i've been seeing a very nice guy for two months now, every day, almost every minute.
as you know it can become very obvious when a guy is about to pop the question.. i have been very honest with him about when i'd be willing to marry, which is to say not until i graduate from college which is still a 1 1/2 years away, of course i hear things like "well a couple can wait but be commited right"?.
anyway i've bounced this off of my friends and have several opinions already but i thought i'd ask it here.. how long would you date someone before you considered accepting an engagement ring?
Neither of us want kids. We both want and encourage the other to have careers.
My brother and his wife said the same thing. Now they have two little toddlers running them ragged while they try to keep up with their demanding careers. I get exhausted just watching them.
(PS) Does he know you're bi?
since today is the "worldly" day of thanksgiving for many of us, it is a good time to reflect on what we can be thankful for.....anything come to mind?
Thanks to sns, Big Tex, and blondie for your words of kindness and good wishes.
My partner was discharged from the hospital this afternoon. The surgery was a success. I'm just grateful that the blood clots never moved out of the leg and into a vital organ, or it could have been much worse.
Since he's home now, I'll probably be more regular on the board again, but right now I am thoroughly exhausted.....
Good night......
"You are what you eat."
how many here believe that we all have a soulmate somewhere in this world that is especially for us, or do you believe that the person we happen to fall in love with becomes our soul mate?
I think it depends upon one's definition of "soul mate", and what one expects from the relationship.
Ten years ago, I met someone whom I had (and still have) an amazingly powerful spiritual/psychic connection. I was convinced he was my "soul mate". He may be....I don't know. My intentions were to develop an intimate relationship with him, but due to circumstances beyond both of our controls, it never happened.
Over five years ago, I met my current partner. We have a relationship based upon unconditional love -- something I never dreamed possible. Yet, we don't have that "soul mate" bond. Our relationship does not seem to need it.
My "soul mate", interestingly, is now my best friend.
Years ago, I had a next door neighbor who believed he had met his soul mate through hypnotic regression. The hypnotist introduced them, and they believed through a joint regression session that they had been brother & sister in a previous life, and they felt obligated to marry. He was 20 years old. She was 55. They stayed married for over 30 years until she died of old age.
since today is the "worldly" day of thanksgiving for many of us, it is a good time to reflect on what we can be thankful for.....anything come to mind?
In case any of you haven't noticed, I haven't been around much this week.
My partner was taken by ambulance to the hospital this past Sunday where they performed emergency surgery to remove several blood clots. I've been spending most of my time at his side.
I am thankful for my partner, and I am thankful that he is recovering from the surgery and is expected to come home this weekend.
(I'm also thankful no one noticed it was my birthday a few days ago. Getting older.......)
remember those people?
my mom would tell me to not even look at them.
they had bullhorns, banners, waving at us as we walked in.
I've participated in quiet "street work" in front of the Cow Palace in San Francisco.
You can see the photos at: http://www.gayxjw.org/streetwork.html
Interestingly, it was the JWs who often yelled at us! In fact, one even gave us "the finger" as they drove past into the assembly! Such theocratic behavior!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3281017.stm
massachusetts backs gay marriage the us state of massachusetts has ruled in favour of gay marriage.
the state's supreme judicial court ruled that that barring same-sex couples from the benefits of civil marriage was "unconstitutional.
I think it interesting that sanfranciscojim says that he is more interested in tax breaks and bennefits . I'm not real sure how all that works since I am single but not gay and I sure wouldn't want to marry someone just because of that .
Heathen, the benefits of marriage that are denied gay people are much more far reaching than tax or financial benefits. For example:
* The right to combined health benefits. Currently, my partner and I have to carry separate insurance policies. If we were married, we would be able to enjoy a combined health insurance policy at a reduced rate.
* The right to hospital visitation. In many areas, seriously ill patients are allowed visitation in hospitals by "family members only". I could potentially be barred from visiting my partner in his sick bed if I were not viewed as a family member.
* The right to sue in civil court. Remember the Knoller/Noel case in San Francisco, where the lesbian woman was mutilated and killed by those vicious dogs? Had that happened in many other less-liberal parts of the country, her partner would not have had the right to sue her partner's murderers in civil court. Marriage would have given her that automatic right.
* No contesting of death benefits. The only family members I have are two brothers who remain quite distant from me. Without marriage, I could find my estate split among them instead of going to my partner as I wish. This especially applies to gay persons who die without a will.
