E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSame-sex marriage advanced one step closer to becoming a reality in Illinois this Valentine’s Day as the state Senate passed legislation that would legalize gay matrimony in the Land of Lincoln.
The measure will now go to the Illinois House, where a contentious fight is expected before the bill can reach Gov. Pat Quinn’s desk. Quinn is expected to sign the bill, and issued a statement on Thursday praising the Democratic-led Senate vote.
“Today, we are one step closer to marriage equality in Illinois,” Quinn said in a statement. “Couples across Illinois have even more reason today to celebrate their love for each other, thanks to the hard work of committed advocates and lawmakers.”
Praise also came from Chicago mayor and former chief of staff to President Obama, Rahm Emanuel, who called on the Illinois House to pass the bill.
“When two people love each other, no government entity should stand in the way of letting them express that love,” said Emanuel. “It is time that our laws reflect our values and I am so proud that on this Valentine’s Day, the Illinois Senate has voted to approve gay marriage.”
If passed, the measure would officially change state law from an act between a man and a woman to two people. Illinois residents in civil unions would be able to convert them to marriages with a year of the law going into effect.
It is not clear yet when the Illinois House will take up the measure.
The president’s home state would become the 10th state to legalize same-sex matrimony, and the first in the midwest to do so through legislation. Obama announced last year he supports gay marriage.
Leave a Comment:
There is no legal basis for denying marriage and civil rights to gay people. Keep moving forward Illinois, and come this June let's get this done right once and for all.
(Hopefully) One more down! Gotta go look to see how many states this will make that are finally securing civil rights for ALL!
Nice job, Illinois!
Any adult with legal capacity for informed consent. Other than that, it would depend on who they're attracted to, I guess.
Being "allowed" and "wanting" are two different things.
This is great news. It's great to see another state recognizing gays/lesbians have marriage and civil rights as much as heterosexuals. It's time for SCOTUS to rule on this in June, and ensure ALL Americans (regardless of the state hey reside in), have the right to marry the person they love.
My home state of iowa has it, and now it looks like Texas is off to a start as well:
http://www.dallasvoice.com/lon-burnam-files-marriage-equality-bill-valentines-day-gift-lgbt-texans-10139543.html
"who are Transsexuals allowed to marry?"
The whole point is that people should be allowed to marry whoever they want to (consenting adults only, of course).
Progress marching on. Will be national by vote or decree by 2020. Awesome. Pay attention Boy Scouts.
King,
That was snide??? Dude, you're sensitive. And it really can't be broken down into any simpler terms. The liberal, intellectual elitist in me can't bring herself to do so. I'm sure you can ponder it further on your couch tonight.
(Now that was a bit snide.)
King,
A transsexual is still legally either a man or a woman, depending on various factors. As such, they would be allowed to marry whatever the opposite sex of their legal sex would be (or, in some states, the same sex). Transsexual is not its own sex - legally, a person is still either male or female, and marriage would treat them as such.
The government has no right to tell you which adults you are allowed to enter into a binding contract with. Period. It is none of their business. There is no other thing in a marriage contract that is against the law for two consenting adults.
Equal rights seem to be breaking out all over.
Whoopie Do... The news media has a new piece of news!!!!!
The state has no legitimate interest in your gender (or gender identity) or the gender of your spouse, no more than it has a legitimate interest in your race or which is your dominant hand.
Sounded like a rather stupid question.
It's like asking "Who are blue-eyed people allowed to marry?"
KING PUTT
WHy don't you just 'tell us' what the answer should be.
King Putt, The answer is whomever they can get to agree to marrying them. Stop attacking people for answering your question plainly. Nothing voids that contract, other than when either of those people choose to end it. Just like any other marriage, but without trying to force exclusion based on any characteristic aside from consent.
Damn, pretty soon the folks who have been dedicating their lives to fighting against equality of rights under the law for all of our citizens will have to find something else to do. Hopefully something more useful. And I think Lincoln would be proud, after we explained it to him. :-)
Justme,
No worries, they can always fall back on the whole "transvaginal, government mandated ultrasound" fight.
And I think Lincoln would be proud, after we explained it to him. :-)
Funny!
