Gay Marriage.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:05 pm

Paula wrote: Sounds like Gay Marriage can happen in some states, in Mass. it is acceptable. Connecticut is considering...the state makes it's own laws...Interesting to see what happens, i see alot more political officials being gay? why are so many people that way? I want to keep my husband and not trade him for a woman? is that okay? am I the weird one here?

i am not attracted to women...sexually...

sorry.

WHAT???

Attached files

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:11 pm

Easy Abbey.... Paula is our resident homaphobe.. she is basically harmless...

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:31 pm

am i invited to the wedding GDH?, or do you have to be a homo? I will bring my boots if needed. hahahahahaha, are you having chocolate cake? i thought so...fudge on a stick in the design of an organ? Tumble on... :wah: :wah:

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 12:33 pm

Paula..

I am not even going to grace you with an anwser....

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:03 pm

A little shock theraphy never hurt anyone, you are too hard on yourself...i am harmless...you gotta admit LOL, that was funny. It's rainin men, hail mary full of grace, (4) balls take your base... :wah: :wah: Cheerio...

don't worry be happy!!

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:10 pm

greydeadhead wrote: Paula..

I am not even going to grace you with an anwser....
WELL I AM!!

Paula, you truly astound me with your "harmless" banter, yes, we are all entitled to our opinions as you quite rightly point out over & over again...

But please my dear, do shut up on the subject, you say that you have nothing against gays, after all, you do have "a few of them " in your home town!

I myself am hetrosexual & fortunate to be in a loving relationship, so your homophobic comments cannot hurt me personally.

I can't speak for the other members of this forum on their genda preferances, but if i were to be gay i would be extremley offended by your smutty playground comments.

To hear such crude terms that you use regarding sex....well it astounds me!!

One thing that does interest & puzzle me is, your references are all regading men getting married/having sex, why??

Have you got no objections to woman being married?? or maybe it's just that you can't throw as much inuendo at women as you can men.?

Maybe you have had a personal experience that has led you to behave in such a crass manner!!

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:31 pm

Dear Abigail, we have (3) men that are gay in our family, the (real) men ridicule them, as mud packers, put your cork in, watch out, this has been going on for 30 years...one is a family massage therapist who gives all of us massage, another is just a live wire, that colors his hair and takes in stray men who have no place to live, well the other is dying...i really have nothing against any-one...we all want to sound like saints but we are not...and you should not be either, i just said what i felt as funny, funny & then some.... :wah: :wah:

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:36 pm

Paula wrote: Dear Abigail, we have (3) men that are gay in our family, the (real) men ridicule them, as mud packers, put your cork in, watch out, this has been going on for 30 years...one is a family massage therapist who gives all of us massage, another is just a live wire, that colors his hair and takes in stray men who have no place to live, well the other is dying...i really have nothing against any-one...we all want to sound like saints but we are not...and you should not be either, i just said what i felt as funny, funny & then some.... :wah: :wah:

AND THE ANSWER TO THE TWO WOMAN GETTING MARRIED WAS???

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:17 pm

gay people can be gay....(period). gay people push too hard to be gay. (Marriage) you know already is (traditional) and the way it was intended as male & female. we need as a human species (respect) the (original) meaning of the word (marriage.) but in modern terms that now means any human? this has gone too far, do what you want, i'm keeping my boots on, i quess i can go to the stag too & i will decorate the cake with the guys, by the way, do they celebrate and throw the garter? is there a dollar dance? :wah: :wah: where is the honey-moon? :wah: :wah: am i invited?

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:08 pm

Paula wrote: Dear Abigail, we have (3) men that are gay in our family, the (real) men ridicule them, as mud packers, put your cork in, watch out, this has been going on for 30 years...one is a family massage therapist who gives all of us massage, another is just a live wire, that colors his hair and takes in stray men who have no place to live, well the other is dying...i really have nothing against any-one...we all want to sound like saints but we are not...and you should not be either, i just said what i felt as funny, funny & then some.... :wah: :wah:

The (real) men ridicule them? To be a "real" man you should ridicule others? Is it okay to be a woman beater as long as you are a "real" man? Exactly what is a "real" man?

