If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
"Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message ... "flitterbit" wrote in message ... lucretia borgia wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson" opined: I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage. Dawne Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to be ahead of everyone. I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no" campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise families, etc. BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's population. They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So sad. Lucille Good for them! Pat |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
Pat P wrote:
"Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message ... "flitterbit" wrote in message ... lucretia borgia wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson" opined: I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage. Dawne Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to be ahead of everyone. I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no" campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise families, etc. BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's population. They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So sad. Lucille Good for them! Pat I was really ambivalent on this one. Marriage I think is between a man and woman. However, there needs to be a legal situation for unmarried people, who really have a long term relationship. Some states have it, some don't. Pat, in Florida there are a lot of us "mature" folk. There may be no sex involved, but definitely over the hill regarding having babies. Many of us oldies really lose a pension or a take a big, really big, financial loss, by being married. Jim and I lived together for 13 years before we married, 13 years ago. The reason?? I would lose the widows Pension I had earned (yup earned, you were a navy wife) by marrying prior to age 55. Now, we get both pensions, but Congress , taxes us on almost all our Social Security. Guess you can't win for losing these days LOL Gill |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
"Gillian Murray" wrote in message ... Pat P wrote: "Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message ... "flitterbit" wrote in message ... lucretia borgia wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson" opined: I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage. Dawne Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to be ahead of everyone. I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no" campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise families, etc. BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's population. They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So sad. Lucille Good for them! Pat I was really ambivalent on this one. Marriage I think is between a man and woman. However, there needs to be a legal situation for unmarried people, who really have a long term relationship. Some states have it, some don't. Pat, in Florida there are a lot of us "mature" folk. There may be no sex involved, but definitely over the hill regarding having babies. Many of us oldies really lose a pension or a take a big, really big, financial loss, by being married. Jim and I lived together for 13 years before we married, 13 years ago. The reason?? I would lose the widows Pension I had earned (yup earned, you were a navy wife) by marrying prior to age 55. Now, we get both pensions, but Congress , taxes us on almost all our Social Security. Guess you can't win for losing these days LOL Gill Florida is really backward when it comes to this. They don't even have a proper domestic partnership law and they don't allow gay couples to adopt. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
Lucille wrote:
"Gillian Murray" wrote in message ... Pat P wrote: "Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message ... "flitterbit" wrote in message ... lucretia borgia wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson" opined: I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy, educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage. Dawne Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed to be ahead of everyone. I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no" campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise families, etc. BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's population. They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So sad. Lucille Good for them! Pat I was really ambivalent on this one. Marriage I think is between a man and woman. However, there needs to be a legal situation for unmarried people, who really have a long term relationship. Some states have it, some don't. Pat, in Florida there are a lot of us "mature" folk. There may be no sex involved, but definitely over the hill regarding having babies. Many of us oldies really lose a pension or a take a big, really big, financial loss, by being married. Jim and I lived together for 13 years before we married, 13 years ago. The reason?? I would lose the widows Pension I had earned (yup earned, you were a navy wife) by marrying prior to age 55. Now, we get both pensions, but Congress , taxes us on almost all our Social Security. Guess you can't win for losing these days LOL Gill Florida is really backward when it comes to this. They don't even have a proper domestic partnership law and they don't allow gay couples to adopt. I agree, there needs