Comments on: Vt. gays focus on house

By: shawn

shawn — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:23:46 +0000

Oh, I understand THAT part. I was just being facetious in the sense that I believe it’s time for us to re-define the judeo abrahamic definition of male/female. Obviously SSM existed LONG before judeo-christianic-islamism ever came on the scene. It will be that way again. The massive injustices done to us and to our community will be repaid a thousand fold. MUST be repaid a thousand fold. Peace out.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:45:05 +0000

“Rick, how are we a “part” of “traditional” marriage?”

I’ll answer for him…

We’re the offspring of traditional marriage, so we are a part of it.. The idea that if we are allowed to have the benefits of it that somehow the benefits of it for heterosexuals would be diminished is entirely unsupportable. Stupid is a better word to describe the idea…

By: shawn

shawn — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:18:46 +0000

Rick, how are we a “part” of “traditional” marriage?

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:52:32 +0000

My partner and I are planning to visit Vermont this summer, but if the governor vetoes this legistation we’ll plan our vacation elsewhere. I hope others follow.

By: RICK

RICK — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:41:50 +0000

ARE WE NOT THE PRODUCT OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE-SO HOW COULD WE DESTROY THAT OF WHICH WE ARE A PART?

By: TigerTzu

TigerTzu — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:31:45 +0000

Nick H. Said: “Rendering men and women interchangable?” What does that even mean?!”

It means that in the future women will come with snap-on penises and men will be able to buy plug-n-play uteruses.

By: Chris Sullivan

Chris Sullivan — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:17:37 +0000

The ONLY people who have “undermined traditional male-female marriage” are str8 men and women!

By: Nick H.

Nick H. — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:24:47 +0000

“Rendering men and women interchangable?” What does that even mean?!