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:12 pm

I cannot help you all, these boots are made for walking, not stuck in the mud...not over yet. Bye.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:11 am

posted by paula

I cannot help you all, these boots are made for walking, not stuck in the mud...not over yet. Bye.
__________________

Just wondering if you have a whip and a basque as well or is that a different forum?

Most of the gays I know are quite capable of giving as good as they get in the verbal abuse stakes. e.g was on being threatened by a skinhead with a beating, turned round "I don't have much money but since you're cute you can do it for nothing." The guys mates clearly thought it was funny but I don't know if it was the humour or the fact the guy was clearly not intimidated by the threat that did the trick.

Definitely the funniest one was a openly homosexual colleague at work on being asked of he was growing a beard to try and make himself look more like a man replied "I am always being told I am a useless $%^& si I decided I should at least make an effort to look the part"

Ever since then I have never been able to view bearded individuals in quite the same way as i used to.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:25 am

Paula wrote: A little shock theraphy never hurt anyone, you are too hard on yourself...i am harmless...you gotta admit LOL, that was funny. It's rainin men, hail mary full of grace, (4) balls take your base... :wah: :wah: Cheerio...

don't worry be happy!!

No Paula..

That was not shock therapy. You may think you are harmless but you are not. Funny.. hardly. Making fun on anyone based on their sexuality, race, religion etc is not funny. It is rude, insulting, degrading and intolerable. You say that 3 men in your family are gay. Do you join with the other real men in your family and insult them too..?? BTW for you information, I am straight... but not narrow minded. Gay people are not pushing to be gay. There is no decision to be gay. They are demanding the same rights and protections afforded married couples. What is wrong with that?? Your husband can leave you property in his will, why can't a gay man be afforded the same right..?? You can make decisions for you husband if he is hospitalized.. why can't a partner be allowed to do the same..?? Marriage.. how do you know the original definition of the word. Respect.. you don't even know what that is..

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:35 am

gmc wrote: Just wondering if you have a whip and a basque

Ooooh! "Mercy, mistress.... (More! More!)" - well kown political statement.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:40 am

i have handcuffs....

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:44 am

lady cop wrote: i have handcuffs....

And a uniform.... New thread time (~~~~~disappeard into the distance moaning)

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:58 am

Bill Sikes wrote: And a uniform.... New thread time (~~~~~disappeard into the distance moaning)
sorry...was i bad to say that? i can be wicked.

...still feeling my way here.........

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:00 am

ladycop

sorry...was i bad to say that? i can be wicked. ...still feeling my way here..

Not at all. I'm just resisting the temptation to make jokes about nightsticks

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:05 am

gmc wrote: Not at all. I'm just resisting the temptation to make jokes about nightsticks
those went the way of the dinosaur...now we have tasers! (better than a bullet)

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:34 am

Paula wrote: Dear Abigail, we have (3) men that are gay in our family, the (real) men ridicule them, as mud packers, put your cork in, watch out, this has been going on for 30 years...one is a family massage therapist who gives all of us massage, another is just a live wire, that colors his hair and takes in stray men who have no place to live, well the other is dying...i really have nothing against any-one...we all want to sound like saints but we are not...and you should not be either, i just said what i felt as funny, funny & then some.... :wah: :wah:

So what you are saying is that ignorance runs in the family?

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:20 pm

Paula wrote: Dear Abigail, we have (3) men that are gay in our family, the (real) men ridicule them, as mud packers, put your cork in, watch out, this has been going on for 30 years...one is a family massage therapist who gives all of us massage, another is just a live wire, that colors his hair and takes in stray men who have no place to live, well the other is dying...i really have nothing against any-one...we all want to sound like saints but we are not...and you should not be either, i just said what i felt as funny, funny & then some.... :wah: :wah:

First & foremost Paula i am no saint, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Because someone does'nt agree with your backward, bigotted views on same sex marriage does not make them idiots or potentialy gay.

And lets get one thing straight shall we? if ever a bill should be passed that same sex people were allowed to be married it does'nt make it compulsory, so i think my dear you would be more than safe!! :-5

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:38 pm

Gay Marriage. NO. NO WAY. This is taking things too far. Perhaps I'm old fashioned. But I cannot agree with that.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:01 pm

Jack Sprat wrote: I have not been posting much here recently, mostly because of Paula's narrow-minded points of view. It is obvious that her parents and religious teachings have brainwashed her, and there is no way any reasonable person is going to be able to express an opposing opinion without receiving one of her "I know the absolute truth" and "the way of the chursch is the only way" lectures. So way bother?

