Do you favor gay mairrage?

Regardless, I still favor the rights of people to do what makes them happy.

yes of course i favour it, as much as i favour marriage in any form.

I'm not so sure I believe that two people of the same sex should be allowed to bring up kids though. Anyone want to comment?

What's wrong with that?

Well I'll be perfectly open and take the (inevitable) abuse for it...

Sheesh, well I'm going to be attacked for this but... but, basically, kids come into this world through a guy and girl, y'know? That's just the way it is. You can't change evolution - so if that aint the way you swing then tough luck I s'pose.

Of course you can have the arguement that some kids are brought up without a dad and some kids are brought up without a mum and some kids have abusive straight parents and blah blah blah... BUT, me personally, when I was a kid I never wanted a male babysitter. There's something I just don't like about two guys wanting to raise a young child. It's something I can't put my finger on, but I just don't think that's something I'm 100% behind supporting.

By all means have gay marriages, have the age of consent for gay people lowered to 16 - I'll sign all of this. But two guys raising a child? Hmm, not so sure. Two women raising a child? Eh, that doesn't bother me as much somehow - maybe it's the whole motherly thing? I'm not 100% for that either however.

And I remember, as a kid, coming to terms with what your dad does to your mum is hard enough without realising that your dad takes your other dad up the jacksie. I dunno, there's something innately ADULT about that - something that should probably wait until adulthood. I don't think it's good for a child to have to learn about that. Seriously, to all the doubters - how would you have felt learning about this at age 11?

Just a thought. I'm now a total homophobe by ILX standards now aren't I?

i think while its ok to think negative things about this, its not something i could do myself. i am pretty uncomfortable about saying what should happen in the private sphere, and i definitely am uncomfortable about assessing straight and gay people in different ways, i dont think i'd feel so good about discriminating between gays and straights in such a way (though i do have homophobic friends that do so in many ways, and thats there business, i wouldnt criticise them too much for their homophobia, as it is an emotive issue)

ultimately, the private sphere i think is not something government should get involved in, it has big-brother overtones i'm a little wary of.

i think at base, a loving and caring environment is the most important thing for a child, and i'm not sure that many children are lucky enough to have that

calum if you're worried about the pink commandos then maybe you oughta come up with some reasoning other than 'ew, i can't put my finger on it' before writing off someone's family, yknow?

I really can't see that there's anything more 'adult' about anal sex than there is about vaginal-penetrative sex, either.

there aren't any, or very few, in the US. until this year, actually, you paid more in taxes if you were married than two single people whose incomes added up to the same. there was a reason for this but it wasn't a very good one.

And I fear the pink commandoes because the far left is the new fascism. It's rampant. The only people trying to 'silence' anyone's thoughts / ideas / words / etc are those self-proclaimed 'leftists.' As long as you're defending Mumia, homosexuals or affirmitave action, have a parade. Wanna speak out against abortion or gun legislation? Well, OK, but you're gonna feel like Pac Man being chased around by Michael "Blinky" Moore and his legions of white privelaged armchair activists and limousine liberals.

I think you're mixing up several different kinds of sexual information that parents can share with their children. Parents are generally expected to tell young children at the very least some very schematic things about reproductive sex, especially when they start asking questions about where they came from. But there isn't quite the same burden when it comes to the mechanics of sex-for-pleasure acts -- it's usually talked about a much later date, if at all, if so usually around when kids start experimenting with sex themselves. And further, I don't think parents are expected to tell their kids -- regardless if they're 2 or 99 -- what they like to do in bed with any great detail. If a young child asks their parents about love-making that's not attached to baby-making (three hypothetical instances where this might happen: 1) gay parents have already told their kids the mechanics of reproduction, but are asked why they're making love even though they can't make babies 2) straight parents have already told their kids the mechanics of reproduction, but asked why they're making love even though they don't want more babies 3) parents simply want to tell children that sex can be a deep expression of love) parents can always say something like slightly euphemistic like "well, even if we don't make babies, we still like holding and kissing and hugging and touching each other's bodies -- that's how grownups express how much they love each other."

