Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

If Mo says No and Ma Says Yes who wins?Follow

#1 Aug 04 2004 at 9:21 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Missouri approves same-sex marriage ban
Wednesday, August 4, 2004 Posted: 8:43 AM EDT (1243 GMT)

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri (AP) -- Missouri voters solidly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a decision that was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the battle.

With nearly all precincts reporting, the amendment had garnered 71 percent of the vote, according to unofficial results for Tuesday's vote.

It was the first such vote since the historic ruling in Massachusetts last year that legalized same-sex weddings there.

Also Tuesday, Missouri voters dumped embattled Gov. Bob Holden in favor of state Auditor Claire McCaskill in the state's Democratic primary. (Full story)

Although the ban was widely expected to pass in conservative Missouri, experts said the campaign served as a key barometer for which strategies work as at least nine other states, and perhaps as many as 12, vote on similar amendments this year.

Missouri and 37 other states already have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. But amendment supporters fear a court could toss aside the state law, and they believe the state would be on firmer legal ground if an outright ban is part of the Constitution.

"I'm very gratified and encouraged and thankful that the people of this state understand our current policy's a wise public policy and they want to see it protected from a legal challenge," said Vicky Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri.

Opponents said the amendment was unnecessary and discriminatory, but knew they faced an uphill battle in Missouri.

"We're already reaching out to these other states, sharing with them what we learned, what worked, what didn't work, and we'll move on," said Doug Gray, campaign manager for the Constitution Defense League. "Ultimately we're right and they're simply wrong."

Supporters and opponents of the amendment have used grassroots campaigns, knocking on doors and making phone calls to tell people about the issue. The group fighting the amendment, the Constitution Defense League, raised more than $360,000, largely from national gay-rights groups, and ran a television ad in the final days before the vote.

The group favoring the amendment, the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, spread the word through churches and community events, raising just a few thousand dollars but saying public sentiment in Missouri was on their side.

Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment September 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue November 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada -- already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

#2 Aug 04 2004 at 9:27 AM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's well known that MO is filled with uneducated conservative hicks and MA is a breeding ground of liberal intelligentsia. So we must side with MA! Smiley: wink

Has it been 13 days already?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Aug 04 2004 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
**
862 posts
Rock on, Missouri. Rock on.
#4 Aug 04 2004 at 9:37 AM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
See?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Aug 04 2004 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
**
862 posts
:)

Say what you will, marriage is man and a woman.
#6 Aug 04 2004 at 9:39 AM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll take your word for it. I spent eight pages talking about it (well about it and about the earwig in my stomach) already. I just felt like taking a cheap shot Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Aug 04 2004 at 9:56 AM Rating: Decent
*
202 posts
Who wins?

The people win...

We do not need this issue decided by the Federal Government. The U.S. Constitustion is there to make sure that personal things are not intruded on by the Feds and that States retain as much governing power as possible (this is what is so confusing as to why the "conservatives" are trying to EXPAND Federal control).

Let this issue be decided at the most local level possible - State, County. If MO wants no gay marriage - fine. If California wants it - fine. If you want to move to MO - good.

The issue is whether the states will be required to "recognise" marriages that were licensed in other states. As a general rule they will, like driver licenses. That is what is scaring the **** out of Jerry Falwell.
#8 Aug 04 2004 at 11:04 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

We do not need this issue decided by the Federal Government.


It's gonna be.

It's clear that the SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of Gay Marrige as well over the objections of Scalia and freinds.

I'd say in about three years or so.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Aug 04 2004 at 11:07 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:

We do not need this issue decided by the Federal Government.


It's gonna be.

It's clear that the SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of Gay Marrige as well over the objections of Scalia and freinds.

I'd say in about three years or so.


Unless (1) Bush gets re-elected and (2) he manages to get in a few more neo-conservative judges (they aren't *real* conservatives, seeing as how they're being judicial *activists*...).
#10 Aug 04 2004 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Quote:
Say what you will, marriage is man and a woman.


Not always, there have been numerous cases throughout history and also throughout the world of same sex marriage.

Cheyenne Indians allowed married men to take Berdaches (male transvestites) as second wives.

Azande's in what is now Sudan were allowed to marry male brides if they could not afford a woman.

Nandi women were allowed to marry other women to keep financial security incase of loss of husband.


