|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
posted February 25, 2005 08:04 AM |
|
|
To be perfectly honest, unless you are a person who has never fornicated, you are all equal to a homosexual in gods eyes. According to the bible homosexuals are grouped with fornicators. Just to point some hypocracy.
This is something that almost all Americans do. Any sex outside of marriage is fornication. The purpose of marriage is to create children.
I would tell this person to live their live knowing that the only reason for sex is for procreation. Virtually everyone in America breaks this law. Live your life however you must.
The bible has been mutated over the centuries the churches have been split apart, becoming less and less orthodox. I personally have no direct belief in the Bible, however I do have indirect beliefs that there are many truths in it. I try to live my life in moderation as best I can.
I have stuck to what I feel is right. The marriage has lost what it used to be. The way I truly feel is that there is no right answer to this question. We live in an imperfect world.
However I personally would not get married if I did not think that I was going to have children. This is simply the way I feel. If I was an old man and divorced or separated by death, I may or may not try to find another partner. However I would not get married. If I was gay I would not get married.
Marriage is meant for raising a family. The love a couple expresses for one another is what is most important for creating a child. Love is the very thing that makes us alive beings.
Marriage is a tool that should be shared between two people when they feel that they are ready to raise children.
I do not look down upon people who are in love that get married, that have no means to ever raising children. However I disagree with that sort of marriage somewhat. I feel that the marriage is dormant or at the least rushed into. It's not doing as much as it could or should be doing.
However, I really dislike the attitude that is given off from many homosexuals about issues like this. Granted I can sort of understand where you are coming from, I feel that there is a lot of finger pointing coming both sides. I feel that many homosexual couples are getting married, just because they can. And this does not in anyway separate them from the rest of society. People walk all over the foundation and purpose of marriage everyday.
But something that I really think society should stop doing is judging people so harshly. I think that so many people are prejudged based on how they look, whether or not they smoke, what kind of clothes they wear or what their homosexuality is, because it really doesn't matter.
That is what is so great about online forums like HC. There's no prejudgements. It's simply pure interaction. Here, we are purely judged on our actions and on the character of who we are.
As a final general statement, I think that at the least if two people get married they should be in love for an extended period of time. However I still feel that raising children is just as important for the marriage as the marriage is for the raising of children if done responsibly.
As a conclusion, I really feel that there should be no issue at hand given that society as a whole treats marriage like a garbage can.
As far as legally, constitution wise, the marriage shouldn't be legal as it's a religious practice. (separation of church and state) Everyone should have civil unions there should be no legal marriage.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
gorman
Promising
Legendary Hero
Been around since before 2003
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 08:15 AM |
|
|
Isn't that all anyone can really do is what they believe is the right thing? No matter how hard it seems to be to do, it has to be done. Though many people don't, or simply choose not to. People that do the right thing could be considered heroes in someone's eyes.
____________
When all else fails... Take notes.... ALL the time... ESPECIALLY when playing D&D.... or Pokemon in my case
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 02:33 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 25 Feb 2005
|
Quote:
Ask me for evidence, and I will simply point you to a Bible. I’m no arguer, activist, or politician, but I’m not a bigot either. I just hope that, while my reasons for taking this stand seem ridiculous to many of you, that you respect my beliefs as I respect yours, even though I disagree with your views. That’s all I ask.
Shadowcaster,
Yourse is one of the most honest posts I've seen in a long time. You walk with your head up, and that says alot. I have a new respect for you, even if I totally disagree with you. 
This kind of posts shows what we can accomplish on this board. I would not want everyone to agree with me, there would be no point. So I appreciate people like you and Consis because they are honest and respectfull.
Anyways, you are right, the religion argument does not hold up with me. It doesn't mean much to me. The Bible is filled with other contradictions and things that we do today. Why only choose what we want to hear?
If you want, I could give you some of the contradictions I've found.