In other words, if I was eleven and had gay male parents, I probably wouldn't be told they liked anal sex, just as my straight parents NEVER told me their whether or not they liked cunnilingus or oral sex or whatever.

(This is all a massive generalization, though I don't think it's too controversial.)

Also, you know, there's a lot more to gay-male sex than anal sex, and not every gay man likes anal sex, either. Based on some purely non-scientific polls I've seen, a fairly significant minority of gay men don't like it AT ALL, and this includes both "picther" and "catcher" roles.

Have I...missed something?

But look at all the self-proclaimed 'liberals' and 'leftists' in the ILM Politics thread - I'd sooner call myself one of the words in the 'favorite cuss words' thread - but that's me.

There's a pervading feeling in the mainstream that if you're a musician / artist / artisan / whatever, you're automatically some kind of socialist. Not true.

Uh...hmm. OK, well you did refer to the "typically pink ILM commandoes" upthread. Right?

There's a pervading feeling in the mainstream that if you're a musician / artist / artisan / whatever, you're automatically some kind of socialist. Not true.

Yeah, it's a common notion, and yeah, it's a gross generalization.

You're such a GIRL. Plaid Commando for me, thank you.

well, duh

Well, double-duh.

http://www.cammyfan.com/Cammy-cosplay/personal1/pink-cammy1.jpg

SUFFER!!

Look, Aja, when you grow up you will no doubt encounter several situations when you are attempting to have a conversation with someone about something which is of interest to both of you, while someone keeps butting in with a load of irrelevant bollocks

Already have.

Personally I'm not in favour of going as far as Martin suggest upthread and abolishing marriage as a civil/social institution altogether. I do believe there should be some kind of separate secular/legal way of couples of all persuasions registering their relationships officially which is entirely separate from 'marriage' and the endless connotations that go with it.

(xpost with Tracer - haha!)

Just don't read my long post, OK? :)

Parents are generally expected to tell young children at the very least some very schematic things about reproductive sex, especially when they start asking questions about where they came from. But there isn't quite the same burden when it comes to the mechanics of sex-for-pleasure acts

I agree with most of what you said Michael, but not this. Making a separation like this seems to me to be tantamount to telling children what they must use sex for, which in turn seems likely to perpetuate all kinds of unhealthy and puritanical hang-ups. Who knows, maybe society NEEDS those hang-ups in order to function. But I, for one, would not want to be party to telling anyone that what they are doing becomes wrong or right because of why they are doing it.

Clearly I would not be a fit parent.

More on topic: why is there a need for some sort of social sanction of coupledom? I know that marriage, in one form or another, is nearly universal and all, but this does not neccesarily make it a good thing. Is there any logical reason for not abolishing it alltogether?

Actually, what I was saying was that, for better or worse, sex-as-baby-making-activity is generally treated as a more appropriate (or just less uncomfortable) subject to discuss with young children than sex-as-something-fun or even sex-as-expression-of-love.

Personally, this non-parent thinks all these forms of sex activity are important things to discuss with one's children, though sex-as-something-fun (damnit, aren't there good words in Greek for this stuff?) might be challenging.

God, really? I didn't learn about a couple of those things until...let's just say later.

Obviously for someone who is homophobic (you can't deny this, cal) this would seem shocking and unwholesome. For me, though, it's normal. I don't make the distinction between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, and I wouldn't want my kids to either. Unfortunately, when most parents tell their kids about sexuality etc they skip over the whole homosexuality thing, which to my mind is a bit negligent.