Um, how long have they been fighting against Roe Vs. Wade?
Its about time we get the government out of marriage. Marriage is a religious act between a man and a woman. If the government wants to enact a civil union between any two people I have no problem with it. Churches and other religious organizations do not have to recognize it. Redefine marriage if you want I don't care.
Chrish,
You're completely wrong. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's a legal contract. That's why Atheists can get married, or anyone can get married without invoking any God or stepping into any church. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Which, this is the only part you got right, churches can deny to whoever they want.
Indeed. You and your betrothed can go stand before your priest, pastor, or rabbi every weekend for a solid year and have the religious rites of marriage performed, but until you get that license from your state, you are not legally married.
I trust that example makes clear the distinction between civil marriage and religious ceremonies. Equality in the case of the former, and only the former, is what gay and lesbian Americans want. And they should have it.
Justme, Do you honestly believe that this issue, or any issue for that matter, is the exclusive focus of anyone's' day? Let's be intellectually honest with ourselves for just a minute. It was a nice attempt at making a point in 1992, but we all know that the human brain is an excellent task switcher that allows you to focus on more than one thing at a time. Secondly, there are lots of other things that people care about in the world. Enough so that nobody should ever have nothing to care about and spend time on.
Chris, it sounds like you've never heard of the NOM, FRC and AFA hate groups (or the Mormon and Catholic churches for that matter).
NOM exists solely to prevent gays from marrying, and both the FRC and AFA spend an inordinate amount of time trying to deny the civil rights of gays.
Progress
Our next step is for the SCOTUS to declare all state constitutional bans against same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. Let's continue to pray (if that is your thing) that their ruling is in that manner.
And yes, Happy Valentine's Day to everyone, whether you have a lover (opposite or same-sex...I hate that term "gay or straight" since I don't consider heterosexuals to be any straighter than I am as a homosexual) or not.
I hope they do. I'm cautiously optimistic that they will either one of both of the pending cases about gay marriage before them to do so. Regardless of which way they vote it is likely to be 5-4. It will all come down to what kind of mood Justice Kennedy was in that day. They hopeful thing is that he wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, in which they struck down sodomy laws. In it he wrote, " The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." If the State cannot demean the existence [of homosexual] or control their destiny, then that SHOULD mean they cannot prohibit them from marrying based upon sexual orientation. That would both demean their existence AND control their destiny. I hope Justice Kennedy does the right thing and votes with the four liberal justices to make laws prohibiting same-sex marriage just as invalid as laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which were declared unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
I'm sorry, but pray to whom? Surely you don't mean the Judeo-Christian god. If you're praying to that god for equal rights, you've apparently not seen his book. The Bible makes it very clear, through its cover-to-cover advocacy of slavery and misogyny, that this is not a deity even remotely concerned with equality for all people. Even if he were real, this would be a total waste of prayer time.
Perhaps you meant praying to one of the other (and equally imaginary) thousands of gods that humans have created? Do any of those have a better track record when it comes to equal rights? I wonder.
10 down, 40 to go. Which will be the first Southern state to accept marriage equality? Florida, I'd guess. Pretty soon....
GOOGLE
UK Illuminati David Cameron legalizes homosexual "marriage" alias babies & kids legally delivered to pedophiles
Matt
You are in the minority here both in terms of open-minded understanding and intelligence. You are clearly way below average in both.
Now we can be as miserable as all the married straight couples . . . . . . .
Yeah...wait until they get into a sexless marriage then they will know what misery is all about. Can't get it anywhere else, can't get it at home.
GOOGLE
David Cameron legalizes homosexual "marriage" alias babies & kids legally delivered to pedophiles
Yeah, we're not going to do that, so you might as well stop posting it.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. Please clarify.
Matt is clarifying that he knows how to cut and paste.
There is no reason to pass this. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
Why do people care about this, instead of the plight of the poor?
Please elaborate. How is this legally so?
The people who can't legally marry care. People who think that is unfair, care.
boner
It is not a matter of either/or. People can care about the poor and care about the rights of fellow citizens, and a lot of other worthwhile ideas at the same time. Are you foolish enough to think that just because you are too narrow minded and mentally challenged to care about the plight of the poor while you are hating on gay and lesbian Americans, that the rest of us have similar problems?
