I am secure enough if my relationship that I'm not going to worry about something like that but I could see where some people would be worried with that
You tryin to be a hero fool? You wanna see badass mother fucker?! I'll show ya a badass!!!
Another thing with marriage. There's some people out there who are fucked up. They'll try to get with you, or the person you're with especially if they don't see a ring on that finger. The chances of them pursuing you or the person your with goes down if you have that ring on your finger. Just a thought <_>
this describes every guy....every guy? EVVVVVVEERRRRYYY GUY
i hear this convo at work at least once a week
guy 1: so she has a boyfriend guy 2: since when has a boyfriend ever mattered...that shits just a speedbump
Another thing with marriage. There's some people out there who are fucked up. They'll try to get with you, or the person you're with especially if they don't see a ring on that finger. The chances of them pursuing you or the person your with goes down if you have that ring on your finger. Just a thought <_>
nalgas que se tienen que cuidar no son nalgas de nadie
heh... a wise old Mexican man once said that. shit is 100% true.
Another thing with marriage. There's some people out there who are fucked up. They'll try to get with you, or the person you're with especially if they don't see a ring on that finger. The chances of them pursuing you or the person your with goes down if you have that ring on your finger. Just a thought <_>
Actually, Dawn, I have found just the opposite to be true. When I was single and not wearing a ring not much was happening but as soon as I put on that ring they came out of the woodwork. Some of those fucked up people out there look for a ring cuz they know there ain't gonna be any commitments. I agree that there are lots of fucked up individuals in this world.
SAN FRANCISCO – The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban is set to rule Thursday on whether gay marriages should resume immediately in the state or await an appeals court's input.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker announced late Wednesday that he would issue his decision by noon on requests to impose a stay that would keep Proposition 8 in effect while its sponsors appeal his decision.
The announcement came after lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday asking that same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately.
Those motions were filed two days after Walker struck down California's voter-approved gay marriage ban as unconstitutional. In his 136-page decision, Walker said gay marriages should begin immediately, but agreed to suspend weddings until he could consider the legal arguments.
California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had tied the knot.
Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker's ruling is decided by higher courts.
They have argued in court papers that resuming gay marriage now would cause legal chaos if the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court eventually reverse Walker's ruling.
Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin, president of the California Association of Clerk and Elected Officials, said county agencies that issue marriage licenses will be ready to serve same-sex couples whenever they get the green light.
Before deciding the case, Judge Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments.
Defense lawyers argued that the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
The judge dismissed the notion that gay Americans were seeking a new right as opposed to one already guaranteed them under the Constitution.
He said that preventing gays from marrying does nothing to strengthen heterosexual unions or serve any purpose that justifies the ban's discriminatory effect.
"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions," the Walker wrote. "Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners."
Lol maybe you should take your own advice on the reading thing dayna. Because you have understood what I have said. However with one word change I could convey this to you so you would understand better.
I said " to call people pussies for not agreeing on marriage"
Now switch ON in that sentence to TO and it will be worded better. My apologies for this little error causing you to flip out.
You tryin to be a hero fool? You wanna see badass mother fucker?! I'll show ya a badass!!!
Another thing with marriage. There's some people out there who are fucked up. They'll try to get with you, or the person you're with especially if they don't see a ring on that finger. The chances of them pursuing you or the person your with goes down if you have that ring on your finger. Just a thought <_>
Actually, Dawn, I have found just the opposite to be true. When I was single and not wearing a ring not much was happening but as soon as I put on that ring they came out of the woodwork. Some of those fucked up people out there look for a ring cuz they know there ain't gonna be any commitments. I agree that there are lots of fucked up individuals in this world.
this is in fact true i have found out by the married people i know
marriage has that definition because gay marriage wasn't thought about when the definition was "created" there is no legit or logical reason why a gay couple can't be married.
When the concept of marriage was "created" there were already homosexuals, actually. They just weren't included in marriage because, as I said, the church was making the rules and homosexuals were not aligned with the church. That is the "legit and logical reason".
Plus churches/religion refuse to recognize it because it's against their ways. In my opinion marriage is the union of two people who truly love each other. Therefore if two men or two women love each other they should have the right to marry.
That is a valid opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that you have an opinion about an idea that was created by other people for other reasons. Just because you want it to mean something new and different doesn't mean they have to listen to you or care.
My proposal is that what currently constitutes "marriage" be split into two distinct and separate parts: 1) Marriage / Social Union. The social construct that unifies two people in the eyes of their peers. This is the 'church' part of the equation. Gays would get their own word for it. Maybe "Ass Buddy Status" (kidding ;P). This union would have no legal merit.
2) Legal Union. This would carry with it all the legal rules and benefits currently associated with "Marriage". Tax benefits, name changes, whatever. When a man and a woman get "married", they automatically inherit this status. When a gay couple get "unified" they also inherit this status.
This lets the church keep their special word, and gays get their own word and get to have all the benefits and rules traditionally associated with "marriage", without pissing off the bible people.
Comments
i hear this convo at work at least once a week
guy 1: so she has a boyfriend
guy 2: since when has a boyfriend ever mattered...that shits just a speedbump
nalgas que se tienen que cuidar no son nalgas de nadie
heh... a wise old Mexican man once said that. shit is 100% true.
Actually, Dawn, I have found just the opposite to be true. When I was single and not wearing a ring not much was happening but as soon as I put on that ring they came out of the woodwork. Some of those fucked up people out there look for a ring cuz they know there ain't gonna be any commitments. I agree that there are lots of fucked up individuals in this world.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker announced late Wednesday that he would issue his decision by noon on requests to impose a stay that would keep Proposition 8 in effect while its sponsors appeal his decision.
The announcement came after lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday asking that same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately.
Those motions were filed two days after Walker struck down California's voter-approved gay marriage ban as unconstitutional. In his 136-page decision, Walker said gay marriages should begin immediately, but agreed to suspend weddings until he could consider the legal arguments.
California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had tied the knot.
Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker's ruling is decided by higher courts.
They have argued in court papers that resuming gay marriage now would cause legal chaos if the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court eventually reverse Walker's ruling.
Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin, president of the California Association of Clerk and Elected Officials, said county agencies that issue marriage licenses will be ready to serve same-sex couples whenever they get the green light.
Before deciding the case, Judge Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments.
Defense lawyers argued that the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
The judge dismissed the notion that gay Americans were seeking a new right as opposed to one already guaranteed them under the Constitution.
He said that preventing gays from marrying does nothing to strengthen heterosexual unions or serve any purpose that justifies the ban's discriminatory effect.
"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions," the Walker wrote. "Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners."
I said " to call people pussies for not agreeing on marriage"
Now switch ON in that sentence to TO and it will be worded better. My apologies for this little error causing you to flip out.
SETH PENIS HARIY MAN ASS .............ALL DAY FOR ALL I CARE
My proposal is that what currently constitutes "marriage" be split into two distinct and separate parts:
1) Marriage / Social Union. The social construct that unifies two people in the eyes of their peers. This is the 'church' part of the equation. Gays would get their own word for it. Maybe "Ass Buddy Status" (kidding ;P). This union would have no legal merit.
2) Legal Union. This would carry with it all the legal rules and benefits currently associated with "Marriage". Tax benefits, name changes, whatever. When a man and a woman get "married", they automatically inherit this status. When a gay couple get "unified" they also inherit this status.
This lets the church keep their special word, and gays get their own word and get to have all the benefits and rules traditionally associated with "marriage", without pissing off the bible people.
I should be king of the world.
why would want to NOT piss them off