Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not for gay marriage since it would IMO demean regular marriage by it's inclusion, but they should have their other named ceremony; should be left alone to work without worry and have the right to have their fun behind their closed doors.
Many are adopting now. That could be good, that could be bad. We will see if more kids are better adjusted with them adopting or if more all of a sudden have more gender or other issues. I hope for the best though.
I think that would be the mind of many at least some R's or conservatives.
She couldn't have had this "incredible relationship" without a contract from the state?
The contract she had was for the benefit of the "fringe benefit" children the sex she doesn't miss created and the faithful husband she may have abandoned or cheated on.
She was also protected against his possible infidelity or abandonment by the same contract.
Ms. Walsh doesn't seem to understand children are not a fringe benefit of marriage, but rather are the point to having a marriage.
See, it's a big problem for heterosexuals who have partners who stray and create children outside the marriage (see Arnold Schwarzenegger).
Anal intercourse between two gay guys and anything two females can do together will not create children who need the protection of a legally binding contract whether the sex is later missed or not.
Marriage is a union based on a natural and normal sexual relationship between one man and one woman.
Gay sex is abnormal and unnatural.
Calling an unnatural and abnormal sexual relationship between two men or two women "marriage" implies that marriage is a sexual relationship which may be perverted, unnatural and abnormal.
The reason homosexuals want to get married is to normalize their abnormal sex by rebranding with the term "marriage".
Who knows? The idea is idiotic. Asking for idiocy to be explained is hopeless.
People have been marrying in various parts of the United States since 2004 and my marriage hasn't been 'demeaned' one bit.[/quote]
Perhaps not, but common sense has been drawn and quartered, set ablaze and lost in the mail.
Two gays may fall in love, but they don't need a marriage contract from the state to do it any more than I need a driver's license to ride a bike.
It's just stupid and a thinly veiled attempt to normalize abnormal sex by wrapping unnatural homosexual relationships in the legalese of marriage.
I don't have a opinion on that, pro or con. One thing I am pretty sure of though, republicans will avoid
this issue until after the Nov. elections.
It would be political suicide to come out on either side right now. That would be a no win situation, so,
I'll bet they dodge it until next year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