As long as they are all consenting adults, there's no reason why 3, 4 or 5 people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
There really isn't at least, in my mind. However, that's a complete straw man in regards to gay marriage. First, gay marriage is about GENDER in a contract, not the number of parties in a contract. Second, polygamous relationships have much more in common with straight marriage, so why hasn't straight marriage led to them. After all, you don't see a man with numerous husbands, or vice versa, now do you? They're also religious based, as in Holy Matrimony, which is a separate issue from marriage.
Finally, we WOULD have to rewrite our entire legal code to recognize it. Insurance, probate, family, tax...
Rewriting a few laws is a small price to pay, to ensure happiness for groups of people who are in love and want to marry.
Hey, I said I'm cool with it, but again, what does that have to do with gay marriage?
Sarah,
I'm cool with it too. What does this have to do with gay marriage? It has NOTHING to do with gay marriage, unless, of course, part of these groups are homosexual.
Maybe you can have three gay guys and two straight women, who want to marry. That's cool.
The point is, you have to be open minded and progressive in your thinking.
cockroach,
It's still a straw man, since you admitted yourself that it isn't germane to the topic - why would you bring it up, except as a straw man?
Also, it's important to keep historical context in mind. Take affirmative action - colleges haven't placed an emphasis on African American students because they can't get into college on their own. It's because they've historically been denied equal opportunity to attend college.
In historical context, poly-marriage has been used far more often by rich men wanting harems of women they buy from their poor families, or religious cults using the zealotry of their followers to indulge their sexual desires (often for underage girls). If this were just about 'hey, I love that woman and that woman, why can't I marry them both?', that would be one thing - and a fair point. However, in reality far too much poly-marriage would exist purely as a tool for the subjugation of women (and a few men, probably), and society has a vested interest in allowing any institution that would be abused to that extent.
The insect opposes gay marriage; he wants to be a tease about it, but he's still just trying to 'scare people straight' by implying that once you open Pandora's box, all Hell's gonna break loose. Yawn..
Yep, next comes the goats, chickens and children arguments......
pj, don't forget the "can't produce children" argument (which is dire as our human population keeps plummeting), which of course falls into a broken heap when we insist that logically all infertile and elderly straight couples would thus have to have their marriages annulled.
All followed by 'progressives believe that if it feels good, do it' - because, of course, no one's ever hated something for no good reason.
I remember when the Cons said the Equal Rights Amendment would force men and women and children to use unisex bathrooms. When you don't have a valid point, make one up.
PJ,
Or the "toasters" or other home appliances.
The only argument I've ever heard against gay marriage is the religious argument.
Which is invalid because we shouldn't pass laws preventing or allowing behavior based solely on religion. Why should EVERYBODY have to change their behavior to be in line with the religious doctrine of only SOME of the people? It makes no sense. This is not a theocracy. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran.
In America, social justice moves steadily forward! It is what makes us great!
Gotta warn you, if this "social justice" thing keeps going, before too long some uppity women are going to demand the vote!! And our people of African ancestry won't be far behind in that demand. And I tremble at the thought of what that might lead to. Oh me, oh my!
Dogs and cats, living together...mass hysteria!
Exactly. My religion says that gay marriage is ok. Why don't I get my freedom of religion?
NATURE marginalized gays.It is internalized in us.We can get beyond instinct and acknowledge gays as fellow human beings. BUTIt does not make sense to lend their relationships more weight than nature.Because homosexual relationships by THEIR nature aren't valid as heterosexual.Once this is okayed,every twisted soul can claim the same relationship.Again,NATURE decided that gays aren't equal.Who am I to argue with nature?It is literally our nature to come together as pairs.ONe is sacred-at least to nature.Not counting all the bugs,or hermaphroditic critters
You're assuming that all relationships exist solely for the purpose of procreation, which is absurd. Only a tiny percentage of all the sexual relationships humans have exist for purposes of procreation.
Nature didn't decide anything about gays - our brains seek out those people with whom we seem to be the most compatible. What sex that person happens to be is irrelevant to that process, except where we impose our own arbitrary values on it.
pained1, homosexuality exists all over the natural world. Man is the only one to judge.
