M63
Gay marriage revisited
August 26 2012
Comments
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I think all you have to do is ask any gay, lesbian etc couple how they feel about each other and the answer would be similar and as genuine as any straight couple. If only our politicians weren't of the same ilk and could grasp this simple truth and listen to what the public wants then we would have had marriage equality years ago. I believe thats inevitable in the next 10-12years that all the old farts in parliament with their deep intrenched views will be replaced with a younger and more accepting generation who will put it to a vote.Its long overdue but the only down side is that it will take 10-12 years for it to happen.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
have more than just one predjudic jensman.Sometimes people fear what they neither know or do not understand. Ignorance is definitely not bliss,it can be downright dangerous.I have friends who lived in a country town in northern N.S.W until recently.One of them was brutally bashed by a group of men,because he is gay.They were often openly taunted in the street whenever they went to the local shops.After five years of this treatment they finally moved to a larger coastal town.I hope they will be safer there. I personally don't believe in mar.riage but I do believe that everyone should have the right to choose it, if that is what they want. x Hugs H
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Going there again Jman? Didn't the last forum post on this turn into a shit fight? I do agree with most of your points just the "faith" thing drives me nuts. I may have expressed my thoughts on religion especially the abraham descendent religions in different forum posts. But you go for it. A bit of controversy does make for lively reading. Mike
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'jensman1903' I can't be critical of people of faith speaking what they believe but I have no time for people who have no belief in God but maintain that homosexuality is wrong. A bit surprised to hear that coming from you. You can and absolutely should be critical of imbecilic religious teachings. "Get your rosaries off my ovaries" or something like that...
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Hmmm, well whilst I agree with gay marriage, and I also have no problem with legitamising polyamory either.I do have issues with children in these types of relationships.whilst I do understand and respect everybodies right to raise children,I am conflicted in also believeing in a child having strong male/female role models.which can really only be garnered from a strong and cohesive male/femalerelationship.Araps, I believe it is quite incorrect in blaming the "old fart politicians",you need to remember that an elected representative will represent theviews of the vocal element (those who care to talk to their rep) of his/herconstituency, ( That is their role, and if you don't communicate with your rep, then really you have nothing to complain about) so it is eventually the constituency'spressure that will force a party to adopt a direction, and therefore vote alongparty lines, unless a concience vote is allowed, personally I'm not to sure aboutconcience votes, we don't elect our representatives, to act of their own free will.Cheers Felonius
-
RHP User
13 years ago
If that is the case...and children need a strong female / male role model to follow then how do children survive from solo-parent families? What about if one of the parents die? No role model there either. You can not use that arguement agaisnt same sex marriage as it just does not wash...we may as well discriminate against all solo parents, take thier kids and give them to man/woman couples then...I dont think so! . That is also a very idealised veiw of politics...yes that is how it is MEANT to happen...back in the real world of democracy.... Did we all complain about GST? Did we all complain about the latest Carbon Tax? Why oh why are our representatives not listening to us? Woe is me as I tend to harass the shit out of my representatives on various topics.....and still they follow thier own agendas....
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'Handmaiden' If that is the case...and children need a strong female / male role model to follow then how do children survive from solo-parent families? What about if one of the parents die? No role model there either. You can not use that arguement agaisnt same sex marriage as it just does not wash...we may as well discriminate against all solo parents, take thier kids and give them to man/woman couples then...I dont think so! . That is also a very idealised veiw of politics...yes that is how it is MEANT to happen...back in the real world of democracy.... Did we all complain about GST? Did we all complain about the latest Carbon Tax? Why oh why are our representatives not listening to us? Woe is me as I tend to harass the shit out of my representatives on various topics.....and still they follow thier own agendas.... To tell the truth I am and have been a supporter of the GST. The carbon tax has been brought in due to evidence that excess carbon in the atmosphere is detrimental to the envirionment we ALL live in. As far s I am concerned the elected representatives have done the right thing perhaps you don't believe the scientific evidence on climate change. I voted for K Rudd because he said he would bring in a carbon tax and despite the argy bargy about Julias' "lie" this is not something where we can go on as if business as usual will be acceptable. I have worked in the mining industry in the 80s and dom't think that the companies involved are intersted in anthing more than profit at the expense of all other considerations. It s normal for business to do this because they HAVE to make a profit. Profit at the expense of our environment...... Mike
-
RHP User
13 years ago
need love,whether it is two parents who are male and female or two same sex parents or a single parent.That is the most important thing in a child's life.xHugs H
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Is the term used in ancient Greek society to describe the relationship between an adult male and a youth, usually 12 -17 years of age.The adult male was to be a role model and educate his erosmenos (young partner) due to the emphasis this society had on masculinity. This relationships were allowed to exist only until the youth grew a beard (became a man himself).Relationships between two adult males were associated with social stigma. The social stigma was obviously reserved for the passive partner who continued with this practice into adulthood therefore demeaning himself by becoming effeminate.So is this post a glorification for a society of pedophiles who believed that women were not worthy of being loved because they did not have a soul???
