Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 07, 2006, 11:27:21 PM
-
Pretty clear the "bigoted" overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want this:
Eight states had ban-same-sex-marriage amendments on their ballots. Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia joined Wisconsin in approving them, according to projections. Results were pending in Arizona, Colorado and South Dakota.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.measures.ap/index.html
-
:)
I’m not worried. The reason all these “bans” are popping up is because they know it is going to happen. It’s already happening. Cities, states, and local governments are already starting to recognize gay marriage/civil unions. It’s happening in VT, MA, CA, NY, and most recently in NJ.
Sure, there will be holdouts, but eventually every single domino is going to fall. If nothing else competition and $ will make them fall. States that don’t offer equality will lose professionals who have the option to leave and they will take their money with them.
Already, virtually all of the top universities in the country offer domestic partner benefits to G&L couples because they started to lose faculty to the competition if they didn’t offer it. $ talks louder than bigotry or religion. As more and more outspoken conservatives are outed (there are a lot more Ted Haggards out there) the movement against G&L unions will continue to lose its “moral” authority.
Conservatives are not going to win this one and they know it. Even intolerant people like Dick and Lynne Cheney had to suck up the fact that their daughter is a big old dyke and she has a long time lover.
The “problem” with gays and lesbians is that we are YOU. We are your kids, your brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, your teachers, your pastors, reverends, firemen, policemen, politicians, actors, singers, and everything else. It’s easy to hate an anonymous gay boogieman... but it’s harder to deny equality to your own child, sister, etc.
-
MEXICO CITY - Mexico City's assembly on Thursday voted for the first time in the country's history to legally recognize gay civil unions, a measure that will provide same-sex couples with benefits similar to those of married couples. The mayor was expected to sign the measure into law.
The bill, which does not approve gay marriage, allows same-sex couples to register their union with civil authorities, granting them inheritance and pension rights, as well as other social benefits. Lawmakers were still finalizing the details.
Heterosexual couples who are not legally married can also be registered under the legislation.
The bill was severely criticized by the Catholic Church and conservative civil groups. It passed by a vote of 43-17, with all the opposition coming from the National Action Party of President Vicente Fox and president-elect Felipe Calderon.
The party is known for its opposition to abortion and its support for traditional families.
Mexico City is a federal district with its own legislature, and the law will apply only to residents of the capital, with a population of 8.7 million. This is the first time any state legislature has approved such a law anywhere in Mexico.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_gay_unions
-
the reason these bans are popping up is cause they dont want it to happen, you and youre little disease ridden community are just gonna have to wait till society is ready :)
-
a simple solution would be to give gay people a legalized union with another name, like a "queerage" or something
but that wouldnt make teh fags happy cause their main goal here is to make the rest of the country eat shit by forcing them to acknowledge their union, being allowed to f**k each other into immuno deficiency just isnt enough anymore :D
in my humble opinion we should let em do it but charge them 10x as much for a licence and make some $$$ off of their illusions
-
:)
I’m not worried. The reason all these “bans” are popping up is because they know it is going to happen. It’s already happening. Cities, states, and local governments are already starting to recognize gay marriage/civil unions. It’s happening in VT, MA, CA, NY, and most recently in NJ.
Sure, there will be holdouts, but eventually every single domino is going to fall. If nothing else competition and $ will make them fall. States that don’t offer equality will lose professionals who have the option to leave and they will take their money with them.
Already, virtually all of the top universities in the country offer domestic partner benefits to G&L couples because they started to lose faculty to the competition if they didn’t offer it. $ talks louder than bigotry or religion. As more and more outspoken conservatives are outed (there are a lot more Ted Haggards out there) the movement against G&L unions will continue to lose its “moral” authority.
Conservatives are not going to win this one and they know it. Even intolerant people like Dick and Lynne Cheney had to suck up the fact that their daughter is a big old dyke and she has a long time lover.
The “problem” with gays and lesbians is that we are YOU. We are your kids, your brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, your teachers, your pastors, reverends, firemen, policemen, politicians, actors, singers, and everything else. It’s easy to hate an anonymous gay boogieman... but it’s harder to deny equality to your own child, sister, etc.
Interesting argument: the public is voting to ban same sex marriage at the state and federal levels because they know same sex marriage is going to happen. I disagree.
I think the overwhelming majority of people vote to preserve traditional marriage, because they are opposed to same sex marriage. Nothing more complicated than that. It isn't about "hate." I don't hate gays at all (I wouldn't be hiring them if I did), but I voted to preserve traditional marriage in Hawaii when the matter came up for a vote, along with tens of thousands of my liberal neighbors.
-
How do gay marriages work in the US? Do they get "married" under a Church? Is there any religious aspect to these marriages as there are to hetero marriages? ???
-
Interesting argument: the public is voting to ban same sex marriage at the state and federal levels because they know same sex marriage is going to happen. I disagree.
I think the overwhelming majority of people vote to preserve traditional marriage, because they are opposed to same sex marriage. Nothing more complicated than that. It isn't about "hate." I don't hate gays at all (I wouldn't be hiring them if I did), but I voted to preserve traditional marriage in Hawaii when the matter came up for a vote, along with tens of thousands of my liberal neighbors.
Maybe... but I think increasingly people (especially young people) are going to be asking themselves what exactly are we “preserving.” When every other person you know is on their second or third marriage, or otherwise living in “sin” marriage seems a lot less “sacred.”
By the way, I don’t think most G&L care about the nomenclature. All some of us want is equal protection under the law. I say "some" because not all G&L are even interested in getting married--just like not all straight people are interested in it.
We can debate until the cows come home, but I’m content to let history prove my arguments. G&L unions are already widely recognized in Europe and other countries... it’s already happening in several states here and it will continue to happen even as (old) people aggressively try to “protect” traditional marriage.
As G&L unions become more visible (they are already common) young people will conclude that they have bigger fish to fry with their emotional energy and resources such as working, raising their kids, or investing in the viability of their own relationships.
