, gay people can use it for their needs, and the gov't doesn't sanction an up or down on the matter by going about it that way which keeps that from being that intrusive into peoples personal lives.

[MAX]

Wow, you're fantastic at being deliberately obtuse.

hahahaha vitamin water came out my nose

[Coral]

hahahaha vitamin water came out my nose

:/ the white one tastes bad.

[Tanooki]

Laugh it up I don't care, as I said I do what I do with intent. Fact is 48 of 50 states won't allow those with alternative life choice styles to marry using the name, sadly including the religious nuts passing the more evil of those laws denying benefits which is wrong. As is I'm glad I left Cali, and I see no reason to live in Mass either, and until the fed mandates something I don't see any of the others except perhaps Vermont which is very liberal going for it.

Either way enjoy your life choice as it's no bother to me, that's your thing, but marriage as in the dictionary says the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. is it, and that's how I hope it stays.

[virion]

i have a question.. which one of the couple of a same sex marriage/union/whatever, takes the other person's name?.. the name they think sounds better?. or in the case of a lesbian couple, the manly one gives the name to her girly counterpart? and why in almost all long term gay relationships one of the partners serves the opposite role?.. with girls, one's manly the others not.. in guys.. ones the woman the others the man.. kind of defeats the purpose. ha.

[Coral]

Laugh it up I don't care, as I said I do what I do with intent. Fact is 48 of 50 states won't allow those with alternative life choice styles to marry using the name, sadly including the religious nuts passing the more evil of those laws denying benefits which is wrong. As is I'm glad I left Cali, and I see no reason to live in Mass either, and until the fed mandates something I don't see any of the others except perhaps Vermont which is very liberal going for it.

Either way enjoy your life choice as it's no bother to me, that's your thing, but marriage as in the dictionary says the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. is it, and that's how I hope it stays.


You better hope really hard. Actually, hope so hard you have an aneurism. You know, so you wont be alive when Miggy and I marry in Texas.

[Smokey]

i have a question.. which one of the couple of a same sex marriage/union/whatever, takes the other person's name?.. the name they think sounds better?. or in the case of a lesbian couple, the manly one gives the name to her girly counterpart? and why in almost all long term gay relationships one of the partners serves the opposite role?.. with girls, one's manly the others not.. in guys.. ones the woman the others the man.. kind of defeats the purpose. ha.

That's a good question. I'm not sure how that one would work out, unless it was just a case-by-case kind of thing. As for the second part, that's always struck me as curious, as well.

[Tanooki]

You and miggy marry in texas that's rich. Hehehe! That statement/laugh has nothing to do with the act, but the fact you think of any state that would fly in Texas as they're the worst. :D

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

and why in almost all long term gay relationships one of the partners serves the opposite role?.. with girls, one's manly the others not.. in guys.. ones the woman the others the man.. kind of defeats the purpose. ha.

As far as I know that's actually kind of a stereotype perpetuated by media. Of all the gay and lesbian couples I've known, I can't think of a single one that had a definite "man & woman" or "butch & femme" setup. That's not to say it never happens, just that it's probably not as common as TV and movies might have people believe.

[virion]

As far as I know that's actually kind of a stereotype perpetuated by media. Of all the gay and lesbian couples I've known, I can't think of a single one that had a definite "man & woman" or "butch & femme" setup. That's not to say it never happens, just that it's probably not as common as TV and movies might have people believe.

i swear, in oklahoma, all lesbian couples i saw were that stereotype. now for gay males though, it was different.

[Rensa]

i have a question.. which one of the couple of a same sex marriage/union/whatever, takes the other person's name?.. the name they think sounds better?. or in the case of a lesbian couple, the manly one gives the name to her girly counterpart? and why in almost all long term gay relationships one of the partners serves the opposite role?.. with girls, one's manly the others not.. in guys.. ones the woman the others the man.. kind of defeats the purpose. ha.
Actually, that question is also pretinent in heterosexual marriages now, since many (perhaps even most...?) couples retain their maiden names after marriage now. It'll be interesting to see where this goes with children in the next generation or so, as there's only so much hyphenating you can do before you get unwieldy names like Sarah Brooks-Smith-Chang-O'Rielly. Perhaps the entire structure of family names will change.

[Smokey]

As far as I know that's actually kind of a stereotype perpetuated by media. Of all the gay and lesbian couples I've known, I can't think of a single one that had a definite "man & woman" or "butch & femme" setup. That's not to say it never happens, just that it's probably not as common as TV and movies might have people believe.

You know, that's the only kind of lesbian couple I've ever seen. I haven't encountered too many gay male couples, but I will say that that stereotype doesn't hold true all the time. It's been prevalent, but not completely so.

[Kaizoku_Kouji]

Actually, in the case of the gay couple I knew the best (one of the guys is my best friend's brother, and I had a few classes with the other guy in high school), neither one was very masculine, but they were definitely not feminine either.

And with the lesbians I knew the best... well, they both told people they were actually two gay men trapped in the bodies of girls, so they both acted kind of butch all the time. So I guess that would actually make them transgender?

[Smokey]

And with the lesbians I knew the best... well, they both told people they were actually two gay men trapped in the bodies of girls, so they both acted kind of butch all the time. So I guess that would actually make them transgender?

Um, that sounds kinda out there. It seems to me that they were screwing with people there.

[virion]

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f199/virion9/support1ze7.jpg

[MAX]

Do you ever think maybe I make the tone of my posts on purpose to piss people off that don't agree with me by going that way with it?

So you're trolling on purpose... nice. :rolleyes:

[Tanooki]

Well at some point I give what I get back, that's all.

[MAX]

mature

[Smokey]

Kinda like the way you egg him on, right?:rolleyes:

[MAX]

and the way you play net nanny, yes

[Smokey]

By definition, a nanny is more mature than the children that he/she deals with, so I don't know what you're doing by throwing that in there.

[MAX]

Good thing I was talking about a net nanny (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=net+nanny), and not a 'nanny'.

[HGW XX/7]

Good to see you all haven't lost the ability to derail a thread. Closed.