PDA

View Full Version : High Court Rules Gay Marriage Ok



Kilrtoy
02-04-2004, 04:52 PM
What the ****
marriage=Man and Woman
NOT =MAN AND MAN
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Gays_and_Lesbians

mirvin
02-04-2004, 04:55 PM
Kilr, I think that's the Massachussets Supreme court. I'm pretty sure the real Supreme Court won't let this happen.
Besides, think about all the fraud. Every couple of buddies could "get married" and they can get each other benefits!!
Mirv;)

Mrs. Bordsmnj
02-04-2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by mirvin
Besides, think about all the fraud. Every couple of buddies could "get married" and they can get each other benefits!!
Mirv;)
Just curious Mirv, would you be willing to pretend to be gay for benies??:)
Oh and Kilr, I agree
Marriage = man and woman

Wicky
02-04-2004, 05:02 PM
I'm not for it but, hell, its in my best interest. I Think all those fruity weddings will bring in a lot of $$$$$ revenue. I'm sure some of those homies love sushi and I know I would like to buy a new Merc Drag motor. From a business standpoint it is a good thing for me. Let em get married. Who gives a **** anyways what they do. If I can make some cash off the deal then let em get married.
And also may I quote eliminated spirit "The whole thing started out as a religious concept and the government should stay out of it as much as it can. I don't care if some guy wants to marry his pet frog as long as I still have the right to treat him like an idiot."
__________________
Mow,
Wicky

rivercrazy
02-04-2004, 05:02 PM
Just think. If they allow this, then health insurance bene's could be given to every spouse of every gay partner. This will change the insurance industry big time. And how about community property law? Credit reports, Special rights for gays?
It will have wide scale impact to just about everything. Except demand for KY Jelly. :D
What's next? The courts will rule its OK to marry a sheep?:yuk:

HighRoller
02-04-2004, 05:15 PM
The first order of business is changing the state's name to "ASSACHUSSETTS".

MRS FLYIN VEE
02-04-2004, 05:22 PM
don't forget.. Viagrafalls.. LOL!! :D :D

BUSTI
02-04-2004, 05:26 PM
HighRoller,
How funny! Good line!

eliminatedsprinter
02-04-2004, 05:32 PM
As far as I'm concerned, I don't give a rats rear what any court feels about marriage. The whole thing started out as a religious concept and the government should stay out of it as much as it can.:rolleyes: I don't care if some guy wants to marry his pet frog as long as I still have the right to treat him like an idiot.:rolleyes:

MagicMtnDan
02-04-2004, 06:14 PM
What's next?
Hopefully not making it legal across the US for gays to marry.
Hopefully not Scary John Kerry elected President. I heard his victory speech last night and this guy is as liberal as it gets. Hold onto your wallets if he gets in - the US is gonna be like Canada and Europe - free (crappy) healthcare for everyone and higher taxes to pay for it all.
These effen liberals think the "wealthy" in this country are the problem! The wealthiest 300,000 in this state pay more than 50% of California's income taxes!!! :eek: You want to tax them more?! You want to take away every incentive to make more money, to be more successful, to have your own successfull company, to take better care of your family?!
The worst thing that could happen is for any of these tax-and-spend, income redistributing liberal Democrats to get elected. Don't even think about voting Democratic this year unless you want to give up a LOT more of your money in taxes and get a lot LESS in return.

Kilrtoy
02-04-2004, 06:15 PM
This is going to cost companies Tons of $$$$$
where I work it is costing in """DOMESTIC PARTNER BENIFITS""" an additional 500 Million dollars.
That is bullshit. yet the company is short this year 465 Million,
I WONDER WHY
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
then they want to start charging me for my benifits, due to this BULLSHIT.
No make these clowns pay for their PARTNERS........

INXS
02-04-2004, 06:17 PM
Vote for the Dems and that's what your get more of!
INXS

CA Stu
02-04-2004, 06:43 PM
Mass. has always been a hotbed of far left pinko thought, this is just the latest BS to come out of that fruity ass state.
If there was ever a reason to shake your head.....
CA Stu
PS "Assachussetts" :D :D

mickeyfinn
02-04-2004, 07:10 PM
Don't understand why the courts would rule that way....My understanding is only half the fags are born that way.
The other half just kinda get sucked into it....:jawdrop:

Maxey
02-04-2004, 07:33 PM
This country is going to hell. Check your history books! Fall of the Roman Empire. I fear that the values that made this country so great are being forgotton. Just my .02 I love this country and what it stands for. Most of you would probably call me an "old fart".

