colduser

:lol: I doubt it. but you never know..... :sneaky:

A response done with classic Britt flair. :lol:

:lol:

Yeah Britt. i mean WTF :huh: :lol:

Thanks Ari :D

That pic is crazy Britt. Love the pink leotards :lol:

For what :huh:

Yeah, don't worry about rich. Seemed more like joking than seriousness. Still a very entertaining read Mark, Thanks :)

Oh, I know :wink3:

CONGRATS :D I'm sorry that I didn't notice till you pointed it out. :lol: Love ya, Britt :kiss:

Does that mean you've "dumped" him already?? Seems to happen pretty often!! :P Hey Mark. Hope you are doing well today. You Britt and Ceckers sure made this thread explode today. :lol: :lol:

I think not my dear :lol:

Oh yeah her :wink3:

:devilish: Hey now....

And one more. As if you all were interested anyways :cry:

Gee, i don't know :huh: You maybe :idea2:

EDITORIAL Reasonable Rights The passage of gay marriage measures last week by Spain's parliament and Canada's House of Commons carries groundbreaking implications. Although Belgium and the Netherlands previously legalized gay marriage, the populations and global influence of Canada and Spain are greater. The newer laws are also more progressive, giving gay marriage the same full legal protection and adoption rights as traditional marriage. The reasoning and demographics behind the two votes are just as significant. In both nations, particularly in Roman Catholic Spain, religion plays an important part in citizens' lives. Yet lawmakers in Spain and Canada alike made their decisions on the grounds that civil rights — the rights granted by the state — should not be trampled by religious beliefs, though churches, of course, may carry on as they see fit regarding their recognition of marriages. That reasoning, vital to protecting the rights of small groups from the will of larger ones, is increasingly absent from U.S. debates and decisions on gay marriage and other fraught issues, including abortion. Canada's population is divided over gay marriage, and its prime minister, Paul Martin, is a Roman Catholic who has stated his concerns on the issue. Yet Martin supported the measure for the right reasons. "In a nation of minorities," he said, "it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights. A right is a right." In Spain, where 90% of the population is Roman Catholic, the church came out swinging against new rights for gays, using the familiar line that gay marriage imperils the traditional institution of marriage. This has always been a difficult argument to follow logically. Assuming that marriage is the binding of two people in a committed relationship, possibly to create a family, gay marriage adds to the institution. Even granting most religions' insistence that the two people must be of different genders, gay marriage does nothing to discourage or belittle heterosexual unions. The church's public arguments in Spain were undermined by its insistent stances against birth control and the use of condoms to halt the spread of HIV. Given Spaniards' indifference to these church mandates regarding sexual behavior, Catholic leaders were unable to gain attention on the more divisive issue of gay marriage. Now church leaders hint that Spanish civil officials who oppose gay marriage should refuse to conduct such ceremonies. Once again they misunderstand the nature of civil rights. The church retains every right to tell its priests what sort of marriages they can conduct. The state retains the right to tell its civil officials what marriages they must honor. That Canada, and particularly Spain, can understand this division of rights so thoroughly should give pause to lawmakers in the United States.

Ceckers and Britt. It's ok that you brought your hetero love affair to this thread. I am honored :lol: :lol:

This is a pic of myself.

Not sick of them but have cooled on them for the time being. Still a huge fan though :D

:thumbsup:

bump

Anything "boy-band" related.

sandwich

Damn man...Damn. You walk the party line at all costs don't you mr.cool. Wherever the righty's stand, there you are agreeing with every little thing you can. Kyoto was and is a very good idea. How can you be against the environment :huh: Bush only cares about filling the pockets of his wealthy friends who own industrial businesses that would suffer from kyoto. Once again, you need to OPEN your eyes. HOW can you possibly think that bush has done a good job with the environment. You have no clue.