?

Log in

BACK DOOR BOY IN A FRONT DOOR WORLD
OUTSIDE OF SOCIETY - THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO BE
Alright - the goddamned gloves are off. Not that they were ever really on to begin with. 
8th-Nov-2005 10:54 am
I was hit with an epiphany earlier. It was borne of anger and frustration and general malaise. Oh, and that pesky cancer-of-the-perspective that occaisionally flares up. It was really about the whole traditional marriage/same sex marriage debacle when I was looking at the people touting both sides of the issue and clearly I saw myself in the middle of this power struggle and I finally had the oportunity to voice my $.02. I looked over at the heterosexuals who think that passing an amendment to the constitution (state and federal, it's the same fucking thing when you distill the bullshit off) will protect their traditional heterosexual marriages and said in no uncertain terms to them "Motherfuck you people and your baseless, bullshit logic - because I'm 1,000,000 X better than the lot of you combined." Then I looked over to the people striving for 'marriage equality' as an ideal - gay and straight proponents alike - and said (also in no uncertain terms) "And fuck y'all too. Get your heads out of your asses and look at the real issues here. They're not out to protect 'marriage', they're not protecting a goddamned thing. We're all sinners in their eyes and that is NEVER. GOING. TO. CHANGE. Their aim is to preserve MATRIMONY, the religious institution, from all of us Godless fornicators. They just call it protecting marriage because they're too fucking stupid to know the goddamned difference. The Evangelicals and born-agains are mostly Republican, and they have a 13% higher rate of divorce than heterosexual athiests/agnostics do, so you tell me - you want to emulate that standard of success? Success at achieving what, exactly - substandard mediocrity? The strive to be equal to a bunch of microcephalic, hypocritical windbags is truly pathetic, particularly in light of the fact that half of the goddamned time not even THEY can get their relationships right. Fuck you for trying to be equal to that, and fuck you for not trying to be BETTER than that. Because I know *I* am better than that.

Damien and I are better than my parents and siblings about our relationship. We're better than his parents too. I refuse to accept criticism from anyone who has been divorced before - least of all a fundamentalist Conservative - on what I should be allowed to have. It's the equivalent of a pro-life male to me, and I've had that argument countless times in the past - just as I will countless times in the future. It always results in "I'll tell you what, pal - the next time YOU get cramps, I'll personally buy you the fuckin' Midol. Until then, FUCK RIGHT OFF."

I got another news alert about the story in Atlanta [1|2|3|4|5|6] - this golf club and the ensuing 'discrimination' chaos around it. I've been working out a post in my head about this entire thing, and it seems to just keep getting exponentially bigger in my anger soaked psyche. The more I think about this and compare and contrast it in my head, the more I taste my own blood and bile. The crux of it is this: Druid Hills Gold Club will not allow two gay members to have their partners treated as spouses, as dictated by the rules set in place by the club since its formation. This is where I get shit for my opinions surrounding this matter, and I welcome it. If you have the proverbial sack to ante up, bring it with you and I'll tear it off like a goddamned paper towel. I'm feeling more venomous today than Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin's combined snatches anyway, in case you missed it.

I am 34 years old, 35 years old as of next month. Now I can SAY that I'm 35 all day long, but just because I SAY it does not make it so. You dig? Good. Damien is my partner. He is not, nor will he ever be as current legislation dictates, my husband - nor am I or will I be his. I do not refer to him as my husband, nor do I accept him referring to me as his. And I damn sure don't want to be referred to as a 'husbear', because I think that term is just rigodammndiculous. I'm getting off point here.

The argument here is discrimination, even though both plaintiffs are in good standing as members of this club. They are allowed by club rules to bring their partners and friends WITH THEM as they see fit, but cannot extend their partners usage of their membership priviledges as do heterosexual members with their legal spouses. SPOUSES. That's the key word here. So basically, it's the argument that transexuals have had to suffer forever in the face of intolerance and bigotry - only with different embellishments and no validity whatsoever. Speaking of embellishments, I still cannot get over the fact that these jackasses shelled out $40,000 just for the priviledge of being allowed to BE a member of this club, let alone the $500 in additional monthly fees. You assholes knew going into this place what the rules were, you had no real reason to think that they were going to bend the rules and you REALLY had no reason to get pissy when they operate within their own rights to not redefine their rules and terms. I've said at least 5 times this week over different scenarios "Look, you knew this snake would bite when you picked it up, so don't cry when you get bitten!" Pick a sensible battle, for fuck's sake! Persuing antidiscriminatory legal action against an organization when it says 'no' to you, yet is acting within the law? That's like a flamingo being denied access to a lion's den at the zoo and the flamingo somehow thinking it's being treated unfairly. How about this, Mr. Flamingo - YOU'RE A WILD ANIMAL LOCKED IN THE FUCKING ZOO!! If you're really going to make the complaint, consider first if it is in your best interests to first be where you are before your major concern is whether or not the water's too cold.

