Discussion: Gay Rights II

[The Senator]

Old crippled anorexic minority transsexuals who are deaf, balding, and reads Fantastic Four comics drawn by Rob Liefield, who also happens to be lactose intolerant? :huh:

Leave FranklinRichards alone. :o

[Paradoxium]

So we can discriminate against posters named Thing2005 aka Carp Man???:lmao: oh man, I still remember hahah :woot:

[wiegeabo]

Old crippled anorexic minority transsexuals who are deaf, balding, and reads Fantastic Four comics drawn by Rob Liefield, who also happens to be lactose intolerant? :huh:

Can we at least ship away Rob Liefield?

[BlackLantern]

Can we at least ship away Rob Liefield?

...to Mars??

[Kelly]

Leave FranklinRichards alone. :o

Does pretending to be a woman on a comic site mean you are transexual?????

[Paradoxium]

Leave FranklinRichards alone. :o
Waahahaha top 10 greatest stunt ever at SHH :funny:

[The Senator]

Waahahaha top 10 greatest stunt ever at SHH :funny:

I still don't know the exact details of this.

[Ion Kenshin]

If you can bake a pastry shaped like a womans "bajingo" or a mans' "how-do-you-do" it could work...(the terms are for the Scrubs fans)

I'm talking doing some seriously extravagant stuff...like a gay couple that wants a Tiger to feast on a gazelle at the exact moment they kiss to consecrate their union.....
i can do all those things :D

[Paradoxium]

Does pretending to be a woman on a comic site mean you are transexual?????Well you see kel, women don't exist at the hype :o

[Paradoxium]

I still don't know the exact details of this.What you've been running on second hand information? You should have a chat with Lightning Strykez hehehe, hope he doesn't kill me for saying this :funny:

[BlackLantern]

pssh Women don't exist on the internet...period...at first you're chatting with FlirtyChicI69 who says she's 5'5 115 and a cheerleader...then you discover you're talking to Herbert, who's 35 yrs old, lives at home, and is on the computer....with his pants off

[Paradoxium]

I give credit where it is due, Aunt Petunia fooled me too :woot::up:

[spideyboy_1111]

How does this work?

Do we send away....

1. Only those who act on their discrimination....
2. Those who speak of it....
3. Those who are, but say they aren't...
4. Those who think they are above such things....but in reality are....
5. Or do we get to choose who we discriminate against...


I dare say, there would be few people left......

you do realize it was a joke right? :dry:

[Hotwire]

I know one person tried to answer my question from a few days back, but I'm going to pose it again.

Without using religion as your base, explain why allowing gays to marry is a bad idea and should be constitutional banned. Remember, you are arguring to take away the rights of your fellow Americans here, so please use logic, not religion.

[spideyboy_1111]

I know one person tried to answer my question from a few days back, but I'm going to pose it again.

Without using religion as your base, explain why allowing gays to marry is a bad idea and should be constitutional banned. Remember, you are arguring to take away the rights of your fellow Americans here, so please use logic, not religion.

thus why i told blacklanturn i have yet to see a single non religious person have a thing against us gays. They may not be supportive but they usually go "i dont care", or "let them do what they want"

[Anita18]

Well you see kel, women don't exist at the hype :o
Hey spideyboy_1111 can vouch for me! :csad:

[Hotwire]

thus why i told blacklanturn i have yet to see a single non religious person have a thing against us gays. They may not be supportive but they usually go "i dont care", or "let them do what they want"
What's truely sad is how closely this resembles a lot of the Jim Crowe laws from not so many years ago. Putting laws in place that are meant to hinder the rights of minorities. And all done with no true logical reason but fear.

[Paradoxium]

I know one person tried to answer my question from a few days back, but I'm going to pose it again.

Without using religion as your base, explain why allowing gays to marry is a bad idea and should be constitutional banned. Remember, you are arguring to take away the rights of your fellow Americans here, so please use logic, not religion.Well jmanspice has called me the human calculator, and I can be a remorseless cold blooded dick. In other words, I've found a logical way to answer your question. Though I've got nothing against gays and honestly don't care about gay marriage since I think the institution of marriage nowadays (gay or straight) is a gigantic joke :woot:

I probably get my arse roasted if I post this rationale. :woot:

[Paradoxium]

Hey spideyboy_1111 can vouch for me! :csad:You are totally a man. Full beard and lotsa chest hair. You are spideyboy's sweaty man lover :o, and you are trying to tricksy me :cmad:

[BlackLantern]

I'm a chick...I'm totally a chick....with great cans and people tell me I should model...

[The Senator]

You are totally a man. Full beard and lotsa chest hair. You are spideyboy's sweaty man lover :o, and you are trying to tricksy me :cmad:

She tricksied you... he's actually involved in a three way also involving spideyboy and myself...

[The Senator]

I'm a chick...I'm totally a chick....with great cans and people tell me I should model...

The fact that you called them "cans" gives away your true sex...

[BlackLantern]

Dammit....I was going to go with "supple breasticles", but I figured that would be a little much

[The Senator]

Dammit....I was going to go with "supple breasticles", but I figured that would be a little much

That makes me :csad:

[Anita18]

The fact that you called them "cans" gives away your true sex...
:lmao: So true. The only thing me and my friends call 'em is "boobs."

[Anita18]

She tricksied you... he's actually involved in a three way also involving spideyboy and myself...
That would be WAY more action than I usually get. :funny:

[Franklin Richards]

Leave FranklinRichards alone.

Does pretending to be a woman on a comic site mean you are transexual?????

Waahahaha top 10 greatest stunt ever at SHH

I still don't know the exact details of this.

I give credit where it is due, Aunt Petunia fooled me too

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v418/AuntPetunia/Self%20Portraits/Tessa/psyche.jpg


<bow>

I love you all.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Paradoxium]

Hahaha Franklin, you taught a lesson to a lot of people man. Tis why I automatically assume everyone is a guy at the Hype :funny:

[Paradoxium]

That would be WAY more action than I usually get. :funny:I don't get it though why would spideyboy vouch for you :huh:

[Holiday]

Oh man that is great.