There wasn't anybody else who openly considered themselves gay in high school, and I was still coming to terms with what I felt about being gay, so I didn't do much of anything then. If I was confronted about it, I'd lie and say I was straight, I liked girls, and so on. I lived on Long Island, which is reasonably liberal about gay issues (my old suburban hometown even has a gay bar that about as old as I am!), but I don't think the kids in my high school would be really hospitable to gay kids, then or now. Well, I've heard it might be better now, thanks to a more robust network of social services for gay kids in the area; on the other hand, my high school has been in the news lately because of some cruel and disgusting things a few football players did to some younger kids as part of a "hazing." So I don't know.

I started coming out to people when I was college, but there weren't many kids who were out, too, and the ones that were I didn't like as people that much, so I kept to myself. I had some severe crushes, but that's about it. And my college was really really small, so even if I managed to find someone I could have a relationship, EVERYBODY would be talking about it and I wouldn't want to subject myself to that kind of scrutiny even if I was straight! I started dating only after college; if I went to a different college, it'd be sooner.

Sorry that I've veered far off-topic, folks.

Seriously, though, if I've said anything inappropriate, I wanna know.

1. sunshine
2. laughter
3. puppies
4. discussing anal/oral sex with a 12 year old in the room

(vaginal sex is okay, though.)

Why?

Well, dude, I said as much! I'm sorry, her presence completely slipped my mind when I posted that thing. I wish I could take it back, but it's a little late now.

I have no problem with it. Do what you will.

I mean, bearing in mind one of the major conservative arguments againts gay marriage is the effect that it will have "on the children", with the implication that all the sinful and dirty things that gay (or for that matter straight) couples get up to in the boudoir are by their very nature something that should be hidden from kids - as if they're not going to be finding out about all this shit from their peers in the playground in far less salubrious ways.

Aja's presence (and admirable open-mindedness for a 12-year old) on this thread show this argument to be nonsense. I am totally in favour of discussing sex frankly and openly with my kids if and when I come to be a father.

I knew I was open minded!

Cocks, cunts, and arseholes, baby.

gay cop and 1/2

Jess, I bet you'd like it if I ** ****** *** * ** *** ******* and ****** *** ********* **** ******* ****.

It's almost like what I say about concerts with those age restrictions. If the parents allow the kids to go to them, they should be able to go.

I just want to defend Roger, and I think he talks of the way some people think or claim they are open-minded, but really are closed-minded.

and when someone is about to suggest that another person (who thinks they are already as open-minded as can be) could/should be a more open-minded about something it's natural to expect strong opposition and start with defending one's statements.

My overall point is, whether you're an evolutionist or someone of a religious background, two members of a different sex make kids and I'm not so sure the world is waiting for this to be re-written.

I'm definately a liberal person, my political feelings are overwhelmingly socialist. I spoke my mind on ILX and, of course, you get the "well you're a homophobe" stick for doing so. I KNEW this would happen because the people on this forum are overwhelmingly likely to jump to knee-jerk conclusions about people whose opinions do not match their own.

Furthermore, I'm not making the case that kids brought up with two gay parents will, in any way, be different from kids brought up with two straight parents - but I think they will have missed something that is precious and age old about child raising. I think the same for myself, who was raised by one parent... I can identify that I really missed out on something there.

So what you're saying is "I'm not saying they'll be different in any way - but I do think they'll be different." Er, what?

I think the same for myself, who was raised by one parent... I can identify that I really missed out on something there.

I don't think anybody is qualified to state whether people brought up by only one parent are "better" or "worse" off as a result. The fact is that this occurs, and nobody has the right to decry it. If a woman wants to bring a child into the world on her own, then we have to respect her right to do so. Similarly, if said woman wants to allow her child to be adopted by a pair of gay men, then - provided that the child isn't being mistreated in some way - we have no right to interfere.

Arguing that the fact that the child's parents are gay qualifies as 'mistreatment' is incredibly faulted - there is zero evidence to suggest that this is so.

There are plenty of psychological studies on this.

http://www.dadi.org/apa1.htm

I'm reading through it now.

