|
|
|
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:01:32 PM
Posts: 1,038,
Visits: 1,940
|
|
And Mags - I totally agree. HAWT!!
 Became a Mrs on the 20th of October 2007
Becoming a mommy around the 30th January 2009! ^^*Barrister Osmosis*^^
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/1/2008 12:32:15 PM
Posts: 65,
Visits: 1,661
|
|
I agree that it is a step in the right direction but still, ideally, wrong. It's saying that it's ok but not really ok. It must be so very painful to want to get married to the person you love and not be able to do so. I can't imagine how hard that must be.
Still Easy,,,what can I say?
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/1/2008 12:32:15 PM
Posts: 65,
Visits: 1,661
|
|
and personally, I think Ellen is hot herself. THey are a gorgeous couple.
Still Easy,,,what can I say?
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:42:24 PM
Posts: 562,
Visits: 516
|
|
MEB (8/22/2008)
I agree with 32 flavors on this, BUT I DO think that Civil Union would at least be a step in the right direction. In Quebec, in 2002, they passed a law allowing gay (or straight) couple to civilyunite. Civil union had ALL the same rights and obligations as a marriage (one of the advantages was that a divorce could be done by the signing of a divorce agreement, instead of going through the courts...but that's another subject alltogether.) In 2005 gay marriage was allowed (they changed the definition in the law to «two persons» instead of «a man and a woman».) I honestly believe that civil union was a stepping stone to allowing gay marriage. That's why I would be FOR a civil union system in the US. Just because I think that if THAT'S allowed, then courts will have a rough time explaining why same-sex mariage ISN'T. Does that make sense? Also, I DON'T agree with Obama's stance that we can't allow gay marriage because that would force the churches hands. Churches will ALWAYS have a choice NOT to marry same sex couples. No catholic church in Qc will NEVER marry a same sex couple, but gay mariage is STILL legal. Making gay mariage legal, doesn't force the church to perform them. That's just a load of ballony - he wants to please both sides (as all politicians do). I understand what you are saying. But at the same time I feel like making civil unions legal but not same-sex marriage allows people to just become complacent about it (both LGBTTQ activists as well as politicians). If a change is going to be made it might as well go all the way rather than creating a two-tier system of domestic partnership. And besides, it kinda kills the mood when a man gets down on bended knee, professes his love for his boyfriend, and then says "will you civil union me?" 
|
|
|
|
|
Planning Addict
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/26/2008 6:21:45 PM
Posts: 1,070,
Visits: 6,007
|
|
32flavors (8/22/2008)
MEB (8/22/2008)
I agree with 32 flavors on this, BUT I DO think that Civil Union would at least be a step in the right direction. In Quebec, in 2002, they passed a law allowing gay (or straight) couple to civilyunite. Civil union had ALL the same rights and obligations as a marriage (one of the advantages was that a divorce could be done by the signing of a divorce agreement, instead of going through the courts...but that's another subject alltogether.) In 2005 gay marriage was allowed (they changed the definition in the law to «two persons» instead of «a man and a woman».) I honestly believe that civil union was a stepping stone to allowing gay marriage. That's why I would be FOR a civil union system in the US. Just because I think that if THAT'S allowed, then courts will have a rough time explaining why same-sex mariage ISN'T. Does that make sense? Also, I DON'T agree with Obama's stance that we can't allow gay marriage because that would force the churches hands. Churches will ALWAYS have a choice NOT to marry same sex couples. No catholic church in Qc will NEVER marry a same sex couple, but gay mariage is STILL legal. Making gay mariage legal, doesn't force the church to perform them. That's just a load of ballony - he wants to please both sides (as all politicians do). I understand what you are saying. But at the same time I feel like making civil unions legal but not same-sex marriage allows people to just become complacent about it (both LGBTTQ activists as well as politicians). If a change is going to be made it might as well go all the way rather than creating a two-tier system of domestic partnership. And besides, it kinda kills the mood when a man gets down on bended knee, professes his love for his boyfriend, and then says "will you civil union me?" Ha ha I love it! You're right though, its doesn't have the same ring to it!
~*B&B6 ~ May 24th 2008*~
Kinky as a cheap garden hose
~ or ~
Pure as the new fallen snow (thats been plowed a bit)
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/1/2008 12:32:15 PM
Posts: 65,
Visits: 1,661
|
|
lol...now that's so true. Just not quite the same is it?
Still Easy,,,what can I say?
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:45:51 AM
Posts: 905,
Visits: 2,316
|
|
32flavors (8/22/2008)
MEB (8/22/2008)
I agree with 32 flavors on this, BUT I DO think that Civil Union would at least be a step in the right direction. In Quebec, in 2002, they passed a law allowing gay (or straight) couple to civilyunite. Civil union had ALL the same rights and obligations as a marriage (one of the advantages was that a divorce could be done by the signing of a divorce agreement, instead of going through the courts...but that's another subject alltogether.) In 2005 gay marriage was allowed (they | | | |