[spideyboy_1111]

Hey spideyboy_1111 can vouch for me! :csad:

tiz, your a bone-a-fide baby maker

[spideyboy_1111]

What's truely sad is how closely this resembles a lot of the Jim Crowe laws from not so many years ago. Putting laws in place that are meant to hinder the rights of minorities. And all done with no true logical reason but fear.

indeed, and it's sad, but kinda amusing to watch the heads of the yes campaign and Mormon church react to the protesting... it's quite obvious they fear losing and are actually scared to death.

[spideyboy_1111]

She tricksied you... he's actually involved in a three way also involving spideyboy and myself...

ooo wow, so thats what i felt the other night :wow:

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't get it though why would spideyboy vouch for you :huh:

Because Anita, is the cutest little thing ever. She met up with me at the protest saturday, she made the treck downtown all by herself not knowing anyone to come out and support our rights. Thats so awesome and special. I gave her my number so we could hang out and protest with my friends. she totally is my idol :bow:

[spideyboy_1111]

Hollywood joins the furor over gay marriage ban (http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx/?news=338610&ocid=cds_rec)


Theater official quits over anti-gay donation (http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=339261&ocid=cds_rec)


Comedian Wanda Sykes says she's 'proud to be gay' (http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx/?news=339709&ocid=cds_rec)


Gay couples disappointed by Calif. marriage ban (http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx/?news=338362&ocid=cds_rec)

This should tick Moviefan off... haha
New PBS series exposes Old Testament fairy tales (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081117/tv_nm/us_television_bible;_ylt=Ao.z3Xv_dSquA58CWiljwuZxF b8C)

Sundance Film Fest's Prop 8 Headache (http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20081115/en_movies_eo/68992)

Now i feel bad that prop 8 protesting is causing some financial woes on people, but it is the nature of the beast. Personally since Sundance really is a huge supporter of gay rights, I feel like the best thing to do is probably relocate it this year... it sucks for that town, but i think it helps get a message across. It's better then canceling it, and it's better then a huge boycott happening as well and it affecting alot more people with there movies not getting shown.

[Anita18]

Because Anita, is the cutest little thing ever. She met up with me at the protest saturday, she made the treck downtown all by herself not knowing anyone to come out and support our rights. Thats so awesome and special. I gave her my number so we could hang out and protest with my friends. she totally is my idol :bow:
YAY I'M CUTE!

Too bad you're gay. :lmao: But I love me some gay guys, it's nothing but hugs all around. :yay:

And I had to come or else my sister would have been on my case. She didn't know anyone at her rally either, but it was a tiny rally in a tiny little conservative town. Hers was probably more controversial than ours. :funny:

It's better then canceling it, and it's better then a huge boycott happening as well and it affecting alot more people with there movies not getting shown.
I'm a bit :huh: over some Prop 8 supporters saying that people shouldn't be allowed to boycott stuff. This is how capitalism works, we're perfectly allowed to express our opinions by not supporting your company with cash! :whatever:

[BlackLantern]

I saw some of the pics of the protests here in CT.....it was really crappy weather, but a decent turnout nonetheless....

[Paradoxium]

Hey Spideyboy.

Meet Harisu

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4222/harisu16ym0.jpghttp://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4818/harisuyl6.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/339/harisubk1.jpg


and...


She was a man, *does best Jerry Seinfeld impression* not that there is anything wrong with it :o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harisu

[Ion Kenshin]

wow she is pretty

[The Lizard]

Here's a screencap of a quick shot featured on the most recent ABC story about the California wildfires.
I post it here without further comment....



http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/7351/cafireov7.jpg

[Anita18]

Hey Spideyboy.

Meet Harisu

She was a man, *does best Jerry Seinfeld impression* not that there is anything wrong with it :o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harisu
Are you saying I'm really a dude?

:dry:

And btw, you can kind of tell in the last pic, because her shoulders are waaaay wider than her hips. I have a pretty boyish body, but my hips are wider than that.

[Paradoxium]

Are you saying I'm really a dude?

:dry:

And btw, you can kind of tell in the last pic, because her shoulders are waaaay wider than her hips. I have a pretty boyish body, but my hips are wider than that.It's a camera angle dammit :cmad:

Ah come on Anita, I am just yanking your chain. Though I gotta ask, you familiar with Deathlok2001? :funny:

[Anita18]

It's a camera angle dammit :cmad:

Ah come on Anita, I am just yanking your chain. Though I gotta ask, you familiar with Deathlok2001? :funny:
Nope, but I am familiar with Aunt Petunia. :funny:

And yes, Harisu is prettier than me. :csad: A lot of Asian boys are, actually. :lmao:

[Schlosser85]

Wow...I seriously wouldn't have known Harisu was originally a man. She's prettier than most men who become women.

[Paradoxium]

Nope, but I am familiar with Aunt Petunia. :funny:

And yes, Harisu is prettier than me. :csad: A lot of Asian boys are, actually. :lmao:Holy crap no truer words. I had a few asian girlfriends that were into that stuff and from what I saw, I swear some of those Korean and Japanese boy bands are wearing lip gloss and makeup. They were so androgynous, I genuinely couldn't tell sometimes if they were a guy or girl. Unsettling is the word :dry:

[BlackLantern]

Holy crap no truer words. I had a few asian girlfriends that were into that stuff and from what I saw, I swear some of those Korean and Japanese boy bands are wearing lip gloss and makeup. They were so androgynous, I genuinely couldn't tell sometimes if they were a guy or girl. Unsettling is the word :dry:

Pfft...you know you loved it, Dox

[Paradoxium]

Pfft...you know you loved it, Dox
You start laughing but when you get a girlfriend whose hobby is watching and reading man on man action, I will get the last laugh :cmad:

[Anita18]

Holy crap no truer words. I had a few asian girlfriends that were into that stuff and from what I saw, I swear some of those Korean and Japanese boy bands are wearing lip gloss and makeup. They were so androgynous, I genuinely couldn't tell sometimes if they were a guy or girl. Unsettling is the word :dry:
Asian standards of beauty is more androgynous than ours. But it's still funny.