And how do you know that Nature ordained heterosexuality as "sacred"? What are you making this claim on? Last I checked, "nature" lacked the sentience, will, and consciousness to make any designations of what is and isn't "sacred"
It takes 2 to tango is how.Except by bastardizing nature.2 billion years of dna confirm it.Procreation isn't essential.Pathetic swipes
Romans 1:18-32
King James Version (KJV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
AGAIN, nobody cares about your God. All of that tripe is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Yawn.
So...your argument is that one interpretation of one translation of one edited version of a eons-old book that you personally and arbitrarily think was inspired by some being you think exists made vague references that you've arbitrarily decided apply to specific behaviors with which you are personally uncomfortable...
And we should take that seriously...why?
And when God opens your eyes Sarah, you will carry the very yoke you placed upon yourself straight down to the depths of hell.
Man,
See, that's the difference I see between you and her. Your beliefs and morality are based on fear of being punished. Hers are based on what's right and makes people's lives and the world better.
Which of those two do you think god would approve of more?
ManWomanGod, do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, I beg to differ. Now, I am with the other two about this book that you put so much store into, but I am familiar with it. I am familiar with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, He made it clear what it is you need to remember. I am also familiar with the 10 commandments. Didn't God make it clear that those were the things you should remember most? So, why do you go cherry picking through your Bible finding passages that fit your own bitter view while ignoring the ones that would also apply to you?
And by the way, the very quotes you are putting forth can very well come and bite you on the butt.
Fret not people. I just spoke with Ra the Sun God (the roaming charges are troubling but so worth it to get divine guidance) and s/he reiterated that in a recent conclave, most of the Gods again voted in favor of blessing equally all marriages between consenting adult humans. So there you have it, directly, almost, from the Gods.
I like to quote books I can believe in too.
Ingredients
*Herb Bouquet: Tie 3 cloves garlic, 4 allspice berries, 2 bay leaves, 1 teaspoon thyme, 8 sprigs parsley in rinsed cheesecloth or place in bouquet garni muslin bag.
**To make toasted croutons, take 2 or 3 slices of day-old French or Italian loaf bread, cut into cubes. Let dry out a bit (can put in 200 degree oven for 10 minutes to help dry). Melt a tablespoon or two of butter on medium high heat in a large skillet. When hot, add the bread cubes, spread out in a single layer. Let toast on one side and then turn to other sides. Add more butter if necessary. Alternatively you can toss the cubed bread with olive oil and let toast in a 350°F oven until lightly browned.
Method
1 Pick over the peas and remove any stones. Wash and drain peas. Place in a 4 quart pan with the vegetables, herb bouquet, ham hocks and 2 1/2 quarts of water. Bring to a simmer. Skim the scum off the top of the soup for several minutes, until the scum ceases to rise. Cover loosely and simmer about 1 1/2 hours, or until peas are tender, stirring occasionally in case they stick to the bottom of the pan.
2 Remove the ham hocks and herb bouquet from the soup. Purée the soup with a blender. An immersion blender works great for this; if you are using a regular blender, take care to work in batches and only fill the blender halfway if the soup is still hot, and hold down the lid while blending. If you want an exceptionally smooth soup, pass the purée through a sieve.
3 Return the purée to the pot and heat to serve. Add salt and pepper to taste. Ladle into warm bowls and garnish with croutons and parsley or chives.
If you want, don't discard the ham hocks, but cut away the outer skin and remove the meat from the bones. Dice the meat and serve with the soup.
Julia Child
ManWoman,
I'm from Detroit. Do you really think your concept of hell scares me??? Which, AGAIN, is irrelevant.
I'm just wondering, is it going to be like that seen in A Clock Work Orange, where the guy is strapped to the chair and his eyes are pried open?
Sarah,
Everybody knows you'd like that, you naughty box wine drinker.
Nope, Your hell, as a trial lawyer in ecclesiastical court, your only laws & references from...dramatic ominous music...the Bible, Teaparty Republican Fundamentalist version.
Now, who do we draft as the trial Judge for you...hmmm.
disgusting you'd flaunt your little sisters' picture on a forum like this.Is your dad a tranny?