-
RHP User
13 years ago
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. There is plenty of evidence that this passage should not be used to condemn homosexuality as its meaning has been somehow lost in translation of the original scripture, since the Jews had not a word in their language such a homosexual or gay.Many believe that the sexual behavior is describing is having sex with BOYS.All I am trying to say is that not all us people of faith are retards!!please don't kill me :(
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Excuse me Fi, but who mentioned children being taken away from a parent. where did I say anything about discriminating, I think you are taking things to an illogical extreme.Clearly love is paramount, and in no dispute, no matter what the upbinging.What I would reiterate, is the best possible outcome, is as I said, a strong cohesivemale/female couple. try as they may a woman is not a man, a man is not a woman.To try would be pure folly.There are differences, and ideally a boy needs to become a man, via observing andimitating and interacting with a sound male role model, same with young girls and their mums, but they also need the balance of their opposite gender role model.I really can't imagine how any one could argue against that.As for politics, Idealised, yes of course, that's the way it should be.If we the people don't speak up, more than at election time, then who have we to blame.The great silent majority, sit there and bitch about what happened to their freedoms, etcwhile the vocal minority get in their local members and ministers and anyone else who will listen's ears and drive policy. Democracy requires participation, by the constituency. How many on this site have ever even checked to see what bills were being proposedor their passage through the houses, let alone had something to say to their local memberif they object to a particular bill or ammendment.The greatest threat to democracy is apathy, and oversight.Of course whether we participate or not and they don't listen, we do get the opportunityto chuck em out at election time, thank christ we live in a country where we do atleast have the ability to do that.Cheers Felonius
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I think what the RHP member Krissy explained once on here is spot on: It is the way we are wired with chromzones that contols our sexuality and there is nothing we can do to change that and its probably not a good quality of life to supress your sexuality. So: All we can do is to tolerate and be respectfull of others and their sexuality. To sugest two men having sex, or bisexuality is at a higher level than man and women just does not have a place in modern society.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'feloniusfossil' I do have issues with children in these types of relationships. whilst I do understand and respect everybodies right to raise children, I am conflicted in also believeing in a child having strong male/female role models. which can really only be garnered from a strong and cohesive male/female relationship. No you did not mention anyone taking children away from thier natural parents.... I beg to differ from the "illogical" conclusion that you have drawn above. You are intimating that the ONLY strong influence can be drawn from a marriage between male and female. Let us remember that not all strong influences come from such a relationship, there is also aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins and numerous other relationships outside of wedded bliss. A father does not need to be present for little boys to become men and a mother does not need to be present for little girls to become women at all. Children do not become "GAY" because thier parents are. They do not become "GAY" because that is the example they have been shown. Personally I have managed to raise four such strong, functional children without the assistance of a husband....maybe me and mine are freaks.... You must also remember that in any same sex relationship, there is the possibility that one of the partners can be the biological parent of any children involved. Does that then mean that they should not be allowed the right to raise thier child because some in our society have "issues" with children being raised in same sex marriages? These are your words, not mine and I see nothing illogical about my conclusions at all.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
...but I do believe in faith, Neptune. There are many who could not survive without it and I would not try to deprive them of it by trying to convince them that their religion is hokum. Not that I'd have any chance of changing their minds in any case so why bother? Felonious, I once felt as you do but experience has changed my outlook. Being heterosexual does not qualify a person to be a good role model or even a responsible parent. Being raised by gay parents has no influence on a youth's own sexual orientation as had been asserted on a previous thread. It doesn't mean they are going to be singled out for bullying either. I really believe that the effort involved in jumping through beaurocratic hoops to qualify to adopt shows a commitment that is missing from many natural parents. It's happening now and it will become more commonplace so resisting it is futile. Let's move forward with it. It's the right thing to do.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I posted it just to illustrate how much attitudes can change, given time. We now understand that a person's sexual orientation is not a choice, it's something they were born with. I am purely hetero but I believe that gay love is just as legitimate and real as the love I have for Jennylee.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