Why are we talking about this again? Because there are people who don't think I'm a girl? :funny:

Back to gay rights. CNN has been repeating a news snippet on the protests this weekend, and how supporters of 8 feel attacked or...something. They look dumb trying to argue that. :oldrazz:

[Anita18]

You start laughing but when you get a girlfriend whose hobby is watching and reading man on man action, I will get the last laugh :cmad:
Man-on-man action is hot, dude.

There's nothing cuter than two men with a baby. :yay:

[Schlosser85]

Man-on-man action is hot, dude.



As someone who may, possibly, allegedly, write slash, I would have to agree with you.

[Anita18]

I :heart: Rick Sanchez, the anti-Prop 8 rallies are what he chose to talk about first in his hour on CNN.

He definitely sounds impressed at the extent of the backlash on 8.

[BlackLantern]

As someone who may, possibly, allegedly, write slash, I would have to agree with you.

Oh lord...slash fiction....fan fictions perverted brother who spends a lot of time in his room with the door closed

[Anita18]

The anti-gay marriage guy on CNN is quite well-spoken, but I'm still not buying his reasoning for being against gay marriage. :oldrazz:

[Ion Kenshin]

whats slash fiction?

[Marx]

I :heart: Rick Sanchez, the anti-Prop 8 rallies are what he chose to talk about first in his hour on CNN.

He definitely sounds impressed at the extent of the backlash on 8.

Rick Sanchez gets on my nerves.

[Anita18]

Rick Sanchez gets on my nerves.
But he's so animated! At least he's entertaining to watch. Usually you don't see news anchors sound so incredulous at times.

[Moviefan2k4]

Chuck Norris posted the following article on his blog today (he writes a weekly column for WorldNet Daily)...

Protesters of California's Proposition 8 (the marriage amendment) shoved aside a 69-year old woman bearing a cross, reportedly spit on her and stomped on her cross. They then aligned themselves in a human barricade, blocking the media from getting to or interviewing the elderly woman.

Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, 37, was brutally assaulted while distributing yard signs to other supporters after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.

Calvary Chapel Chino Hills was spray painted by vandals, after they learned that the church served as an official collection point for Prop 8 petitions. Letters containing white powder (obviously mimicking anthrax) were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the Mormon church and to a temple in Los Angeles. (Thankfully, the FBI, said the substance tested nontoxic.)

A 25-year veteran artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, who also happens to be a Mormon, was muscled to resign because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.

A pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back marched into the middle of a church service, flinging flyers and condoms to the congregants and hanging a banner from the balcony that featured two lesbians in provocative positions at the pulpit.

And lastly, the tolerance-preaching activists have also taken their anger to the blogosphere, where posts have planted ideas like burning churches to storming the citadels of government until our society is forced to overturn Prop 8. You can even find online donor black lists of everyone who financially backed Prop 8 for as little as $46, with the obvious objective that these individuals will be bantered and boycotted for doing so.

What's wrong with this picture? Lots.

First, there's the obvious inability of the minority to accept the will of the majority. Californians have spoken - twice through the elections in 2000 and 2008. Nearly every county across the state (including Los Angeles county) voted in majority to amend the constitution in favor of traditional marriage.

Nevertheless, bitter activists simply cannot accept the outcome as being truly reflective of the general public. So they have placed the brainwashing blame upon the crusading and misleading zealotry of those religious villains: the Catholics, evangelical Protestants and especially Mormons, who are allegedly robbing the rights of American citizens by merely executing their voting rights and standing upon their moral convictions and traditional views.

What's surprising (or maybe not so) is that, even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Because such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop 8 can vehemently protest and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples, without ever being accused of religious bigotry? There's a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?

Of course, activists say they are merely utilizing their political freedoms and rights, but, the fact is, I see a lot of sore losers who are intolerant of any outcome but the one they desire. Some are acting like toddlers who throw a temper tantrum until they get their way. Are they fighting for their rights or at last showing true colors of intolerance against anyone who believes contrary to them?

There have been many of us who have passionately opposed an Obama election, but you don't see us protesting in the streets, crying out unfair – rather we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome, doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy. That would be like the wild West all over again, signs of which appear to be resurrecting in these post-election protests.

No matter one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Of course activism is anyone's political right, but cruel coercion and repression is not. One can't demand tolerance and show none in return. Sadly, many of these activists have become the very thing they accuse of their opponents: being hatemongers.

I agree with Prison Fellowship director Chuck Colson, who wrote, "This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."

The enraged vehemence and actions being displayed by many Prop 8 opponents are the same underhand tactics bullies use in neighborhoods and school playgrounds. They reflect the ways that mobs conducted themselves in the underworld. They are methods gangs use to control their turf. They are the wiles that the KGB used to suppress their enemies. But this is the United States of America, where voting is supposed to be free from restrictions or repercussions. Revenge or retribution is not the American way. Is militant antagonism and vengeful aggression really the best Americans can offer to other Americans who oppose them?

Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques that prompt fear of safety are used, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectful dissent and advocacy for one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider "unnatural sexual behavior" through hate language and fear tactics. One thing is for sure: The days of peaceful marches like those headed up by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. seem to be long gone.
The truth is that the great majority of Prop 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the beliefs of every major people group and religion that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of their rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

On Nov. 4, the pro-"gay" community was obviously flabbergasted that a state that generally leans left actually voted right when it came to holy matrimony. But that's exactly what happened: the majority of Californians, red, yellow, black and white, voted to maintain the margins of marriage between one man and one woman. California is the 30th state in our union to amend its constitution in doing so, joining Florida and Arizona in this election, too. Like it or not, it's the law now. The people have spoken.

[Anita18]

Chuck Norris posted the following article on his blog today (he writes a weekly column for WorldNet Daily)...
Chuck Norris just got a whole lot uncool. :down:

I don't support hatemongering. My rally sign on Saturday didn't mention anything about religions or churches or anything like that, but there's only so much you can do about other people's snarky signs and their own behavior.