Myown,
Seriously, all jokes aside, that IS my nightmare.
Pained,
If you're speaking to me, that's my OLDER sister, she's sitting in the picture and she's 34. I think she's okay with it.
You've completely given up on any kind of substantive argument, haven't you?
Fred Phelps or any of his attorney-spawn come to mind. Another good one would be Anthony Pugno (the lawyer who lost on Prop h8).
Sarah,
Still joking, this is what you have to look forward to if you continue that unforgivable sin of box wine. lol
Wish I could take credit for the concept of an individual hell, as you can't be older than 33 yrs, you would have missed Rod Serling's 'Night Gallery' in the 1970s. The same situation was heaven for one and hell for the other person. Much like our current politics. lol (I think).
skrekk,
You made me look up those two, second is doable as he is a lawyer. The first is not, so you get to be Sarah's client in her nightmare. lol
First of all, leave the Germans out of this!
Second of all, heterosexual groups who want to marry, wouldn't be gay.
But, gay groups who want to marry, would be gay.
The important thing is to be tolerant and respect other's civil rights.
Please. Your immature attempts to troll on these boards really make you look quite sad.
The law in question would have no bearing on the situations you're describing.
Please tell me you aren't one of those intellectual cripples who think that progressives believe in 'anything goes' morality. We're talking about a specific inequality being addressed by a specific law.
If you truly believe in tolerance and respecting the rights of others, you wouldn't bring up deceptive straw man arguments that have no purpose except to amuse yourself with immature disruptions of discussions by people who actually care.
A person who engages in homosexuality will never have the equality of the Christian man and woman who marry rightfully in the eyes of God. God abhors homosexuality and He and His people will never give the blessing that comes from God only and no one else.
The only thing that stands in the way of a person who practices homosexuality is God and eternal damnation. And that my friends is something to be very afraid of.......
I hate to break this to you, but marriage isn't a religious institution, and it wasn't invented by Christians. Also, according to scripture, your god hates adultery, divorce, and shellfish at least as much if not more than homosexuality - why aren't you trying to restrict those things?
As a Christian, wouldn't you consider all the people of the world to be "his people"? Don't you hold your deity accountable for creating homosexuals in the first place?
Thank you Karl Marx. This god he conjurs is one sick puppy. Create something just to hate it.
We don't restrict the "other things" because we like to cherry pick the parts of religion that we like.
I can now picture you stomping your feet and crying like a little baby! LOL
"Stop it! Stop saying things that make me uncomfortable!"
"Everything must be MY WAY, or I'm gonna be upset!"
Well, grow up. Life isn't fair. If you want tolerance, then YOU have to be tolerant.
Who's upset? If you got upset from my words, you need reading comprehension classes. The emotion you should have read in my words was the same indifferent pity you would see on the face of someone watching a four year old eat paste.
It's really a pity you aren't articulate enough to make actual arguments, or you might actually contribute to something. I don't think you'd want that, though - you're much more comfortable pretending to matter, aren't you?
You brought up a straw man, got called out for it, and then whined with the sort of 'you aren't letting me make fake arguments' childishness that that four year old would show when the teacher takes away the paste.
Try actual logic - you won't look quite so foolish.
I know of straight/same sex friends that can hardly wait for same sex marriage to become legal in their states.
They will be able to take advantage of government pensions and bennies.
Two straight guys who are buddies, can get married and still have their girlfriends on the side. The one with the government bennies can share with his friend.
I think this is a very wonderful thing, because I'm a progressive thinker.
Heterosexuals already have all of those same kinds of marriages - why should they be restricted in what sex they enter into those contracts with? That isn't even an issue of 'same-sex' marriage - in your example, those two heterosexual men are being denied equality too.
You were doing fine until you gave yourself away with the last sentence. People make of marriage what they want - that you think they shouldn't gives your true feelings away.
Stop being so afraid - the world will keep turning, even if those two straight guys get married.
Are you one of the flamers?
I don't mind gays that just act normal, but the ones who prance around like Tinker Bell, are just over the top.
For them, they just want attention, and that's one of the biggest reasons they decided to be gay.
Which type are you?
