SOCIAL LOUNGE POLL: DO YOU SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE

245678

Comments

  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
    seriously, i could not care less about this
    but to make up for it, i will go listen to some Ghostface records
  • ohhhla
    ohhhla Members Posts: 10,341 ✭✭✭✭✭
    YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
    ? sex isn't unnatural.

    It has been happening before we evolved.

    Wtf?
  • Maximus Rex
    Maximus Rex Members Posts: 6,354 ✭✭✭✭✭
    YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
    To deny ? and ? the right to marry is unequivocally un-American and goes against the core principles upon which the nation was founded; however I am against the unintended consequences that goes along with giving them the right to marry, which includes those muthafuckas being all free and flagrant with their faggotry.

    On Super Bowl Sunday I was on the train going to the 9er bar. When I got off the train, there were these two ? and as they departed ways, these nasty ? made muthafuckas kissed each on the mouth, (like that infamous Wayne and Birdman picture,) To ? the game up even further, THESE ? ASS MUTHAFUCKAS WERE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO ME! I was saying to myself, "Awww, HELL NAW." With a look of utter disgust on my face. That was the closet I've ever been to some ? ? in life, and I really wanted to say something, but since this is New York I would have been the one in the wrong.
    I don't understand this "un-American" talk I be hearing when it come to this topic.. this country was founded on slavery of Africans and the genocide of Indigenous(Native) Americans..

    No it wasn't
  • DMTxTHC
    DMTxTHC Members Posts: 14,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urge
    To deny ? and ? the right to marry is unequivocally un-American and goes against the core principles upon which the nation was founded; however I am against the unintended consequences that goes along with giving them the right to marry, which includes those muthafuckas being all free and flagrant with their faggotry.

    On Super Bowl Sunday I was on the train going to the 9er bar. When I got off the train, there were these two ? and as they departed ways, these nasty ? made muthafuckas kissed each on the mouth, (like that infamous Wayne and Birdman picture,) To ? the game up even further, THESE ? ASS MUTHAFUCKAS WERE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO ME! I was saying to myself, "Awww, HELL NAW." With a look of utter disgust on my face. That was the closet I've ever been to some ? ? in life, and I really wanted to say something, but since this is New York I would have been the one in the wrong.
    I don't understand this "un-American" talk I be hearing when it come to this topic.. this country was founded on slavery of Africans and the genocide of Indigenous(Native) Americans..

    No it wasn't
    Yes it was..
  • CashmoneyDux
    CashmoneyDux Members Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭✭
    YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
    To deny ? and ? the right to marry is unequivocally un-American and goes against the core principles upon which the nation was founded; however I am against the unintended consequences that goes along with giving them the right to marry, which includes those muthafuckas being all free and flagrant with their faggotry.

    On Super Bowl Sunday I was on the train going to the 9er bar. When I got off the train, there were these two ? and as they departed ways, these nasty ? made muthafuckas kissed each on the mouth, (like that infamous Wayne and Birdman picture,) To ? the game up even further, THESE ? ASS MUTHAFUCKAS WERE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO ME! I was saying to myself, "Awww, HELL NAW." With a look of utter disgust on my face. That was the closet I've ever been to some ? ? in life, and I really wanted to say something, but since this is New York I would have been the one in the wrong.
    I don't understand this "un-American" talk I be hearing when it come to this topic.. this country was founded on slavery of Africans and the genocide of Indigenous(Native) Americans..

    No it wasn't
    Yes it was..

    No it wasn't..slavery never existed and neither did native americans. What are you talking about?
  • DMTxTHC
    DMTxTHC Members Posts: 14,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urge
    To deny ? and ? the right to marry is unequivocally un-American and goes against the core principles upon which the nation was founded; however I am against the unintended consequences that goes along with giving them the right to marry, which includes those muthafuckas being all free and flagrant with their faggotry.

    On Super Bowl Sunday I was on the train going to the 9er bar. When I got off the train, there were these two ? and as they departed ways, these nasty ? made muthafuckas kissed each on the mouth, (like that infamous Wayne and Birdman picture,) To ? the game up even further, THESE ? ASS MUTHAFUCKAS WERE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO ME! I was saying to myself, "Awww, HELL NAW." With a look of utter disgust on my face. That was the closet I've ever been to some ? ? in life, and I really wanted to say something, but since this is New York I would have been the one in the wrong.
    I don't understand this "un-American" talk I be hearing when it come to this topic.. this country was founded on slavery of Africans and the genocide of Indigenous(Native) Americans..

    No it wasn't
    Yes it was..