I am one of those people that have read the Bible. And that is the reason I decided to become Atheist; even with my strong sense of spiritualism. The bible is the reason I don't like religion much anymore...
RSF,
I find that marriage has nothing to do with children. Not many people agree with me here. But that's cool.
I can love my wife just as much if I am married or not. I can have children if I am married or not. Marriage, in my mind, does not add stability. If someone is marrying to stabilize his/her couple, they are going to have problems sooner or later. I don't need to wed my wife to pled I'll stay with her for ever - I can only tell her.
For me, marriage is an act between to people, that does not include kids. I will not get married to create a family. My daughter, my wife and my dog are my family. I am not married - yet I have a family. I will get married later, for reasons other than that. And it won't be under god's word or have any religious conotation. It will be a spiritual act. One that me and my wife will share.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 06:11 PM |
|
|
Since I must reply to posts on two pages, I will be returning in a few minutes to edit this post and add comments from the other page.
First of all, Shadowcaster: I second the comment about the admirable level of honesty in your post. Well done. Now, that said, I have a comment for both you and RSF.
1. PERSON V. SOCIETY
There are really two distinct issues we are talking about here, and we should note and attend to the difference between them. The first issue is one's personal beliefs. The second issue is society's norms.
In other words, if a person doesn't believe in gay marriage, then I suggest the appropriate action for that person to take is not to marry an individual of the same sex. That's easy.
The second question, the question at the root of this dialogue, is: should your personal position be foisted upon the rest of society, including those who do not share your religion and stance on this issue, when there are a significant number of individuals who are directly, adversely affected by your stance?
2. STATIC V. DYNAMIC SOCIETY
The tension behind the social morality struggle we are facing with gay marriages is very simple. It is the tension between two opposing principles.
1) Static orthodoxy -- the religious stance that society must be structured according to certain unchanging principles, or else it will deteriorate into an immoral state.
2) Evolutionary society -- the notion that social norms can change over time to adapt to new developments in humanity without those changes leading to social deterioration.
3. FREEDOM REQUIRES EQUALITY: THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR SOCIAL CHANGE AND IMPROVEMENT
Shadowcaster wrote:Quote:
I now have no doubt in my mind that homosexuality is not a conscious decision, and yet we Americans, who you claim should have adapted to some "modern" thought process due to past civil excursions of women, blacks, and other minorities, still remain split on the issue. I began to ask myself why.
All people tend to resist social changes that do not benefit them directly. This is not some great clue to suggest that the change contemplated is something evil. It is simply human nature. Black men resisted women's sufferage. White women resisted intergration. Mostly everybody but Indians continue to resist the re-establishment of sovereignty on Tribal lands -- especially non-Indian people who live on those lands. The fact that non-homosexual people, including Blacks, women, and others who have benefitted from the Civil Rights Movement, resist changes to the institution of marriage to include homosexuals, is no different.
One of the primary arguments against homosexual unions is that they are forbidden in the Bible and that legitimizing them would lead to social deterioration. Yet there is absolutely nothing in the Bible about democracy last time I checked. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, you guys. But the societies described in the Bible are just about anything but "democratic."
And yet we have structured this new form of government because of the notion of "freedom" espoused by several 18th and 19th century philosophers started this discussion. It is now, presumably, not only the foundation of our country (the US) and several others, but also widely touted by even the most Fundamentalist of Christians as the pinnacle of human society. We are "One Nation Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice For All."
I use this as an example of how society can adapt in response to the evolution of the human condition, continuing enlightenment, and in general, change, without that change necessarily implying social deterioration. In fact, some changes are considered great advances. The question is, how can we assess and distinguish desirable changes from undesirable ones? Should we be looking to the Bible for guidance, in a society structured on a Constitution which separates Church from State?