"Supporting gay rights" and "being a homophobe" are not necessarily incompatible things, though. (Parallel example: "believing the state of Israel should exist" and "being an anti-Semite" aren't incompatible, either.) You can say gay people be accorded the same rights that sraight folk do, and still think they are fundamentally inferior. (I'm not saying you believe this, btw; I'm just saying that "I believe in gay rights" doesn't prove what you seem to think it does.)

My overall point is, whether you're an evolutionist or someone of a religious background, two members of a different sex make kids and I'm not so sure the world is waiting for this to be re-written.

I haven't really seen anybody arguing to the contrary, C.

If this is really the case, though, then the *really* big problem is that equalization of the sexes has fudged the understanding of what those roles are in ordinary two-parent nuclear households.

ASIAKITTY'S PRIMARY PARENT!

Geesush! I try to spotcheck her posts on ILX and pick this one...

the FOUL FOUL LANGUAGE!

I'm ASHAMED OF YOU!

AsiaKitty, you must really learn to tone it down.

-----------------------------------

And now on a less serious note...

If you haven't noticed, AsiaKitty is far more mature than her parents combined age. As soon as the language on ILX gets problematic, she'll let me know.

OR SHE WILL BE SEVERELY PUNISHED.

but seriously. Between my checking, her telling me what she posts, and some ILXers who email me, I think we can handle it. Censor yourselves or not however you see fit. I haven't seen too many stupid people on the board, so I haven't had a problem in a long time with posts. Those who know the history of burmakitty on ILX would probably find it ironic that I mention problems with posters on *this* thread.

Anyhow, suffice to say, there are things going on in AsiaKitty's life that make this thread stand out, i.e. sexual identity and marriage issues. She's way past where I was when I was 12 and probably would have been even if it weren't a necessity for her. Actually, I think I was finally gaining some ground on her last week.

In any case, let the record show burmakitty's vote:

ABOLISH MARRIAGE ENTIRELY !

(and by the way I like the typo *mairrage*...YES, it does contain the word *rage*)

Have a nice day and drive carefully.

This, of course, is a screaming load of horse shit. Extremists of all stripes want to shut down and surpress viewpoints that they disagree with; it's one of the fundamental things that makes them extremists.

Now would all the people who are *wrong* kindly shut up.

actually, I'm very openminded with everyone except myself apparently.

...

and while I'm at it

ASIAKITTY STOP POSTING THOSE HUGEMONGOUS PICTURES ON THESE KINDA THINKING PERSONS THREADS!!!!

I don't know where she gets it!

Yes, but so often in my experience the left extremists aren't pointed out as being extreme nearly as much as the right extremists. It's nice every once and a while for someone from the middle to do that.

MY GOD I AM TRULY THE INVISIBLE MAN (IOW have you never seen me try to talk to Momus???)

Jeez.

Anyway, in answer to gay marriage - while I personally have no problems I do wish people would at least comprehend (and respect) the issues some may have with this. Excuse me, but marriage is a religious thing (whether you be doing it at as a secular person or not) and was created as a bond between two members of the opposite sex. When your religious doctrine states that same sex partnerships are sinful and this is part of the belief you choose to life under then I think people disrespect it somewhat by using it for other means.

It's just a thought. As I said, I have no problem with gay marriage but in the same sense I respect people's religions too.

See that sort of thing bothers me. Why not light fire to a Church as well?

I think marriage as a religious thing should exist, but why should it exist as a legality? Surely we should separate law and religion.

Now, personally, I don't subscribe to any religion and I think this is nonsense. But the Bible makes its stance on this issue very clear. Yes it's outdated and nonsense but it's a stance share by all of the world religions and I think you've got to understand that.

Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

WHAAAT??!

multiple x-posts

I know of at least one.

Now, me personally, I get bogged off by religious people all the fecking time.

Are you saying that ILXors haven't gotten mad at you on THOSE threads?

This is an entirely different debate, but shouldn't the state quietly endorse religious views like those of the founding fathers? But don't call it religious views, call it American traditions.