Hm, let's see. "Flamers" - only a true homophobe thinks that only gay people want gay people to have rights. Newsflash for you - if a little over 50% of Americans favor gay marriage, and around 5% of the population is gay (a rough estimate, probably closer to 10%), then 90% of the people who favor same-sex marriage are heterosexual.
Plenty of heterosexuals act out their heterosexuality to get attention.
Finally, you know very well no one 'decides' to be gay any more than anyone 'decides' to be straight. Our attractions are involuntary - it's just dishonest to deny that.
Tinker,
I agree with you!
Two straight buddies should be allowed to milk the system, if in fact the law allows for it.
My only point is, when this happens and the two guys come out on national TV and announce that their marriage is just a joke, because they want the government benefits, I hope you gays will stick up for them!
You do realize how sadly homophobic you look with the 'you gays' thing, right? Do you like looking like that?
Why would I care about someone else's legal marriage? That's their business - you're the one that seems to think that if someone else's life makes you uncomfortable, that's somehow their fault and not yours.
No straight people have Ever gotten married for money or green cards or....
I don't think you know what "flaming," is.
Gay men want to be women.
They dream of being women.
That's just fine and dandy.
But............But...............I've NEVER seen a woman (no matter how feminine) strut around like a flaming homosexual.
What's up with that?
They look like a circus act.
I hope you aren't one of those.
'Gay men want to be women'?
Hardly any of them want to be women. Why are you projecting your gender confusion and discomfort on them?
Gay men are men - they're just men that happen to be attracted to other men. So what?
Your comments seem to belie a very strong repressed disgust toward homosexual men - and only the men. 'Homosexual' would refer to women also, since many women are, in fact, homosexual.
Plenty of heterosexuals look ridiculous all the time. Are you trying to oppress them, too?
why are you feeding the troll, MNWriter? Really, it doesn't make good reading.
In all honesty, you denying that poor fool's identity as a Christian isn't either. You make good points, but that's counterproductive. As for the cockroach, it really takes no energy at all to help him prove how frightened he is of gays - I'm just curious to see if he'll admit it.
Have you NOT been paying attention?
I told you that I am in favor of gay marriage.
Yet you show clear discomfort about those marriages. Seek therapy - it'll help with that. Maybe someday you'll even get over that pesky need to overcompensate.
Another state in the sewer!!
How so?
No, of course not. I'm not trying to oppress flaming homosexuals, because the flitter and prance around like Tinker Bell.
I'm just saying that it's not something I care to see. It hurts me deep down, because I know they are just crying out for help. They are confused and need validation.
It's sad they can't find it in other ways, but, I guess, it's all they got.
They need to be involved in naked parades in San Francisco and expose themselves to children.
Why? Because they are lacking something in themselves and need to find some way to cry out for help.
You can't even manage basic emotional honesty about yourself. Good luck with that.
I understand you are angry and confused, that's to be expected.
Just don't hate others. The hate will eat you up.
Oh, I get it! You say things to other people that you don't have the guts to say to yourself.
Sorry that took me so long - I didn't realize just how repressed you were.
Good luck with that.
I'm all for you and your boyfriend getting married.
I just want you to be just as tolerant as I am, when groups want to marry and same-sex heterosexuals want to marry.
You even lie about being tolerant. Sad.
this whole gay thing is sick. there are no homosexual animals what dose that tell you.
Why?
There are hundreds of animals that enter into homosexual relationships. Even if there weren't, so what? There aren't any other animals that blush - is that sick, too?
I once had a dog that was bisexual. That dog would hump anything that would move.
Actually, it would also hump inanimate objects, too.
I bought the little guy in San Francisco.
That's not bisexuality, it's masturbation. If you don't know the difference, your adolescence must have been weird...
Wow! You know a lot more about gay dogs than I do.
So, when my boy dog was humping another boy dog, it was just masturbation?
When you hump another guy, is it just masturbation, too?
List of animals that engage in homosexual behavior:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Sounds like your dog just has really low standards for ways of getting itself off.
cockroach503
Funny to see a heterosexual making so many comments about same sex marriage. One might be lead to believe someone is in the closet. Please stay away from my dogs and children....
P.S. Obamacare does provide for counseling.. you might want to consider...