4. YOUR FREEDOM TO SWING YOUR FIST STOPS AT MY FACE
The philosophical principle of a "free society" is one where its constituents can engage in actions which do not actually harm others. This is the ultimate goal and limit of "Liberty And Justice For All." I submit to you that the only harm homosexual marriage causes is in other peoples' heads. Let me be real clear here. Consis (I'm sure you were writing at the same time I was and had not read this post yet): if homosexuals were getting married and you did not know about it, then you could not possibly be "harmed" in any way. How can something harm you simply by your awareness of it? The only harm to you is in rour own reaction to knowing about it. If this constitutes harm worthy of prohibiting gay unions, then I can just as easily say (assuming I were gay) that I am harmed by other individuals engaging in heterosexual unions, or the practice of Christianity, or anything else that (presumably) does not force me to do something against my own personal beliefs.
5. WHERE DID MARRIAGE COME FROM? WHAT IS IT NOW? CAN IT CHANGE?
Which brings us to the notion that marriage is getting trampled on because it no longer only serves the purpose of producing children (as RSF wrote). Well, the latter proposition (it no longer only serves the purpose of producing children) is true, as I have conceded and even affirmateively argued many times in this thread, marriage as an institution did in fact begin for that purpose (and also determining lineage and property rights). And yes, the institution is changing. But one cannot merely say the institution exists for the sole purpose of producing children, when for several hundred years now it has not existed solely for that purpose. In other words, marriage as an institution has already evolved beyond its original purpose.
We have two choices in response: we can either acknowledge that evolution, or we can characterize the change as deterioration. Which returns us to the aforementioned tension between to fundamental beliefs about society (static versus dynamic). I submit that it is not the institution of marriage that has "deteriorated," but other aspects of society surrounding it.
While sex out of wedlock is a commonly accepted practice in this society, people are still getting married. Why are they doing that? They are doing it because the meaning of the institution stands for much more than just procreation now. It stands for love, economy, and social legitimacy. Marriage still exists, it's just for many additional purposes now.
CONCLUSION
Society can and does change in response to human development. Change in itself is not a bad thing. The guiding principle behind the change is whether it serves the purpose of the society's philosophy. "Freedom" is at the root of Modern American society. Freedom does not exist without equality. If a given proposed change serves to provide greater individual freedom and does not cause harm to others, then it should be pursued.
Heterosexuals will not be forced to do something against their personal beliefs if homosexual unions are legitimized. A greater level of equality will be achieved by this change. On the other hand, the current situation does foist the beliefs of heterosexuals on homosexuals, maintaining the inequality, not only excluding them from the legal and financial benefits but also depriving them of the social legitimacy that comes from the institution of marriage.
The heart of the issue is what kind of society we really want. Do we stand for freedom or not? We cannot have a society in which some individuals are more "equal" than others, if "Liberty And Justice For All" is to mean anything.
_________________________________________________
Asmo: ROFL Great post man. I think you and Shadowcaster both deserve red stars: while his was clearly more respectful in its tone, yours was extremely well-written and humorous, even though quite edgy.
Lews: Where the hell have you been, man? I have sure missed you. Its so good to hear from you finally. And thanks for clarification on the origins of the letter.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 25, 2005 07:06 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 25 Feb 2005
|
My Thoughts - a given ;)
Asmodean,
The first thing that I want to talk about is courage. I've done my homework on your country, Ireland. I know that for you to be openly gay in a country where something like over 90% of the population is catholic is no small thing. When I first heard that you are gay, I asked myself if you will be like most of the American gay people that I have encountered. Most, as I described in my short elevator synopsis, are not only open and quite verbal but also extremely rude and overbearing. Much of the time when I try to listen to such people, I am left feeling pushed into an ideological corner thus being forced to answer 'loaded-questions'. I really don't like people literally screaming in anger that "their people are being oppressed". It takes courage to say what you say Asmodean; especially given the nature of the large majority of your own country. What I like most about you is that you do not approach my thoughts with anger and overbearance. You really are so respectful that it makes me want to hear more of what you think. This is very important to me. This is why I only want to listen you and not any other gay person that I have met. You have two qualities that I often write about in my Heroes & Heroines thread. You have shown me great courage and great respect. I will try to respond with as much courtesy as you have shown me. Please forgive if I am not as respectful. I blame my life as a parent who is constantly trying to keep order among rampant monkeys  . It tends to give my courtesy a bit of a rough edge when it comes to debate.