It used to be when your daughter had a child of wedlock, you ran her out of town to avoid the shame of it all. Virtually no one does that anymore. Some people still throw out their G&L kids when they come out and cut them off from the family (Alan Keyes and his wife for example) but the number of people who react that way is nearing a perigee.
-
How do gay marriages work in the US? Do they get "married" under a Church? Is there any religious aspect to these marriages as there are to hetero marriages? ???
Just as in straight marriage, that depends on the couple. I have attended commitment ceremonies that were held in churches and heavily religious and some that were civil or nearly void of religious overtones.
-
Just as in straight marriage, that depends on the couple. I have attended commitment ceremonies that were held in churches and heavily religious and some that were civil or nearly void of religious overtones.
I don't mind civil unions, but how can gays possibly be allowed to get "married" in a religious institude like a Church? The bible clearly condemns homosexual behaviour.
-
I don't mind civil unions, but how can gays possibly be allowed to get "married" in a religious institude like a Church? The bible clearly condemns homosexual behaviour.
Don’t you know any openly gay and lesbian people? Maybe if you talked to them you’d learn a bit about the diversity of world views around you.
Obviously, not everyone reads or interprets the bible the same way; not everyone thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality. There are many reverends, pastors, priests, churches, and synagogues that are very welcoming of gays and lesbians.
-
Don’t you know any openly gay and lesbian people? Maybe if you talked to them you’d learn a bit about the diversity of world views around you.
Obviously, not everyone reads or interprets the bible the same way; not everything thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality. There are many reverends, pastors, priests, churches, and synagogues that are very welcoming of gays and lesbians.
Sounds like you're bending the rules to suit... infact it's a fact these people are...
-
Maybe... but I think increasingly people (especially young people) are going to be asking themselves what exactly are we “preserving.” When every other person you know is on their second or third marriage, or otherwise living in “sin” marriage seems a lot less “sacred.”
By the way, I don’t think most G&L care about the nomenclature. All some of us want is equal protection under the law. I say "some" because not all G&L are even interested in getting married--just like not all straight people are interested in it.
We can debate until the cows come home, but I’m content to let history prove my arguments. G&L unions are already widely recognized in Europe and other countries... it’s already happening in several states here and it will continue to happen even as (old) people aggressively try to “protect” traditional marriage.
As G&L unions become more visible (they are already common) young people will conclude that they have bigger fish to fry with their emotional energy and resources such working, raising their kids, or investing in viability of their own relationships.
It used to be when your daughter had a child of wedlock, you ran her out of town to avoid the shame of it all. Virtually no one does that anymore. Some people still throw out their G&L kids when they come out and cut them off from the family (Alan Keyes and his wife for example) but the number of people who react that way is nearing a perigee.
The fact that the divorce rate is astronomically high and people break their vows does not support an argument for gay marriage at all IMO. The institution is sacred. It's the people who screw up the institution. It's sort of like our democracy. On paper, it is a near flawless system. Simply outstanding. In practice, you get a Congressman chasing boys, a Congressman accepting a bribe, and a president having an affair with an intern in the White House while conducting official business. It's still a great system, but with flawed people.
I do not believe this debate is truly about marriage. A number of states have reciprocal beneficiaries laws that give unmarried people some of the same rights as married people. What this debate is about is the homosexual movement's attempt to further legitimize the lifestyle. In fact, it is an attempt to force people to accept the lifestyle.
That said, you are probably right that the day is coming when all of the stigma associated with the lifestyle will be gone and Jack can marry John in any state in the country.
BTW, I'm actually very interested to see how the federal Defense of Marriage Act will be interpreted by the Supremes.
-
Sounds like you're bending the rules to suit... infact it's a fact these people are...
Absolutely correct. There are some gray areas in the Bible. Condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle is not one of them. The only interpretation that endorses homosexuality is a tortured one.
-
The fact that the divorce rate is astronomically high and people break their vows does not support an argument for gay marriage at all IMO. The institution is sacred. It's the people who screw up the institution. It's sort of like our democracy. On paper, it is a near flawless system. Simply outstanding. In practice, you get a Congressman chasing boys, a Congressman accepting a bribe, and a president having an affair with an intern in the White House while conducting official business. It's still a great system, but with flawed people.
I do not believe this debate is truly about marriage. A number of states have reciprocal beneficiaries laws that give unmarried people some of the same rights as married people. What this debate is about is the homosexual movement's attempt to further legitimize the lifestyle. In fact, it is an attempt to force people to accept the lifestyle.
That said, you are probably right that the day is coming when all of the stigma associated with the lifestyle will be gone and Jack can marry John in any state in the country.
BTW, I'm actually very interested to see how the federal Defense of Marriage Act will be interpreted by the Supremes.
Well said, bro! Well said!
-
any argument involving the term "sacred" speaks for itself ;)
-
any argument involving the term "sacred" speaks for itself ;)
My thoughts exactly. ::)
-
Nothing like using a word with religious connotations to get anti-Jesus freaks' panties in a bunch. The office of the presidency is sacred. The family unit is sacred. Marital vows are sacred. This thread isn't really about religion, but you cannot escape the fact that religious values permeate our democracy.
-
Things aren’t sacred because we say they are. They are sacred because we treat them as if they are. Marriage sacred? Ask Ted Haggard and Brittney Spears... ha ha ha (mocking laughter)
Isn’t Tom Cruise headed into his third marriage? ha ha ha (more mocking laughter)
Is wearing white on her wedding day sacred? ha ha ha ha ha
-
Marriage has always tradionally meant a union between man and woman. Why should this definition be changed to please a bunch of fags?
Clubber Lang has got the right idea, don't call a same sex union marriage. Istead it should be known as "buttbuddyism" or some other weird name.