    No it wasn't..slavery never existed and neither did native americans. What are you talking about?
    Good point, brethren..
  • Drew_Ali
    Drew_Ali Members Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urge
    ohhhla wrote: »
    ? sex isn't unnatural.

    It has been happening before we evolved.

    Wtf?

    Silly ? ........

    Sexual activity that does not result in reproduction is unnatural..............

    Evolved from what??????????




  • Mr Bishop
    Mr Bishop Members Posts: 3
    YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
    They ain't harming me so I could care less. "If" they are to burn in hell or be forgiven, reincarnate into a flea, it's their choice and path. As long as it doesn't harm other consenting humans of age involved, it is between them and whatever they revere if any, not my issue.
  • jono
    jono Members Posts: 30,280 ✭✭✭✭✭
    YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
    Let 'em cook. I don't see how homos being married will effect my life in the least. Maybe they'll decide to stop having those horrific parades if you let 'em live.
  • DMTxTHC
    DMTxTHC Members Posts: 14,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urge
    Cosign those parades being WOAT, lol..
  • Allah_U_Akbar
    Allah_U_Akbar Members Posts: 11,150 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The worst part is the fact that y'all can't seem to conduct a mature conversation about the topic without resorting to name-calling and highly emotional responses. If you support ? marriage, COOL; WHATEVER. No need to mock someone who doesn't share your views. Keep it movin'. If you don't support ? marriage, COOL; WHATEVER. No need to quote the Bible..... Unless you absolutely abide by every single thing the New and Old Testament teaches... Don't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you follow.

    SMH
  • waterproof
    waterproof Members Posts: 9,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
    The worst part is the fact that y'all can't seem to conduct a mature conversation about the topic without resorting to name-calling and highly emotional responses. If you support ? marriage, COOL; WHATEVER. No need to mock someone who doesn't share your views. Keep it movin'. If you don't support ? marriage, COOL; WHATEVER. No need to quote the Bible..... Unless you absolutely abide by every single thing the New and Old Testament teaches... Don't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you follow.

    SMH

    There was only One person who didn't break any laws of the most high and that was Yahushua so we can throw that every single bit out, even King David broke some laws, come on now, Prophet Muhammad wasn't perfect either or he broke some laws from the Quran and I bet he quoted the Quran.

    what I am getting at is this because I am the only one quoted the bible in here AND maybe you wasn't aiming at me if not?? well I took it wrong if so you should of just called me out by the name, I just move like that but.........

    I can say that there is a great chance that you have Quoted the Quran once or a few times in your life to articulate why you do not do something or believe in something more than once.

    And there is none of this holy than thou ? because nobody is perfect in following the laws of the most high, that's why there's repenting and try to live it everyday, atonement for the sins.

    But there is Sin and Abomination and yes Prophets, Kings of the torah have sinned not live by the laws but they know that they dare not do abomination if they are in their right mind and if so they better repent and leave it alone.

    But even the Great King David broke YHWH laws and still talk about the laws and wrote psalms and try to live the laws, Moses didn't even get see the Promise land because he disobeyed YAH and he still taught and try to live by the commandments.

    you said your peace and I said mines, you can add on but it is what it is, I think that little quote is ? but again that's the beauty of a heated topic..........
  • Ajackson17
    Ajackson17 Members Posts: 22,501 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
    Don't support it and I won't go out of my way to get in their way.
  • unspoken_respect
    unspoken_respect Members Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
    If ? was a disease, then I would have a problem with it.

    They should have the right you be unhappy like everyone else.

    Once this issue is dead, we can move on to important problems. Maybe.
  • unspoken_respect
    unspoken_respect Members Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
    ohhhla wrote: »
    ? sex isn't unnatural.

    It has been happening before we evolved.

    Wtf?

    Just had to take it there.
  • unspoken_respect
    unspoken_respect Members Posts: 9,821 ✭✭✭✭✭
    YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
    damnkp wrote: »
    If ? are allowed to marry why can't I have more than one wife? Will people be allowed to marry animals?