I could go on and on. Quit using your Eurocentric idea of marriage as a blanket to hide your homophobia.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#11 Aug 04 2004 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
I've given the gay marriage issue some thought lately. I really had to sit down and scratch my head over this one. My first instinct said 'Gay marriage bad. Unk. Ungowa.' But that's not exactly based on logic or reasoning. It's more of an 'I'm not gay, so why should I give a **** if gay people want something? ***** em,' answer.

Well, I like to hold a better opinion of myself than that answer would indicate I should. Hence, the head scratching.

So I've finally decided where I stand on this issue:

The United States has traditionally supported the family unit (composed of man and wife, along with any offspring) through a subsidized income by means of tax breaks. The result of his support has been to ecnourage the existence of said family units. The phenomenon extends to the private sector as well (family men are viewed as more stable, married women are less likley to be viewed as having slept their way to the top, can anyone say 'car insurance').

You can argue that this has caused out nation to climb on top of the heap and become the #1 global power.

You could also argue that it has caused an excessive divorce rate and an incredible number adultery incidents.

Either or both arguments could be made quite successfully, as well as others.

It's my conclusion that allowing gay marriage will not harm this nation. The sky won't fall. Taxes will still be collected at the same rates. God will not smite anyone extra.

On a purely ethical level, there's nothing at all wrong with gay marriage. It should be legal. To make it illegal would be a travesty.

If I were asked to vote for an amendment specifically banning gay marriage, I'd vote against the amendment. The purpose of our government is to protect our rights and privileges as much as possible, not to restrict them. That includes ***-pounding and slit-licking, no matter how I feel about these acts on a personal level.

So, Mr. Bush, should you read this forum (sorry, I'm all out of crayola), maybe you should lay off picking on the homos. Or pick your battles better. If you're going to strip a portion of your constituents of their privileges, you should start by taking away their votes.....



#12 Aug 04 2004 at 10:32 PM Rating: Decent
Deathfromtheskies wrote:
:)

Say what you will, marriage is man and a woman.


Yes. Let's preserve marriage in its original form.

Huh? Now women can't own property in their own names? Now we can't get divorces? Now families have to come up with a large amount of money just to convince the man to take the woman as a wife?

Gee, what a great idea!

*snork*
#13 Aug 05 2004 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Hm... I've only got 3 cows. Not NEAR enough for a good dowry. I'm screwed.
#14 Aug 05 2004 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
The purpose of our government is to protect our rights and privileges as much as possible, not to restrict them.


Homosexuals currently do not have the right to marry in all but Mass., so in theory the ammendment WOULD protect the rights and privileges. not restrict them. The current Executive Branch and a good portion of the Legislative Branches of government do not want to change the current system of marriage based on what many of their constituents are saying.

The reason this entire issue is such a hot potatoe in the country right now is because members of the Judicial Branch of the federal government are making laws that are changing the current social structure of American Society and forcing what a majority of Americans think is wrong onto American Citizens. Some in the Judicial Branch are trying to bypassing our elected officials and forcing the majority in America that they have to accept Homosexual marriage. This issue being forced down America's throat by the manner in which the Judicial Branch is doing it is wrong.

Point 1 - Homosexuals have the right to marry, just not one of the same sex.

Point 2 - If a homosexual couple want to have children then they can adopt. Even a married couple that can not have and want them have to adopt and they go through years of paper work and money to have children. So nothing would change for a homosexual married couple. So no benefit in it for them to be to have children.

Point 3 - Married couples receive tax breaks because they are married and have children. The US Tax Code gives tax breaks to heads of households and to guardians who have a child living with them for more than 6 months out of the year and when a person is paying 50% or more of the childs expenses. So again what extra in tax breaks would a married homosexual couple receive?

Point 4 - Property ownership, to own a house jointly there is no law that I am aware of that says you have to be married. Your spouse is a co-signer on the mortgage, the same thing can be done with a homosexual couple.

Point 5 - If one is sick or dying the partner does not have the same visitation and decision making rights about there partner. A special or a general power of attorney would take of this issue. Even in a marriage if a spouse buys a car or has a bank account only in there name the wife or husband has no legal access to the account unless there is a power of attorney.

Point 6 - If the partner dies the surviving partner has no rights to the others property. This one I will concede, that heterosexual marriage does have a leg up on homosexual couples, however the way around this is through a special power of attorney and a will.

