Active Entries
- 1: (no subject)
- 2: Ha'way the lads!
- 3: (no subject)
- 4: (no subject)
- 5: (no subject)
- 6: (no subject)
- 7: (no subject)
- 8: (no subject)
- 9: (no subject)
- 10: (no subject)
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2005-08-03 12:42 am (UTC)2) Hee!
3) I may have dressed up as a ninja for Halloween once, mask, tabi boots, and all...
4) Heh. YOU spelled it wrong. Access Denied. *snicker*
5) Hee, I remember that! YAY!
6) WHEEE!
7) Hmm. Well, I want to get married, but am still looking for my Mr. Right. But at the same time, I firmly believe two consenting adults have every right to get married if they want to spend their lives together. If they love each other, that's all that matters. The far-right's tripe about man&woman and families is ridiculous. By that logic, sterile people and people too old to have any children should just live together and not get married. Which is absurd. Marriage is about the joining of two people, for better or worse, etc etc... ..I've NEVER heard of a ceremony that even mentions children, much less the idea of progeny being the basis of the marriage in its entirety. If people want kids, good for them. If they don't, good for them too. Neither group is any more entitled to anything than the other. If child(ren) DOES enter the picture, there are rights that THEY are entitled to, medical care, education, etc, which ALSO have nothing to do with the marriage itself. If the political right wants to define marriage's focus as the children, then parents shouldn't be allowed to divorce, but gee, THAT'S never brought up, is it? I'm really sick to death of the smoke-screening and dancing around the issue, trying to make it about something other than rights and discrimination, etc. And I'll get off my soapbox now, heh. (didn't know you were gonna get a tirade, didja? Heh.)