C-2
02-04-2004, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by HighRoller
The first order of business is changing the state's name to "ASSACHUSSETTS".
That is damn funny!
Personally I could care less, to each his own.

Boozer
02-04-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Maxey
This country is going to hell. Check your history books! Fall of the Roman Empire. I fear that the values that made this country so great are being forgotton. Just my .02 I love this country and what it stands for. Most of you would probably call me an "old fart".
I understand the whole Roman Empire Concept but disagree in some respects. In Europe Homosexuality is socially accepted and so is nudity. America is one of the few modern world countries that still shuns homosexuality and public displays of nudity. If the Roman Empire theory were to be correct in this case then why haven't the other countries who have made this sort of thing socially acceptable for years now fallen from within?
I think there are a lot of advantages that homosexual marriages can have on the economy. Now that it will be legal they will get tax breaks and have more money to spend on consumer items. It will also most likely cause more of them to buy houses due to the fact that they would then be able to file jointly on their taxes and also get credit lines together.
As far as the argument of domestic partner benefits go, think about it this way. If they were NOT allowed to be gay they would have to be straight and they'd still have a domestic partner of sorts that they would be sharing their benefits with so I don't see the whole domestic partnership being a just argument.

Kilrtoy
02-04-2004, 10:34 PM
Come on Boozer that thinking is beyond flawed.
Being gay does not create any benefits for the economy.
In the closet or not, THEY STILL SPEND MONEY.
I agree if you want to be gay, GO FOR IT.
But those rights are persons who create life and have families. If you are gay that is impossible.
If you adopt a child, then the child you adopt is entitled to your benefits.
gay persons they wont be entitled to those benefits unless they are married to a person of the opposite sex.
The only time gay people want to be different is
WHEN IT BENEFITS THEM.

missboatnam1
02-04-2004, 10:52 PM
i dont kow what the hell to think of it!! i cant even belive this is even coming up and out!! what the hell!! i guess im getting old, could you imagine this 20 years ago:eek:
crazy stuff!!!

mbrown2
02-04-2004, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by missboatnam1
i dont kow what the hell to think of it!! i cant even belive this is even coming up and out!! what the hell!! i guess im getting old, could you imagine this 20 years ago:eek:
crazy stuff!!!
Can you imagine what the idiots courts will be deciding on 20 years from now....that really scares me :mad:

diggler
02-05-2004, 07:04 AM
OK, I am definitely not gay, but I could care less who marries who. This whole discussion leads to another issue about benefits regarding health care, taxes, etc.
I am a conservative by heart, but thinking about it, I really like how Canada and Great Britain handle their healthcare via a countrywide health service. Imaging the strain of workman's comp being released from the small business. (out here in CA, the cost is insane!) Also, imagine all of the HMO's, PPO's, and all that other shit being gone.
This could eliminate a major rejection of a man-man, or woman-woman marriage and reduce it down to the moral issue of the definition of what a marriage is.

Drunk tank
02-05-2004, 07:24 AM
SEND THEM ALL TO HELL!!! JESUS IS GONNA BE PISSED!!! ALLAH AIN'T HAPPY EITHER!!! Or so my islamic friend from Turkey says :mad:
In all seriousness, I could care less. As long as the cock suckers leave me alone to my happy heterosexual life, let them do whatever they want. All I can see is a bunch of new "discrimination" lawsuits comming along; more bullshit, if I own a company...It's MY COMPANY and I get to decide WHO I want working for it and HOW I wanna run it. That being said... My vote is goin for Bush in 2004 just like it did in 2000, I like the guy...even though he's from Texas :D

missboatnam1
02-05-2004, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Drunk tank
[SIZE=20].. My vote is goin for Bush in 2004 just like it did in 2000, I like the guy...even though he's from Texas :D
i would be scared to see someone else take office at this time....i have to agree with you 100%.....i like bush too, hes got hmmm balls, and brains.......:rolleyes:

HOSS
02-05-2004, 08:43 AM
I`m all for it! Thats right boys and girls you read right. Aside from the seperation from church and state let `em do what they want. Now I`m pushing for me to be able to have more than one wife!
This does bring some serious issues to the table though. Where does it end? Seperation from church and state? The envelope is being puched too damn much in my opinion. There has to be a limit. Not that it really has any bearing anymore but swearing on the stand is church and state. I guess if your caught breakin` the law then you did something wrong. If not no harm done.
See the Constitution was designed to be a living, breathing thing. It included morals. Thats what the state is really seperating itself from. There has got to be a morality "clause" written into the Constitution. If not then this country is really moving fast towards a free for all. Thats when the system will break down thereby having a global catastrophic effect on every civilized populas.
As long as the right to bear arms is with me,,,I`ll be alright.
Its time to wake up and vote people into office with morals. President Bush has morals. Its quite obvious by Saddam`s ass being taken down. So when someone bitches about our occupying Iraq,,,,,,,,slam their teeth down their throat. Make damn sure you tell them that you did this not as a seperation from church and state but just because you can.

Drunk tank
02-05-2004, 08:48 AM
The fact that he has balls and takes the initiative to get things done is what I like too. Sure he may seem kinda dimwitted at times but in all seriousness....what presidents that we have wern't? Thats why they have advisors...they are experts (for the most part)and know their shit...then they tell GB what the best course of action is depending on the situation.

Drunk tank
02-05-2004, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by HOSS
Its time to wake up and vote people into office with morals. President Bush has morals. Its quite obvious by Saddam`s ass being taken down. So when someone bitches about our occupying Iraq,,,,,,,,slam their teeth down their throat. Make damn sure you tell them that you did this not as a seperation from church and state but just because you can.
Can I get a HELL YA!!!!:D

sorry dog
02-05-2004, 09:02 AM
I say let'em get married.
It will be the last sex they have with each other.

eliminatedsprinter
02-05-2004, 09:11 AM
I think it's pretty dumb of us to let a bunch of uptight leftists re- write the dictionary. The Mass court ruled in favor of gay marriage, rather than domestic partnership, because it objected to have a seperated designation for their pairings. They actually said "seperate can never be equal" in referance to this issue. Not only is this comparison breathtaking in it's illogic, but it is a slap in the face of every older black person who ever had to live under segregation in this country.

THE VIKING
02-05-2004, 09:31 AM
Hello there, the viking here for s brief visit to hand over my (european) opinion on this issue that seams to get many Americans so hot tempered.
And by the way, i hope you all are well!.
Now hear this.
A couple of guys minding their own affairs, decides to live together for a lifetime, when they get old one of them dies.
Why should the other one not get the same benefits as a married hetero couple????
They do no harm, in fact a lot of these "poop punchers"( made that one up) are very artistic and creative.
I must admitt that thinking of two guys together does not help an erection along here, but again what they do in their own homes ( casa del rectum)??? is none of mine or anyone elses affair.
In Denmark gay people have been allowed, not to marry, but to be "registrered partners", but i hope they will be allowed to marry soon.
it has never been a problem.
And if the homos should get allowed to save some child from a cruel and hopeless destiny in an orphanage, in some country with social problems by getting allowed to adopt, it,s fine with me.
The only problems there is with homosexual men are the fact that many people don't know how to butt out of their affairs.
And, of course the discussion of who shall sleep on the wet spot of course.
You Americans need to ease up a bit, and when you have finished that thinking about quitting the circumsiscion of your boychilds.
Cause thats real cruelty, you know.
I will now lean back and prepare for the incoming verbal attack.

chub
02-05-2004, 09:39 AM
No verbal attacks here VIKING. I'm just not down with the gay.

THE VIKING
02-05-2004, 09:44 AM
I,m not down with gays either, but then again, none of my business .
And as the spermcell shouted
"retrete, we are in shit to our knees inhere":D

gnarley
02-05-2004, 09:45 AM
Call it marriage or what ever you want, the government should stay out of it and a citizens personal life if it does not harm anyone or anything around them. And look at it this way the government gets more tax money that they can use due to the so-called marriage tax penalty.
Hell if Hoss wants another wife, let'm have one if it doesn't hurt anyone and they are all happy.
Call it marriage or something else that distinguishes between homosexual partners form heterosexual partners but what is wrong with giving two humans the right to choose who they want to be with? Who does it hurt? Frankly I don't care and I don't want to watch what they do but they should have the right to make decisions like other normal married couples if their loved one is sick or dieing and in a hospital, who's it going to hurt? It might even help health care by having more people paying into an HMO, just because you pay in doesn't mean the HMO pays out.
This is no different than in some states where the government says that oral sex between a man and a woman is illegal and that the law!
Keep the government out of citizen’s personal lives.
Just my O2

76BARRON
02-05-2004, 09:47 AM
iT SOUND'S LIKE THIS GAY MARRIAGE THING IS A REAL PAIN IN THE ASS..........

THE VIKING
02-05-2004, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by gnarley
Call it marriage or what ever you want, the government should stay out of it and a citizens personal life if it does not harm anyone or anything around them. And look at it this way the government gets more tax money that they can use due to the so-called marriage tax penalty.
Hell if Hoss wants another wife, let'm have one if it doesn't hurt anyone and they are all happy.
Call it marriage or something else that distinguishes between homosexual partners form heterosexual partners but what is wrong with giving two humans the right to choose who they want to be with? Who does it hurt? Frankly I don't care and I don't want to watch what they do but they should have the right to make decisions like other normal married couples if their loved one is sick or dieing and in a hospital, who's it going to hurt? It might even help health care by having more people paying into an HMO, just because you pay in doesn't mean the HMO pays out.
This is no different than in some states where the government says that oral sex between a man and a woman is illegal and that the law!
Keep the government out of citizen’s personal lives.
Just my O2
AMEN BROTHER

eliminatedsprinter
02-05-2004, 09:52 AM
Viking
You said in Denmark having "registerd partners" has never been a problem. Mass has "domestic partners" already. The issue here is that this court has said that these things are not good enough and it must be called marriage. I just think it's dumb for us to allow one court to re-right the dictionary....Esp since there are not any logical differances with domestic parterships, other than that a small number of uptight activists don't like how it sounds. Whats next? Will they want to call adoption "giving birth" when they do it?:confused:

OLDRAT
02-05-2004, 09:59 AM
Hoss,
Thought your were on the wagon. You want two wives?
You been drinkin'?

gnarley
02-05-2004, 10:11 AM
I am curious why some people feel so strongly against letting same sex couples have the same rights as other married couples?
Who does it hurt? Who is affected by it?
And don’t bring morality into it, I bet every person on this board has done something in his or her life that is immoral at one time or another, so leave morality out.
No one has the right to push their moral values on anyone else. In fact if you can just for a minute think what it would be like in someone else’s shoes having their morals shoved down your throat.
In fact there is at least one case here in these forums where lots of us get pissed off because others want us to conform to their ways of thinking. There is the sound issue where we boaters are being required to quiet it up and then what about prop guards? I’m not to happy with either of these views being shoved in my face.

HOSS
02-05-2004, 10:12 AM
Who said 2? I see all these little 18 year old girls in the gym everymoirning. Flat stomach, thin, blond, fake tan, pants when they bend over shows half their ass,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I want as many as will come. Oral sex illegal? NAH, gotta be a misprint.
Wagons gettin` better all the time. I bagged tha bitch!

OLDRAT
02-05-2004, 10:27 AM
Best be treatin them all good, or they all will be talking about
you behind your back.
:D

HighRoller
02-05-2004, 10:33 AM
I crack up at all the people who think there's nothing at stake over this. The next move by these freaks will be to open the definition of marriage to basically a blank check. So tell me this. If two men can get married, what stops a father from marrying his daughter? Or a man from marrying his dog? YOU can't pass judgment on them, just like you're saying I can't judge the homos. If you open this door, it won't be only the homos that come through it. And since the sodomy laws have been overturned, what if NAMBLA and the ACLU launch a campaign to change the laws regarding sex between adults and children? You may laugh now, but think about 10 years ago and how bad it's gotten since then. Once you start giving immoral people an inch, the rest of the immoral people will stampede you and it will never stop. I don't have anything against gay people, but to say two people of the same sex uniting is "marriage" desecrated the institution. We have selfishly allowed the traditions and standards of this country to be set aside to accomodate people with big mouths.(No pun intended) Boozer makes it sound like the gay and lesbian population could actually affect the population, but get real. The ACTUAL number of people in the country who are gay is less than one percent, regardless of what the pro-gay lobby tells you.

rivercrazy
02-05-2004, 10:36 AM
Couldn't agree with you more HighRoller.

gnarley
02-05-2004, 10:51 AM
Call it marriage or something else that has yet to be named. The fact is these people have been living together, as committed couples, they just want the right to share each others benefits and make life’s decisions, such as life and death decisions in a hospital and wills or trusts.

eliminatedsprinter
02-05-2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by gnarley
I am curious why some people feel so strongly against letting same sex couples have the same rights as other married couples?
Who does it hurt? Who is affected by it?
And don’t bring morality into it, I bet every person on this board has done something in his or her life that is immoral at one time or another, so leave morality out.
No one has the right to push their moral values on anyone else. In fact if you can just for a minute think what it would be like in someone else’s shoes having their morals shoved down your throat.
In fact there is at least one case here in these forums where lots of us get pissed off because others want us to conform to their ways of thinking. There is the sound issue where we boaters are being required to quiet it up and then what about prop guards? I’m not to happy with either of these views being shoved in my face.
This case is goofy because it is not about rights. In the state in question (Mass) gay couples, who are domestic partners, already have the same rights as married couples. This is about a court forcing a state and it's governtment to call it marriage. Even though the voters and the legislature have chose to simply call it something else. I am all for courts protecting individual rights from "the tyranny of the majority". However this whole mess is about linguistics. It's not enough for gay couples to have the same rights and privledges this court wants to tell everyone what they have to call it. I could care less if two men want to set up a leagal relationship as domestic partners and call themselves married. In fact out of courtesy I'd even call them that ,if they asked me to. What I don't like is a court wasting it's time and peoples tax money deleberatating and then telling the state and all it's people what they must call it. To me it just seems dumb and it sounds like this court and the activists who brought this case into it have as big a beef with Websters and Thorndike Barnhart as anyone. Further more, for this court officialy compare this completely semanic distinction with racial segregation is beyond assinine.

THE VIKING
02-05-2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by HighRoller
The next move by these freaks will be to open the definition of marriage to basically a blank check. So tell me this. If two men can get married, what stops a father from marrying his daughter? population, but get real. The ACTUAL number of people in the country who are gay is less than one percent, regardless of what the pro-gay lobby tells you.
Well, if you havent figured that out by now, it will be a waste of time trying.
What about the bible?? The love of human beings??
Who are you to decide who is to love who??, not me, and not you my freind!!
Änd i think that if you decide to compare the childmolesters with the homos you are in deep moral shit.
A gay relationship is between two adults who, at their own will,decide to love each other.
Arelationship between a child and an adult ( wich hopefully gets his head smashed in) is rape and abuse, so let's get things in perspective here.
The man and dog thing is, eeerhhhh, no comments.
I think that people that bend these moral issues to their own likings and standards are repulsive.

eliminatedsprinter
02-05-2004, 11:08 AM
Guys this paticular case is not about who can do what with who. It is all about what we have to call it. The legal rights of gay couples to act, or form leagal bonds was never in question in this Mass case.

mikev
02-05-2004, 11:12 AM
this is funny Marriage is a religious institution created by God for a man and a woman (read the bible some time). Anyway homos cant get married because the bible states that being a homo is wrong and a sin so the church will not marry them. So they go whine to the government to force the chruch to honor there choice to live in sin. so if we have true seperation of church and state government should not tell the church it is ok for homos to get married.

gnarley
02-05-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by mikev
this is funny Marriage is a religious institution created by God for a man and a woman (read the bible some time).
Really??? That’s funny my wife & I got married & not in a church, I doubt if God created marriage. People have been married as husband and wife long before the Christian bible was ever thought of or written in it. Do you believe everything you read? DO you believe that what you now read in your bible is what was written in the very first testament? The current version of the Bible you are reading has been rewritten and reinterpreted so many times it probably bears little resemblance to what was actually written.
Its people like you who try to push their warped religious ideologies on the rest of us.
Open your mind, open your eyes and open your heart to those who are less fortunate than you.

Dave C
02-05-2004, 11:30 AM
I am all for equal treatment but I am not so sure that the gay agenda is about being “equal.” Mark Leno is the big mouth politician around here. He argues for providing MORE benefits for gay people that go beyond being equal. Their fight centers around not just marriage but also all the other welfare entitlements.
I always say that in the mind of the liberal some people are just more “equal” than others.
IMO, most of the time, not always, marriage is about raising children. I don’t feel that Billy being raised by two mommies is healthy for Billy.