When they wrote about the love between men of the ancient Mediterranean cultures they were speaking not of homosexuality but about the fraternal feelings that come from friendship, loyalty and a common bond. They considered that this kind of love and companionship was purer because it wasn't tainted by the feelings of lust or desire that a woman could evoke.While I agree that gay marriage should have been legalised long ago I also believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and if they do not agree then it is their right to do so no matter what their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Bigotry comes in all shapes, colours and sizes from many different cultures and from all walks of life. Bigotry is found in people of god, a god or no god. It comes in those with no understanding or tolerance for others.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'jensman1903' ...but I do believe in faith, Neptune. There are many who could not survive without it and I would not try to deprive them of it by trying to convince them that their religion is hokum. Not that I'd have any chance of changing their minds in any case so why bother? I also don't believe in depriving anyone of their faith. That's fine, and should be a personal decision. Faith is very important to some people, and in some circumstances I can respect that. What I absolutely cannot abide by however is them trying to force their faith on others. Separation of church and state and all of that.You can disagree with gay marriage for religious reasons. I can think you're an idiot. As long as you leave it there, we're cool. It's when you try and enforce your beliefs by legislating discrimination and oppression, then I'll call you out on it and not give you a fucking inch.Honestly, I'm so sick of trying to reason with these people. It's really not that hard. If you don't support gay marriage, don't get gay married.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Fi said"No you did not mention anyone taking children away from thier natural parents...." Nor did I use the term natural, there's a difference, and you have attempted to change the meaning.Fi said "You are intimating that the ONLY strong influence can be drawn from a marriage between male and female."Like any thing, there are a multitude of ways to do anything, generally only one best way.Fi said"A father does not need to be present for little boys to become men and a mother does not need to be present for little girls to become women"No of course not, they will grow up anatomically the same as they were born. It is more the environment, thatthey grow up in that ultimately shapes them in the formative years, and No I'm not saying anything negative aboutgay parents, I just believe a strong male/female couple is better, what your statement says, is one parent is redundant.Whilst one parent can raise a child, its not the ideal in my opinion.Fi said"Children do not become "GAY" because thier parents are. They do not become "GAY" because that is the example they have been shown."Errm.. where did you get that from, and why on earth would you think I thought that, blue sky mining?I think you would be hard pressed to find anybody who thought that in this day and age.Fi saidYou must also remember that in any same sex relationship, there is the possibility that one of the partners can be the biological parent of any children involved. Does that then mean that they should not be allowed the right to raise thier child because some in our society have "issues" with children being raised in same sex marriages?There you go again, When did I say anywhere about taking children away from their parents.The fact that a child may be the biological parent is pretty obvious, especially in female/female relationships.Geeze, I don't minding anybody arguing the topic with me, there is a multitude of views out there, and itsan important topic for gays wanting to raise a family, and the community in general, but please don't makeshit up in an attempt to further your own view.Jensman said"Felonious, I once felt as you do but experience has changed my outlook. Being heterosexual does not qualify a person to be a good role model or even a responsible parent. Being raised by gay parents has no influence on a youth's own sexual orientation as had been asserted on a previous thread. No of course not, and I don't believe there is any guarantee that gay parents are going to be good parents eitherthe odds are that some will fail at parenting, just like hetro parents.There is that statement again, the one about assuming, that I'm arguing that children should not be allowed gay parents because they will turn out gay, what gives man.I should categorically state that I do not believe that any child should be removed from a parent, unlessits for the childs safety. When I wrote that post the thought did not even occur to me, that some would attemptto construe that out of what I did actually write, theres something to be said for comprehension, or perhaps it isjust malelovence.Once again...in short form, I believe that men and women are wired differently, and interact differentlywith their enviroment, I also believe in balance, therefore, a strong male/female couple will be theideal environment for a child to be raised in. Therefore I'm conflicted because, I believe everybody shouldgenerally have the right to raise a family, but don't believe gay couples can do it best, No Fi, I'm not saying they will be terrible parents, I'm just saying they can't be equal to the best hetero couple.Cheers Felonius