Point 7 - Every Married couple that has any significant assets should have special powers of attorney and a will drawn up to ensure assets and ownership of property is maintained.

Looking at this from the points above, the issue at hand is one of judicial liberals legislating from the bench to restructure American society.

Now here is my opinion if the state of Alabama removed one of their chief justices for protecting the message on a stone tablet that had inscribed it the foundation and principles of American laws then these judges that are legislating from the bench should also be removed.
#15 Aug 05 2004 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
You know, I never thought I'd come out on THIS particular issue to take the stance I that I am. But you have to do what's right.

Stok, just because a law is on the books doesn't make something right. Just because a law isn't on the books doesn't make something wrong.

This entire issue has come to the point where it is now because our society has Puritan origins. However, those gentlemen who put together the framework of our Constituion and Bill of Rights recognised the basic fallacy of believing that times do not change. Times inevitably DO change. So our government must, if it is to remain relevant to its citizens, be able to change with the times.

Homosexuality is a life choice. The relationships homosexual people have are no less real than those of heterosexual people. It is the responsibility of our government to allow citizens to legitimize these relationships through the legal bond of marriage if so desired.

A preacher <insert religious position here> shouldn't have to perform the ceremony if his church doesn't approve of the relationship. But that extends to ALL marriages, not just homosexual marriages. Legally, the privilege of marriage should be extended to all citizens of age, same sex or not.

Quite frankly, I see no reason two heterosexual people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married. Does it count as adultery (or incest) if you cheat on your fishing buddy with his sister?
#16 Aug 05 2004 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Depends on if your buddy is your BROTHER.

Quote:
Stok, just because a law is on the books doesn't make something right. Just because a law isn't on the books doesn't make something wrong.


So what are you saying here? Not all laws are right and not all laws are wrong? Okay I'll agree with that blanket statement, still doesn't prove anything though.

Quote:
This entire issue has come to the point where it is now because our society has Puritan origins.


No this whole issue has come to this point because a very small group feel disenfranchised and want to have a chosen way of life legalized so that they can gain minority status and receive more protectionist rights and laws in their favor. Since all the other attempts at legalizing their sodomy has not worked the way they desire they are attacking the very fabric of American society. Puritan oigins? Oh because the Pilgrims landed here first. Here I thought our country originated in the belief of self rule and establishing a nation of laws based on how the Majority chose. Last time I knew was it took a Majority to pass laws that govern this country not an ultra liberal judge with an agenda.

Quote:
Times inevitably DO change.


Yes they do. But not all change is good or necessary.

Quote:
It is the responsibility of our government to allow citizens to legitimize these relationships through the legal bond of marriage if so desired.


Says who? You? You and the minority group wanting this change are the only ones the government has to listen to? Hahahaha.

It is the responsibility of OUR government to ensure the laws enacted in this country are fair and equitable and represent the beliefs and morals of the Majority in this country, not 8% who if they wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex they could. Instead they want to do something that is not natural and is asking the government to legitimize their actions.

Quote:
Legally, the privilege of marriage should be extended to all citizens of age, same sex or not.


Legally, the privilege of marriage should betweeen a man and woman that is not blood related and of appropriate age.

Quote:
Quite frankly, I see no reason two heterosexual people of the same sex shouldn't be able to get married.


???? - I don't see any reason why two heterosexual people of the same sex shouldn't get married either, since they wouldn't be marrying some one of their same sex. Homosexuals on the other hand don't need to have the privilege because when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of society the marriage between two homosexuals does nothing to promote the future of our society nor mankind by being able to reproduce and maintain a blood line of a specific family.



#17 Aug 05 2004 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Since all the other attempts at legalizing their sodomy has not worked the way they desire they are attacking the very fabric of American society
How did they desire? Sodomy is legal in every one of the fifty states. The Supreme Court ruled that laws against it were unconstitutional and unenforcable. There's is absolutely nothing inherant about homosexuality that is a crime anywhere in the nation.

Can't get much more legalized than that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Aug 05 2004 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Homosexuals currently do not have the right to marry in all but Mass., so in theory the ammendment WOULD protect the rights and privileges. not restrict them. The current Executive Branch and a good portion of the Legislative Branches of government do not want to change the current system of marriage based on what many of their constituents are saying.


Yes, they do. They want to codify discromination against a certain group in presicelt the same way Dixiecrats wanted to codify discrimination against non-whites.

Identical.