These pretentious queers want their partners to have the right to hobnob at an exclusive club, and they're willing to go to bat for the issue, but what about the 1,049 rights afforded to legally married spouses simply based on the fact that they are heterosexual unions? Apparently that doesn't matter, only being able to holler "Fore!" while playing the most boring fucking game in an exclusive private club. 'Cause if you can't pretend to be something you're just not in the eyes of the law and the society at large, that's really the definition of discrimination and it's really the problem of those intolerant people and not yourself. You're not riding in the back of anyone's goddamned bus that you don't choose to, you're not being excluded based on your sex, you're not being told that because you're a queer you can't play there, so FUCK OFF. All you're accomplishing is giving the assholes that come up with REAL discriminatory shit a reason to keep doing it.

Thanks for yet another setback, fuckers. You would do well to renounce your stupidity instead of wearing it like a shining fucking merit badge.
Comments 
8th-Nov-2005 03:58 pm (UTC)
I keep being told not all Christian conservative heterosexuals are complete morons. I have yet to see evidence of such.
8th-Nov-2005 04:06 pm (UTC)
At this point I'd settle for even sensible/moron split. At least that way you stand half a chance before you have to commit intelligent murder.
8th-Nov-2005 04:11 pm (UTC)
I'd have to say my grandfather is perhaps the only one that has come close in my experience. He has never been comfortable around homosexuals, but he thinks the furor over gay marriage is absolutely ridiculous. Half a loaf, at least. *sigh*
8th-Nov-2005 03:59 pm (UTC)
Fags like those simply want to enter into all the benefits available to the wealthy - they are unconcerned about the issues that others face.

Their simple goal is to be able to join the party, and to be able to exclude others in the way that their wealth entitles them to.

Never, ever look to those who simply want to join the ruling class for leadership.
8th-Nov-2005 04:07 pm (UTC)
$10 says they're Log Cabin Republicans!
(Deleted comment)
8th-Nov-2005 04:42 pm (UTC)
How could possibly know or assume that?
8th-Nov-2005 04:55 pm (UTC)
Really excellently said. I think you've summed up what I've been trying to articulate but couldn't get words around for a while. People seem to think that this whole thing is all about marriage and they (both sides) base their argument from that starting point but really they're missing the point. This isn't about marriage really, this is about giving every human being equal rights, that's the bottom line. If more people on the pro gay marriage side of things argued it that way I think they'd get a lot further but instead they're allowing themselves to be mired in the marriage debate, which will drag this thing out for years.
9th-Nov-2005 04:26 am (UTC)
More or less, agreed!
8th-Nov-2005 06:40 pm (UTC)
I LOVE TEH JUDE BENNETT
9th-Nov-2005 04:26 am (UTC)
Awww... *all special & shit*
8th-Nov-2005 06:55 pm (UTC)
I've never met you, but I love you to death.
I'd put my arms around and give you a great big hug, squeeze the hell out of you. :)
9th-Nov-2005 04:27 am (UTC)
Thankies - and I'd let ya, too!
8th-Nov-2005 07:39 pm (UTC)
I think that those who scream about creating constitutional amendments to protect the "sanctity of marriage" should do exactly that - by outlawing divorce. Let's just SEE how long THAT would last before being repealed.

As far as the term "husband" - mammals (including humans) have been forming pair-bonds for much longer than governments have been around sticking their meddlesome two cents into every aspect of people's lives. My husband is my husband whether or not some stupid piece of paper says so or not.

Now, it is true that what the word "husband" means has slightly different meanings in different contexts (colloquially, in state law, federal law, international law, etc.) so what may be relevant in one context may not be relevant in another.