Quote:
(Quick side question, what's worse - Living with your gay lover or lying at your big fancy church weding when you tell some poor woman/man that you'll cherish and love them forever, and then conceiving a child to be brought up in a loveless marriage? REALLY think about it)
I must concede that you have an excellent point. I agree that you are right. It is worse to lie and create children in a lie.
I won't use religion, or the bible, or any sort of God-reference to my argument. Perhaps this will help with my delivery of opinion to you. This is exactly my argument: Being gay makes no difference to me. Being gay and living with a partner while sharing all the legal responsibilities makes no difference to me. Being gay and married is an unknown area of question to me........ Being gay, living together, being married, and attempting to raise children is my most opposed circumstance. This is my greatest concern. I believe that raising a child under two of the same sex will only lead that child to harbor great disrespect for the absent sex. It is a complete and utter lie to lead a child to think that he or she came from two of the same sex. No matter how you slice it, word it, preach it, paint it, cut it, toss it in the proverbial air, or any other means of description, children do in fact come from a woman and a man. This is the truth. This is what I believe. No matter if you are an orphan, raised by a single mother/father, or otherwise, a child does in fact come from a man and a woman.
Because I believe this and practice it, I am led to also believe that any gay couple who lives together, shares all responsibilities, is married, and then seeks to enter into parenthood is nothing short of a hallucinatory utopian madness. It is nothing short of teaching humanity to defeat itself by accepting that procreation is a myth.
I won't march against gay people whether they live together or not. I won't march against gay people who manage to find a minority bench of judge advocates who openly accept gay marriage. I will, however, march against bringing a child into a homosexual marriage. I feel it threatens everything my own marriage represents.
There you have it: no references to God, any religion, or any sacred text. My argument is based solely on the importance of procreation within a marriage.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 07:42 PM |
|
|
ADDENDUM TO THE ABOVE POST:
Consis: (Please see my post above) I was wondering if you personally knew any children who have been or are being raised in a gay union. I do. I have also reviewed the behavioral studies on this issue.
I have neither witnessed directly, nor found in the academic literature, anything whatsoever to support the notion that children raised in gay marriages are harmed by it, except for the fact that they suffer a certain amount of social ridicule. The gay couples I know make no effort whatsoever to hide the fact that their children were produced by mommy and daddy, or any other such thing.
I submit to you that continuing to deny social legitimacy to gay partnerships is at the heart of that negative social pressure. One cannot look to the very denial of legitimizing the social institution causing the dysfunction, to further justify its ongoing denial.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 07:54 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 25 Feb 2005
|
Consis,
So you are for gay mariage then? You are only against adopting kids in a gay couple? Because getting married and adopting kids are 2 different things; well, to me anyways. One does not lead to the other.
Please explain.
On the flipside:
I've always wondered why people where against gay mariages... What do they lose from it? What does it matter to me if 2 guys get married? It does not affect me in any way. To me, one's beleifs (in religion) is considered wrong when they lead you to judge fellow human beeing's actions. Who are we to judge? does following a certain faith allow one individual judge another?
To play devil's advocate:
Quote:
I was wondering if you personally knew any children who have been or are being raised in a gay union. I do. I have also reviewed the behavioral studies on this issue.
I have neither witnessed directly, nor found in the academic literature, anything whatsoever to support the notion that children raised in gay marriages are harmed by it, except for the fact that they suffer a certain amount of social ridicule.
Freud.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 08:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Being gay, living together, being married, and attempting to raise children is my most opposed circumstance. This is my greatest concern.