The constitution determines rights, not legislation. IF a law infringes upon people's rights as the "Defence of Marrige Act" clearly does, they are contrary to the rights enumerated to all people in the Constitution.



The reason this entire issue is such a hot potatoe in the country right now is because members of the Judicial Branch of the federal government are making laws that are changing the current social structure of American Society and forcing what a majority of Americans think is wrong onto American Citizens. Some in the Judicial Branch are trying to bypassing our elected officials and forcing the majority in America that they have to accept Homosexual marriage. This issue being forced down America's throat by the manner in which the Judicial Branch is doing it is wrong.


They're wrong every time they strike down a law that's unconstitutional then, I guess.

I imagine you'd be happier if we still owned people as slaves, men were allowed to beat their wives, and women weren't allowed to vote.


Point 1 - Homosexuals have the right to marry, just not one of the same sex.


No, they have the right to mary whomever they want. That's the point. What you'd like to restrict their rights to isn't the issue.


Point 2 - If a homosexual couple want to have children then they can adopt. Even a married couple that can not have and want them have to adopt and they go through years of paper work and money to have children. So nothing would change for a homosexual married couple. So no benefit in it for them to be to have children.

Marrige has ZERO to do with having children.

Nothing, zilch, nada, bupkis.

Two for two on false menaingless points, let's see what's next.


Point 3 - Married couples receive tax breaks because they are married and have children. The US Tax Code gives tax breaks to heads of households and to guardians who have a child living with them for more than 6 months out of the year and when a person is paying 50% or more of the childs expenses. So again what extra in tax breaks would a married homosexual couple receive?


Irrelevant. Who cares about Tax status? It's an issue of basica fairness.


Point 4 - Property ownership, to own a house jointly there is no law that I am aware of that says you have to be married. Your spouse is a co-signer on the mortgage, the same thing can be done with a homosexual couple.


One, it's gain irrelevant.

Two, what happens when a same sex couple gets divorced? How do you provide for Alimony, or custody of children?

There are specefic mandates in the law arround marrige that aren't duplicated for same sex couples, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE wouldn't have anything to do with them having the right to marry.



Point 5 - If one is sick or dying the partner does not have the same visitation and decision making rights about there partner. A special or a general power of attorney would take of this issue. Even in a marriage if a spouse buys a car or has a bank account only in there name the wife or husband has no legal access to the account unless there is a power of attorney.


There are automatic rights granted to spouses that cannot be duplicated through other legal means.

EVEN IF THERE WERE WAYS TO DUPLICATE THEM it would be irrelevant.


Point 6 - If the partner dies the surviving partner has no rights to the others property. This one I will concede, that heterosexual marriage does have a leg up on homosexual couples, however the way around this is through a special power of attorney and a will.


What is it that you're afraid of, Stok?

I mean you dance around every issue trying to show that there's no reason that same sex couples have to marry, but what's your objection, really?

You could replace same sex with interacial and gender with race and your argument would be the same as those made against iterracial marrige fourty years ago.

You're going to look and feel just as foolish in fourty years, as well, when your son and his husband ask you what the big problem was.


Point 7 - Every Married couple that has any significant assets should have special powers of attorney and a will drawn up to ensure assets and ownership of property is maintained.


Irrelevant.



Looking at this from the points above, the issue at hand is one of judicial liberals legislating from the bench to restructure American society.


No, they are upholding the Constitution.

I realize that document is meaningless to you unless it fits in with your particular view on an issue, but to most of the rest of us it's a fairly signifigant thing.



Now here is my opinion if the state of Alabama removed one of their chief justices for protecting the message on a stone tablet that had inscribed it the foundation and principles of American laws then these judges that are legislating from the bench should also be removed.


What does "legislating from the bench" actually even mean to you?

Do you even understand the phrase or was it just catchy enough when you heard it on Rush Limbaugh that you thought you'd work into any disscussion where a discriminated minority was allowed protection from abuse and discrimination under the law.

Stok's examples of "legislating from the bench:

Brown Vs Board of Education
Cox Vs Lousiana
US Vs Morrison
Giswold V Conneticut

Etc.

"legislating from the bench" Is what protects you and me from being subject to illegal search, living in a theocracy where our children are taught Creationism in public schools (allthough I'm sure you're all for that), people owngin other people, people being disenfracnchised from voting, and very shortly I think, people being barred from marrying whomever they choose because people like you are worried that your sons are going to take it up the *** if it's socially acceptable.