-
RHP User
13 years ago
No of course not, and I don't believe there is any guarantee that gay parents are going to be good parents eitherthe odds are that some will fail at parenting, just like hetro parents.There is that statement again, the one about assuming, that I'm arguing that children should not be allowed gay parents because they will turn out gay, what gives man. Statistically speaking, gay parents are more likely to be better parents than a random heterosexual couple because there are fewer 'accidents'. I suppose it's true of many forms of adoption, because you've got a) an extensive vetting processes (which require potential parents to be financially and environmentally stable, as far as it can be assessed, b) it's a long, complicated and difficult process, meaning careful consideration and commitment is a requirement to become a parent.Please note that I'm in not saying gay parents are better than straight parents. That's not how statistics and probability works.You might find it worthwhile to look at some of the peer-reviewed research into same-sex parenting through Google Scholar. There's an enormous quantity of it out there, particularly in early childhood research (a friend of mine is a researcher in that field and I've read some of her work.)This is all beside the point though, because gay couples can already adopt. They just can't get married. It's unbelievably ridiculous.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'feloniusfossil' Araps, I believe it is quite incorrect in blaming the "old fart politicians",you need to remember that an elected representative will represent theviews of the vocal element (those who care to talk to their rep) of his/herconstituency, ( That is their role, and if you don't communicate with your rep, then really you have nothing to complain about) so it is eventually the constituency'spressure that will force a party to adopt a direction, and therefore vote alongparty lines, unless a concience vote is allowed, personally I'm not to sure aboutconcience votes, we don't elect our representatives, to act of their own free will.Cheers Felonius Felonius,I would like to point out the tasmanian situation today where the lower house looks like it has the numbers to pass the law. Is this not representative of their constituents ? Are the state libs listening ? no, the first thing the Will Hodgson says is see you in the high court. Put it to a referendum and then truly let the people decide.Agree with Neptune in thats its crazy that Gay couples are somehow okay to adopt and be parents but they are deemed by the laws in the country to be not worthy of marriage equality.Cheers,Araps.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I posted a couple of times last time this topic was raised - the short version is that discrimination in all its forms is being eliminated over time and those that resist are thankfully fighting a losing battle.It baffles me however that every time the topic is raised the issue of children has to come up. There's plenty of dumb reasons to be concerned about gay marriage, but fear for their children is the dumbest.Many gay couples already have children. Many also choose not to. Many gay couples would like to get married, many will choose not to, whether they have children or not. Just like hetero couples these days. What does marriage have to do with creating or raising children?The child-rearing benefits of ye olde fashioned family vs modern variations is a reasonable thing to discuss and debate, but it has no relevance whatsoever to the marriage issue.It's normally raised by religious bigots to deflect attention from the obvious deficiencies of their moral objections to equality. I dont think anyone above was doing it deliberately, but it's easy to be sucked in to these sort of sidetracks and lose focus on the real human rights issue.Mr C
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Thanks for noticing, by the way. My source was a gay/lesbian web site. I suppose there's a teeny chance that they may have been a tad biased in their interpretation. Felonious, I wasn't insinuating that you were suggesting that allowing gay parents results in gay kids. It had come up before an I was just trying to head it off. I understand your conflicting feelings. I have experienced the same but have resolved them for myself. I think you and I are still mostly on the same page. Neptune, stop confusing me, it's late. No, Annaperenna, I am not seeking to glorify paedophilia, I was just trying to illustrate the varying attitudes between different cultures especially given time. Discussion of paedophilia would be inappropriate during a debate on gay marriage but then, I don't really know when or where it would be appropriate
-
RHP User
13 years ago
They'll pass a law to marry all your cousins soon!!!! ..... joking ... I am very much in favor of gay marriage. xx
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'Cassandra_Jayne'They'll pass a law to marry all your cousins soon!!!! ..... joking ... I am very much in favor of gay marriage. xx have you read the tasmanian constitution? the cousin law was enacted circa 1857. in 1927 they tried to amend the act to be inclusive of all domesticated animals but there was an outcry within the poultry sector. damn those chicken non fuckers!!
-
RHP User
13 years ago
What would I want to read that for!?! ... I had a better resistance to include the poor animals ;)
-
RHP User
13 years ago
You guys bring the drinks, and of course I'll man the round bell. DING DING!! :p
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Marriage was initially a religious thing, allowing a man to claim a woman. You even needed permission to do it.Over the years, fringes of marriage have been warped to suit various needs. But the original stigma still lurks behind the curtain. Two people giving up freedoms for each other and the state giving permission.Maybe it's about time we threw the whole thing out and came up with a whole new institution that reflects love for what it is. Something that is based on enlightenment instead of medieval tradition.If marriage was really just about love, there’d be no need for this argument at all.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
we have a few gay friends...one couple who have been together for near to 40 years... ( high school teacher who became familiy friend )...and a few who are local to us. one couple are fulltime parents to one of the guys 3 boys. the boys are all well rounded, intelligent and respectful young men...all in their teens and early 20's. we have nothing but compliments for these men, as theyve done a fantastic job as roles models. there is no reason for same sex unions to not be as important and as recognised as hetero ones... we dont see those who dont agree with same sex unions as being bigots...that a much too strong word...fear is more likely the motivator...fear of the unknown and of what is misunderstood... and we see no link between religious beliefs and not accepting same sex couples as legitimate...as many churches now have ordained ministers who are openly gay, and even the "Quakers" are active in the campaign for same sex rights.....
-
RHP User
13 years ago
I'm not sure if we need a new institution - it's up to us to stand by and honour our love and commitment to our partner - dignity ultimately lies in a person. Personally I love the celebration in marriage - the declaration of it and sharing the happiness it brings! My dad said walking me down the stairs to meet my husband (fuck him .. Haha) was the best day of his life! The party was the best ever, having all I love most dearly with me!... It's a celebratory ritual of life, love and togetherness - a funeral is also a celebratory ritual of life, love and togetherness; a life that has now ended. Why should that celebration be denied to anyone?
-
RHP User
13 years ago
big·ot /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled<big-uht> Show IPA noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. ...and I use it where it fits.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'AnnaPerenna' Is the term used in ancient Greek society to describe the relationship between an adult male and a youth, usually 12 -17 years of age.The adult male was to be a role model and educate his erosmenos (young partner) due to the emphasis this society had on masculinity. This relationships were allowed to exist only until the youth grew a beard (became a man himself).Relationships between two adult males were associated with social stigma. The social stigma was obviously reserved for the passive partner who continued with this practice into adulthood therefore demeaning himself by becoming effeminate.So is this post a glorification for a society of pedophiles who believed that women were not worthy of being loved because they did not have a soul???Yes, I've heard of that before. In fact I've heard that the passive partner (the receiver) who brought males down to the feminine in adult life were stoned to death.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Quoting 'chickcara' I posted a couple of times last time this topic was raised - the short version is that discrimination in all its forms is being eliminated over time and those that resist are thankfully fighting a losing battle.It baffles me however that every time the topic is raised the issue of children has to come up. There's plenty of dumb reasons to be concerned about gay marriage, but fear for their children is the dumbest.Many gay couples already have children. Many also choose not to. Many gay couples would like to get married, many will choose not to, whether they have children or not. Just like hetero couples these days. What does marriage have to do with creating or raising children?The child-rearing benefits of ye olde fashioned family vs modern variations is a reasonable thing to discuss and debate, but it has no relevance whatsoever to the marriage issue.It's normally raised by religious bigots to deflect attention from the obvious deficiencies of their moral objections to equality. I dont think anyone above was doing it deliberately, but it's easy to be sucked in to these sort of sidetracks and lose focus on the real human rights issue.Mr C Many studies into ideal family conditions are actually backed by organizations that have a religious agenda (i.e. The Discovery Institute in America), therefore I'd take a lot of what is out there with a grain of salt, as they don't look at the families with all things being equal. It's pretty easy to poke holes in their methods.Objective studies suggest that the best parental conditions for optimal child development is lesbian couples. The children tend to do slightly better on social development indicators than children of gay or straight parents. Yes we do want kids to have good role models, but those role models can come from other sources besides just the parents. Extended family (grandparents, uncles, aunts) are further sources of role models, as are teachers and leaders of extra curricular activities. Children are not raised in isolated bubbles, they are raised in a community and it's really up to the community to help each child prosper.
