posted June 15, 2006 02:11 PM              

and then you say..I am just me

Two Faces

posted June 15, 2006 02:20 PM              

I am not superior.
I am just me.
Is stating facts now an acting of being superior?
What a convoluted series of thought processes and rational you have! Utterly textbook case!

I am just me.

Why does that bother you?

And why do you persist in hijacking this thread after been asked to move it elsewhere?
Behave yourself woman!
Yeah..that was bossy!
Deal with it!

posted June 15, 2006 02:34 PM              

the Roses are blooming. ...

posted June 15, 2006 03:05 PM            

I'm sorry if my post came across as an attack. That wasn't at all my intention when I posted it.
I was just honestly trying to understand why some people feel that it's so important to hang on to this one particular aspect of Biblical law regarding homosexuality but it's okay to deem other aspects as outdated.
Of course I don't consider the fact that you don't think women should be stoned as a fault!

I certainly appreciate that you haven't talked about gay folks being condemned to hell and all that. But why the resistance to allowing them to marry? Why must there be a whole new institution of civil unions created just for them? I don't think that is a good idea because it will only serve to create a second class of unions. Separate but equal just doesn't work.
Is it just too hard for you to go against the conservative grain or what?
Okay now that was a jab..
LOL

posted June 15, 2006 03:18 PM            

Lotusheartone, This ain't the first time you have hijacked a thread this way. Whats up with you?

Fayte, I hate to get involved in Ladies fight. I know you have the patience to bear it. See you somewhere later

posted June 15, 2006 03:22 PM              

Mannu..Have I done this?

posted June 15, 2006 03:59 PM              

NoBody can hijack a string..we're all supossed to post our thoughts and opinions..that's what this place is for. ...

posted June 15, 2006 04:01 PM            

In fact, out of the 25 or 30 gay friends that I visit with every Friday at our potlucks, why is it they all either a) don't care about being called "married" or b) they want a civil union?

Maybe you should spend more time convincing those that are affected by this legislation and determine what the majority of them want (and not the activist few) before trying to convince those of us that it doesn't affect.

posted June 15, 2006 07:37 PM            

Is that right? I was just over reacting, making it up as I went along?

If "special homosexual rights" to marry are approved both those scenarios are quite possible, including marrying the very young, down to age 12.

Take the domestic partnership agreement and leave marriage alone.

Girls Can Marry at 15, Colo. Court Finds
Jun 15 2:05 PM US/Eastern
By JON SARCHE
Associated Press Writer
DENVER

A 15-year-old girl can enter into a common-law marriage in Colorado, and younger girls and boys possibly can, too, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.

While the three-judge panel stopped short of setting a specific minimum age for such marriages, it said they could be legal for girls at 12 and boys at 14 under English common law, which Colorado recognizes.

The ruling overturned a lower-court judge's decision that a girl, now older than 18, was too young to marry at 15.

The panel said there was no clear legislative or statutory guidance on common-law marriages, and that Colorado courts have not determined an age of consent.

For traditional ceremonial marriage, Colorado law sets the minimum age at 18, or 16 with parental or judicial approval.

Colorado is one of 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, that recognize common-law marriage, which is based on English law dating back hundreds of years.

"It appears that Colorado has adopted the common-law age of consent for marriage as 14 for a male and 12 for a female, which existed under English common law," the ruling said. "Nevertheless, we need only hold here that a 15-year-old female may enter into a valid common-law marriage."

The appeal was filed by Willis Rouse, 38, who is serving time for escape and a parole violation. He argued that he and the girl began living together in April 2002 and applied for a marriage license a year later.

The girl had become legally independent by then, but her mother also consented to the marriage and accompanied the girl and Rouse to obtain a license, the ruling said.

A judge invalidated the marriage, saying anybody under age 16 needed judicial approval for either common-law or ceremonial marriage.

posted June 15, 2006 11:05 PM            

There is no logical or legal reason to grant special rights to homosexuals to marry and open the door to all other kinds of arrangements which will follow as surely as night follows day.

And if they are denied, then they will sue for discrimination...since the definition of marriage was changed and their relationships were excluded.

posted June 15, 2006 11:21 PM              

And as to the matter of some gay folk not wanting or caring about same sex marriage; the same can be said of many heterosexuals concerning marriage for them.
But at least heterosexuals do have that option to marry or not.
The gay folk I personally know do want the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples. They really do not care if it is called marriage or not. But they do want the complete rights to insurance and all the other things legally inheirent to heterosexual marriage. And they do want to have the option to marry or not, just like heterosexuals.

Equality for all adults not special rights.

And Jwhop...
Quote:
"So, it was said here pedophiles couldn't marry young boys and presumably lesbian women couldn't marry young girls...if homosexual marriage was approved?"

Quote:
"BTW, I didn't label all homosexual men as pedophiles."

No sir you did not directly. But the wording above: Quote: "So, it was said here pedophiles couldn't marry young boys and presumably lesbian women couldn't marry young girls"...if homosexual marriage was approved?"

Your linking Lesbians with young girls which led to the gender of the pedophile in the statement as appearing to be a male because of the reference to boys...as you linked lesbian/girl. It did look as though that is what you meant.
If that was not your intended meaning I do apologize. But in the context in which you placed the word it was implied that it was a male, not a female or a lesbian with the boys.
I have encountered only heterosexual pedophiles. But I do not assume that it is only a crime committed by heterosexuals.
And it appears that if your information is accurate...then heterosexual pedophiles are indeed marrying in some states legally already. And folks are still condemning the mere concept of adult same sex marriages while heterosexual adults marrying children is condoned? Is that the problem? If gay folk are given the same EQUAL rights as heterosexuals in some states, then indeed pedophiles of their orientation could marry? Just like heterosexual pedophiles legally do already?
Totally twisted

posted June 16, 2006 06:33 AM              

of course you dont like that idea because then you wouldnt need to write your form of morality into the constitution......

posted June 16, 2006 11:29 AM              

We won, Jwhop, deal with it.

The COMMON LAW marriage( where two people just live together without traditional marriage contracts ) of the 15 year old girl in Colorado was approved yesterday ( June 15 ) by the State Court of Appeals.

" The three- judge panel didn't set a minimum age for such marriages, but it said they could be legal for girls at 12 and boys at 14 under ENGLISH COMMON LAW, which Colorado recognizes." Weird state. Because for traditional marriages Colorado law sets the minimum age at 18, or 16 with parental or judicial approval. That is indeed very strange.

However, it was not the traditional marriage law that was ruled on but an English common law union that only Colorado seems to recognize. The ruling can easily be turned over and in fact, the English law could be abolished on a federal court appeals level since this is only a state law.

Most states recognize common law unions but only between consenting adults. Some states, like mine - Michigan, grant all the same benefits as a traditional marriage regarding property etc. if the two people have lived together for X number of years.