For every rude, obnoxious, ignorant person, there are many, many who are quite nice.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:18 am

capt_buzzard wrote: Gay Marriage. NO. NO WAY. This is taking things too far. Perhaps I'm old fashioned. But I cannot agree with that.

Well Capt. .. being old fashioned is one thing.. but being homophobic is another. Do you disagree or agree with allowing the gay/lesbian community the same rights and protections that you are afforded by law..?? That is the real question here.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:28 am

greydeadhead wrote: Well Capt. .. being old fashioned is one thing.. but being homophobic is another.

Homophobic? Piffle.

greydeadhead wrote: Do you disagree or agree with allowing the gay/lesbian community the same rights and protections that you are afforded by law..?? That is the real question here.

That's what you are saying is the real question, anyway.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:31 am

Piffle...??

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:52 am

greydeadhead wrote: Piffle...??

Piffle... nonsense. You called Captain Buzzard "homophobic" (whatever you mean by that), simply because he opposes marriage for homosexuals. "Homophobic" seems to me to be a word that can be conveniently used as a smokescreen (cf. pro/anti abortion terms) or insult or label, without any definition.

Perhaps, and I hope CB won't think I'm putting words in his mouth, most people object strongly to the idea of homosexual marriage in the religious sense. This seems to me to be valid - I don't know of any religion that accommodates this idea. However, in the civil/legal scheme of things, I would think that there couldn't be a reasonable objection, given the acceptance of homosexuality in the first place (there are places where this practice is not accepted).

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:58 am

Olly wrote: Sorry about the swearing everyone, I just got a little annoyed with Paula's bigoted, insulting posts.

Don't worry about it Olly. Compared to some of the terms she uses, yours was mild. It's hard enough being a teen, without a so-called adult insulting you.

beautyful · Post by **beautyful** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:05 am

Peg wrote: Don't worry about it Olly. Compared to some of the terms she uses, yours was mild. It's hard enough being a teen, without a so-called adult insulting you.

you'd think adults would know better!!! I say each to his own, as long as no-one is pushing it in your face why can't everyone be what they wanna be? I think its fair to say these days some religions 'put up' with people being gay and even turn a blind eye. I mean there is somewhere in Britain that has a gay bishop, how much more accepting can a religion be?

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:16 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Piffle... nonsense. You called Captain Buzzard "homophobic" (whatever you mean by that), simply because he opposes marriage for homosexuals. "Homophobic" seems to me to be a word that can be conveniently used as a smokescreen (cf. pro/anti abortion terms) or insult or label, without any definition.

Perhaps, and I hope CB won't think I'm putting words in his mouth, most people object strongly to the idea of homosexual marriage in the religious sense. This seems to me to be valid - I don't know of any religion that accommodates this idea. However, in the civil/legal scheme of things, I would think that there couldn't be a reasonable objection, given the acceptance of homosexuality in the first place (there are places where this practice is not accepted).

Okay.. first of all if my post appeared to label the Capt. as homophobic, I apologize. Perhaps the way I formed the comment was misunderstood. As far as using the term as a smokescreen or as a matter of convenience that is hardly the case. Some people are truely scared of gays and lesbians. My Ex-wifes new husband is a shining example.

Now.. maybe the religious basis of opposing gay marriage is a valid argument.. but then again if you are going use that to support your position, then other controversial topics could be supported.. the death penalty for example. Yes there are countries where homosexuality is unaccepted, mostly because of the religious aspect. But .. if being gay or lesbian is an accepted social status in that respective country, then we agree that civil/legal protections should be inplace to afford them the same protections that you and I enjoy.. correct..??

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:43 am

greydeadhead wrote: But .. if being gay or lesbian is an accepted social status in that respective country, then we agree that civil/legal protections should be inplace to afford them the same protections that you and I enjoy.. correct..??

Hm. Homosexuals are, as far as I am aware, subject to and bound by the law in any case, like anyone else - is this what you mean by "afforded the same protections that you and I enjoy"? I don't see any reason why they should not make a commitment to each other that is legally binding in addition. In the UK, this sort of mechanism is almost in place, but won't be, I imagine, fully, for some years. I'm not sure that would be satisfactory anyway - people like the religious aspect of marriage. Perhaps it's time for a new religion?