-
Things aren’t sacred because we say they are. They are sacred because we treat them as if they are. Marriage sacred? Ask Ted Haggard and Brittney Spears... ha ha ha (mocking laughter)
Isn’t Tom Cruise headed into his third marriage? ha ha ha (more mocking laughter)
Is wearing white on her wedding day sacred? ha ha ha ha ha
Then there are the tens of thousands of couples who get married, stay married, and live happily ever after. Trying to focus on failed marriages instead successful ones neither supports an argument for homosexual marriage, nor diminishes the sacredness of marriage.
Obviously, our society treats marriage as sacred because, among other things, (a) you have to get the government's permission to get married, (b) the marriage must be performed by a person authorized by the law to perform them, and (c) the man and woman take a vow to remain together in sickness and health, good times and bad times, till death.
-
S. Africa Parliament OKs Gay Marriages
The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 14, 2006; 11:42 AM
CAPE TOWN, South Africa -- The South African parliament on Tuesday approved new legislation recognizing gay marriages _ a first for a continent where homosexuality is largely taboo.
The National Assembly passed the Civil Union Bill, worked out after months of heated public discussion, by a majority of 230 to 41 votes despite criticism from both traditionalists and gay activists and warnings that it might be unconsitutional. There were three abstentions.
The bill provides for the "voluntary union of two persons, which is solemnized and registered by either a marriage or civil union." It does not specify whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partnerships.
But it also says marriage officers need not perform a ceremony between same-sex couples if doing so would conflict with his or her "conscience, religion and belief."
"When we attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust painful past, by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of color, creed culture and sex," Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told the National Assembly.
The bill had been expected to pass given the overwhelming majority of the ruling African National Congress, despite unease among rank and file lawmakers. It now has to go to the National Council of Provinces, which is expected to be a formality, before being signed into law by President Thabo Mbeki.
© 2006 The Associated Press
-
queers should move to the evolved states and leave the trailer park states to the child molester heterosexuals. :)
-
queers should move to the evolved states and leave the trailer park states to the child molester heterosexuals. :)
And those married ones in denial who have sex with male prostitutes on the side. :'(
-
3 Christian Groups Move To Condemn Gay Sex
By Alan Cooperman and Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post Staff Writers
BALTIMORE, Nov. 14 -- Faced with rising public acceptance of same-sex relationships, three U.S. Christian denominations are taking strong measures this week to condemn homosexual acts as sinful.
The nation's Roman Catholic bishops, meeting in Baltimore, declared Tuesday that Catholics who minister to gays must firmly adhere to the church's teaching that same-sex attractions are "disordered." Catholics with "a homosexual inclination" should be encouraged to live in chastity and discouraged from making "general public announcements" about their sexual orientation, the bishops said.
The largest Baptist group in North Carolina, meanwhile, moved to expel any congregation that condones homosexuality, adopting a policy that allows the Baptist State Convention to investigate complaints that member churches are too "gay-friendly."
And on Wednesday in Pittsburgh, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a mainline Protestant denomination with about 3 million members, will put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women.
The decisions are part of a mounting backlash in many U.S. denominations against church groups whose stated goal is not only to welcome but also to "affirm" gay congregants. For many religious groups, the biblical injunction to hate the sin but love the sinner is no longer sufficient, because many believers do not view homosexuality as a sin.
The impulse to restate traditional teachings against same-sex activity is complicated by the simultaneous desire to minister to gays. Thus, Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' committee on doctrine, stressed that the tone of the bishops' statement was intended to be "positive, pastoral and welcoming," even as it compared same-sex attractions to the temptations of "envy, malice or greed."
Asked how he could square those two messages, Serratelli told reporters that "the truth is always welcoming."
The bishops' statement came in the form of new guidelines for Catholic ministries aimed at gay men and lesbians. Bishops must take care, it says, "to ensure that those carrying out the ministry of the Church not use their position of leadership to advocate positions or behaviors not in keeping with the teachings of the Church."
It is not sufficient, the document adds, for those ministering to gays to take a position of "distant neutrality" toward the church's teachings.
Donald W. Wuerl, Washington's new archbishop, said the document should not be seen as a crackdown on pro-gay ministries. Rather, he said, "the starting point is the church living in a culture in which these things are being promoted, and our task is to keep saying: 'Remember, here are the true teachings of the church.' "
Serratelli, summarizing the document, said the church considers same-sex attractions to be "objectively disordered" because "they do not accord with the natural purpose of sexuality." Although "simply experiencing a homosexual inclination is not in itself a sin," he said, homosexual acts are "sinful," "never morally acceptable" and "do not lead to true human happiness."
A coalition of 15 Catholic groups that support the full inclusion of gays in the church, including Call to Action and DignityUSA, denounced the document as "not at all pastoral, but rather harmful."
"These guidelines try to make gay and lesbian people invisible in the church. The plan here is not to minister but to make a 'problem' disappear," said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Catholic outreach group for gays.
In North Carolina, the state Baptist Convention voted to broaden its fight against homosexuality by moving to expel churches that "affirm," "approve," or "bless" same-sex relationships.
The measure targets as many as a dozen Baptist churches in the state that position themselves as actively welcoming gays, but it could exclude any church that enrolls openly gay members.
The growing acceptance of gays in popular culture and the fact that homosexuality has powerful advocacy groups made the stance necessary, Baptist leaders said.
"In our day and time, no other sin marches so defiantly across our national landscape," Mark Harris, the head of the committee that introduced the measure, told the 2,600 delegates, or "messengers," assembled at a convention hall in Greensboro, N.C.
But while the proposal was approved by the required two-thirds majority, hundreds held up their hands to object. Some worried that churches would spy and report on one another. Others said the measure impinged on local church autonomy and reflected an unfounded obsession with homosexuality.
"It seems so contrary, at least to me, to the picture and posture of Jesus in the gospels," Nathan Parrish, from a church in Winston-Salem, N.C., told the assembly. "Jesus's life and ministry were marked by radical hospitality, openness, vulnerability, humility. By contrast, the Baptist State Convention is recommending that we . . . magnify the message that certain types of people, as well as their friends and perhaps their fellow believers and family members, are neither welcome nor worthy of a place at the table of this community."
What made the measure extraordinary, church members on both sides said, is that for what may be the first time in the convention's 176-year history, membership in the group would be contingent upon a specific policy -- that is, treatment of gays.
"This issue has emerged as a litmus test," said Andrew Wakefield, professor of biblical studies at Campbell University, in Buies Creek, N.C., which is affiliated with the Baptist State Convention.
On Wednesday in Pittsburgh, the Rev. Janet Edwards will go on trial before a Presbyterian Church tribunal for officiating at a same-sex marriage ceremony. Earlier this year, the Redwoods Presbytery in Northern California acquitted a minister in a similar trial, ruling that ceremonies for same-sex couples are not "contrary to the essentials of the Reformed faith."
Jimmy Creech, who was defrocked as a United Methodist minister in 1999 for performing a marriage ceremony for two men, said the number of U.S. churches that welcome openly gay members has been rising steadily, including many congregations in the Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.
"But it's a social change that, for many, has theological implications they just are not willing to accept," he said.
-
Have you heard the latest for what the city of New York is doing? The city council is looking to pass a measure that will allow New Yorkers to change their gender legally, regardless if they've had a sex change. That would make it easier for a homosexual couple to slide any rulings that might ban same-sex marriage.
-
Have you heard the latest for what the city of New York is doing? The city council is looking to pass a measure that will allow New Yorkers to change their gender legally, regardless if they've had a sex change. That would make it easier for a homosexual couple to slide any rulings that might ban same-sex marriage.
Somebody posted that the other day. Wild.
-
Have you heard the latest for what the city of New York is doing? The city council is looking to pass a measure that will allow New Yorkers to change their gender legally, regardless if they've had a sex change. That would make it easier for a homosexual couple to slide any rulings that might ban same-sex marriage.
We talked about that already. Try to keep up.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=105531.0
-
mar‧riage /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
There is no such thing as gay marraige. If gays want to have civil unions and share benefits, whether or not I personnally think it's right, that's one thing. That is their choice. But marraige is between a man and a woman.
-
We talked about that already. Try to keep up.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=105531.0
Yeah Colossus. What are you doing, working? Get your priorities in order. ;D
-
Yeah Colossus. What are you doing, working? Get your priorities in order. ;D
Yeah, the nerve of a guy actually working when there's GETBIG. ::)
-
We talked about that already. Try to keep up.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=105531.0
::)
-
Obviously, not everyone reads or interprets the bible the same way; not everyone thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality.
Leviticus 20:13-
'If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1: 26-32
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did exchange the natural use for that which is against nature;
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and recieving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.....
32: Who, knowing the judgement of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but have pleasure in them that do them.
i don't know what bible you're reading. pretty simple to me.
there's only one way to interpret that.
-
:)
I’m not worried. The reason all these “bans” are popping up is because they know it is going to happen. It’s already happening. Cities, states, and local governments are already starting to recognize gay marriage/civil unions. It’s happening in VT, MA, CA, NY, and most recently in NJ.
Sure, there will be holdouts, but eventually every single domino is going to fall. If nothing else competition and $ will make them fall. States that don’t offer equality will lose professionals who have the option to leave and they will take their money with them.
Already, virtually all of the top universities in the country offer domestic partner benefits to G&L couples because they started to lose faculty to the competition if they didn’t offer it. $ talks louder than bigotry or religion. As more and more outspoken conservatives are outed (there are a lot more Ted Haggards out there) the movement against G&L unions will continue to lose its “moral” authority.
Conservatives are not going to win this one and they know it. Even intolerant people like Dick and Lynne Cheney had to suck up the fact that their daughter is a big old dyke and she has a long time lover.
The “problem” with gays and lesbians is that we are YOU. We are your kids, your brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, your teachers, your pastors, reverends, firemen, policemen, politicians, actors, singers, and everything else. It’s easy to hate an anonymous gay boogieman... but it’s harder to deny equality to your own child, sister, etc.
great post dude. I know we don't always agree. But I am impressed. Thanks.
-
great post dude. I know we don't always agree. But I am impressed. Thanks.
There's plenty more where that came from. ;D
-
Leviticus 20:13-
'If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1: 26-32
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did exchange the natural use for that which is against nature;
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and recieving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.....
32: Who, knowing the judgement of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but have pleasure in them that do them.
i don't know what bible you're reading. pretty simple to me.
there's only one way to interpret that.
Quotations of Scripture might be compelling if you actually adhered to Scripture in your own life, but since you don’t (selectively) quoting it is laughable.
Suffice to say, I don’t believe in your god and you don’t believe in mine so all this religious talk is nonsense--particularly in a country where we subscribe to the separation of (any) church and State.
-
Quotations of Scripture might be compelling if you actually adhered Scripture in your own life, but since you don’t (selectively) quoting it is laughable.
Suffice to say, I don’t believe in your god and you don’t believe in mine so all this religious talk is nonsense--particularly in a country where we subscribe to the separation of (any) church and State.
It's not that simple. People bring their entire life experience and convictions to the polls. Religion is a huge part of our communities. The overwhelming majority of legislators have some kind of religious beliefs. I believe in church/state separation, but you cannot separate religion from public life.
-
Quotations of Scripture might be compelling if you actually adhered Scripture in your own life, but since you don’t (selectively) quoting it is laughable.
Suffice to say, I don’t believe in your god and you don’t believe in mine so all this religious talk is nonsense--particularly in a country where we subscribe to the separation of (any) church and State.
i'm a sinner and i recognize that and i try to change my bad habits. i accept what is right and wrong and try to do the right things in my life. the difference with you is you will never accept what is wrong and will use everything you can to justify your lifestyle choices. as much as society won't accept it, there are issues in today's world that are black and white, right and wrong. homosexuality is sin, it is wrong.
for you to say i don't adhere to the Scripture doesn't make any sense, you don't know me from adam's house cat. i have issues i struggle with in life, i sin but like i said, i know what i do is wrong and i try to change those things in my life.
for you say this religious talk is nonsense makes my point. you don't want to hear what you do is wrong, you want people to accept your lifestyle. i honestly don't care what your lifestyle is, do what you want, just don't try to force everyone who doesn't think the way you do to accept it. it has been voted on by the people, no gay marriage. how more powerful can you get than that???
as much as the gay community is trying to change it, this is not a "do what you want" society. we must have morals and standards to live by.
-
i'm a sinner and i recognize that and i try to change my bad habits. i accept what is right and wrong and try to do the right things in my life. the difference with you is you will never accept what is wrong and will use everything you can to justify your lifestyle choices. as much as society won't accept it, there are issues in today's world that are black and white, right and wrong. homosexuality is sin, it is wrong.
for you to say i don't adhere to the Scripture doesn't make any sense, you don't know me from adam's house cat. i have issues i struggle with in life, i sin but like i said, i know what i do is wrong and i try to change those things in my life.
for you say this religious talk is nonsense makes my point. you don't want to hear what you do is wrong, you want people to accept your lifestyle. i honestly don't care what your lifestyle is, do what you want, just don't try to force everyone who doesn't think the way you do to accept it. it has been voted on by the people, no gay marriage. how more powerful can you get than that???
as much as the gay community is trying to change it, this is not a "do what you want" society. we must have morals and standards to live by.
Beautifully said!!!! Big time applause for this post!
-
i'm a sinner and i recognize that and i try to change my bad habits. i accept what is right and wrong and try to do the right things in my life. the difference with you is you will never accept what is wrong and will use everything you can to justify your lifestyle choices. as much as society won't accept it, there are issues in today's world that are black and white, right and wrong. homosexuality is sin, it is wrong.
for you to say i don't adhere to the Scripture doesn't make any sense, you don't know me from adam's house cat. i have issues i struggle with in life, i sin but like i said, i know what i do is wrong and i try to change those things in my life.
for you say this religious talk is nonsense makes my point. you don't want to hear what you do is wrong, you want people to accept your lifestyle. i honestly don't care what your lifestyle is, do what you want, just don't try to force everyone who doesn't think the way you do to accept it. it has been voted on by the people, no gay marriage. how more powerful can you get than that???
as much as the gay community is trying to change it, this is not a "do what you want" society. we must have morals and standards to live by.
thanks mark foley
-
it has been voted on by the people, no gay marriage. how more powerful can you get than that???
Let’s see... the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution. The Supreme Court. Justice. Equality. All are more powerful than the vote of shortsighted, easily manipulated, people. Just look at how easily people were manipulated into supporting a war in Iraq. Fortunately, right and wrong and issues of equality are not simply a matter of popular opinion. At one time, a majority of people in the US thought slavery was perfectly OK. That majority was dead wrong.
If we wanted to do so, a majority of people could decide to change the age of consent in this country to a ridiculously low number, but majority opinion alone does not determine right and wrong.
You live by your standards (if you can) and I’ll live by mine. I don’t expect you to believe in my god; don’t expect me to believe in yours.
-
Beautifully said!!!! Big time applause for this post!
thank you
-
Let’s see... the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution. The Supreme Court. Justice. Equality. All are more powerful than vote of shortsighted, easily manipulated, people.
You live by your standards (if you can) and I’ll live by mine. I don’t expect you to believe in my god; don’t expect me to believe in yours.
there is absolutely nothing more powerful a US citizen can do than vote. it is what makes us the greatest country on earth. for you to call everyone that voted AGAINST your beliefs shortsighted, manipulated is not right.
again, your standards is of no issue to me, as mine is of no issue to you. live how you want to live. i've just had enough of having the "equal rights for gays" thrown in my face every time i turn on the tv or open a newspaper.
i want to make sure i'm understood here, your sins are no greater than mine and my sins no greater than yours. we will both have to answer for them one day.
-
Mighty Mouse you are all right in my book. Not just because one of my daughter's is nicknamed Mighty Mouse, but because you are sincere and you make sense. Keep speaking the truth.
-
Mighty Mouse you are all right in my book. Not just because one of my daughter's is nicknamed Mighty Mouse, but because you are sincere and you make sense. Keep speaking the truth.
thanks beach for the compliment.
it seems people with my opinions are becoming very few and far between. which is kind of sad because america needs some backbone-people to stand up for what's right.
i know i'm very set in my ways and stubborn; the wife reminds me every day!! ;D
thanks again
-
thanks beach for the compliment.
it seems people with my opinions are becoming very few and far between. which is kind of sad because america needs some backbone-people to stand up for what's right.
i know i'm very set in my ways and stubborn; the wife reminds me every day!! ;D
thanks again
I suggest you wait till your wife falls asleep and then tell her how wrong she is. At least that's what I do. I always win that argument. :)
-
I suggest you wait till your wife falls asleep and then tell her how wrong she is. At least that's what I do. I always win that argument. :)
oh yeah. when my wife falls asleep, i'm the man of the house :D
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6198762.stm
Golden promise for SA gay wedding
A jewellers wants to give the first gay couple to marry in South Africa 20,000 rand ($2,800) worth of jewellery.
Uwe Koetter Jewellers in Cape Town says it will present the "handcrafted and designed wedding bands" at the couples' wedding ceremony in person.
New legislation takes effect from Friday, allowing same-sex couples to get married. The law was changed following a court ruling last year.
South Africa becomes the first African country where gay people can wed.
Cashing in
"In order to qualify... we need documents that prove where the venue is and who is officiating. We will present the bands in person at the wedding ceremony itself," said head jewellery designer Johan Louw, South African Press Association reports.
Other businesses are hoping to make money in the rush for so-called "pink weddings".
The Sheraton Hotel in Pretoria says it is going to offer tailor-made wedding services to same-sex couples and has employed its own on-site gay wedding co-ordinator to liaise with same-sex fiances.