For example, if I were to get married in Massachusetts, "husband" would be the correct term there, but not in Ohio (and also not at the Federal level - I have heard that for certain purposes such as filing taxes jointly, the Federal government does not recognize gay marriages even if the states do). In Canada, however, I would be considered "husband".
9th-Nov-2005 04:32 am (UTC)
Totally agreed on the first point, that's awesome.

As to the terminology, and without getting to heavily into semantics, I take issue with 1. the fact that at one level or another I could call myself one thing at point A but not at point B, because an imaginary line has the power to validate or invalidate that in the eyes of an allegedly fair and democratic law; and 2. I'm not interested in emulating traditional heterosex roles - especially with all the bad juju they've left all over them. I'd rather set a new standard for myself and my partner that isn't cloned from some skewed perception of normalcy.
9th-Nov-2005 09:23 am (UTC)
Well, you are free to call yourselves whatever you like. However, when you communicate with others, you need to use words whose meanings you both agree upon. This means either using existing words (whose meaning only approximates reality), or create your own new word (and force people to learn what it means), or use a long a long descriptive phrase, which rapidly becomes tiresome (for example, "the artist formerly known as Prince").

When people ask me where I am from, I say "Ohio", even though I am originally from Canada, but currently live in Ohio - because this answer, even though not totally accurate, conveys as much information as I think the person wants to hear. Just as when someone asks me the time, I will say "a quarter to 4" rather than "1:47", for the same reason.
8th-Nov-2005 07:47 pm (UTC)
You have some good points there. Most of the GLBT people I know in committed relationships do better than their married counterparts. I would suppose that, being a social minority, we have to communicate more openly and make a better effort at understanding one another. I know that when my husband and I got married, it was purely a matter of legal convenience. Neither of us needed the legal validation in the eyes of the state. In Colorado at least that was how it was treated. We went down to a court house, got redirected to an office which handles such things specifically (it shared space with the DMV), signed some papers and *poof* legally married and legally entitled to the benefits thereof. The non-social ones are relatively small, by the way. It measn he can put me on his insurance and well...that's about it. Anything else could have been done with a carefully drawn up will. It didn't change the relationship or have any magical effect of making us more of a couple. It was just a legal procedure.

And that's the point. It's not about social unions or anything of the kind. It's not even about social acceptance. It's about assuring that if something happens to you, your partner actually gets first dibs on your property (I've several gay and lesbian friends whose partners died and the courts let the families take everything from them). It's about making sure that if you turn into a vegetable, your partner is able to carry out your wishes. It's about those thousand-plus legal rights which same sex couples can't have...and should.

I don't, because of my unique circumstances (of which you are aware, since I explained them when I intro'd myself on your journal), call my man "husband". He's either my partner or my mate. "Husband" just didn't fit. I only use that if socially pressed to do so.

We also did away with the stupid gold wedding sets. I have a peridot, which is my birthstone, on a double band. He has a double star sapphire. We picked individual rings which each liked rather than something which would publicly announce, "We legally have the right to fuck one another".
9th-Nov-2005 01:44 am (UTC)
I am going to bleh at the "legal right to fuck each other bit" On my list of things to bitch about, that falls right up there with GLBTQ rights and abortion. Also, because I am feeling terrifically lazy and don't feel like commenting twice, I will comment about the post here too:

