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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Asteroids
Nut Nut
Plops
Yankee Go Home
Hook Line & Sinker
Mad Shark
Mumu
Hexxagon
Crazy Closet
Mini KickUps
Starcastle
Salvation Army Xmas
Funky Pong
Rabbit Hunter
Trampoline Tricks 2
Linear Mode