"Obviously there will be a few things that will be different from your so-called traditional weddings," the Sheraton's media spokesperson Willie Williams told The Star newspaper.
"You will see two miniature brides or two little grooms on the wedding cake, and that kind of thing," he said.
The law was approved by MPs two weeks ago despite objections from religious groups and traditional leaders.
The Constitutional Court ruled last year that the existing laws discriminated against homosexuals.
The ruling was based on the constitution, which was the first in the world specifically to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
This is unusual in Africa where homosexuality is largely taboo - notably in its neighbour Zimbabwe.
Are you planning to marry under the new Civil Union Act when into comes into law on Friday? Use the form below to let us know if you want to share your experiences.
Name
Your E-mail address
Phone number (optional):
Town & Country
Comments
-
a simple solution would be to give gay people a legalized union with another name, like a "queerage" or something
but that wouldnt make teh fags happy cause their main goal here is to make the rest of the country eat shit by forcing them to acknowledge their union, being allowed to f**k each other into immuno deficiency just isnt enough anymore :D
in my humble opinion we should let em do it but charge them 10x as much for a licence and make some $$$ off of their illusions
Genius!
-
Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions
By Alan Cooperman
Thursday, December 7, 2006; A17
NEW YORK, Dec. 6 -- A panel of rabbis gave permission Wednesday for same-sex commitment ceremonies and ordination of gays within Conservative Judaism, a wrenching change for a movement that occupies the middle ground between orthodoxy and liberalism in Judaism.
The complicated decision by the Conservatives Movement's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards leaves it up to individual seminaries whether to ordain gay rabbis and gives individual rabbis the option of sanctioning same-sex unions. Reform Judaism, the largest branch of the faith in the United States, has ordained openly gay men and lesbians since 1990 and has allowed its rabbis to perform same-sex commitment ceremonies since 2000. Orthodox Judaism does not countenance same-sex relationships or the ordination of gay rabbis.
Like many Protestant denominations, Conservative Jews are divided over homosexuality: torn between the Hebrew scriptures' condemnation of it as an "abomination" and a desire to encourage same-sex couples to form long-lasting, monogamous relationships.
Though stopping short of endorsing same-sex marriage, the rabbis wanted to allow commitment ceremonies "because in Jewish sexual ethics, promiscuity is not acceptable either by heterosexuals or by homosexuals, and we do in fact have both a Jewish and a social and a medical need to try to confirm those unions," said Rabbi Elliot Dorff of Los Angeles, one of the authors of the change.
After years of discussion and two days of intense debate behind closed doors at a synagogue on Park Avenue, the law committee accepted three teshuvot, or answers, to the question of whether Jewish law allows homosexual sex. Two answers uphold the status quo, forbidding homosexuality.
But a third answer allows same-sex ceremonies and ordination of gay men and lesbians, while maintaining a ban on anal sex. It argues that the verse in Leviticus saying "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" is unclear, but traditionally was understood to bar only one kind of sex between men. All other prohibitions were "added later on by the rabbis," Dorff told reporters.
Four of the law committee's 25 members resigned in protest of the decision.
It takes the votes of just six panel members to declare an answer to be valid -- meaning that it is a well-founded interpretation of Jewish law, not that it is the only legitimate position. Thirteen members voted in favor of allowing gay ordination and same-sex ceremonies, and 13 voted against -- meaning that at least one rabbi voted for both positions.
Rabbi Joel Meyers, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly, an association of 1,600 Conservative rabbis, predicted that some rabbis will choose not to preside at same-sex ceremonies, and he said no rabbi would be required to perform them.
There are five seminaries that ordain Conservative rabbis. One of them, the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, is expected to begin ordaining gays in the near future. The movement's flagship seminary, the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, is likely to take more time. Its new chancellor, Arnold Eisen, has said he favors the change but will allow the faculty to debate the question, starting as soon as Thursday.
The other seminaries -- in Israel, Argentina and the Czech Republic -- are more traditional and may adopt the change slowly, if at all.
The issue has been particularly difficult for the Conservative movement, which claims about 2 million members worldwide, because it does not lightly depart from traditional Jewish law, or halakha. Conservative Jews generally keep the kosher dietary rules and observe the Sabbath, though perhaps not as strictly as Orthodox Jews do.
Since the mid-1980s, however, the Conservative movement has departed from traditional law in several ways, including ordaining women, permitting Jews to drive to synagogue on the Sabbath, and eliminating special treatment of "illegitimate" children.
Some Conservative Jews argue that the reconsideration of homosexuality is no more significant, in terms of Jewish law, than these other changes. But Rabbi Joel Roth, a professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary who was among those who resigned from the law committee, said he considers the change to be "outside the pale of acceptable halakhic reasoning."
Rabbi Jerry Epstein, chief executive of the association of 700 Conservative synagogues in North America, said he did not know whether any of them would leave the movement in protest. He said he believes that they are about evenly divided for and against allowing same-sex ceremonies.
As the Conservative rabbis met in New York this week, they were conscious that they were not only deciding an important matter for their constituency but were also contributing to a national debate on the status of same-sex couples. Dorff said he hoped that the adoption of two optional, conflicting positions would serve as a model for other religious groups of how to handle deep disagreements, "so movements don't have to split up over these kinds of things."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601247.html
-
:o Amazing how this is even debated in religious circles.
-
Pastor Quits After Revealing Same-Sex Relations
By NEELA BANERJEE
The senior pastor of a suburban Denver evangelical church resigned Sunday after admitting to having had sexual relations with men. The move apparently came after the pastor was confronted by another minister in his church who had been alerted by an anonymous caller, The Denver Post reported.
The resignation of the pastor, the Rev. Paul Barnes, from the pulpit of the 2,100-member Grace Chapel megachurch in Englewood came by way of a tearful, 32-minute videotaped address to his congregation.
His departure occurred a month after the Rev. Ted Haggard quit as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and senior pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs when a former male prostitute disclosed that Mr. Haggard had had a sexual relationship with him.