With these benefits also comes the responsibility of the marriage vows. By allowing same-sex couples to legally marry, this would create a greater atmosphere of stability and responsibility within the gay community, but more importantly, to those who look at the gay community as irresponsible and promiscuous. We would in effect be integrated into the rest of society as "normalized". Achieving a status of normalcy will not make homophobia disappear. It will, however, give a greater legitimacy to our love for our partners to the public at large, who for the most part are unconcerned with homosexual relationships because our status does not directly involve them.
be nice on this thread, please!
i don't want to see it get locked b/c of some people!.
do you think he's guilty?
In my opinion, all is not well in the world of Michael Jackson. Why, after reaching a settlement ten years ago with another accuser of similar activities would he contuinue to flaunt himself in the company of children? He reminds me in a way of Howard Hughes. Hughes withdrew into a bizarre fantasy world where he could make all his fantasies come true with the wealth he amassed. Jackson, instead of fading into reclusiveness, has created a fantasy world of his own where he surrounds himself with children and views himself a sort of Peter Pan.
He doesn't seem to have the propensity to be able to do anything without creating fanfare and controversy. What normal adult would dangle their child from a hotel balcony, for example? Personally, I think he is mentally ill and demented.
On the other side of the coin, I also think it is suspicious that the search and arrest warrants were issued to coincide with the release of a new CD.
There is a lot more to this story than anyone is being told, in my opinion. It looks like a witch hunt, but against someone who is flaunting "witchcraft" in front of the hunters.
i won't bring up ww2 or anything like that but---.
why did we go to somalia and get shot at for distributing rice to hungy people?.
why did we go to haiti?.
Yes why did we go to war in Kosovo (without U N approval I might add) - was not for oil or WMD mmmmmmmmmmm was not that done under ademocrat Bill Clinton-- arrrr it must be OK then -- when a war is started by a democrat that makes it OK
If the purpose of war is to save the lives of countless innocents from persecution and torture by an evil dictator, as a world superpower, it gives us more than a right to start a war there -- it creates for us a responsibility to do so, as long as our intentions are to save innocent lives.
If the purpose of war is to divert our attention from other unresolved issues and to line the pockets of those closely associated with the administration, even though the after-effect might be the removal of a dictatorship, our motives are wrong.
Had this country gone to war in Iraq with the sole agenda to liberate the Iraqis from an evil regime, there would have been no need to create the fantasy of WMDs. The administration, realizing they had missed their chance because we had turned our backs a golden opportunity to oust Saddam after the first Gulf War, chose to manufacture a "Wag the Dog" scenario instead. It was a horrible public relations blunder, and will likely cost the current administration their chances of reelection. Considering how much money the current administration will make from this operation, it may not have been such a blunder after all.
Any administration, Republican or Democrat, who decides to step in for the betterment of the world's innocents is doing the world a favor by exterminating evil. On the other hand, if our motivations are greed, with the betterment of another nation being only a hopeful byproduct, we need to reexamine our motives and take a good hard look at how the rest of the world will percieve us, as a superpower savior, or as a bully.
i won't bring up ww2 or anything like that but---.
why did we go to somalia and get shot at for distributing rice to hungy people?.
why did we go to haiti?.
I was hoping the anti-war crowd would respond in some way. Doesn't look like they have an answer for me...
When the U.S. went to war in the past, our primary reason was because we are a world superpower and looked upon as a protector of the masses from tyranny. We would still be looked upon this way had we gone to war in Iraq for solely legitimate reasons, such as the Hussein regime annihilating thousands of innocent Iraqis. Unfortunately, in this case, our administration chose to go to war to try and divert attention from the fact that we have been unable to catch Osama Bin Laden and subdue his Al Qaeda minions. While the Iraqis will (hopefully) ultimately benefit from the removal of Saddam, our resources at home have been tapped out, and our own problems at home have been shelved. Where is the $87 billion coming from to aid Iraq? Will we have enough left over to improve our own public school systems, Social Security and Medicare programs, or homeland security? It seems the primary benefactors of our actions in Iraq will be those associated with corporations like Halliburton and oil executives.
Why are we not taking action against other equally cruel nations like North Korea? Perhaps, because there is no profit in it for anyone associated with the current administration.
