SEATTLE (Reuters) - Same-sex couples exchanged marriage vows in Oregon on Wednesday hours after commissioners in Multnomah County, which includes Portland, the state's largest city, said the practice was legal.

Scores of gay couples lined up in the rain to apply for marriage licenses after county officials, citing an ambiguously worded state law, matched recent rulings in several U.S. cities and towns.

"We asked our (county) attorney if our current practice was still legal. Based on her opinion, we would be violating the Oregon constitution if we were to continue to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses," county commissioner Serena Cruz told a news conference.

According to Oregon law, marriage is a "civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age," which technically does not rule out same-sex marriage, proponents say.

The decision touched off a firestorm of criticism from conservatives and Christian groups. Some showed up outside the county courthouse in Portland to shout their disapproval. One carried a sign reading, "God is watching you pervert."

Gay marriage has become a national election-year issue in recent weeks after the Massachusetts high court ordered gay marriages by mid-May and more than 3,440 same-sex couples were married in San Francisco.

Two cities in New York state and a county in New Mexico have also sanctioned same-sex marriages.

Proponents said banning gay marriages violated anti-discrimination laws by prohibiting couples from inheriting each other's assets, jointly owning homes or providing each other with health benefits.

slowly but surely. anyone want to guess how long it will take for all the states to get on board? it can't last for long after the precedant has been set. except for the south maybe....they're a little slow on recognizing civil rights.

After all states okay gay marriages, I wonder what's next. It will probably be something like allowing adults to marry kids. I'm sure a lot of adults would come out of the woodwork and start marying them. It's a shame at what's happening in the world today. :rolleyes:

After all states okay gay marriages, I wonder what's next. It will probably be something like allowing adults to marry kids. I'm sure a lot of adults would come out of the woodwork and start marying them.

Oh for pete's sake!:rolleyes: Are you for real? Here we go with the "downfall of society again.........."

yay! gay marraiges. finally. with all thse cities performing them (including New Patlz, near me!) something willl have to be done about it. nd the couple who are already married will not go down without a fight. htis is very very good.

seriously M&M, there's a difference between consenting and not consenting. a gay marriage is between two consenting adults, who are responsible enough to decide whom they should marry. a marriage between an adult and a kid should not be legal because a little kid isn't old enough to consent. there's a very important difference between "consenting" and "non consenting."

Sputnik, 12 and 13 year olds are old enough to consent, it's just not legal now. Girls that age are hot as fire anyway, and are already running after men. All they need is the stupid society in their corner. Decent morals are being lost everyday. Consenting adults are not exempt from making crazy choices. Sometimes it almost seems like kids use more sense than adults.

Do you think Loretta Lynn consented at 13 to marry? (or was it 12) Of course she did. How did she get away with it? Stupid society, of course, but at least they were of the opposite sex.

Originally posted by M&Mdelite

Do you think Loretta Lynn consented at 13 to marry? (or was it 12) Of course she did. How did she get away with it? Stupid society, of course, but at least they were of the opposite sex.

Loretta Lynn was legally married because in the state where she lived it was legal for her to do so with her parent's consent.

At least they were of the opposite sex?

I see, your real problem is not with age it's with gender...well too bad for you M&M...the country is about to become less bigoted...will you?

Pagan, I have nothing against gay couples that are in love and want to be together, but I just don't believe they should be granted the right to get married. I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman.

Originally posted by M&Mdelite
I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman.
...or a girl and a boy?

Originally posted by M&Mdelite
Pagan, I have nothing against gay couples that are in love and want to be together, but I just don't believe they should be granted the right to get married. I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman.

why? is it just the name that bothers you? or something else?

Whammy, it really doesn't bother me, but maybe I believe it because a 'woman' was created for a man.

Originally posted by M&M:
I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman.

Marriage has many definitions. One of the definitions in my Websters dictionary is "to take an intimate life partner by a formal exchange of promises in the manner of a traditional ceremony".

Now, if you believe that marriage has a religious background that was meant for a "man and a woman", that is fine...but we are not talking about the religious definition, that will not change. We are talking about the legal definition. The legal version of marriage is a contract between people and the state. The creator of a contract (in this case, the state) has the right to decide how to form that contract. So, if the state decides to allow same-sex couples to marry, that is not creating some form of the word "marriage" that doesn't really exist as some people have argued. They could also decide that the contract only applies to a man and a woman, but in my mind that violates the equal protection that our gov't should provide.

Whammy, it really doesn't bother me, but maybe I believe it because a 'woman' was created for a man.

maybe man was created for woman



by a woman:D

Originally posted by M&Mdelite
I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman.