Dave Palmer, the associate pastor of Grace Chapel, told The Post that the church received a call last week from a person who had overheard someone speak of “blowing the whistle” on other evangelical ministers in clandestine homosexual relationships, among them Mr. Barnes. Mr. Palmer then spoke with Mr. Barnes.
A spokeswoman for Grace Chapel said that church leaders had declined to comment further. A statement issued by the church on Sunday said that Mr. Barnes, who founded Grace Chapel 28 years ago, had confessed to infidelity; it did not mention homosexuality.
Mr. Barnes said in his address that he had struggled with his attraction to men since he was 5, The Post said. The only time Mr. Barnes said he had talked to his father about sex, his father told him what he would do if a gay man, for which he used a derogatory term, walked up to him.
Mr. Barnes recalled thinking, “ ‘Is that how you’d feel about me?’ It was like a knife in my heart, and it made me feel even more closed,” The Post said.
Justin Lee, a self-described gay evangelical, said many men had written messages to his Web site, gaychristian.net, telling of anguish similar to what Mr. Barnes described.
“The church has created a double standard that all of us are sinful and have temptations and need to be open about that — unless you’re gay,” Mr. Lee said.
Mr. Barnes’s wife, Char, told The Post she had been unaware of her husband’s struggles. The couple has two adult daughters.
Mr. Barnes avoided preaching about politics, and Grace Chapel did not take a stand on a recent successful ballot initiative backed by most of Colorado’s megachurches banning same-sex marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/us/12resign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
-
N.J. lawmakers OK civil unions, not same-sex marriage
POSTED: 6:34 p.m. EST, December 14, 2006
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Facing pressure from the state's top court, the New Jersey Legislature voted Thursday to give gay and lesbian couples the rights and privileges of marriage, while using the term "civil unions" to describe the partnerships.
The vote in the General Assembly was 56-19. The Senate vote was 23-12. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign a civil unions bill into law.
Steven Goldstein, director of Equality New Jersey, told Bloomberg that the vote was a mixed blessing for the state's gays and lesbians because there was no guarantee non-government entities would honor the decision.
"Nobody knows what civil unions are in the real world. That's the problem,'' Goldstein told Bloomberg. "We want marriage equality, not a law that discriminates.''
The move follows an order by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which directed the state to provide same-sex couples with marriage rights or their equivalent.
Employing civil rights terminology, gay and lesbian advocates blasted the decision and said that providing the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage was tantamount to the "separate but equal" treatment of a discriminated group.
Conservatives have steadfastly opposed legislation that suggests same-sex relationships are equivalent to marriages between men and women.
If Corzine, a Democrat, signs the measure into law, New Jersey will become the third state behind Vermont and Connecticut to OK civil unions. Massachusetts also recognizes rights for same-sex couples, and is the only state to use the term marriage.
The federal government recognizes neither same-sex marriage nor civil union, meaning same-sex couples do not receive federal marriage benefits such as Social Security.
According to the New Jersey bill, two people who enter into a civil union "shall have all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage."
Adoption and hospital visitation are covered under that definition.
In October, the state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that New Jersey could not discriminate against same-sex couples by excluding them from the benefits of marriage. It gave the state 180 days to rectify the situation through legislative action.
"By passing a law that marks same-sex couples as inferior, the government has paved the way for others to discriminate against them," said David Buckel, marriage project director at Lambda Legal and lead attorney on the Lewis v. Harris marriage lawsuit that led to the court's decision.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/14/same.sex/index.html
-
Marriage has always tradionally meant a union between man and woman. Why should this definition be changed to please a bunch of fags?
Because the traditional definition of marriage is wrong. A society that values reproduction and believes that biologically-based sexuality should be the guiding principle of how to organize a Human society might value the traditional definition of marriage. However, this is a primitive view of what marriage should be. Reproduction today can be controlled, and traditional sex is no longer required to reproduce the species. As for children, there's no evidence that a man and a woman provide a better moral role model than a two men, or two women. And even if a taditional couple did povide a better role model, they'd be providing a better role model for what? For supporting traditional role models! ::) Personally, I'd much rather have a child raised by a gay couplke rathe than living in the streets, eating out of garbage cans.
I have a libertarian view of how a Society should be. Traditionalists keep bringing up the point that legalizing gay marriage would open the doorfor legalizing all kinds of marriage, such as that of adults to children or hmans to animals. These are terrible analogies, because the disparities between the examples are far less dramatic than in the other cases. An adult and a child could potetially be in love, but the child doesen't really know what love is, has no discernment or capacity to judge what is in his/her best interests. The same for the animal. Two adult men or two adult women, conversely, are mature, free-willed and have the capacity to decide what's best for them. Marriage should not be about reproduction and children, because it demeans the human conditon to reduce us to the level of breeding animals; it should be about love and sex within the context of love.
The only problem I see here are children. Now, even if gay marriage were legalized, most people would still marry to the opposite sex and sire children, so that would't be a problem. And it still wouldn't be a problem if all humans became homosexuals, because children could still be produced through artificial isemination and then raised by same sex couples. The survival of the species would be assured regardless. To finish, I must reiterate that there's no evidece whatsoever that chilren raised by gay couples grow up to become robbers, sex perverts or homicidal maniacs. I fact, there's no evidence that they even grow to become gay - not that there would be any problem in that! Let's be logical about this and end the concept of marriage as a function of reproduction, because there are far more worthy things to build a marriage on, and maintaining the traditional family as the only one is perpetuating something that is: no longer necessary, not morally superior, not necessary for children's morals and, above all, it is turning marriage from a symbol of love to one of reproduction, a mcuh lower one. Use your brains, people! :)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
N.J. Gov. to Make Gay Unions Official
By TOM HESTER Jr.
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 21, 2006; 7:16 AM
TRENTON, N.J. -- New Jersey's gay couples are gaining all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law as New Jersey moves to become the third in the nation to institute civil unions and the fifth to offer some version of marriage.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine planned to sign the civil unions bill on Thursday.
