I don't understand what took them so long. Aren't all Frenchmen gay anyway?

Okay, that's a joke. I'm not a homophobe .

oh really, than why did you get up when that french guy sat next to you on that Park Bench?

Because the French don't bathe. Everyone knows that.

Just like the french gal with the 9 inch hair under her arms?

How sick can they get, how far can they push people?


http://www.christianpost.com/news/parent...y-school-94523/

And there are a whole bunch of pissed off people over there who don't agree with what was done.
This is one hot issue for sure. Everywhere.

The debate in France was very heated. Strong protests on the streets, etc.
In Germany we have something called "same-sex union" a little below marriage standard - no adoption, some tax disadvantages, but privileges like visting rights in the hospital, etc.
However, if there will be an initiative for same-sex marriage, I don't think there will be protests as big as in France.

I am going to take a firm stand for gay marriage for one reason. It means there will also be gay divorce, gay pre nups, and more money for lawyers.

As for the French law, all I can say is it gives new meaning to the Can-Can.

Oh, how typical of a lawyer: self-interest. However, in the interests of self-interest, in August my wife and I will have been together 40 years. But I'm not sure we will make it or make-it unaffected by gay marriage. Afterall, there are a couple of Board members who insist that my marriage of approaching 40 years is, apparently, already affected by gay marriages that take place in a number of states. Oh, the trepidation! Rhett, what shall I do?

Well for starters, you can quote a man instead of a woman. You big Mary .

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen in a divorce case between two people of the same sex, as far as child custody goes. Most often it is the woman who gets the child custody. It's almost a given, no?? Only in rare cases have I seen the father get custody (not to say IMHO in some cases I think child w/b better off with the father).

Would that aspect be looked at any differently as far as HOW it is determined who gets custody? Or as the law stands now would any wording have to be changed/altered? Just wondering



TIS

Only on those very special nights when I am feeling especially pretty ... and my wife is out of town.

Of course, the principle consideration is the best interests of the child. However, biological parenthood is also a principle as is financial support.

By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News

Rhode Island took a major step to becoming the 10th state to approve gay marriage Wednesday after the state Senate voted to approve a measure that would allow same-sex couples to wed.

Once believed to be a close call, the legislation passed comfortably by a 26-12 vote. It heads to the House, where it easily passed in January, next week for final approval. Gov. Lincoln Chafee has pledged to sign the bill, and the first same-sex marriages could take place Aug. 1.

Heavily Catholic Rhode Island is the last of New England's six states to legalize gay marriage. The legislation has been introduced in the House every year since 1997.

Good for Rhode Island!!

Well the truth has finally come out. And all along I thought your primary reason for being against gay marriage is due to your religious views. In reality, it's because you think it's icky.

Here is some more truth for you. If marriage were in fact a natural and normal occurrence between heterosexual couples, then it wouldn't need to be regulated, because people would "naturally" choose partners of the opposite sex. This idea of "natural" is a weak argument, because what comes natural to you doesn't come natural to everybody else. Heterosexuals don't set the standard on what is natural and normal. Christians don't set the standard on what is natural and normal. You want to know why? Because "natural" isn't universal.

Whoa, back up. While homosexuality is obviously disgusting (and you'd admit that if you were honest), it's not the "primary reason" I'm against it. That's just you making a strawman argument to knock down.



That heterosexuality is natural, as it perpetuates the species, should be obvious to everyone. Likewise, on the flip side, homosexuality is unnatural. You and other social liberals can try to move the lines by playing the moral relativism game but it doesn't change the facts.

Here is a bit of honesty for you: Two fat people having sex, unclothed is disgusting to me. Homosexual sex is not. Unless again, they are really fat and don't have their clothes on.
I resent you calling me dishonest. You have no right to tell me what I should be disgusted with and then question my honesty.



What is so hard for you to understand, is that how on earth it is possible for a person to be homosexual, and that be an act of God to have made such a person who is clearly against all he wishes humans to be. You can't reconcile with the idea that some of each species, randomly have no desire to mate with their opposite sex. Because everything is random. There is no grand design. You call a nonsense fact, while fact is, a homosexual is work of nature as is a heterosexual. That clearly shows the randomness of everything in this world. But someone who has a god delusion cannot see this straight.

Now AF, you know better than to question the good Reverend. He sees all and knows all. And he is honest because he admits everything.

Methinks someone protesteth too much

That's an understatement. I think Ivy would feel absolutely at home in 15th century Spain.

Yeah, what was I thinking?

It's about that time. Time to gross out Afsaneh!!!

And they haven't broken a sweat yet.

Awww... Isn't that sweet.

Same sex marriage was declared illegal in the Roman Empire in 342 A.D. So I suppose it was natural in 341 and then unnatural in 342.

Actually I think eating mayonnaise is disgusting. But I have found that if I don't think about it, I'm okay. Overweight people engaging in sex doesn't appeal to me either unless, of course, I am the participating corpulent copulater.

"corpulent copulator"? Only a lawyer would come up with a phrase like that. Of course, that is a weighty concept.

In most states, TIS, these days, there is a presumption that both parents have equal rights to have time and control over their children. In Florida, the term "custody" is no longer even on the books. What the courts usually do is declare the parents have "shared parental responsibility" with one or the other parent having final say on certain issues if there is no agreement. The parent who gets this "primary" role usually better meets a bunch of criteria better than the other (i.e. if one is a criminal it is a no brainer). More and more people are encouraged to work out "parenting plans" where the kids share time pretty mucch equally.

All that said, there is still an unwriten bias toward the mother, especially if the child is an infant, and of course if the child is still nursing.


With gay divorce I would imagine this kind of time sharing arrangement would work pretty much like it does in neterosexual marriages, with one or the other parent being the "primary" caretaker.

I thought the phrase was preferable to portly poker.