Andrew, I think I have said that on every gay marriage thread. I'd say it on straight marriage threads too. How about polygamy? Better yet: Polyandry? Surely there are religions that tout this as ok. If marriage is primarily about cojoining sex partners, surely we need the goverment sanction of marriage in *more* bedrooms! [joking]

Otherwise, as a bisexual I should be able to marry a man and a woman if I feel the need. Maybe that would be fulfilling my "union"...

excuse me, I have to go start a religion...

BRB

Funny, your first post denouncing gay marriage mentioned nothing of religion.

So we should still have slaves, then? Are we not permitted to change laws with the evolution of society?

MARRIAGE is a religious rite.

Civil Union could be a government sanctioned union as an answer to the removal of religion from the state laws pertaining to the union of two persons as such, but I suggest taking the government out of the bedroom anyhow, so abolish government sanctioned marriages, please.

and the above picture is NOT from AsiaKitty

Obviously, since I posted it.

it was, at best, founded by a handful of elite enlightenment era men whose religous views could be explained as vaguely deiest, ie the blind watchmaker view of god. (rescuing the bible from fundementalists has good sessions on this.)

this is not to say that jefferson and co would be for gay marriage, but remember america was founded in reaction against the contempary religous mileua. (sp)

franklin (orgies at the hell fire club) and jefferson (sally hemmings) were outside sexual norms, i wonder else who was ? (realizing that sally hemmings might have been w/i those norms.)

Is it denounced?

I don't think any is denying or misunderstanding this occurs, Calum. What is your burden to flesh out is the argumentative leap you make between "Gay marriage offends people's understanding of what their religions are about" to "therefore, it obviously should be banned." I don't see why one follows from the other -- at least if we live in a small-l liberal democracy rather than a theocracy.

That's what I told her, but she posted it anyway.

But, I agree, religion could certainly do with moving with the times. I also respect MY right to be offended by certain religious rituals. I am offended by cirumcision and the practice of kosher meat but have (ahem, cough, Blount, ahem) been labelled an anti-semite for such views. So, basically, I sympathise.

No, you're not. (eg: China, India)

people get married at city hall every day.

My parents got married in court. Maybe in city hall; I'm not sure.

(NB: I do not keep kosher. At all.)

I realize you're not at all religious, Calum. But you are still arguing that the religious belief of some people compel everyone else to act in accordance with it, at least in the matter of gay marriage:

Excuse me, but marriage is a religious thing (whether you be doing But you also say upthreadit at as a secular person or not) and was created as a bond between two members of the opposite sex. When your religious doctrine states that same sex partnerships are sinful and this is part of the belief you choose to life under then I think people disrespect it somewhat by using it for other means.

Unless you're not expressing your ideas clearly, the paragraph has to be understood as a moral (not necessarily religious, but moral) judgement *you* are making: "I think" implies this is your belief, "disrespect" implies what these people do is wrong, and wrong because -- as I understand what you're saying -- one shouldn't do things that disrespect another's religion.

No. It's from Aja!

Well, I was able to come up with...

ilet's see if aja can come up with a picture of hip hop the magical 76ers rabbit!

http://www.schedule-ease.com/limited/nbateam/76ers.jpg

That is one scary rabbit!

That Donnie Darko SONG. God, all my synapses are flying apart.

Yeah, well, your HEAD hurt me in my heart, or something.

http://www.commercial-real-estate-institute.com/Instructors/_derived/bob_eubanks.htm_cmp_corporat110_vbtn.gif

http://dutchtoenglish.com/rufus.html

At any rate, if the movies have taught us anything, it's that even talking dogs can raise children better than uptight suburban heterosexual couples, and so I hardly doubt that so too can bears (and I know you know what I'm talking 'bout).

could we not, with just as much justification (i.e. none, but available upon demand) assert an essential HOMOSEXUAL or BISEXUAL instinct that is unavilable to hets, that could be just as valuable to bringing up a child as whatever calum's definition of maternal instinct is?

what michael said about same-sex couples deciding to adopt sounds pretty true - that anyone willing and able to navigate the complicated hurdles required for this have shown a touch more readiness for the task of parenting than a whole lotta prenatal patients gettin ready for joe jr, who receive absolutely no stick or opproborium from self-appointed guardians of domestic family quality like eric and calum and roger adultery

I would much rather gay parents than parenting from some of the total hosebags at my school who were knocked up by age 15.

as we're talking about matters spiritual, heaven help us all and thank the lord i'm british...