to be some legality involved. I know several couples, as do you I suspect, who are in that unfortunate dilemma. Other than financial, religion also comes into play. I know/knew a couple who had been a couple for 30-40 years. His legal wife was catholic, he and Polly , who knows. Anyway, they kept separate names, but they were together a very long time. He died a couple of years back, and Polly was not even mentioned in the obituary. I think she had no say. His "wife" in Maine was listed as the loving widow, and they hadn't seen each other for a zillion years. it is something when we oldies live in sin. isn't it?? I have to laugh when I remember introducing my Mom to Jim( years before we married) and she approved, because I was beyond child-bearing years LOL. Mum wasn't as stuffy as I thought! Gil |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
On Nov 7, 2:43*pm, Karen C in California wrote:
*I am 150% hetero; when I got married, it was Hallelujah, I never have to live with women again. That explains a lot about you, actually. I treasure the women in my life. Elizabeth |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
On Nov 7, 2:47*pm, Karen C in California wrote:
dark.angel wrote: It's people like YOU that make other people too afraid to pray in front of me once they find out I'm a Dem. Not me. *I manage to be both a Dem and a Christian. However, I can't begin to count how many Reps have made statements in my presence to the effect of "all Jews/Buddhists/Muslims are going straight to hell because they're not Christians". *Dems are more tolerant of other religions. Bull****. Pure unadulterated bull****, Karen. Elizabeth |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
On Nov 7, 3:19*pm, Karen C in California wrote:
Good question. *I suspect some of them voted only on Prop 8 and nothing else on the ballot. *Let me get the final/official statistics (available end of the month) and see which issues/people have substantially more or less votes than the others. I'd be interested to see those stats, because it's highly unlikely that anyone voted on a proposition without voting for president. It's much more likely that people voted for president without voting on the propositions. Elizabeth |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
"Jangchub" wrote . The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business if gay men and women want to marry? What is this crap about semantics, civil unions, marriage, legal contract, whatever anyone wants to call it. Do they love one another any less than any other couple? The state has an interest in who can marry, partly one of protection (you can't marry below a certain age) and partly its interest in property. The semantics are necessary because while some marriages are purely civil arrangements, others are marked by religious ceremonies. No religious institution can be compelled to provide a religious rite for those people who in the view of their faith are not able to receive it. Here in Canada, a gay couple of legal age can have a civil marriage ceremony. Whether or not they can have a religious ceremony depends on the faith group; one mainstream Protestant church marries gay couples, other faith groups are debating it, and some won't. Dawne |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
"Karen C in California" wrote.. Personally, I've been propositioned by a couple of lesbians who think that because I'm divorced I should hate men. Did I cry on S's shoulder when my relationship broke up? Yeah. Did I find her sexually attractive while I was doing it? No. She just happened to be the nearest person when I got the news. I am 150% hetero; when I got married, it was Hallelujah, I never have to live with women again. Um, not all lesbians hate men. None of my lesbian friends made any such assumption about me when I broke up with a man, any more than I would assume that if one of them breaks off a relationship she now hates women and I should hook her up with a man. And there are many many fates worse than living with women. My Best GFs and I often talk about living together in our old age, and we are not entirely kidding. Dawne |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Red States
It worked for the Golden Girls!
Pat in Illinois Dawne Peterson wrote: "Karen C in California" wrote.. Personally, I've been propositioned by a couple of lesbians who think that because I'm divorced I should hate men. Did I cry on S's shoulder when my relationship broke up? Yeah. Did I find her sexually attractive while I was doing it? No. She just happened to be the nearest person when I got the news. I am 150% hetero; when I got married, it was Hallelujah, I never have to live with women again. Um, not all lesbians hate men. None of my lesbian friends made any such assumption about me when I broke up with a man, any more than I would assume that if one of them breaks off a relationship she now hates women and I should hook her up with a man. And there are many many fates worse than living with women. My Best GFs and I often talk about living together in our old age, and we are not entirely kidding. Dawne |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT - Dear Dad | Elly[_2_] | Quilting | 4 | February 9th 08 05:37 AM |
OT Dear all . . . | CATS | Quilting | 5 | September 13th 07 05:08 PM |
A little OT Finished something - but oh dear! | Cats | Quilting | 29 | January 30th 07 03:39 AM |
Oh Dear! | KJ | Quilting | 13 | January 31st 05 02:59 PM |
OT - Dear Mom | LN \(remove NOSPAM\) | Quilting | 8 | April 25th 04 02:10 AM |