When the law takes effect Feb. 19, New Jersey will join Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.
Gay couples granted civil unions in New Jersey will have adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.
The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on Dec. 14 in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcome the law, but some argue that not calling the relationship "marriage" creates a different, inferior institution.
Also, while the state law provide them with the benefits of married couples, they won't be entitled to the same benefits in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Surviving partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples.
Donna Harrison, of Asbury Park, has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years. She isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably get a civil union certificate.
"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.
Chris Schwam and Steven Piacquiadio, of Collingswood, have been together for 20 years, have a 3-year-old son and had a big wedding in 1993, though it wasn't recognized legally. Schwam, 40, said they will get a civil union, but without a big fuss.
"I don't think my mother would be happy to pay for that again," he said.
The gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to "marriage." Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of gay marriage.
The bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.
Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.
"For most, people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."
Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said time could bring change.
"The history of civil rights progress, whether it's women's rights, minorities' rights or any other movement, is one that is typically achieved in incremental steps," Codey said. "This is, by no means, the end, but it is a major step forward."
Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won't be heard.
The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100155.html
-
Despite Laws, Gay Wedding Industry Booms
By DIONNE WALKER
The Associated Press
Monday, December 25, 2006; 7:12 PM
RICHMOND, Va. -- He's no celebrity, but when Phillip McKee III tied the knot in September, he did it with all the pomp and circumstance of an A-lister: Custom-designed gold rings, a $2,000 kilt and a caviar-and-crepe reception at a five-star hotel. McKee, 34, sank some $60,000 into his Scottish-themed nuptials, worth it he says for the chance to stand before a minister and be pronounced husband _ and husband.
Even as lawmakers across the nation debate legislation banning same-sex marriage, couples are uniting in weddings both miniature and massive, fueling a growing industry peddling everything from pink triangle invitations to same-sex cake toppers.
Vendors say attention to the marriage issue has encouraged more gay couples to recognize their relationships, though in most states, the ceremonies are purely sentimental.
"For the longest time, there was so much shame and privacy around it that people didn't really give themselves permission to have ceremonies like this," said Kathryn Hamm, an Arlington-based wedding consultant who planned McKee's marriage to partner Nopadon Woods. "(Now) the market is growing as the headlines remain out there."
Unlike the multibillion dollar traditional wedding industry, experts say the gay wedding business is harder to track. Some estimates place its value at up to $1 billion.
In 2005, gays spent $7.2 million with vendors found at the Rainbow Wedding Network Web site, according to data collected by the site, which publishes a national magazine and hosts wedding expos. That's up from $2.1 million in 2002, according to Cindy Sproul, who co-owns the North Carolina firm.
Marriage-minded gays and lesbians are purchasing basics like flowers and limousines. But vendors say couples also are spending on items with a same-sex twist: rainbow bejeweled rings, double-bride thank you cards and "His and His" towel sets.
"We almost completely parallel what heterosexual couples are doing," Sproul said. "The only difference is there may be two grooms, or two brides."
Sproul estimated gay couples spend about $20,000 on ceremonies in states offering some form of recognition, like Massachusetts and Vermont. But couples elsewhere also are investing: Sproul said couples average $15,000 on ceremonies in states that have banned gay marriage such as Georgia, where an annual wedding expo her company hosts draws about 500, mostly black gays and lesbians.
Vinyelle White and Madeline Jones of Richmond spent $4,000 _ a month's worth of their combined income _ on their August ceremony, a homespun affair with handmade invitations.
"It may sound really stupid to say, but why not," said White, who visited gay wedding Web sites before choosing an African-themed wedding. "We're showing this is how much we love each other, whether it's legal or not."
Emerging in gay communities largely in the last decade, same-sex marriages _ and weddings _ recently have been drawn into the national spotlight by attempts to make the unions illegal.
Massachusetts is the only state to date to allow gay marriage, since the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 the state constitution guaranteed that right. According to the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics, 8,764 same-sex couples tied the knot in Massachusetts since the first same-sex weddings began taking place May 17, 2004 through Nov. 9, 2006, the most recent figures available.
In November, Virginia was one of seven states that approved gay-marriage bans, joining 20 that had done so in previous elections. But other states are moving in the opposite direction: New Jersey's gay couples gained new rights last week when the state legalized same-sex civil unions there.
Sharmayne Wesler, a planner with New York's annual GLBT Expo, credited the hubbub and well-publicized gay weddings like that of lesbian rocker Melissa Etheridge in 2003, with encouraging gays to formalize their relationships.
"They too want to be traditional," said Wesler, whose RDP Group has 70 wedding-specific vendors at its expo. "The trend ... is toward really large weddings, none of these simple affairs.
"They want to go to a ceremony with all the bells and whistles."
McKee and Woods invited 200 guests to their black-tie ceremony, followed by a cocktail hour and reception at the Ritz-Carlton, in Tysons Corner, Va.
Groomsmen received engraved pocket watches; a bagpiper, pianist and DJ serenaded guests, who dined on caviar and lobster.
McKee used gay wedding books, Web sites and a wedding coordinator to find things like gay-friendly photographers. The ceremony cost half their annual income.
In Virginia, the men were no more legally bound after the lavish wedding than before. Still, they considered it a good investment.
"For us, the essence of a marriage is our love," McKee said. "Whether the state honors it is the icing on the cake _ it's not the cake itself."
-
:'(
-
Mass. Lawmakers Vote on Gay Marriage
BOSTON (AP) -- Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban it.
The amendment's backers had collected 170,000 signatures to get a question on the 2008 ballot asking voters to declare marriage to be between a man and a woman, but they still needed the approval of two consecutive legislatures.
Gov.-elect Deval Patrick had urged lawmakers not to vote on it Tuesday, which would have effectively killed it.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=HIHAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-
A majority of people don't wish to expand/redefine marriage/family to accomodate gays.
Why gays can't accept something so simple is beyond me.