As a random independant heterosexual female, who considers herself to be very active in the GLBTQ community, not because I give a shit one way or the other about rights or not (I mean, I do, but that is not why I have friends who happen to be GLBTQ..does that make any sense? bleh..) anyways, these days, it seems that the only thing marriage really gets you is a tax break. I mean honestly...that is what they are really with-holding from the GLBTQ community. They make a whole lot of noise about how wrong same sex marrige is and blah blah blah...you've heard it before...as I see it, their opposition to same sex marrige is that it is a sin against the lord...in our "freedom of religion country" wait...wait...freedom of religion? here? HQHAHQHAHAHAHAH!!!HAHAHAHAH!!!! ROLFLOL!!!!AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!oy! anyways..so marriage is only important if it is sacred in the eyes of the lord..and the dude handing out the tax breaks..and the dude handing out the tax breaks thinks GLBTQ people are gross, so he/she/it claims saintly hood...even though the fact that he/she/it is married has no relavence to his/her/its belief. .so really...since marriage has long since lost any religious conotation...it is really just about the tax break...I do not understand people...I got into an argument with someone once about GLBTQ rights, and they told me that legalizing the marriage (or whatever fucking PC term you prefer) of GLBTQ folk is a dumb idea, because then people are going to want to marry animals, he said "what if someone says: but I really love my dog, he is my soul mate, I want to marry him...how can you say no to the amazing dog-lover if you won't say no to GLBTQ...I mean really, what is the difference?" I got really mad, and told him that human-human marriage is not comparable to human-animal..animals may be self-aware, but not to the same degree as humans..so he responded with "fine then, what about an 8 year old who wants to marry a 40 year old...where do you draw the line? when does it end?" I said to that that I was of the opinion that 18 was a good age...but completely arbitary. Anyways...I have lost my train of thought...and ranted for a very long time..either way...long story short...I am so very tired of everyone taking a simple issue, the idea of the union of two "concious, self-aware, grown-up enough to know what they are getting into" people and turning into a stupid debate where the whole point is missed. marriage should have only three pre-requisites: both parties to be wed are in favor of the idea, both love each other, and both have enough life experience to understand the first two conditions....would that that were our world...but no...in our world, marriage has nothing to do with consentual love...only tax breaks and stupidity.

ok. I'm done.

/me wanders off to attack a tasty burrito! *I love you burrito...will you marry me? ;P*
9th-Nov-2005 01:46 am (UTC)
sorry for that. I didn't mean to go ape-shit on the world. I am just having a bad day.

/me returns to burrito destruction and disembowelment.
9th-Nov-2005 02:08 am (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're angry with me. I happen to agree with all your points. The last comment was meant as sarcasm (you wouldn't believe the flak we got for simply living together, and I honestly believe that was one of the reasons we communicate so well and know one another so well).

You're preaching to the choir. I'm not hetero; it is, as I implied, a complicated thing because my natural preference is for other females (sexually, intellectually, intimately). My partner just happens to be male (but even that is another story. He'd be better described as a bisexual male possessing enough feminine traits and characteristics that most would consider him transgender...except he's happy being physically male. He just doesn't think like one).

I'm not Christian either. The "moral" institution of marriage has no real meaning to me because, by my religion, any relationship between two consenting individuals who fully understand any consequences to their actions is acceptable.

As far as I'm concerned, the requisites you just laid out would be more than adequate.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a simple world like that. And equally unfortunately, the legal rights which go with a union between consenting parties is something which has to be considered. As I said above, I've friends who, when their partners fell ill and died, lost everything to the partner's parents even though they had bought the house and things themselves. The courts so ruled because the legal institution didn't exist.

Somehow I don't think any of those friends to whom that has happened would find it stupid or trivial.
9th-Nov-2005 07:16 am (UTC)
I'm sorry, that wasn't meant to come across as yelling at you. I apologize for the tone, it really doesn't matter to me if you choose to wait until after you are married to have sex. I just think it is silly...and I take it from your response you think it silly as well..consider it a bleh at the notion in general, not at you in particular. As to the rest of my comment, that wasn't really aimed at you, but more in response to Jude's post. I prolly should have made a separate comment, but I was being lazy. I am glad you agree with me, unfortunetly with the exception of the few annoying flamers who find Jude's journal, I am almost entirely preaching to the choir. Which does so much, right? falls into the catagory of proof by democracy :P

I think I might link to this entry and post my response in my own journal. I suppose you could say that I am preaching to the choir there too, but while a majority of the people who read my journal share my views, not everyone does.

Anyways, I am sorry that you took my comment as a personal front. I promise it wasn't meant that way...and I agree with you on the GLBTQ serious relationships being more committed then heterosexual relationships, for exactly the reasons you said.

Anyways, I wish you and your (husband/partner/sig other/soul mate) a long and happy life together. If I had the ability to give you tax breaks, I would...but you'll just have to settle for knowing what love really is...and that is a hell of a lot more then most of the world knows.
9th-Nov-2005 12:31 pm (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure I hadn't made anyone angry. I don't like doing that and sometimes my typos make my messages the opposite of what I had intended.