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:54 am

yes .. they are bound by and subject to the same laws as everyone else.. but an example, one member of the couple is in the hospital, can't speak for themself. Their partner cannot make a decision for them.. like a wife or husband can do in a similar situation. An instance in Oregon, longtime partners had acquired substantial holdings over a period of years. One partner died and the family took the will to court. Because the couple was not married, the family ending up winning the case, effectively denying the surviving partner any financial gains that they had accumlated while their partner was alive. (that was confusing, Ihope that I stated it in a clear manner..)..

A new religion. who knows.. perhaps it is time.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:22 am

greydeadhead wrote: yes .. they are bound by and subject to the same laws as everyone else.. but an example, one member of the couple is in the hospital, can't speak for themself. Their partner cannot make a decision for them.. like a wife or husband can do in a similar situation. An instance in Oregon, longtime partners had acquired substantial holdings over a period of years. One partner died and the family took the will to court. Because the couple was not married, the family ending up winning the case, effectively denying the surviving partner any financial gains that they had accumlated while their partner was alive. (that was confusing, Ihope that I stated it in a clear manner..)..

Can't these things be overcome anyway? in the UK, one may give "power of attorney" (POA) to someone, who can then take any and all financial or other decisions for the donor (there are conditions, such as the decision being in the best interest of the donor of POA) - there's also an "Enduring power of attorney", which is valid even if donor loses his marbles (becomes mentally incapable). These are easy to set up. With the will, it sounds like a ****-up - or a difference in law. Here, suppose that a will is made that leaves the entire estate to the dog's home, or something. Someone "of standing", i.e. the testator's spouse, children and "heirs at law", those who would benefit if no will had been made, may challenge the will - however, this challenge is not likely to overturn the entire intention of the will, assuming such was not made fraudulently, etc.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:58 am

Not being a lawyer, I am not sure of the scope of power involved in a POA or if there is even an Enduring POA available here. I am not a huge fan of entrusting anything to the legal system here. It does seem if there is a loophole in a law.. real or precieved an ambulance chaser will find it and exploit it.. and if they don't then a special interests group will step in for you. I will have to investigate more to find out excatly how gay or lesbian couples currently protect themselves.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 7:47 am

the one where one partner is ill in hospital applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals

In the UK unmarried heterosexual couples come across the same problem, unless they have taken steps to protect themselves by having property etc in joint names, or in trust to each other. Even then wills can be contested by members of the family-it's not just homesexual relationships that are disapproved of mixed race relationships cause all sorts of problems, it's not that long ago that the bible was used in some quarters to prove that mixed race marriages were against god.

Even a house that is paid for jointly, if there is only one name on the title deeds then the survivor has little claim if they are unmarried and it is the one who's name is on the deeds that dies, married surviving partners have rights under the marriage act brought in originally to protect widows so that the death of a husband didn't leave them destitute, 1875 was the first one I think the married women's property act. Other than that children, siblings and parents have prior rights over the unmarried partner, that is the position in the UK the US I don't know anything about. It's actually quite hard to convince people that is the case as in our present social climate it seems so unfair, so if you are living in sin see a lawyer if you intend to stay together without getting married.

If two people want to get married in the eyes of god ina church then it is between them, god and whatever church will do it. Ultimately they will answer to god not to those on earth who believe they and only they can interpret his will and personally I think they should worry about their own conscience and relationship to god rather than telling everybody what is natural or unnatural. What, are homosexuals anyway a mistake that god made?

I was married in a civil ceremony, apart from anything else my wife and i are different (albeit nominally) religons. It is no less binding than a church wedding althoughn I know some religious nutters who think we are not married because it was not in a church. it's not where you do it but with what intention that matters. and if homosexuals getting married bothers you don't go to the wedding don't speak to them don't live next to them, leave them alone and i am sure they will reciprocate.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 7:00 pm

gmc, well stated and true, clearly a legal union is needed to avoid problems that arise from death or seperation. isn't it so after a period of years a couple living together is called Common Law? My father wasn't married to his last woman & she sold everything he had? During the relationship all was joint and left to one or the other? mutual? these gay people need some sort of legal license of union, i just cannot imagine 2 men getting married, i can't grasp? the topic is hot & believe soon there will be a final decision about it. married or not, how couples plan is what makes the difference, no-one can stop that, if it's in writing and done with an attorney?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:27 am

Olly wrote: Have you ever heard someone say 'as the actor said to the bishop'; they have a reputation for being gay

I've only ever once or twice heard that, with regard to things in the news at that moment. I have many times heard "as the actress said to the bishop", the supposition being that bishops are notoriously randy, and actresses are notoriously "loose" (cf. nurses).