Dave C
02-05-2004, 11:36 AM
Gnarly,
I’m not trying to argue religion here but one fact is certain, all of our laws have some sort of moral basis about them. Morality and law are the same thing. Without morals and laws you have chaos. We the people need to decide as a society what common morals we want.
E.G. it’s a moral judgment that stealing and murder are against public policy and therefore against the law.
You can’t make the argument that your religion says murder is OK. Our common society’s morals says murder is wrong.
So gay marriage should be decided by the people not the courts.
BTW, IMO gays should have equal but not better treament. Call it a civil union or whatever. But I think its "offensive" to call it marriage to those that believe in the institution of marriage.

mikev
02-05-2004, 11:48 AM
Its people like you who try to push their warped religious ideologies on the rest of us.
what is warped about true family values that this country was built on. as far as the bibles is concerned i have several translations and all of them were translated from the orignal Arameic, Hebrew and Greek text. I am not trying to push warped religious values on anyone. Its a few of people trying to force the rest of the world to believe that being gay is right and we should be forced to accept it. there the ones trying to change the world to meet there warped agenda not the other way around.

gnarley
02-05-2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Dave C
I am all for equal treatment but I am not so sure that the gay agenda is about being “equal.” Mark Leno is the big mouth politician around here. He argues for providing MORE benefits for gay people that go beyond being equal. Their fight centers around not just marriage but also all the other welfare entitlements.
I always say that in the mind of the liberal some people are just more “equal” than others.
IMO, most of the time, not always, marriage is about raising children. I don’t feel that Billy being raised by two mommies is healthy for Billy.
Dave I hear your point and I get sick of all the entitlements the gays want for some new laws because those that are already on the books but not enforced. I do get tired of hearing the complaints of being treated differently, the fact is they are different! I will say it here also they aren't normal, homosexuality is not normal if it was the human race would become extinct.
I do disagree about your view of marriage however. My wife & I are married and have no children, though we wanted them. The fact is we are still married, we are committed to each other. And I think Billy might be better of raised by two mommies that are loving and caring than being in an orphanage or with some crankster or crack head.

91nordic29
02-05-2004, 12:01 PM
[i]
IMO, most of the time, not always, marriage is about raising children. I don’t feel that Billy being raised by two mommies is healthy for Billy. [/B]
but billy being raised on the streets or in an orphanage or by some drunk asshole that beats he and his mother, is better than being raised by to loving people?
give me a break

HOSS
02-05-2004, 12:26 PM
Yeah, if billy had to watch a man sticking his penis in another man`s ass!:mad:

HOSS
02-05-2004, 12:28 PM
And gnarley,,, morality has everything to do with it!
Gnarley, if you had an 11 year old girl and she was having her periods, is it wrong to have sex with her for breeding purposes? Since morality has nothing to do with it and all!:confused:

91nordic29
02-05-2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by HOSS
Yeah, if billy had to watch a man sticking his penis in another man`s ass!:mad:
do you have sex in front of your kids?

gnarley
02-05-2004, 01:12 PM
Hoss I pick and choose my morality battles and specially ones that affect children.
I don't think giving Homosexuals some rights we all take for granted has anything to do with morality, sticking your dick in a child does though I think.
SO if you want to talk about morality why not bring that up to the biggest hypocrites that we as a nation have, the Catholic church, where they let some men who are basically homosexual preach to their flocks of sheep then molest or rape their boys or children in the name of God.
That makes me sick :yuk:

Dave C
02-05-2004, 02:24 PM
I'm not sure I agree. Usually the two mommies are such millatent advocates of their "lifestyle" most conversations degrade to descriptions of their lifestyle. Not a topic for a child.
Ever walk through the Castro. Not a "family" environment.
If their lifestyle was actually kept in the bedroom, which its NOT, then it wouldn't be a problem.
BTW, what you said is not my point about marriage. I meant for those married that "want" children. I actually envy DINK's (dual income no kids);)

gnarley
02-05-2004, 02:31 PM
Dave C, I happen to know two Women who are lesbians who have a son and is real well adjusted and they are both very caring parents. One is a middle school principal and the other is a real estate agent and they have a very nice home. The boy is normal and has a girlfriend, in fact he seems more well rounded than a lot of kids I see these days.
I know the ones you are talking about. The militant ones don't have time for kids do they? I think they spend all their spare time pushing their agenda and kids would only get in the way.

Dave C
02-05-2004, 02:35 PM
I know, its kinda hard to draw a generalization.
I know too many screwed up kids but they are not exclusive to gay parents.

HOSS
02-05-2004, 07:02 PM
OK, just how many gay parents are on the boards? Come on now. It`s ok. The law says so. At least in Mass.