    Would you really want more then 1 wife? Divorce rates would double.
  • DMTxTHC
    DMTxTHC Members Posts: 14,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urge
    damnkp wrote: »
    If ? are allowed to marry why can't I have more than one wife?
    Nah, on the real, it is some ? that I can't marry more than one woman, but two males can get married in some states..
  • waterproof
    waterproof Members Posts: 9,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
    13 Support and 13 Do Not Support with 3 supporting Ghostface view
  • waterproof
    waterproof Members Posts: 9,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
    BUT, BUT, BUT, BUT why you concern about ? Marriage.....BECAUSE MY STATE IS A BATTLE GROUND MUTHAFUCKA that's why, as the Supreme Court is hearing Prop 8 in which i voted YES for

    Proposition 8
    Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment


    But i did Vote for YES for Domestic partnership in California

    A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses.[

    Enacted in 1999, the domestic partnership registry was the first of its kind in the United States created by a legislature without court intervention. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoyed very few privileges—principally just hospital-visitation rights and the right to be claimed as a next of kin of the estate of a deceased partner. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to include all of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, California domestic partnerships are functionally equivalent to civil unions offered in several other states.


    SpecificsCalifornia has expanded the scope or modified some of the processes in domestic partnerships in every legislative session since the legislature first created the registry. Consult the California Secretary of State for the most current information.

    ScopeAs of 2012, California affords domestic partnerships the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law. Among these:

    Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
    Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.

    Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)

    Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)

    Sick care and similar family leave

    Stepparent adoption procedures

    Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
    Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner

    Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts

    The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
    Access to some survivor pension benefits

    Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings

    The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
    The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration

    Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses

    The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)

    The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

    The right to claim inheritance rights as a putative partner (equivalent to the rights given to heterosexual couples under the putative spouse doctrine) when one partner believes himself or herself to have entered into a domestic partnership in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of his or her reliance upon this belief.

    Differences from marriageWhile domestic partners receive all of the benefits of marriage under California state law, federal law does not recognize domestic partnerships. In addition, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country, (e.g., Israel [5]), do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships contracted in California.

    Many supporters of same-sex marriage also argue that the use of the word marriage itself constitutes a significant social difference, and in the majority opinion of In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court agreed, suggesting an analogy with a hypothetical that branded interracial marriages "transracial unions".

    A 2010 UCLA study published in the journal Health Affairs suggests various inequities (including "Inequities in marriage laws") might have "implications for who bears the burden of health care costs." That study finds that men in same-sex domestic partnerships in California are only 42% as likely to receive dependent coverage for their partners as their married peers, and that women in same-sex domestic partnerships in California are only 28% as likely to receive that coverage.

    EligibilityBeginning January 1, 2012, domestic partnership eligibility requirements were significantly revised. Currently, a couple wishing to register must meet the following requirements:

    1.Both persons are of the same sex.
    If under age 18, written consent from the underage partner's parent or legal guardian and a court order must be obtained. A certified copy of the court order must be mailed with the domestic partnership declaration form. If no parent or legal guardian exists or if no parent or legal guardian is capable of consenting, a court may provide the underage person consent to establish a domestic partnership.

    2.Opposite sex couples may also establish a domestic partnership, provided one or both partners is above the age of 62, and one or both partners meet specified eligibility requirements under the Social Security Act.

    3.Neither partner is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership (or an out-of-state legal equivalent) with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.

    4.The partners are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in California.

    5.Both partners are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.
    If a couple wishes to establish a confidential domestic partnership, both partners are required to share a common residence. There is no longer a common residence requirement for couples wishing to establish a standard (non-confidential) domestic partnership.

  • waterproof
    waterproof Members Posts: 9,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
    California Proposition 8

    Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
    By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California's State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.

    After the elections, demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Same-sex couples and government entities filed numerous lawsuits with the California Supreme Court challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. In Strauss v. Horton, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the grandfather clause principle).

    United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued the stay, keeping Walker's ruling on hold pending appeal.

    On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The panel also unanimously affirmed Judge Ware's holding that Walker was not obligated to recuse himself from the case because he is ? . Still, the panel continued a stay on the ruling, barring any marriages from taking place pending further appeals. On June 5, 2012, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the ruling pending appeal. The proposition's proponents filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the Court review the case, on July 30, 2012. On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari. The Court is expected to issue its ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry by late June 2013.

  • waterproof
    waterproof Members Posts: 9,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
    PROP 8 PASSED IN CALIFORINA (Marriage between Man and Woman)

    Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008) with 61% of the vote

    Proposition 8 is a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008, state elections. Due to the nature and controversy surrounding the initiative, several important post-election events occurred that sought to overturn the proposition through civil disobedience or through the judicial system.

    A constitutional amendment passed by the electorate takes effect the day after the election. On the evening of November 4 the "Yes on 8" campaign issued a statement by Ron Prentice, the chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, saying "The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution." The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign issued a statement on November 6 saying "Tuesday’s vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law." The counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Yolo, Kern, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Sonoma, San Diego, San Bernardino, Sacramento, and Tuolumne stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the day after the election


  • waterproof
    waterproof Members Posts: 9,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
    Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know

    In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted "yes" on Proposition 22, a measure that amended state law to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized " in the state. The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 ? and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.


    Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin holds a ? marriage pride flag while standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2012. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
    But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed Proposition 8. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.

    ? -marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.

    PROP. 8 IN THE FEDERAL COURTS

    Taking the cause up the legal chain, ? -marriage advocates then turned to the federal court system. Perry v. Schwarzenegger (the governor was named the defendant because he was the head of state at the time, although he did not defend the measure) came before U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker.

    Walker overturned Prop. 8 in August 2010, saying that it violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law, garnering a win for same-sex couples.

    "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out ? men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in the ruling. "Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

    Nonetheless, Walker ruled that same-sex marriages should not resume in California until Prop. 8 supporters had a chance to appeal.

    PROP. 8 BACKERS APPEAL

    The appeal got off to a rocky start in September 2010. Schwarzenegger, then-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to defend the same-sex marriage ban in court. Imperial County was the only government entity willing to defend the Prop. 8, though the court soon ruled it didn't have legal standing to intervene in the case. The California Supreme court, however, ruled that Prop. 8's proponents could defend the measure even though state officials declined to do so.

    In February 2012, the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the district court's ruling, calling Prop. 8 unconstitutional.

    PROP. 8 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

    Now, the battle has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices will hear oral arguments March 26. President Obama has urged the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage ban.

    As California takes the issue up to the Supreme Court, other states have blazed their own trail. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Vermont and Washington, D.C., allow ? and lesbians to marry. On the other side, 31 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage.

    If the Supreme Court overturns Prop. 8, the decision could overturn all state bans on same-sex marriage—provided the high court says there is a fundamental right to marriage. However, the justices could also rule in such a way as to restrict the impact of their ruling to California, allowing other bans on same-sex marriage to stand.

    If the Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8, the decision would not affect the laws in states that already allow same-sex marriage.

    WHAT ABOUT DOMA?

    The Supreme Court hears the arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act the day after Prop. 8 arguments. DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to define marriage as between a man and woman. DOMA consequently denies legally married same-sex couples the federal benefits that are available to married opposite-sex couples. Clinton has since said he believes the law is unconstitutional.

    If the court upholds DOMA, not much will change. If the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the federal government will have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in the states where it is already legal, giving those married couples all the same federal rights and benefits as opposite-sex married couples.

    ? MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY

    The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Prop. 8 on March 26, and the decision will likely be issued before July. Same-sex marriages have not resumed in California, but those performed in 2008 between the overturning of Proposition 22 and the passage of Prop. 8 are considered valid in the state. A Field Poll released last month found that 61 percent of likely voters now support same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage that voted against it just 13 years ago.

  • Allah_U_Akbar
    Allah_U_Akbar Members Posts: 11,150 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ^^^^Bruh, you cool n' everthing, but......^^^^







    mlfw1012_46183_-_animated_did_not_read_lol_gif_image_macro_lol_didnt_read_meme_rainbow_dash_tldr-gif.32870





    We feel ya, homie! You don't think ? should be allowed to marry. Cool.



  • waterproof
    waterproof Members Posts: 9,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2013
    I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
    ^^^^Bruh, you cool n' everthing, but......^^^^







    mlfw1012_46183_-_animated_did_not_read_lol_gif_image_macro_lol_didnt_read_meme_rainbow_dash_tldr-gif.32870





    We feel ya, homie! You don't think ? should be allowed to marry. Cool.



    thank you for bringing colorful rainbow ponies to this thread, my little female cousin love colorful rainbow ponies, but I think some in the LBGT community might take offense to it as a slight diss in a thread discussing ? Marriage..

    I understand where you coming (no greek) from (having fun here guys (no greek) no need ahhh how immature a real man do not need to say no greek when using words, lol..)

    you feel me? (No greek), this thread is about ? Marriage and this is not about me not supporting it, this is about the issue and how it's a hot button (no greek) in America.

    you do know supreme court is hearing a case on Prop 8 and civil unions, so if you feel like you don't want to read what is prop 8 then by all means do not, most likely this is not for you, but there might be some lurker or poster that want to know what is prop 8 and why is supreme court is hearing the case.

    again thanks for posting and contributing to this thread, regardless of the energy negative or positive it's is energy,
  • Allah_U_Akbar
    Allah_U_Akbar Members Posts: 11,150 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You're welcome.


    So, why are you opposed to ? marriage, but NOT opposed to "domestic partnership"?


    Is there really that much of a difference?