oh yippie...another day I get to spend alone

Hello blackxbird

<Me> What time you get done with work?

<Girl> I get off at 6

<Me> No, you get done at 6, you get off at 9

<girl> *pauses to think about it*

<Me> *braces for slap*

<Girl> *try's to slap me like 50 times until finally giving up and walking away*

Um, no. Not really. It also used to be a deadly sin to eat pork. This was because people didn't have the means to cook it at a high enough temperature and they actually did die. This is just one example.

Pay attention to the details....I am saying the answer in my previous posts....that is the whole point....each person realize who they are, and then figure out ways to see others equal to yourself...

For example, the church I went to in Nashville Tn, is "INTER-RACIAL, INTER-DENOMINATIONAL, WITH AN INTER-NATIONAL MISSION"

It boils down to, whoever you are, any color, any financial background, all classes, homeless to multi-millionaires, ALL are welcome....the only people who would go to a church like that, are ones who realize that all races can peacefully co exist in a world that wants to cling onto racial issues and differences

that reminds me of a really bad pick up line...

My feeling is that marriage is both a religious and social institution that if it fits into the choices that two consenting adults want to promise to each other and the greater society it should be their bussiness and nobody elses.

Nobody made that choice for me when I picked my partner and I clearly do not see how I have that right to discriminate against anywone else wheather it be race, creed, nationality, mental ability, physical condition, or gender identification.

I believe thoughtful formal commitment to another is in the best interest of society in most relationships. It clearly defines the relationship; it's rights, responsibilities, and boundries. That it clearly honors, protects, and bonds families is my major reason to support it whole heartedly regardless if it "fits" my exact definition of the institution. I can think of nothing worse than telling someone who my child loves and loves them that I would not allow them the same privileges that I or their siblings enjoy. I don't believe in specific or second class definitions just because they don't exactly fit my own.

I think trying to put a gender identification on a term so that marriage means supposedly straight people and union means homosexual is trying to segregate and is definitely not ever going to be equal in anyones mind. I think reserving the marriage term for hetero sexual relationships is eleitest even if that isn't the intention. I also think there is a little bit of homophobia that straight married couples do not want to be associated in something that Gay people do. That few people strictly have a defined example of marriage makes all of this fuss interesting to me. Are we suddenly going to require all heterosexual couples to declare their sexual patterns as a subset of the definition of marriage. Will licenses say traditional, temporary, swinger ect.? I can remember a time when inter-racial couples were not thought to be capeable of the "traditional" definition of marriage and people have come to think differently. I see every day when people question wheather people with disabilities have a traditional marriage?

If Christian marriage is suppose to be the reflection of Christ's love in a partnership I don't remember it being specificlly defind by God or his appointed emmasaries as being gender specific; one man one woman. It is not addressed in the commandments or any words attributed to Christ to my knowlege but then I can not retain the entirity of the Bible as we know it. I will add I don't see the King James version interpretation as the absolute facts. Given that era's definition of marriage I am surprised the term survives at all today.

As far as what will be taught in schools I hate to break it too you but homosexual relationships have been being taught in schools for as long as recorded history. Just because something is taught in school does not mean it is fact or believed. Teaching your child your beliefs will always be the parents job. Teachers teach the common mores of society and their own views and nothing more or nothing less.

Churches or clergy can not be forced to perform marriages they do not endorse. Churches are private communities of voluntary memberships structured under the greater community of the faith. Some faiths preclude certain practices but they have not been forced to endorse marriages that do not support their definition of faith. Example; If I am divorced I can not marry in the Catholic Church without permition of the Pope not the State and I can't sue anyone for that. Makeing something a constituional right does not make it a practice of faith. When you are married by a minister you are not married in the eyes of the state unless you get a license.

It will be interesting to see how the election here in California turns out. There is a great deal of out of state money being spent to push forward view points that I don't necessarily believe are Californian's view points. There are a lot of people here who are not registered voters who still influence the electorate if not the judiciary.

ok not a problem, but why bring it up? Cause I am on a roll and that just sent me off finding research

Most of the time, it is not a 'choice' Look at the valid research! It is not a choice. There are some women (very small percentage) who have been severely abused by men and refuse to be in a relationship with a man. Homosexuality is not a choice. As a heterosexual, have you been asked why you are a heterosexual or been told its a choice.

And I'm sure all of you bible bumping freaks out there who oppose gay marriage, aren't having any pre-marital sex or getting divorced, right?

Ok, keep him there. There's one on the corner, let me through my pants on.....hey its my day off I was being lazy.

Ummmmm....was not denying them right their. I said I have a "moral" problem with it, but also stated that as humans they have rights. If I didn't say it, I am saying it now.

Yes...but you're comparing apples to oranges.
Gays have made progress despite the oppression posed against...I respect that !
However...I'm not going to like it when a gay couple sues my Church because they refused to allow them to get marriaged there.

Nor when the schools began teaching young boys that it's okay for two boys to get marriaged !