But you can't generalize the behavior of a small group of people from a few extreme examples. I'm disappointed in both sides for that.

[BlackLantern]

but that statement comes from the blogosphere....I do agree that threatening to burn churches is wholly unacceptable and focusing solely on the religious oppenents is a bit narrow-minded, but to protest a black church or otherwise is a PR minefield

[iDannyR]

I support the gays, there's nothing wrong with them, let them get married.

[The Senator]

Chuck Norris is an idiot, and anyone who thinks his opinion is relevant on any issue facing this country ought to consider asking their doctor for a psychological evaluation.

[BlackLantern]

well he tries to slam the "blogosphere" but the statement is a blog itself...kinda self defeating if you ask me

[Kelly]

Chuck Norris is an idiot, and anyone who thinks his opinion is relevant on any issue facing this country ought to consider asking their doctor for a psychological evaluation.


No celebrities opinion is relevant to me forming mine.....

[The Senator]

No celebrities opinion is relevant to me forming mine.....

It depends. There are some celebrities who I trust, especially those who have been actively involved in the issues they are advocating. Others, especially those who are advocates only to boost their profile, are useless.

Chuck Norris is useless on this and most other issues because the only issue he's advocated for has been decreased gun control, which I think is irrelevant to giving us queers equal rights.

[Marx]

Chuck Norris is an idiot, and anyone who thinks his opinion is relevant on any issue facing this country ought to consider asking their doctor for a psychological evaluation.

I couldn't agree more Jman. I mean, it's Chuck Norris!?!?! Enough said.

[Kelly]

It depends. There are some celebrities who I trust, especially those who have been actively involved in the issues they are advocating. Others, especially those who are advocates only to boost their profile, are useless.

Chuck Norris is useless on this and most other issues because the only issue he's advocated for has been decreased gun control, which I think is irrelevant to giving us queers equal rights.


I don't, never have really

Heres the thing......................there are a few of you around here that I've been posting with for quite awhile.....I feel like I know you fairly well, and can probably take an issue and know which way you flow with it. We may not be discussing "eye to eye" so to speak.......but I still pretty much know where you are coming from. So those of you that I feel I know on a somewhat personal level, I trust and respect your opinion, whether I agree with it or not.....

Same with friends that know personally, have a beer with quite often etc.....as we debate and what not.

On here and in that pub, we have a "give and take", we argue, we fight, we get pissed.....but we get our opinion out there in some form or fashion and we have a chance to reply.

With celebrities, I don't get that give and take..........I don't know if what they are blowing is ******** or not.....I don't know them, I don 't see a consistency on a day to day basis when it comes to their personal opinions on politics or whatever. Therefore I'm not going to take much of what they say serious enough to move my opinion one way or the other.


I WILL, on the other hand trust Clint Eastwood when he is talking about directing and producing..........I see the consistency there, and I know he knows a HELL OF ALOT MORE about those things than I do.

[BlackLantern]

It depends. There are some celebrities who I trust, especially those who have been actively involved in the issues they are advocating. Others, especially those who are advocates only to boost their profile, are useless.

Chuck Norris is useless on this and most other issues because the only issue he's advocated for has been decreased gun control, which I think is irrelevant to giving us queers equal rights.

...but he wants you queers to have guns:oldrazz:

[BMM]

Thank you, Chuck Norris, for that fantastically pathetic generalization.

[Heretic]

From reading the article, it appears that Chuck is refering to the violent acts, and I didnt see anywhere where he said every protester took part in it.

[Excel]

Norris has a point. He did generalize andlook liek an ass, but the gay people of Cali have nor a right to marry OR assault people because they are upset about it.

It is simply a ****ty situation. Think about it. The people of your state voted AGAINST it and your Gov. is STILL trying to overturn it. It really sucks, but theres not much else to do.

I personally dont see a problem...well, I dunno. I have nothing against people at all, but I can kind of see where the people for it are coming from...I dunno. If it was my call, I'd let them but isnt there something to do with the church they get married in? They are justified in being upset over the marriage being ILLEGAL, but they really dont have a right to get upset should a church say they wont marry them or whatever, if that were to ever happen.

Gay rights? They have the right to stop being gay. [/bigot that will eventually show up]

:lmao:

Aye, ignorance.

:(

[The Senator]

I personally dont see a problem...well, I dunno. I have nothing against people at all, but I can kind of see where the people for it are coming from...I dunno. If it was my call, I'd let them but isnt there something to do with the church they get married in? They are justified in being upset over the marriage being ILLEGAL, but they really dont have a right to get upset should a church say they wont marry them or whatever, if that were to ever happen.

People need to read through this thread or do external research on this subject so I don't have to repeat myself seven or eight times:

Several churches have already stated that they will perform gay marriage if it was legalized at a state or federal level. Two Christian denominations-- the United Church of Christ and the Lutherans-- allow gay marriages to be performed in their congregation. Several non-Christian churches-- Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalists, two Buddhist sects, at least-- perform gay marriages. So the argument that gays are trying to force churches to perform these ceremonies is a moot point. Once a church already allows gay marriage on their own terms, then the whole "gays are trying to force churches to marry them!" argument goes right out the window.

[Addendum]

You don't need a church or subscribe to a religion to get married

[Excel]

To be totally honest, the gay people of Cali shouldnt be able to really do anything. It was VOTED FOR BY THE STATE. By law, that should be it. I would disagree, but the fact that theyre being allowed to be upset publically and even have arnies support is kind of cool.

People need to read through this thread or do external research on this subject so I don't have to repeat myself seven or eight times

The threads 80 pages, to hell with that :o


Several churches have already stated that they will perform gay marriage if it was legalized at a state or federal level. Two Christian denominations-- the United Church of Christ and the Lutherans-- allow gay marriages to be performed in their congregation. Several non-Christian churches-- Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalists, two Buddhist sects, at least-- perform gay marriages. So the argument that gays are trying to force churches to perform these ceremonies is a moot point. Once a church already allows gay marriage on their own terms, then the whole "gays are trying to force churches to marry them!" argument goes right out the window.

I never said gays were trying to force anything, I was saying that should some churchs say "no" even though its legal, they wouldnt have a right to freak the way they are about it not being legal.

[The Senator]

To be totally honest, the gay people of Cali shouldnt be able to really do anything. It was VOTED FOR BY THE STATE. By law, that should be it. I would disagree, but the fact that theyre being allowed to be upset publically and even have arnies support is kind of cool.

Excel, I know your knowledge of the political system is incredibly weak, but you need to understand the legal argument being made against this proposition: First, it did not address what would happen to the 18,000 couples who were already married by the state. Are their marriages null and void, or are they still married under California state law? Second, this proposition was a revision of the California state constitution. Under state law, all constitutional revisions must be approved by the state legislature before they go to the voters. This never happened.

There is a well-rounded legal argument against Proposition 8, which is why many people are still protesting this decision.


I never said gays were trying to force anything, I was saying that should some churchs say "no" even though its legal, they wouldnt have a right to freak the way they are about it not being legal.

Separation of church and state. No church would be required to recognize gay marriage because they are a separate entity from the state and federal government-- in theory, of course. Obviously, we only ignore that part of our Constitution when the church benefits from it... so I doubt churches will ever be required to perform gay weddings if the practice was legalized.

[Excel]

Excel, I know your knowledge of the political system is incredibly weak, but you need to understand the legal argument being made against this proposition: First, it did not address what would happen to the 18,000 couples who were already married by the state. Are their marriages null and void, or are they still married under California state law? Second, this proposition was a revision of the California state constitution. Under state law, all constitutional revisions must be approved by the state legislature before they go to the voters. This never happened.

Jman, you are gay. I am not. Myself not knowing all the details about it because frankly I dont really care (because I didnt vote and I am not gay) doesnt mean my knowledge of the system is incredibly weak. You didnt think Obama would win, you thought the supers would go for Hillary...you can spew all you want about working for politicians or being apolitical scientist; until you actually prove you know what your talking about on something you ought to stop talking down to people. Ill give you some slack because you are gay and I can understand you being upset about it, but you wont win any support being a ***** to anybody who doesnt totally see it your way (even though I pretty much did beforehand)

As for all your points, what do you think will happen? The people of California voted and the majority said gays shouldnt be married. What do you want, a revote? The result likely wont going to change. It sucks, but what do you want them to do? The people have unfortunatley spoken.

[The Senator]

Jman, you are gay. I am not.

Excellent. What does this have to do with being politically aware?


Myself not knowing all the details about it because frankly I dont really care (because I didnt vote and I am not gay) doesnt mean my knowledge of the system is incredibly weak.

Yes, it does. You came in here with an argument about how gays shouldn't be protesting because California voters made a decision... when your argument was fundamentally flawed. I laid out the legal ramifications for why gay rights activists have continued to protest this decision-- you should have known this before coming in here with that "sheesh, these gays should relax already man, the voters decided" argument. The fact that you didn't proves that you are unaware of the political situation facing Proposition 8.


You didnt think Obama would win, you thought the supers would go for Hillary...you can spew all you want about working for politicians or being apolitical scientist; until you actually prove you know what your talking about on something you ought to stop talking down to people.

The only reason why you thought Obama was going to win was because he was black and you liked him. You said so yourself, so honestly, I wouldn't be telling people to "prove" anything if I were in your shoes right now.


Ill give you some slack because you are gay and I can understand you being upset about it, but you wont win any support being a ***** to anybody who doesnt totally see it your way (even though I pretty much did beforehand)

Had this been a standard amendment, I honestly wouldn't care. You don't see me complaining about Arizona or Florida, which passed amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The fact that this amendment took away rights and threw the legal status of 18,000 couples into the air has made me outraged.

But I digress, I'm not asking for your support at all, I'm asking you to actually KNOW a thing or two about the issues you are responding to, instead of going off about how "the voters decided, the gays shouldn't protest."


As for all your points, what do you think will happen? The people of California voted and the majority said gays shouldnt be married. What do you want, a revote? The result likely wont going to change. It sucks, but what do you want them to do? The people have unfortunatley spoken.

And this is why it is hard for anyone to debate you: Because you know jack about what you are talking about. I just told you that there were two legal arguments against the amendment. Instead of actually absorbing what I wrote, you completely threw it aside and gave the same "the voters have spoken" line you gave above. What should happen is that this should go through the court systems and be overturned due to the two outcomes I listed above: No indication as to whether this would be retroactive, and the fact that this should have gone before the state legislature before being put to a vote. So this should be revoked on those two significant legal grounds.

[The Battousai]

^ (to Excel) I think you just proved his point

Besides, legal matters like this are VERY important when it comes to the question of overturning new legislature like this. Prop H8 will likely be ousted simply for these reasons alone (unless, of course, the people responsible for such things are complete nimrods).

[Kelly]

Jman, you are gay. I am not. Myself not knowing all the details about it because frankly I dont really care (because I didnt vote and I am not gay) doesnt mean my knowledge of the system is incredibly weak. You didnt think Obama would win, you thought the supers would go for Hillary...you can spew all you want about working for politicians or being apolitical scientist; until you actually prove you know what your talking about on something you ought to stop talking down to people. Ill give you some slack because you are gay and I can understand you being upset about it, but you wont win any support being a ***** to anybody who doesnt totally see it your way (even though I pretty much did beforehand)

As for all your points, what do you think will happen? The people of California voted and the majority said gays shouldnt be married. What do you want, a revote? The result likely wont going to change. It sucks, but what do you want them to do? The people have unfortunatley spoken.


Actually Excel, it probably will change. This will follow the same line as Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement. I don't hold this as equal to the 2 I mentioned, but I do believe that we will evolve in our thinking to where the majority will be fine with Gay Marriage, but in order to get to that point it will need to go through the courts and legislatures.

[Excel]

Excellent. What does this have to do with being politically aware?

Im sorry, I didnt realize being politically aware was just knowing everything you did.