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:21 am

Paula wrote: isn't it so after a period of years a couple living together is called Common Law?

There is no such thing in the UK as a "common law wife/husband" - I don't know about the U.S.A., though.

Paula wrote: married or not, how couples plan is what makes the difference, no-one can stop that, if it's in writing and done with an attorney?

That seems to be the case. Even a little thought and effort goes a long way, and is far better than none. It does cost a little, though - I made a will recently, the charge for the drawing up of it was Ã‚£240 - it was not complicated, BUT my circumstances are, so some thought went into it which was crystallised by the expertise of the person I employed.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:21 am

As far as the common law marriages, I don't know how well that would hold up in court. And wills can always be contested in court. I know of several instances, including the one I cited in Oregon where a will was contested and the surviving partner lost out.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 am

greydeadhead wrote: As far as the common law marriages, I don't know how well that would hold up in court. And wills can always be contested in court. I know of several instances, including the one I cited in Oregon where a will was contested and the surviving partner lost out.

Probably a UK/USA differences. It is true that many people in the UK think that a "common-law marriage" can be said to be in effect where two people have lived as man and wife for a number of years... this just is not so, and can cause problems. Re. dying intestate, i.e. without making a will, means that the following rules will be applied (there are some exceptions, so it's a GOOD IDEA to check):

Married person with children

Spouse gets everything up to *Ã‚£125,000 & personal possessions.

Anything remaining is divided into two:- Half to the children at 18 or earlier marriage.

Half in trust during spouse's lifetime - he or she gets the income. On spouse's death this half goes to the children.

If a child predeceases, leaving issue, his issue will take his share between them.

Married person, no children

If there are parents, brothers or sisters of the whole blood, nephew or nieces:- Spouse gets everything up to *Ã‚£200,000 & personal possessions.

Anything remaining is divided into two:- Half of this goes to spouse

Half to parents. If no parent is living then it goes to brothers or sisters or their children.

Married person, no parents, brothers or sisters of the whole blood, nephew or nieces

Spouse takes whole estate.

Unmarried person with children

Estate goes to children at 18 or earlier marriage.

If a child predeceases, leaving issue, his issue take per stirpes.

Unmarried person with no children

Estate goes to parents.

If none, then to siblings of the whole blood or their issue.

If none, then to siblings of the half blood or their issue.

If none, then to grandparents.

If none, then to uncles and aunts of the whole blood or their issue.

If none, then to uncles and aunts of the half blood or their issue.

If there are no parents, siblings (whole or half blood), issue of siblings, grandparents, uncles and aunts (whole or half blood), or issue of uncles or aunts, estate goes to the Crown (or to the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duke of Cornwall).

The figures are liable to change every so often, but apart from that, the rules are, as seen, very simple.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:46 am

why then in the UK prostitution is LEGAL? is GAY marriage legal there also? relationships betweem people are their problem not mine. i have planned ahead, thats what every-one should do. :-6

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:49 am

Paula wrote: why then in the UK prostitution is LEGAL? is GAY marriage legal there also? relationships betweem people are their problem not mine. i have planned ahead, thats what every-one should do. :-6
Prostitution in the uk is NOT legal, neither is Gay marriage Paula.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:56 am

Temperature Rising, lets not expose fragile nerves, how would i know about prostitution? its legal somewhere in Europe?? & GAY Marriage; i haven't heard anything positive of its passage lately? Abb, are you having a splendid day? cheerio...

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:03 am

Paula wrote: Temperature Rising, lets not expose fragile nerves, how would i know about prostitution? its legal somewhere in Europe?? & GAY Marriage; i haven't heard anything positive of its passage lately? Abb, are you having a splendid day? cheerio...

6pm here in uk & yes Paula i've had a lovely day thanx, you?

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:14 am

here it is about 1:15 during the day-time. :wah: