(06-24-2015, 07:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah but it's a different time now.    Way more accepting people now than back then.    

I would like to believe we have grown since then... And don't need to be forced to give someone a chance.

Are we? I've seen some really nasty comments towards trans people and I see that 40% of the country thinks gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married.

(06-24-2015, 09:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Are we? I've seen some really nasty comments towards trans people and I see that 40% of the country thinks gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married.

There is always going to be comments here and there.... No matter what we do... Plus marriage is Irrelevant... I'm married in every way possible except a gov license ... All because we can't get original paperwork from another country. Doesn't make a difference in how I introduce her or how our friends know us. To all the people who matter we are married .

I think we are ready to be trusted. Even I was sympathetic to your sensitivity to not using transexual as the descriptor, I adjusted because I didn't wanna offend you.

Gotta have faith in people.

(06-24-2015, 11:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is always going to be comments here and there....   No matter what we do...   Plus marriage is Irrelevant... I'm married in every way possible except a gov license ...  All because we can't get original paperwork from another country.    Doesn't make a difference in how I introduce her or how our friends know us.    To all the people who matter we are married .  

I think we are ready to be trusted.   Even I was sympathetic to your sensitivity to not using transexual as the descriptor,  I adjusted because I didn't wanna offend you.  

Gotta have faith in people.

You say marriage is irrelevant, but it is still denied to these couples in many states and is important in obtaining legal benefits. You consistently write off the hardships that are encountered by those not as privileged as you are when it comes to legal protections and benefits. I understand that your attitude is "well, it doesn't affect me so why does it matter?", but that makes you look really silly when you try to tell others that it is not a big deal if a gay couple can adopt or visit each other in the hospital or anything else that goes along with marriage. Or even not fear being fired because they are gay or trans.

Also, there's nothing wrong with "transsexual" when you're using it correctly. You're using it in place of "transgender" and they are two very different things. My issue was your use of "*****". I don't go around casually calling gay people "f*gg*ts".

(06-24-2015, 11:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is always going to be comments here and there.... No matter what we do... Plus marriage is Irrelevant... I'm married in every way possible except a gov license ... All because we can't get original paperwork from another country. Doesn't make a difference in how I introduce her or how our friends know us. To all the people who matter we are married .

I think we are ready to be trusted. Even I was sympathetic to your sensitivity to not using transexual as the descriptor, I adjusted because I didn't wanna offend you.

Gotta have faith in people.

marriage is important for legal reasons.... as far as when 2 people love each other married or not isnt gonna change much there except maybe their preception of what their relationship means. but as far as legal rights not being married can leave some important decisiions out of your hands later in life.

(06-25-2015, 08:21 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You say marriage is irrelevant, but it is still denied to these couples in many states and is important in obtaining legal benefits. You consistently write off the hardships that are encountered by those not as privileged as you are when it comes to legal protections and benefits. I understand that your attitude is "well, it doesn't affect me so why does it matter?", but that makes you look really silly when you try to tell others that it is not a big deal if a gay couple can adopt or visit each other in the hospital or anything else that goes along with marriage. Or even not fear being fired because they are gay or trans.

Also, there's nothing wrong with "transsexual" when you're using it correctly. You're using it in place of "transgender" and they are two very different things. My issue was your use of "*****". I don't go around casually calling gay people "f*gg*ts".

I thought Don Lemon said it well last night.   It's in this video.  





It's not about what we call it... Just give them the "benefits" ...   I still think we should be no gov license for marriage.

(06-25-2015, 03:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's not about what we call it... Just give them the "benefits" ...   I still think we should be no gov license for marriage.

I think that's called "separate but equal".

(06-25-2015, 03:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I thought Don Lemon said it well last night.   It's in this video.  





It's not about what we call it... Just give them the "benefits" ...   I still think we should be no gov license for marriage.

the gov lisnce is the only thing that makes a marriage real.. them people at the church they have NO power.

(06-25-2015, 06:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think that's called "separate but equal".

No gov license for anyone is seperate but equal?

(06-25-2015, 06:13 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: the gov lisnce is the only thing that makes a marriage real.. them people at the church they have NO power.

Michigan has a bill up to abolish gov marriage.  I will try and find it.   It's interesting.

(06-26-2015, 05:18 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Michigan has a bill up to abolish gov marriage.  I will try and find it.   It's interesting.

Then how do they determine who gets the rights and benefits granted by law to married couples?

There are too many legal issues tied to marriage for there to be no government marriage.

(06-26-2015, 12:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then how do they determine who gets the rights and benefits granted by law to married couples?

There are too many legal issues tied to marriage for there to be no government marriage.

it actually just removes the Marriage License.  Those that get married in the church file a marriage certificate signed by the clergy and the couple.  Those that join in union outside of the church would then have common law marriage and would supply an affidavit to the county clerk.

(06-24-2015, 11:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is always going to be comments here and there....   No matter what we do...   Plus marriage is Irrelevant... I'm married in every way possible except a gov license ...  All because we can't get original paperwork from another country.    Doesn't make a difference in how I introduce her or how our friends know us.    To all the people who matter we are married .  

I think we are ready to be trusted.   Even I was sympathetic to your sensitivity to not using transexual as the descriptor,  I adjusted because I didn't wanna offend you.  

Gotta have faith in people.

Lets face facts, marriage is a business arrangement when it comes down to it. Having that certificate won't make you love one another any more or less. Gay people should have every right to the legalities that straight people have. I joke with a gay colleague of mine and told him "Careful what you wish for cause I have one word for you now Alimony!"

(06-24-2015, 11:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:   Plus marriage is Irrelevant...

If you become disabled or die your girlfriend will not be entitled to your Social Security benefits.

If you are charged with a crime your girlfriend can be forced to testify against you.

plus lot's of other legal reasons that it is not "irrelevant".

(06-26-2015, 01:56 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: No gov license for anyone is seperate but equal?

No, calling it something else and just giving them the benefits.

(06-26-2015, 04:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, calling it something else and just giving them the benefits.

Is it about the benfits or not? Cause that's all I ever hear .... We just want the benefits...

I still say no gov marriage . Then anyone can call it whatever.

Thought I would ask a perplexing (for me) question here:

It appears Jenner may be found guilty of vehicular homicide. If Prison time was sentenced, would Jenner go to a man's or women's penitentiary? He identified as a man when he committed the crime, she now identifies as a female.

C'mon Cincinnati. With such a beautiful skyline you ought to have more beautiful opinions. Let people run free, so long as they don't seek to enslave their fellow man.

(08-20-2015, 08:44 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: C'mon Cincinnati.  With such a beautiful skyline you ought to have more beautiful opinions.  Let people run free, so long as they don't seek to enslave their fellow man.

I don't think that any of the guys with the ugly beliefs are even Cincinnati residents.

Bruce Jenner? Zero problem behind the wheel. Caitlyn Jenner? Vehicular manslaughter.....Proving that women are worse drivers.

(08-20-2015, 08:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thought I would ask a perplexing (for me) question here:

It appears Jenner may be found guilty of vehicular homicide. If Prison time was sentenced, would Jenner go to a man's or women's penitentiary? He identified as a man when he committed the crime, she now identifies as a female.

LOL...this is actually a great question.  If we have to allow him to use the women's bathroom, or have a special bathroom for him...then what about prison?!?