Vermont approves gay marriage, DC recognizes it, too

1. 59

   carpesomediemposted 16 years ago

   It's been a busy week for gay marriage supporters, first Iowa took the step in the right direction and now this morning, Vermont followed suit.  DC also voted to recognize gay marriage from other states within the last few hours.

   replyreport
2. 75

   Mighty Momposted 16 years ago

   Meanwhile, back in retarded California...

   replyreport
   1. 59

      carpesomediemposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I know, right?  It blows my mind that states like California can't get the measure passed... But it's only a matter of time.

      replyreport
3. 61

   rlakiesposted 16 years ago

   Eh i really dont care but from a scientific stand point it is considered wrong.  We are here to procreate a man and a man can not do that alone.  But if gay people want to lose 50% too works for me!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      carpesomediemposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Love is love is love.  Gays can have kids, too.  It may not work the way a man and a woman do it, but there's a lot of kids out there that need homes just as bad as the ones that are made from scratch.

      replyreport
4. 0

   Leta Sposted 16 years ago

   OHHH, my head hurts so bad when I read stuff like the just above...
   
   Otherwise, we're talking about a human rights revolution, folks!

   replyreport
5. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 16 years ago

   I'm not gay but I never had children. Does that make me less of a person?

   replyreport
6. 0

   Leta Sposted 16 years ago

   Well if you are less of a person, then so am I, Uninvited. 
   
   Like I said, a headache.

   replyreport
7. 0

   Direxmdposted 15 years ago

   Being a 10th amendment guy--I respect states to choose either side of the issue here.  I completely respect if Utah is not comfy with same-sex marriages, and I completely respect if Vermont legalizes same-sex marriages.
   
   I really don't care which way the state goes--as long as there is a place for both respective sides to live peacefully (if they choose to be separated), and that they respect and don't slaughter each other.
   
   On that note, I don't feel that either side has a god-given path to legality or illegality on the issue--that one side will eventually conquer.  Start spewing that garbage out, and your credibility will surely devalue.
   
   As said before, my primary choice is taking the term "marriage" out of the whole equation.  Civil unions for both--take it to your religious institution if you want the marriage badge, heterosexual or homosexual

   replyreport
   1. 59

      carpesomediemposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I couldn't have said it better myself.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with this too.
      
      And the "marriage is for procreation" argument is such complete BS. My widowed grandfather remarried last year at 79 - should he be prevented from doing so because he and his wife will never have children? Should couples who are infertile or who simply don't want children be prevented from getting married?

      replyreport
8. 80

   bgpappaposted 15 years ago

   I have to agree as well.  Civil Unions for all and allow those who want a religious "marriage" have theirs according to their own beliefs.
   
   What bothers me about this issue is how far the anti-gay marriage supporters have gone.  In California during the last elections, they ran ads stating how if allowed it will harm children because they will have to "watch gay marriage."  Sincere belief is one thing, dirty ads like that are another.

   replyreport