-
madotara69
13 years ago
Usually they are the life of a partyIf they want to express a commitment for each other, who really has the right to deny them for that?Children, yes they need love. Gay people have loveWhat to teach children? I believe they need to learn the values for courtesy,respect,honesty and care. Trying to assist the children with the ability to focus and concentrate to it, is a difficult task no matter who the parent/s will be.It is a blessing for children who have parents, to lonely ones that don't, could only wish.I think some people are afraid to step outside from their comfort zone. Some afraid to think for themselves, they let others think for them. Each to their own.
-
RHP User
13 years ago
My point above is that children and marriage are two different topics.Allowing same sex couples to marry does not mean they will be compelled to have children. Not allowing them to marry does not prevent them from having children.Discussing the merits of different parenting situations in the same forum as the debate on same sex marriage is falling into a trap laid by the anti-equality bigots.Resist! Don't think of the children!Mr C
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Look up Zach Wahls on yourtube who testified in a Iowa court his experience as being a child raised by two lesbian women. Children are raised by love and guidence, and this has no correlation to gender. I have many gay friends who have raised amazing kids, and a friend of mine grew up in a lesbian household, and she turned out fine. Religion has always been driven by people with their own interests at hand. If gd made you who you are and you are gay, that doesn't make you a sinner and it should be your god given right to love and marry anyone you want, I mean we have people marrying their pets for god's sake, but we wont allow gay marriage.....seems a bit silly to me
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Search for 'Shane Crone & Tom Bridegroom youtube' to see a situation that any couple who love each other should not have to go through when one of them dies, just because they were gay and unable to marry. On the topic of children, gay couples are able to adopt as a couple in WA and ACT, so being married is neither here nor there in that regard.In regards to Centrelink thay have equal rights with same sex couples which means they will be required to advise if they live with a same sex partner for the purposes of assets and income which will affect their payment/ entitlement.I'm all for two people of the same sex who love each other being able to have the same right of marriage that so many couples take for granted.Peachy
-
Letsgetcrazy09
13 years ago
No comments on religious beliefs, it only creates arguement. NZ Parliament have in my opinion done the right thing. If only our own government and opposition would put it to a conscience vote. JMO Lets
-
yankmychain56
13 years ago
so if i am not for gay marriage, i am a bigot?get real.the argument came up in the states over gays being treated the same way as african americans were in the 50s and 60s.there is no comparison and black America rose up against the idea of being grouped in with the 'oppressed' gay marriage crowd.as stated, gay couples have been around for centuries, so WHY rock the boat now?the bottom line is EQUAL RIGHTS vs SPECIAL RIGHTS.If a gay or lesbian couple want to live together, that is their business, but dont FORCE your belief system on me by FORCING me to pay taxes to support your 'union' through tax breaks and all the other bennies of being married.so get off your high horse and live together if you want. dont force me to pay taxes to support your cause.I know I will probably be turned in to the thought police for this but I really dont care.
-
Letsgetcrazy09
13 years ago
With regards to tax breaks and being married, the concessions are surely there that as an individual you get paid more. So by having a legalised union, does that not then mean that they will get less?
-
RHP User
13 years ago
Not heard from you in a while. How have you been? No, I would say that there's a great deal of room between "not for gay marriage" and bigotry but being against it and creating reasons for your stance is a bigoted attitude. What "special" rights are you talking about? They are asking only that the union of same sex couples' gets the same recognition and rights as anyone else's. Trust me, none of them decided, "Hey, I want a piece of Yank's tax dollar so I'm going to be gay and get married." If a person is going to qualify for government assistance, why should it matter to you what their sexual orientation is? Are you telling me that you're happy to have your tax dollar assist total strangers as long as they are heterosexual but cut them off if they are gay? My step-daughter and her partner WILL get married WHEN the laws are changed and they won't be doing it to try to rort the system. They'll be doing it because they are in love and just like any girl, they've been dreaming about their wedding for years
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 15120 Comments: 88294
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1417 Comments: 10254
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2519 Comments: 11675
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2506 Comments: 9771
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 1005 Comments: 5235
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1302 Comments: 5785
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 782 Comments: 1993
-
LGBT
Topics: 170 Comments: 869
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share