I'm guess what I was saying is that when your religous doctrine states something is wrong and people do it anyway under the blessing of your religion then I can see why some might be offended. In this case, I guess, I understand that Christians might be upset by same sex couples being married in a Church.

And, again, let me state this S-L-O-W-L-Y for you... I could really care less.

Lastly, kosher meat is barbaric. I've seen footage and pictures of it and Animal Aid in the UK are right behind banning the practice. It is outdated.

the scale of acceptance regarding who should/shouldn't be able to marry is interesting

some people think men and women should only marry and have sex with the opposite sex but the same race/culture

some people think men and women should only marry and have sex with the opposite sex

some people think same sex marriage and sex is okay too tho

some people think inter-species marriage and sex is okay too tho

the last lot are of course a tiny tiny minority and are probably mentally disturbed, but it might be quite amusing to see them argue their case.

in essence claiming the right to judge others as inalienable (i.e. to disapprove of same sex parents raising children or etc) but simultaneously denouncing any disapproval of themselves as an "attack".

the pertinant question is why and how this came to be such a uniquely rightist thing to do.

i.e. why do people with nominally "left" ideas pull this shit far less, if at all?

great. its down to that same perceived pc-mafia that we have any equal rights legislation at ALL in this country. if standing up for your human rights makes one part of some hit squad, show me to my dummy violin-case.

There's nothing in the wiccan rede about dad taking dad up the jacksie.

kosher meat is barbaric

Better check that. Kosher means that the animal doesn't suffer. I think you mean halal, in which the animal must be bled to death slowly?

and while we're at it....

"One of the dogmas of modern gay life is that pride is always good for us, like vitamin C. And like vitamin C, massive doses can supposedly cure anything. ... Not convinced that hate crimes laws and employment protections for homos are good ideas? Clearly you suffer from a worrisome case of gay-pride deficiency. ... The gay man who doesn't take pride in all things gay—without question, without thought—has long been accused of self-hatred. These days they're also accused of Demonstrating Insufficient Concern for Gay Youth. Gay pride isn't a slogan anymore or a rallying cry. It's dogma. Gay pride has become a sort of gay civic religion."

-- Dan Savage
http://www.skippingtowardsgomorrah.com/images/tp3.jpg

where did this come from? i disagree with it.

there are plenty of gay people who manage to live their lives quite well without having to subscribe to any perceived moral code that comes with gay 'identity'. personally, i'd like to think that i don't just subscribe to ANY belief without thinking about it (in fact, i'm wary of subscribing to any belief wholeheartedly - becoming attached to such things can close you to new ideas).

perhaps this was written by someone 'immersed' in the gay 'community' (an oxymoron, certainly). those of us who choose to live outside that strange world yet still have same-sex partners can feel free to adopt whatever civic code we want. AND, if we choose to, we can still get fucked off when people say our lives are wrong but that reacting to their statements makes us part of some imagined pc-pressure group. personally, i feel as little a part of some 'gay society' as i do of the society the homophobes (and some of you ARE homophobes, i'm afraid) above inhabit. i'm just a bloke that happens to sleep with a bloke. its no more of anyone's business than that. it doesn't HAVE to be your whole identity.

unless, of course, you choose to make it everyone's business by discussing it on a public forum, like i just have. like i said, though, just because it isn't your whole identity, doesn't mean you can't stand up for what you think is right.

This was always perfectly apparent at normal speed.

