The gay marriage debate in the US these days

Jeremy

A shame you took it in that way. There is no malice intended.

A couple of suggestions, you could bring along some of your friends so that they might secure your safety. I know I mean no harm so I'd have nothing to fear from you or your friends.

Alternatively, I would be happy to bring my 14 year old daughter and 11 year old son. I'm hardly likely to become aggressive with someone in the presence of my family.

It is a serious offer. It bothers me that you have formed what I believe to be an unjustified opinion of me.

Two people who write on this forum have met me before. I'm sure they would testify to how harmless I am.

Moving on...

Well, San Francisco has sued the state of Cowleefournya, saying that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. Sandoval County, New Mexico is also now issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

How many Sandoval Counties and San Franciscos this will it take to reach a tipping point? Mayors of Salt Lake City, Chicago, and Minneapolis have voiced their support for issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Time will tell if they start issuing licenses. In my own city, Seattle (second highest homosexual population in the West), the King County officials want the state to take the lead.

Are the "rebellious" governments taking the best approach, or is there a better way?

Thanks for the sympathy everybody. Condolences are very supportive [even when you say you don't want them!]

BrianD - if that what was going through your mind when replied to my post, then no offence taken. If I had a tenner for every time I've posted or emailed something that didn't quite come out the way I'd intended, I'd be writing this from my ski lodge in Gstaad [well, beach hut in Paignton, perhaps].

Nevertheless, I do appreciate the way that other posters sprung to my defence. It's the sort of thing that makes the forum worth sticking with.

throb

Throbnorth

quote:

---

if that what was going through your mind when replied to my post, then no offence taken.

---

Thank You. I very much appreciate you replying to that.

Hopefully some of you might find this recent article of interest ?

Trust the House of Lords to get to the bottom of what's really important in a new
law. The Gender Recognition Bill, allowing transsexuals to have their new gender
legally recognised, has been going through its Lords stages this month.

Peers have been greatly exercised by exactly how they would handle a change of
sex by one of their number. For instance would an Earl become a Countess and if
so would they have to apply to the Queen for a change in title ? (yes.) Earl
Ferrers was determined to demonstrate the absurdities of the new law by asking
what would happen if the elder sister of a male heir were to become a man,
thereby leapfrogging her brother to the title: "Does she then become Viscount
Chump instead of her younger brother who, up till now, was Viscount Chump? If she
does become Viscount Chump, does she inherit the title of earl instead of the
proper Viscount Chump, and all the cash, if there is any?
In my experience Earl's
do not have much cash nowadays, but they used to in the good old days. What
happens to the proper Viscount Chump ? There may be a trust fund under which it
all goes to the holder of the earldom. Does the lady get that, if so, will she
remain friends with her brother?"
And so the Great Questions of the Day are
subjected to forensic examination by their Lordships...

P-Eye: Issue 1100 (20.02.04)

PissT: The subject of legal recognition is the same, innit ?

Fritz Von Lordinitstill

What would VP Dick Cheney's gay daughter have to say about all of this?

I got as far as page 2 of this thread and procreativity is obviously the issue here...

To me, marriage isn't about kids as many of them are spawned outside of marriage anyway, and whether this is a good or bad thing is a moot point.

To me, marriage is about legitimising your long-standing (sexual) relationship with another human being and not about the prospect of your relationship bringing more Beings into this already crowded planet.

Thus any long-standing and loving relationship between two human beings should be legitimised through marriage if the above so wish.

Another benefit of this would be that homosexuality doesn't get (prejudicially) treated as more promiscuous than heterosexuality where any promiscuity leads to more than moral damage to society as a whole.



Regards,

Steve.