Yes, it does. You came in here with an argument about how gays shouldn't be protesting because California voters made a decision... when your argument was fundamentally flawed. I laid out the legal ramifications for why gay rights activists have continued to protest this decision-- you should have known this before coming in here with that "sheesh, these gays should relax already man, the voters decided" argument. The fact that you didn't proves that you are unaware of the political situation facing Proposition 8.

Aye, Jman..

The only reason why you thought Obama was going to win was because he was black and you liked him. You said so yourself, so honestly, I wouldn't be telling people to "prove" anything if I were in your shoes right now.

I am in my shoes, and no that isnt the only reason I wanted to win. We had debates this every day for months incase youve already forgotten :huh:

Me saying I would vote for him because he was black in November 2006 is irrelevent to why I thought he would win in the spring :huh:

But I digress, I'm not asking for your support at all, I'm asking you to actually KNOW a thing or two about the issues you are responding to, instead of going off about how "the voters decided, the gays shouldn't protest."

Where did I say gays shouldnt protest? I said it was COOL and they had my support. Can you read Jman :huh:

You didnt answer what I asked. What do you want them to? They will just have another prop with everything it needs and a revote and it will get legally banned.

[Anita18]

As for all your points, what do you think will happen? The people of California voted and the majority said gays shouldnt be married. What do you want, a revote? The result likely wont going to change. It sucks, but what do you want them to do? The people have unfortunatley spoken.
It's only a matter of time. A similar proposition banning gay marriage (Prop 22) popped up in 2000 and it won with 61% of the vote. Prop 8 won with 52% of the vote. Support for gay marriage increased 10% in 8 years.

It's only a matter of time.

And btw, the CA Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 this year, since "giving a different name, such as "domestic partnership," to the "official family relationship" of same-sex couples imposes "appreciable harm" both on the couples and their children, the court said."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,6182317.story

I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 8 was overturned due to a similar circumstance. But the anti-gay marriage people are fighting a losing battle. Still doesn't mean we can't get pissed though. :hehe:

[wiegeabo]

It's only a matter of time. A similar proposition banning gay marriage (Prop 22) popped up in 2000 and it won with 61% of the vote. Prop 8 won with 52% of the vote. Support for gay marriage increased 10% in 8 years.

It's only a matter of time.

And btw, the CA Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 this year, since "giving a different name, such as "domestic partnership," to the "official family relationship" of same-sex couples imposes "appreciable harm" both on the couples and their children, the court said."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,6182317.story

I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 8 was overturned due to a similar circumstance. But the anti-gay marriage people are fighting a losing battle. Still doesn't mean we can't get pissed though. :hehe:


Unfortunately Prop 8 can't be overturned by our state courts. Our only hope is that it is repealed by a future amendment, or ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

[Anita18]

Unfortunately Prop 8 can't be overturned by our state courts. Our only hope is that it is repealed by a future amendment, or ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
An advocacy lawyer was on CNN this weekend, saying how they were trying to get Prop 8 thrown out by the courts due to a technicality. I don't remember the details, but I think that's a legal-enough way to go about it. :oldrazz:

[Excel]

It's only a matter of time. A similar proposition banning gay marriage (Prop 22) popped up in 2000 and it won with 61% of the vote. Prop 8 won with 52% of the vote. Support for gay marriage increased 10% in 8 years.

It's only a matter of time.

And btw, the CA Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 this year, since "giving a different name, such as "domestic partnership," to the "official family relationship" of same-sex couples imposes "appreciable harm" both on the couples and their children, the court said."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,6182317.story

I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 8 was overturned due to a similar circumstance. But the anti-gay marriage people are fighting a losing battle. Still doesn't mean we can't get pissed though. :hehe:

It is only a matter of time, but right now it obviously isnt that time. I am for it, and proud to live in a state where its legal. I just dont like seeing people getting a foot and taking a mile. They have a right to be upset and protest. They dont have a right to freak out on or attack people who disagree.

[wiegeabo]

An advocacy lawyer was on CNN this weekend, saying how they were trying to get Prop 8 thrown out by the courts due to a technicality. I don't remember the details, but I think that's a legal-enough way to go about it. :oldrazz:

Yeah, that would be the third way. They are contesting that Prop 8 was added to our Constitution illegally because you can't vote an amendment into the state constitution. (At least, that's how George Takei made it sound.)

But, in California, it actually is legal to vote an amendment into the constitution as long as a number equal to more than 8% of the voters from the last election sign a petition to have it put on the ballot.


Now, if the courts found that this number was not met, then they could throw Prop 8 out.

[The Senator]

Im sorry, I didnt realize being politically aware was just knowing everything you did.

No, being politically aware means that you at least know the basics of what is going on in regards to a particular issue. If we were talking about health care, for instance, I would not expect you to know what a single-payer system is off the bat, nor would I expect you to know what "mandated coverage" is. However, I would expect you to know WHY we are discussing the issue of health care, and why it is an important issue to those who support such reform.

So... if you posted "I don't get the big deal, why are they still arguing about this?" I would consider you "politically unaware."

Much like Proposition 8... you don't know the legal arguments, you don't know why they are still protesting... yet you ask, "gee, why are they still protesting when the voters made their voices heard?"


I am in my shoes, and no that isnt the only reason I wanted to win. We had debates this every day for months incase youve already forgotten :huh:

Me saying I would vote for him because he was black in November 2006 is irrelevent to why I thought he would win in the spring :huh:

Well, that's fine and dandy, except I didn't start posting here en masse until Fall 2007, and you publicly announced that you supported Obama based on his race several times thereafter.

Second, you saying that he would win because he would rack up all the Super Delegates is a moot point to bring up. We were talking about what individual members of the party would do in the case of a brokered convention. No one knew for certain what was going to happen. The best any of us could have done was make a prediction.

But hey, you won that argument. Though I would like to stress the fact that even though you predicted the outcome of the primary based on some voodoo prediction model of yours, that doesn't make you politically aware, as evident in most of your posts over the past two pages of this thread.


Where did I say gays shouldnt protest? I said it was COOL and they had my support. Can you read Jman :huh:

Honestly, your posts slaughter human vernacular, so it's difficult to understand what you are saying half the time.