Nothing wrong with having that belief - but when it comes to the law we cannot simply have what we feel would be nice based on some pseudo religious mindwashing or the influence of some random TV shows you've watched. Serious positions need serious rational arguments to back them up.

i was created for no man

your religious beliefs don't go very far with most people. take your head out of your religious ass and start arguing in real terms with real premises. prepare a real argument as to why marriage is only between a man and a woman or don't expect to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Loose Tea
i was created for no man

your religious beliefs don't go very far with most people. take your head out of your religious ass and start arguing in real terms with real premises. prepare a real argument as to why marriage is only between a man and a woman or don't expect to be taken seriously. actually, her beliefs go very far with most people. Dont base your opinion of public opinion on this majority liberal website. It is your beliefs that are in the minority. So take your head out of your liberal ass and use real terms with real facts.

By the way, no one really gives a shit if you think you were made for no man . If you have a vagina, its obvious that something fits in there. Hmmmm...wonder what that may be? The liberal answer? Another vagina!! :rolleyes:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......not another post about gay's...............

Originally posted by mad dog
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......not another post about gay's............... It's kinda funny, i looked at it as another way to bash religion thread after reading lipton's post.

By the way, no one really gives a shit if you think you were made for no man . If you have a vagina, its obvious that something fits in there. Hmmmm...wonder what that may be? The liberal answer? Another vagina!!

This is crass, and rude.


Breaking down the subject of marriage to penises and vaginas is not going to get you anywhere.


Since we are talking about what might fit where, lets see how my size 7 fits in your ass:mad:

Not really crass nor rude. I could have been both if that's what i was going for. I was just making an observation that any 10 year old would know.

As to your threat, i suggest that a moderator should probably have a talk with you about making them. We would not want these things to escalate now would we? Call me any name you want to, but threats are uneccessary.

Originally posted by HaVoK
actually, her beliefs go very far with most people. Dont base your opinion of public opinion on this majority liberal website. It is your beliefs that are in the minority. So take your head out of your liberal ass and use real terms with real facts.

By the way, no one really gives a shit if you think you were made for no man . If you have a vagina, its obvious that something fits in there. Hmmmm...wonder what that may be? The liberal answer? Another vagina!! :rolleyes:

According to the "facts" presented in the Bible god must be male because it always refers to God as "he"and "him" and so forth, and since he created Man in his image we can assume, I think, that God as represented in the Bible was undeniably male. It does raise some interesting questions however, that I don't think are answered in the Bible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Fact 1: God created Man in his Image.

Fact 2: God created woman from one of Adam's ribs.

What did God use as a model for woman? In whose image is woman created?

If God created Man in his image, does that mean that God has a penis? If God has a penis, what does God use it for?

Why do men have nipples?

Why did God give both men and women an appendix? What's it for? Why do we have some organs that we can seem to live without , like our spleens, appendix's etc., and others that are vital to our survival, liver, heart etc.?

If we are created in God's image, why are we not all complete and whole when we are born?

I think the main reason why the story of the Creation and Adam and Eve appears as it does, is that it makes men seem superior and closer to God. It has been used to justify treating women as inferior beings, created by God "for" men.

I would also wager that most people in this country visualize God as a white man, and this idea was also used to justify slavery at one point in our history. I'm not sure where this idea came from, certainly not the Bible, since Jesus was the son of god and it's unlikely he was a white man. I think it's part of the idea that says "God created me in his image...you I'm not so sure about". I'm a man...am I not created in the image of God? Does that not mean that God has at least a little bit of gay in him? Is God black, white, asian, or perhaps some kind of mix?

By the way, no one really gives a shit if you think you were made for no man . If you have a vagina, its obvious that something fits in there. Hmmmm...wonder what that may be? The liberal answer? Another vagina!!

Again....crass, talking to a woman about what should or may fit in her vagina is rude. Maybe the way you were raised this is acceptable.

Not really crass nor rude. I could have been both if that's what i was going for. I was just making an observation that any 10 year old would know.


Any 10 year old knows that reducing a woman to something to stick something in is rude. Obvioulsy being crass takes no effort, and if you tried I wonder what gems you might come up with.


Call me any name you want to, but threats are uneccessary.

My hypothetical size 7 in your hypothetical ass was only a suggestion, not a threat. If your big head is going to fit in there my foot should be no problem.

Originally posted by creetwins

My hypothetical size 7 in your hypothetical ass was only a suggestion, not a threat. If your big head is going to fit in there my foot should be no problem. Im trying to keep this from becoming personal but u seem to want a flame war.

This is the last time i try to avert it. First of all, i really wasnt commenting on the homosexual part of dna's post. I was angrily responding to her less than flattering comments about the other posters supposed "religious" thoughts. You chose to insert yourself into this with a threat of putting your foot in my ass. You may not feel its a threat, but i dont see any other way to look at it.

If i tried to make an arguement by telling you i was going to "hypothetically" bitch slap you, that is a threat. No matter which way i tried to spin it. What you did is no different. As i said before, call me whatever names you want to, but leave the threats away from this forum. I have never threatened you, and i would appreciate the same.