Poor Stok.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Aug 05 2004 at 9:01 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

No this whole issue has come to this point because a very small group feel disenfranchised and want to have a chosen way of life legalized so that they can gain minority status and receive more protectionist rights and laws in their favor. Since all the other attempts at legalizing their sodomy has not worked the way they desire they are attacking the very fabric of American society. Puritan oigins? Oh because the Pilgrims landed here first. Here I thought our country originated in the belief of self rule and establishing a nation of laws based on how the Majority chose. Last time I knew was it took a Majority to pass laws that govern this country not an ultra liberal judge with an agenda.


When did we start talking about Jim Crow laws?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#20 Aug 05 2004 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
So why are you making this personal Smash? Here TStephens and I are having a debate neither one of us attacking the other and yet you come along and start the insults. Go away on this one Smash, your personal attacks and ******** is not needed.

Just to make a point that I have made about 20 times on this specific topic, I could care less. Homosexuals should have the right to marry. Personally I do not care actually. The emotional relationship that modern society believes is the reason for marriage can exist between two men of they choose to develope that strong of a relationship, hey go for it.

The act of homosexuality as a sex act, does not need to be brought into the open. So what does it matter to me if two guys or two ladies choose to spend the rest of their lives together. No skin of my nose.



Thanks for the rate downs whoever doesn't listening to the opposing side.


Edited, Thu Aug 5 10:13:50 2004 by Stok
#21 Aug 05 2004 at 9:19 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

So why are you making this personal Smash? Here TStephens and I are having a debate neither one of us attacking the other and yet you come along and start the insults. Go away on this one Smash, your personal attacks and bullsh*t is not needed.


Poor, poor, Stok. First the let the darkies vote and serve in your unit and now they want to let the ****** marry. It must be like the decline of the Roman Empire for you.



Just to make a point that I have made about 20 times on this specific topic, I could care less.


Clearly, that's why you continue to make spurrious arguments with absolutely no basis in fact, legal prescedent, or logic.

Because you care so little.




Homosexuals should have the right to marry. Personally I do not care actually. The emotional relationship that modern society believes is the reason for marriage can exist between two men of they choose to develope that strong of a relationship, hey go for it.


But, you think it's a bad legal prescedent for judges to "legislate against the majority from the bench" and there is simply no need to for Gay Marrige to be codified because the rights can for the most part allready be obtained through other means.

Suddenly you're a constitutional and legal scholar on a subject you could care less about.

Amazing.



The act of homosexuality as a sex act, does not need to be brought into the open. So what does it matter to me if two guys or two ladies choose to spend the rest of their lives together. No skin of my nose.


I don't know. If I had to guess I'd say that you had some sort of experimental homsexual activity when you were younger and are still filled with self loathing about it.



Thanks for the rate downs whoever doesn't listening to the opposing side.


Hey, it's not me. Trust me, though, in the rate down world it's rarely the liberal posters doing the rating down.

Would it bother you if your son turns out to be gay, Stok? Or would it be no skin off your nose?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#22 Aug 05 2004 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
Great, Smash winds up posting on my 'side.'

Does this mean I'm a liberal pansy?
#23 Aug 05 2004 at 11:02 AM Rating: Decent
Does this mean I'm a liberal pansy?

Unequivocally.
#24 Aug 05 2004 at 11:07 AM Rating: Decent
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Why does this not apply to gays?
#25 Aug 05 2004 at 11:08 AM Rating: Decent
The question is an interesting one to me, from the social standpoint I suppose.

I say call it a civil union granting the exact same rights as those of marriange between opposite sex partners.

Marrige has ZERO to do with having children.

Nothing, zilch, nada, bupkis.

Two for two on false menaingless points, let's see what's next.


If we're talking about adoption, then I'm fairly sure there are certain adoption agencies that won't even consider a single person trying to adopt, let along two partners of the same sex. I'm not sure if this was his point or not.
#26 Aug 05 2004 at 11:12 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

If we're talking about adoption, then I'm fairly sure there are certain adoption agencies that won't even consider a single person trying to adopt, let along two partners of the same sex. I'm not sure if this was his point or not.


/shrug. Couldn't tell ya. Allthough I know about 9 lesbian couples that adopted kids so I can't imagine it's an epidemic problem.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 297 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (297)