You didnt answer what I asked. What do you want them to? They will just have another prop with everything it needs and a revote and it will get legally banned.

YES. I DID.

You dare have the audacity to tell me that I don't read your posts, when you turn around and refuse to do the exact same thing!

This amendment needs to be pushed through the courts and overturned. That's what should be done about it; it is the only legal option which the gay community has left.

And if you want my honest opinion, if another amendment came up for a vote in 2010... it wouldn't pass the state legislature... and even if it did, the minority groups which voted "YES" won't show up in as high concentrations as they did, which most likely means it would be defeated in 2010. The margin of victory, as well as the demographics which voted "YES" on this, proves it.

[The Senator]

It is only a matter of time, but right now it obviously isnt that time. I am for it, and proud to live in a state where its legal. I just dont like seeing people getting a foot and taking a mile. They have a right to be upset and protest. They dont have a right to freak out on or attack people who disagree.

And I'm certain that if African Americans had the right to vote taken away from them four weeks before this election, you would advocate that they sat on their hands and did nothing...

[Heretic]

Actually...blacks tradionally do not vote...this is the very rare chance that they did. They will not return to the polls again until Obama runs for reelection. A lot can be done in two years...

[Excel]

So... if you posted "I don't get the big deal, why are they still arguing about this?" I would consider you "politically unaware."

ok, but that is not what I posted.

Much like Proposition 8... you don't know the legal arguments, you don't know why they are still protesting... yet you ask, "gee, why are they still protesting when the voters made their voices heard?"

Aye, you really are upset about this

Well, that's fine and dandy, except I didn't start posting here en masse until Fall 2007, and you publicly announced that you supported Obama based on his race several times thereafter.

No I didnt. I said he had my support because he was black once, and that was in Nov. 06 after the Jefferson Jackson dinner, and was a joke. So you saying that is simpyl false, you are confusing it with Matts endless revival.

Second, you saying that he would win because he would rack up all the Super Delegates is a moot point to bring up. We were talking about what individual members of the party would do in the case of a brokered convention. No one knew for certain what was going to happen. The best any of us could have done was make a prediction.

It was obvious to any realist what was going to happen after Texas and Ohio. I can remember doing out state by state projections and Hill had no outs delegate wise.

But hey, you won that argument. Though I would like to stress the fact that even though you predicted the outcome of the primary based on some voodoo prediction model of yours, that doesn't make you politically aware, as evident in most of your posts over the past two pages of this thread.

:bow:

You dare have the audacity to tell me that I don't read your posts, when you turn around and refuse to do the exact same thing!

Of course I read yours, I already told you it can get overturned and they can be allowed to marry, all that will happen is they will revote at some point and itll once again be banned.

This amendment needs to be pushed through the courts and overturned. That's what should be done about it; it is the only legal option which the gay community has left.

im aware

And if you want my honest opinion, if another amendment came up for a vote in 2010... it wouldn't pass the state legislature... and even if it did, the minority groups which voted "YES" won't show up in as high concentrations as they did, which most likely means it would be defeated in 2010. The margin of victory, as well as the demographics which voted "YES" on this, proves it.

hopefully that is the case.

[Excel]

And I'm certain that if African Americans had the right to vote taken away from them four weeks before this election, you would advocate that they sat on their hands and did nothing...

Do you have to go the extreme on everything?

I SAID THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST.

I said they dont have a right beat people n that jazz which Norris wrote about.

[BlackLantern]

Protesting something doesn't mean you are always going to get your way....I give this thing a good 9 months to 2 years before there is any serious movement....and in the giant scheme of things in this nation...it's hardly #1 on the list

[wiegeabo]

Actually...blacks tradionally do not vote...this is the very rare chance that they did. They will not return to the polls again until Obama runs for reelection. A lot can be done in two years...

I'm really hoping this election changed that to some degree. I can see a jump in young black voters because their voice was heard in their first experience as a voter. And older voters may finally stop being so disenfranchised with the system and come out in somewhat larger numbers.

Although, I agree when Obama runs again, turn out by blacks will far outweigh the number voting two years from now.

[Oddzball]

The Knights of Columbus and LDS didn't pay for a law that would assure churches that were theologically opposed to gay marriage could not be compelled to perform them. They sponsored one that forbade gay marriage and attempted to nullify existing ones. (Already overruled by California Attorney General Jerry Brown.)

The problem was this ill concieved law has really angered people. It's not going to go away and this law likely will be struck down. But that takes time and angry folks are notably impatient and likely to do stupid things in that anger.

A person who I gamed with till she moved up North is a devout Mormon and registered Republican. She didn't support 8 but that didn't stop some morons from threatening her and her daughters as they left church recently.

This is the sort of crap that could make things a lot worse.

[The Senator]

ok, but that is not what I posted.

Man, you have a really thick skull, considering what you are replying to was not made in reference to what YOU said, but the hypothetical health care argument I outlined.


Aye, you really are upset about this

Excel, seriously... if you want to argue about gay rights, which is what this thread is about, go right ahead. But if you want to argue about a specific issue and you don't know the legal background behind it, and you make vague, uninformed statements about it when you consider yourself to be "politically aware"-- don't expect me to not get on your case.



No I didnt. I said he had my support because he was black once, and that was in Nov. 06 after the Jefferson Jackson dinner, and was a joke. So you saying that is simpyl false, you are confusing it with Matts endless revival.

Excel, I explicitly recall quoting one of your posts during the primaries where you said flat-out that you supported Obama because he "looked like you." Don't play semantics.


It was obvious to any realist what was going to happen after Texas and Ohio. I can remember doing out state by state projections and Hill had no outs delegate wise.

Why the hell are we debating this? Semantics continue...


Of course I read yours, I already told you it can get overturned and they can be allowed to marry, all that will happen is they will revote at some point and itll once again be banned.

EXCEL.

Seriously.

You need to start READING what I write.