O K.........no more talk of inserting or removing anything from anyone's asses or vaginas.........shall we put it behind us?

:slap: this is me getting bitch slapped by Havok.......







:lolhit:

LMAO.....too much!!

Although i was thinking something along these lines. :punchout:

Bah...it didnt work. Foiled by a fouled smilie!! Doh.

:woohoo: We are capable of acting like adults! How about that!

Hmmm...as for that smilie...:punchout:

Didn't work. Poop. :(

i'll fix the punchout & edit the thread so it looks as 1st intended:drinktoth

the gays are getting a little arrogaent in here. telling people to pull their religious head out theri asses, pileing on anyone who dare oppose them, calling them biggots and hatemongers, and backwards. I, and most of america are getting a little tired of all this. the more cities that insist on breaking the law, the more an ammendment comes closer to reality. how else will you stop these rogue mayors from breaking the law? i do not agree with the ammendment, as it is freaking sad that these asshole lawbreakers put us in the situation to have to do it, but if that the onyl way, then so be it. the more arroagent you get, the more condenscending you are to ordinary americans, the more you will regret not doing this the legal way. as I ahve said before, this is not a civil rights issue, it is a sexual issue, as it is all based on who you have sex with, nothing more. you are denied no rights, at all. marrying who you want is nOT a right, as if it were I would be married to rich woman with her own island. get over it, until the majority of america decides they want to play along, you will get nothing more than a handful of liberal cities trying to be the gay Magellan, and mayors trying to be arrested first int heri fight for rights so as to become the first gay marriage martyr so to speak. its a shameless political game dragged out in a campaign year, knowing that a alked about ammendment would have to be talked about if enough mayors of enough liberal cities played the game. why not gay marriage last year, or the year before? why not 5 years ago? why not next year? and you have the balls to accuse the president of trying to divide america with gay marriage issue, you all make me sick

Originally posted by Travh20
the gays are getting a little arrogaent in here. telling people to pull their religious head out theri asses, pileing on anyone who dare oppose them, calling them biggots and hatemongers, and backwards. I, and most of america are getting a little tired of all this.

Trav, you get called all of these things not because you are against gay marriage, but because you refer to gays as perverts and abominations, and compare them to rapists and pedophiles. I know you have deluded yourself into believing that these views are shared by most americans but they are not. It is sad and pathetic.

the more cities that insist on breaking the law, the more an ammendment comes closer to reality.

Well, considering that this thread refers to Oregon, where apparently the State Constitution does not specifically prohibit gay marriage, I'd have to say that it doesn't appear that anyone is breaking the law in Oregon.

i do not agree with the ammendment, as it is freaking sad that these asshole lawbreakers put us in the situation to have to do it, but if that the onyl way, then so be it.

Another fine example of why people tell you to get your head out of your ass Trav.

the more arroagent you get, the more condenscending you are to ordinary americans, the more you will regret not doing this the legal way.

You mean like through the courts?

as I ahve said before, this is not a civil rights issue, it is a sexual issue, as it is all based on who you have sex with, nothing more.

I'm sorry that your marriage is only defined by who you have sex with.

you are denied no rights, at all. marrying who you want is nOT a right, as if it were I would be married to rich woman with her own island.

It completely boggles my mind that you might actually believe that this statement contains even an ounce of validity.

its a shameless political game dragged out in a campaign year, knowing that a alked about ammendment would have to be talked about if enough mayors of enough liberal cities played the game. why not gay marriage last year, or the year before? why not 5 years ago? why not next year? and you have the balls to accuse the president of trying to divide america with gay marriage issue, you all make me sick

Yes Trav it's all part of a vast conspiracy to see Bush defeated. The gays, liberals, Democrats, Atheists, and Communists all got together in a secret room at Ted Kennedy's mansion with John Kerry, to plot the overthrow of the american way of life. We convinced the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the Mayor of San Francisco, the entire governments of two counties in Oregon and Arizona and even Arnold Shwarzenegger to go along with it, while we tricked George Bush into calling for an amendment to the constitution. Yes Trav, we did a masterful job of convincing them all that we want equal rights, when the real reason was, we wanted to defeat Bush. Bush on the other hand made no announcement for political gain, he was always for an amendment...er no I guess he wasn't...at least that's what he said when the court in Massachusetts made their ruling...I wonder why he changed his mind? You think maybe for some votes? The fact is Trav that Bush is the one who is trying to get political benefit out of this issue. As president he has no function whatsoever in the drafting, passage or ratification of an amendment to the Constitution. The only reason he's even talking about it is so he can get the votes of people like you.

whatever pagan, your right, as usual :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
whatever pagan, your right, as usual :rolleyes:
Way to refute his arguments, Trav! You're turning into a regular Shaman!

Vile 1, Trav 0.

LOL, now you have gone over the line borg!