ROFL I didn't wait :) It's one of those things which really ticked off my conservative friends and parents. There are studies out there which demonstrate that unions in which the partners lived together first last longer. That's because you learn within the first few months whether or not you can stand hir burning the toast/leaving the toilet lid open/etc for the rest of your life. If I had done this with my first two partners, I probably would never have ended up in abusive relationships but no...society requires you marry then get to know one another.
9th-Nov-2005 04:36 am (UTC)
The legal issues at the forefront of your comment are my core issues and my real vested interest. What galls me is this ridiculous perception that I'd invalidate someone else's fucking marriage - efectively tainting it - by having the same legal rights as heterosex couples do. What kind of security in a relationship do you really have if that's what operates your agenda, and furthermore how is THAT worth 'protecting'?
9th-Nov-2005 12:27 pm (UTC)
*eyeroll* If their marriage would be invalidated by the conjoining of two same sex partners for legal reasons, it had a lot more wrong with it than homosexual hate. Too bad they don't see that point.
16th-Nov-2005 03:11 am (UTC)
This may sound like a stupid comment, so forgive me for asking, but can someone please tell me what the big deal is? I mean I literally don't understand. My family is made up of heterosexual and homosexual parts...and that's just the way it always has been. I didn't learn the word gay, fag, faggot, homosexual, or any other nasty term that implies a person who finds the same sex appealing (or whatever PC term you like) until I was in highschool. I mean, I had heard the words before, and even been so crass as to call people names with them, but I honestly didn't know what they meant until one day I was fighting with my brother and told him he was "a fucking faggot and should go kick the bucket" (I was mad...and I didn't know what I was saying) My dad heard me, and let's just cut it short and say I got in a lot of trouble. I was really mad because I didn't understand why I had gotten in more trouble then my brother, even though he had called me names too. My dad finally asked me if I knew what faggot meant in the way I had put it, and I told him it meant that my brother was a faggot, and he said, well, sure, but what is a faggot? and I didn't know..just that it was mean. so he told me, and I felt so bad, but before then, I was just a stupid kid using words I didn't understand...and I guess I am stupid, because I just don't understand why there is a difference...why there are words to not understand. I mean, I suppose, as I mentioned that things were harder for my uncles, but I never really knew why, no one ever explained it to me...and it is very frustrating, because I really just don't understand. Does that make any sense? I guess that the real world was kind of a slap in the face for me...because when i was a kid, no-one ever told me that having two uncles was anything different then having two aunts or an aunt and uncle, it just was that it was. anyways...if someone could explain to me why there is a difference, I would be curious to understand, because fundamentally, I just don't get it.
9th-Nov-2005 07:29 am (UTC)
randomly: you are in CO? me also..anyways, if you recall the process you went through to be legally joined, I would have interest in knowing more. My uncles have been together for 20-some years, and my family had some issues with the hospital when my blood-uncle got sick a few years ago. Luckily, he got better, but it was so hard sitting in the lobby with my other uncle, because they wouldn't let him go back and see my blood-uncle. We tried to tell them that he was family, but they didn't care, because legally he wasn't. granted, they now live in FL, so I don't even know the political situation there, but I could pass the info on.
8th-Nov-2005 08:17 pm (UTC)
So..you do know that at least in Massachussets same sex marriage is legal right?!? and would be recognized, if not in Atlanta, in Maine, Canada, The Netherlands and Spain...

At least it IS legal there...not the same but similar..maybe?!?!??
9th-Nov-2005 04:44 am (UTC)
I do know that, yes. And I know it is a start and will set a standard soon that is both undeniable and nonthreatning, but the fact is that the opponents of this issue will look at any fact based evidence that shows what a healthy thing this really is and notonly denounce it in SOME way, but will counter with baseless logic bought hook, line, & sinker by the masses of hyperreligious idiots who unfortunately have the power to influence how we are perceived from a legal standpoint as unworthy of validation and recognition. My main issue is why covet an institution that they have proven time and time again is nowhere near as sacred as they assert? Why strive to be mediocre, why not be better than them by example and throw their own shit in their faces?
(Deleted comment)
9th-Nov-2005 04:45 am (UTC)
I love you - and I want to be emperor.
8th-Nov-2005 09:13 pm (UTC)
I work part-time with a lawyer and he said to me one day on the subject of gay marriage, "There IS no sanctimony of marriage; straight people screwed that up a LONG time ago. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry and screw up their lives just like straight people can?"

(Of course, this is not to say you will screw up YOUR marriage. Hopefully, not. And on that topic I am poor, but if you invite me, I will bring a gift. :-D )
9th-Nov-2005 04:51 am (UTC)
Or rather, why don't gay people set a new standard of self worth and self respect and be better than the hypocritical assholes towing a line for an antiquated ritual that they refuse to accept responsibility for ruining? Protect WHAT, exactly? I'd rather swallow razor blades than copycat what failures straight people have accrued, to include coveting the mockery they've made of marriage.

A straight man once told me about a year ago that he took offense to the way we've turned the word 'gay' to mean homosexual. I retorted "You mean kind of like the way you straight people have murdered the word 'marriage'? 'Cause if you want to go there we're going to call it what it is." He quickly shut up.

I'm inviting lots of folks, and as to gifts, but monetary donations are appreciated but certainly not a requirement!
9th-Nov-2005 06:28 am (UTC)
The one poster (and you) are right about one thing that stands out to me: This isn't about gay rights ... any more than abortion is about the protection of the fetus. It's about controlling, holding at arm's length the rights of particular individuals society deems unable or undesirable to have the same sorts of rights as another larger segment considered more "desirable" or "better." In other words, women shouldn't have the right to decide how their reproductive systems are used (or rather, they shouldn't have the right to *refuse* to use it the way God and society obviously intend for them to), and gays shouldn't have the right to make a stab at the same actions (and yes, mistakes) as heterosexual people.
9th-Nov-2005 08:27 pm (UTC)
Applauds... I don't usually.. well I have never posted in your LJ but I do read it often. And well I just was'nt going to pass this one by. What I don't understand about straight "so-called" christians is that they say that gay marriage is a sin, hello so is everything else according to " The Bible" sex before marriage, divorce, remarrying and blah blah, I could go on for days. So if we all are supposed to obide by "The Bible", we are all fucking sinners and we are all going to hell.
I believe in religion, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to tell someone else what they have to believe in,who they can be, who they can love or who they can marry. Marry whoever in the hell you want to marry. It does hurt me or anyone else for that matter. Gay marriage is not going to poison the meaning of marriage,and it is not hurting your religion, you damn idiots. Get the fuck over it, and worry about your own fucked up ass marriage. You don't have to like it, but it is not your choice what someone else does.. Free country my ass. Okay bitch mode is over, I think.
8th-Nov-2005 09:55 pm (UTC)
Though it most certainly pales in comparison with many of the posts here, allow me to say this: you are my new hero ^_^
9th-Nov-2005 04:52 am (UTC)
Well aren't you the sweet one! I'm no hero, just a fed up and somewhat articulate queer.
9th-Nov-2005 04:19 am (UTC)
yeah, what you said... that's more or less my whole take on the thing, too. minus the flamingo bit.

9th-Nov-2005 04:52 am (UTC)
THE FLAMINGO IS THE CRUX OF THE WHOLE THING, DORK!
9th-Nov-2005 05:35 am (UTC)
but dude... a flamingo?

a peacock woulda been better... plus then you get to type cock all over the place. not like you don't already.

ok, this is me being quiet.
9th-Nov-2005 11:26 pm (UTC)
I find I get so frustrated at this whole Constitutional Amendment business related to gay marriage. People who love each should be able to get married. Case closed.

I was recently in my local Walmart and there were all these heterosexual couples in there, being cranky with each other. One man was yelling at his wife in the parking lot while their child wailed away in the car. THESE are the people who should NOT be allowed to get married!!!

I myself was in a hetero marriage for over 15 years with a man who thought it was "OK" to just move out one day while I was at work because he had turned 40 and his life wasn't what he expected. Oddly enough though, he is already remarried and to a woman with three kids. OK ... wonder when that life won't be what he expected?? He met his second wife at church, I think possibly a charismatic church (well, charismatic by New England standards), that probably disapproves of divorce. Yet he is all "Praise the Lord for bringing me my new wife", "we were meant to be" "we are one life together in God's plan" blah, blah, blah (he has a poetry blog that I have stupidly been reading)...anyhow my point is this -- before I start ranting-- is people who start talking about marriage is a holy union might want to look at the divorce rate before they go too far with that. I know gay couples who are much more loving, much more committed to making it work than many straight couples. And they shouldn't be able to get married? Didn't anyone notice they basically already are and doing a better job at it anyhow???

This page was loaded Jul 24th 2017, 2:30 pm GMT.