I'm with you on this one. Send the little brats to rot in an underfunded orphanage. No dads is a much better than two dads.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 08:41 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 25 Feb 2005
|
Peacemaker,
I don't know nor have ever known any children raised under a gay relationship. It won't bother me as long as they aren't married.
Conan,
I'm not against New Hampshire or Canada voting to support gay marriage. I'm against it coming to my state. I will not vote in favor of gay marriage in my state at this time. If gay couples wanted to get married in Canada or the New England area and then travel to my state then I don't have a problem with that. But I will not openly support gay marriage. If my children see such a couple and ask me the nature of the same-sex persons' relationship, I will tell them that adults can have any relationship they want. It is in no way a true marriage however. I will tell my children that they are not truly married and that I will never accept such a concept.
bort,
I think that's fine if a gay couple want to adopt as long as the two are not married and they tell the child, when he/she is old enough, that all human beings are born from a man and a woman. I've known many social workers who were very good at their jobs. I trust that they could successfully determine a healthy environment for a child to be raised in. A gay couple can have their own ceremony, call it whatever they want, and even wear rings if they want; I don't care. I refuse to support adoption in my resident state so long as the gay couple is legally married.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 08:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Conan,
I'm not against New Hampshire or Canada voting to support gay marriage. I'm against it coming to my state. I will not vote in favor of gay marriage in my state at this time. If gay couples wanted to get married in Canada or the New England area and then travel to my state then I don't have a problem with that. But I will not openly support gay marriage. If my children see such a couple and ask me the nature of the same-sex persons' relationship, I will tell them that adults can have any relationship they want. It is in no way a true marriage however. I will tell my children that they are not truly married and that I will never accept such a concept.
But why? the arguments you provided where of children living with same sex couples and I understand your views. But same sex marriage, why? I have not yet seen an argument that is not based from religion. Why is it a same sex marriage is not a true marriage?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted February 26, 2005 07:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Asmo: ROFL Great post man. I think you and Shadowcaster both deserve red stars: while his was clearly more respectful in its tone, yours was extremely well-written and humorous, even though quite edgy.
I completely disagree. I think Asmo's post was one of the most hateful things I've ever seen from him on this board.
In response to a few other things from Peacemaker.
Where you say that this is leading towards the evolution of mankind, I must disagree. I feel like society as a whole is acting like a bunch of rebelious teenagers, using words of freedom etc... to get what they want. But this goes into lobbyists and other things that I hate about our society.
But like I said before, I think that most people don't take marriage the way it should be taken. Also I think my statement about having children is the purpose of marriage was a bit misunderstood.
I said that a couple shouldn't get married if they aren't ready to have a child. Raising a child requires a strong relationship that cannot be broken. Marriage is supposed to be FOR LIFE!!!! But society ignores this. People go into marriage knowing they can just get divorced if things don't work out, whether or not they think they are. If people were to put heavy restrictions on the process of divorce, I bet people would think a hell of a lot more about getting married. Getting married is becoming more and more taken for granted every year. Marriages are unsuccessful, because people don't remember that it's meant to be for life.
Now Peacemaker, did I ever say that I thought homosexuals shouldn't get be allowed to get married? No I did not. However I think that if they got married it would be the same as what the rest of society is doing.
So to be honest I could care less if homosexuals or the rest of society wants to get married. I will do as I wish. They will do as they wish. I will do what I think is best in my own heart. I will not judge on those for the choices they make, but on the character from which they made those choices. If I see someone try to do what they think is best, I will not judge a person for doing that. However if I see someone do something selfish and hurt others in the process, I will most certainly judge that person.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 26, 2005 08:17 AM |
|
|
RSF - I'm intrigued by your comment (not offended btw) but I wishb you'd have given reasons WHY you said what you did.
The reason I wrote my post in the way I did is not through any deep abiding hate for Christainity or religion in general, but the people who practise it.
