Thread: Queers marry in Mass.

I feel sorry for this Gov, life really shit on him,,

Mass. Senate votes to help gay marriages - Life - MSNBC.com

"If Gov. (Deval) Patrick signs the bill, we'll be at the Provincetown City Hall," said Thorne, who called Maine's domestic partnership law a poor substitute.
The governor, whose 18-year-old daughter announced publicly last month that she is a lesbian, supports repealing the law. Patrick, the state's first black governor, and other critics of the 95-year-old statute say it carries a racist taint.

Not only was he born Black, but his daughter is also a queer,, Poor bastard.

Perhaps blackgang needs his own special little area of the Issues Forum...

^ I think there are tax benefits. That all I can think of.

^ Legal and tax issues.

legitimacy .............

and yes , when they can reproduce I'll accept it .

^So your entire definition of a 'legitimate marriage' hinges on reproduction?

What about childless couples then? Or those unable to conceive? Should they have less status and legitimacy in the eyes of the law too?

^ you are raising an interesting point

I bet most of the people here have hardly set foot in a church so why are they so bothered about gays getting married ?

Its a religious ceremony so if you aren't a follower of that religion why does it bother you?

Good that gays get married, hopefully booking up the churches for many years to come.

In todays world if not planning to have kids can't really see the point of getting married myself, if 2 people are happy living together why go and fcuk it up by getting married just stay as you are. With divorce rates so high in the Western world and divorce laws so heavily stacked in a womans favour, is getting married really worth it.

Oh yeah, i've been married for best part of 6 years now, but my first marriage back in farangland only lasted 14 months and basically cleaned me out.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^So your entire definition of a 'legitimate marriage' hinges on reproduction?

What about childless couples then? Or those unable to conceive? Should they have less status and legitimacy in the eyes of the law too?

apples and oranges from a lawyer .................

nature requires male plus female for reproduction , and yes before you waste your time there are specialized exceptions but not in the human race .

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

^So your entire definition of a 'legitimate marriage' hinges on reproduction?

What about childless couples then? Or those unable to conceive? Should they have less status and legitimacy in the eyes of the law too?

apples and oranges from a lawyer .................

nature requires male plus female for reproduction , and yes before you waste your time there are specialized exceptions but not in the human race .

What has my being a lawyer got to do with it?

And what has reproduction got to do with marriage?

Originally Posted by melvbot

Its a religious ceremony so if you aren't a follower of that religion why does it bother you?

Ain't a religious thing in Thailand or Mexico and queers can't get Legal married there either.

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

^ you are raising an interesting point

AW Fuck, Ya shouldn't a done that,, now the asshole will flood the thread with his drivel and bullshit.

sorry ant , I ain't playing ............ your being a lawyer predisposes you to apples and oranges

and reproduction has plenty to do with marriage , start with children called bastards and work your way through the historical records ...........

Originally Posted by blackgang

Originally Posted by melvbot

Its a religious ceremony so if you aren't a follower of that religion why does it bother you?

Ain't a religious thing in Thailand or Mexico and queers can't get Legal married there either.

OK but you're talking about America, not Thailand or Mexico.

Don't forget company medical benefits extending to the spouse. That's a big one. Gay activist groups could organize AIDS marriages so 'spouses' would be covered in a gay person's company medical plan.

You mention religion.
Here is what is written in the Torah
Leviticus 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Best to leave religion out of it!

Originally Posted by Mid

sorry ant , I ain't playing ............ your being a lawyer predisposes you to apples and oranges

Actually it predisposes me to nothing. The issue isn't about me or my profession. If you can't (or don't want to) answer the question then just say so Mid, just don't make it about me. Would my opinions on the subject be any more/less valid if I were, say, a dentist? No, didn't think so.

and reproduction has plenty to do with marriage , start with children called bastards and work your way through the historical records ...........

Well there were clearly children before there was marriage, and there have been plenty of children born without marriage since. So, talking of your apples and oranges, I think it's rather odd to link one as being the necessary corollary of the other.

as i said ant , apples and oranges , a lawyers stock in trade . I answered your question , that would be the answer you quoted . It's not about you personally , rather your profession which is predisposed to twisting words aka apples and oranges . All ok though , that's what your trained to do .

and of course there were children before marriage , that's a given and not in dispute , what's in discussion is the legitimacy ...............

Originally Posted by melvbot

OK but you're talking about America, not Thailand or Mexico.

We should be actually talking about the world, as I know of nowhere that queers can marry same sex mates, and even in the USA not all marriages are done in church settings by clergy, some done by bikers in the woods at runs and meetings.
But does seem to be religious Org. with high count queer members that are pushing it as well as the fag groups.

and Ant, you do know that lawyers are anal born babys so must be a kind of a queer lashup.

These guys seem very happy together. Whats wrong with them being married?



Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think they just want equality.

if a straight person has the right to legitimise through law, why shouldn't they.... up to them whether or not they actually bother.

they have a good point.

Originally Posted by Mid

as i said ant , apples and oranges , a lawyers stock in trade . I answered your question

You did? All I saw was you repeating the same thing. Fact of the matter is that making marriage out to somehow be an essential element of reproduction is erroneous and a logical impossibilty.

It's not about you personally , rather your profession

Righto. Care to clue me in on your profession then? That way I can read certain, apparently, inherent traits into your posts too.

what's in discussion is the legitimacy ...............

Legitimacy of what? The children or the marriage? And whose eyes is it legitimate in?

Let's just take a quick look at this thing called "marriage" shall we. Did you know that what we today recognise as marriage is actually a recent invention? A Judeo-Christian construct to be precise. There is evidence of same-sex marriages since the beginning of recorded history. It was, apparently, more or less an accepted practise (if not 'the norm').

And don't forget in more recent times inter-racial marriages were illegal. In some places you couldn't even marry outside your caste. Polygomy and other things like that, these were all accepted forms of marriage as well.

Then the Church comes along as says: 'Oh no, the only correct form of marriage is one man and one woman' and all of a sudden this constantly evolving thing called marriage is stuck in a time-warp and based on the precepts, ideals, and mores of one group.

So I ask you again, legitimate in whose eyes?