Dan Savage. That's kind of why I put his book cover in the post.

And it's interesting that you disagree with it because Dan Savage pretty much advocates exactly what you said in his columns. He regularly takes shit from the PC police because he bases his advice on logic rather than, say, what is currently politically correct (his definition of rape, for example, is confined to sex forced against your will or without your consent, so, for example, morning-after regrets or ass-pinching, according to his definition, are not rape).
Read more here: http://www.thestranger.com/archive/savage.html

Isn't that pretty much the legal definition of rape? Can you point me in the direction of the PC Police who would honestly consider ass-pinching and morning-after-regrets as grounds for screaming 'rape'?

Now, however, kosher is seen as barbaric by many because this ancient method is still used when more modern procedures (such as stunning the animal) are more humane. In his book, "Animal Welfare", Peter Singer goes into some detail about how an animal is killed for kosher meat and it aint pretty.

Here's a BBC report on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm

Factory farms are indeed not pretty, so don't support them! However, in the mean time we should concentrate on outlawing what is most inhumane.

P.S. That Catty person saying rape is "pinching someone's ass" (a number of girls, whom I have not been attracted to, have done this to me - RAPE RAPE!) and "morning after regrets" is really funny. If I was a King this person would be my Court Jester.

Oh - and sign this too.

http://www.occultopedia.com/images/guillotine.jpg

but now? this overbearingly pc-person he describes isn't one i encounter on a regular basis. perhaps he needs to try meeting a few different people? god bless peter tatchell, for everything he's done, but we don't all share his politics.

Factory farming should be abolished, kosher meat should be outlawed, meat produce should have to answer to higher standards.

Yeah, pleas stop talking about kosher meat.

Anyone want to comment?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/18/hamburger/ground.beef.jpg

Aren't you forgeting something. Christmas is on Thursday. We have two weeks off that started at 12:30 on Friday, December 19, 2003.

Ned, where are you?

NED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Aja (AsiaKitty200...), December 22nd, 2003.

Its easy to say this now...

(sayfazal mblmmbl mblgrmblgrmbl)

And what are gloden children?

follow your dreams, you can achieve your goals. beefcaaake!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/characters/images/index_gareth.jpg

Gareth == Calum!

A long time ago, someone said this. That's the stuff.

Uh, busy working? And now that I am done, busy packing for going home and maybe seeing some friends tonight.

When I am divorced, if for some weird reason I want to get married again, and I am bisexual, if I get married again *is* that legal? I mean is it a gay marriage? Is it only a gay marriage if I marry the same sex? What if I marry a hetero or bi male?

What if I finally go totally gay and I want to marry...what if I marry a totally gay person of the opposite sex. Isn't that a gay marriage?

[Asiakitty in the background]:"Why would you marry then? Oh...wait...no. ...I dunno. Why would you marry?"

See, even AsiaKitty can't help me.

Andrew, could you clarify?

Do you think that what I ask/say/comment "is" bullshit or do you think the use of the word "Kitty" in my name is bullshit?

And that's
KITTYSHIT
to you!

Just thought I'd at least clear that up.

:)

pussy

One of the nation's most sweeping measures against gay marriage won approval by the Ohio Legislature on Wednesday. It was the strongest action by a state on the divisive issue since Massachusetts' highest court in November ordered that same-sex marriages be legalized in that state by May.

The Ohio Senate approved the bill on an 18-15 vote. The House approved it last month. Gov. Bob Taft has said he will sign the bill, pending a legal review. The bill would bar unmarried state employees - whether heterosexual or homosexual - from receiving benefits for domestic partners...

[...]

"Legislators are reacting negatively to the full-court press of the gay lobby to try and redefine marriage," said Glenn Stanton, a senior analyst for Focus on the Family, an activist group in Colorado Springs. "It's another example of people realizing the need to protect the institution of marriage as it has always been."

NEWSFLASH: people are still fuckheads, news at 11.

That actually might be where it'll fall down.