Religion as I see it is a pure thing that has been diluted over the years by those who practise it. Sacrificing ideals for practicality and 'the modern way'.
Whether this is cutting your hair or believing the world is round it boils down to the same thing.
{b]Concis
I don't believe that I've ever said that I wanted to ahve children. It's an attractive notion sometimes, but to me utterly realistic. As to denying the fact of procreation - for Gods' sake Man!!! I study biology at university!!!
Britain, where I live - is set to legalize gay unions before the end of this year. I advise you to look out (or avoid if you're sensible) for Elton John's wedding.
And that's what it'll be.
A wedding!!!
Civil union/partnership whatever. There are thousands of straight couples that register every year without any church conotations and still call the ceremony a wedding.
No-one's yet to say that they AREN'T wedings and the same will hold true for the gay unions....I mean weddings 
But I appreciated your kind words, and even though I can't appreciate personally your viewpoint (and vice-versa I'm sure) I respect that we can still have this discusssion.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted February 26, 2005 09:01 AM |
|
|
Well there are a few things that come out of the bible, that have more truths about life than ever possible. Some of these things I have adopted for how I wish to live my life, however I do not have any real attachments to the faith of Christianity or any other religion.
One of those is to not judge others. To let God judge others. I'm not really sure about religious stuff, because I simply don't know what to think anymore. So I'll leave it as not judging others, so that's why I don't care whether or not people get married. It's their choice, so long as their intentions are meant for good. I don't think you should judge Shadowcaster for sticking to his opinion.
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted February 26, 2005 08:18 PM |
|
|
Just letting you guys know I am still here and alive, and I do plan to post soon. I am just gathering my thoughts at the moment.
____________
>_>
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 26, 2005 08:39 PM |
|
|
Open Debate
I see nothing but civility. Everyone's opinion holds equal weight. Disagreements are respectful and open. Times like this remind me why I enjoy visiting Heroes Community.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 28, 2005 04:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I see nothing but civility. Everyone's opinion holds equal weight. Disagreements are respectful and open. Times like this remind me why I enjoy visiting Heroes Community.
Good point, I agree. I enjoy reading other posts in contrast with my views because everyone seems to be very respectfull of each other.
Bravo!
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 01, 2005 01:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think that's fine if a gay couple want to adopt as long as the two are not married and they tell the child, when he/she is old enough, that all human beings are born from a man and a woman……….. I refuse to support adoption in my resident state so long as the gay couple is legally married.
So, whats the argument here? Its clearly not that you fear the child would grow into a “gay freak” or smth. You are OK if they are married, you are OK if they adopt, but they cant have them both. This is problematic from a simply logical point of view. If arguments in separate cases support gay rights, why wouldn’t the still same arguments support both marriage and adoption at the same time?
And u made me laugh when you mentioned that gay parent should tell their child it takes a man and a woman for a new kid. Indeed a crucial condition. Imagine the boy when he grows up, he gets frustrated because he’s a hetero, so he thinks he wont be able to have kids.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 06:32 AM |
|
|
Marriege is just a piece od paper making it legal.
Love is where it's at & you cant change a persons outcome to be gay or not, what is your guys deal here lol.
A kid adopted with gay couple or straight dont matter, if you love a child, then they will grow up normally.
For christ sakes they are not going to raise the kid to be gay you know.
It's not heredity & you cant just become gay because of a gay couple.
You find certain thangs you love & thats just the way life is, period.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 15, 2005 02:07 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 14 Mar 2005
|
Good Old California
Well guess who voted for another gay-marriage-ban being unconstitutional? Good old California. And I hear the judges decision is going to be taken up with the California supreme court where I have no doubt it will pass. Everyone already knows San Fransisco is the leading gay marriage supporter in America anyway. This comes as no surprise to me.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 15, 2005 04:12 AM |
|
|
Consis, it only makes sense. California has the highest population density of liberals of anywhere in the country. Especially southern California.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