I wrote, above, that this could be overturned by the courts. In the post you are QUOTING, I wrote that the state legislature would have to approve of a similar amendment being added to the constitution in the future, and that such an amendment was unlikely to pass at the state level. Further STILL, I said that it was unlikely this amendment would pass if it went to the voters because the minority groups which voted "YES" two weeks ago won't turn out in such high numbers during a midterm election year.


im aware

You are aware NOW... if you were aware of this beforehand, we wouldn't be having this argument.

[The Senator]

Do you have to go the extreme on everything?

I SAID THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST.

I said they dont have a right beat people n that jazz which Norris wrote about.

Right, and in the hypothetical situation I outlined, I have this funny feeling you wouldn't be angry if black folks started rioting and destroying public property because they had a right taken away from them...

[Kelly]

An advocacy lawyer was on CNN this weekend, saying how they were trying to get Prop 8 thrown out by the courts due to a technicality. I don't remember the details, but I think that's a legal-enough way to go about it. :oldrazz:


They can......you cannot discriminate........and having laws that provide for some to marry, and others not...................that is discrimination and I'm sure that is how they are going to fight it.


You either change the law and say "no one gets married" or you allow "all to marry". Mind you it is much more complicated and technical than how I describe it, but thats pretty much their best argument, and its a damn good one.

[Excel]

Right, and in the hypothetical situation I outlined, I have this funny feeling you wouldn't be angry if black folks started rioting and destroying public property because they had a right taken away from them...

:lmao:

Than you dont know me very well, I would be that guy saying "stop, this isnt going to make them want to help us!" and being ignored.

Wage peace :up: :up:

[Excel]

Excel, seriously... if you want to argue about gay rights, which is what this thread is about, go right ahead. But if you want to argue about a specific issue and you don't know the legal background behind it, and you make vague, uninformed statements about it when you consider yourself to be "politically aware"-- don't expect me to not get on your case.

I dont even know WHAT we are arguing :huh: I agree with what youve been saying yet you continue responding with these condescending, *****y posts :huh:

Excel, I explicitly recall quoting one of your posts during the primaries where you said flat-out that you supported Obama because he "looked like you." Don't play semantics.

I said the only reason I voted for him was because he was black ONCE. I have ALWAYS said him looking like me got me interested in who he was back in 2004. By that time, I liked his ideas enough to be sold and his skin color wasnt the only reason he had my vote all but locked up.


EXCEL.

Seriously.

You need to start READING what I write.

I wrote, above, that this could be overturned by the courts. In the post you are QUOTING, I wrote that the state legislature would have to approve of a similar amendment being added to the constitution in the future, and that such an amendment was unlikely to pass at the state level. Further STILL, I said that it was unlikely this amendment would pass if it went to the voters because the minority groups which voted "YES" two weeks ago won't turn out in such high numbers during a midterm election year.


I did read it and already knew that. My point was, wether the ban is held or overturned and they have to do it again in 2010, I dont think itll pass. Hopefully it will, but I have a lot of doubts.

[Hotwire]

I know one person tried to answer my question from a few days back, but I'm going to pose it again.

Without using religion as your base, explain why allowing gays to marry is a bad idea and should be constitutional banned. Remember, you are arguring to take away the rights of your fellow Americans here, so please use logic, not religion.
This question stands, and still no real answer.

[Paradoxium]

This question stands, and still no real answer.What's the incentive :woot:

[Hotwire]

What's the incentive :woot:
Just the knowledge that you'd be smarter than just about every other person who's against gay marriage.

[spideyboy_1111]

Here's a screencap of a quick shot featured on the most recent ABC story about the California wildfires.
I post it here without further comment....



http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/7351/cafireov7.jpg

odd thing is... and i hate saying it... so i wont, but take the info as you will...

but... majority of the wildfires were in areas of "yes on 8" voters. wonder what the phelps brigade would say about that... considering whenever disaster happens they considering it god attacking the gays and sinners...

[Heretic]

As a pretty diehard conservative...there just isnt a rational reason to not allow gay marriage. Once you get past the fact that some omnipotent yet never seen entity will be enraged, theres nothing to the argument. Sanctity of marriage? The vast majority of marriages end in divorce, and I have yet to see a protest in Vegas against quickie marraiges with complete strangers...you know...as long as its a guy and a girl.

[Paradoxium]

Just the knowledge that you'd be smarter than just about every other person who's against gay marriage.I think that would be arrogant, someone might have thought about it but did a poor job communicating his or her idea. So what incentive is there? Well well well?? :woot:

[Paradoxium]

As a pretty diehard conservative...there just isnt a rational reason to not allow gay marriage. Once you get past the fact that some omnipotent yet never seen entity will be enraged, theres nothing to the argument. Sanctity of marriage? The vast majority of marriages end in divorce, and I have yet to see a protest in Vegas against quickie marraiges with complete strangers...you know...as long as its a guy and a girl.80% of marriages end in divorce in California. Chances are, even if the gays can get married they won't stay married for long in California :funny:

[Ion Kenshin]

who is this phelps brigade?

[Franklin Richards]

You don't wanna know. Just imagine Hitler with a southern accent and a propensity to say, "God".


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[spideyboy_1111]

who is this phelps brigade?

Look up the reverend (and i use that term loosely) Fred Phelps... every gay man and woman should know about them. He's pretty much the anti-Christ disguised as a pastor.

[Ion Kenshin]

ahh okay....i dont think im gonna look him up if he is gonna anger me

[Hotwire]

I think that would be arrogant, someone might have thought about it but did a poor job communicating his or her idea. So what incentive is there? Well well well?? :woot:
Well, then I guess there is no incentive, then. I just figured someone out there would be able to make an arguement against gay marriage without using their religion as a crutch.

[CaptainClown]

ahh okay....i dont think im gonna look him up if he is gonna anger me
but he is so lovable
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x250/captain_ClownhaHa/phelps.jpg

[BlackLantern]

umm...well....ummm....gay people are icky?? is that a solid argument

[CaptainClown]

I love the shirt that says

Homosexuality (this is the nice version) is a sin
Islam is a Lie
and
Abortion is murder

some things are black and white


I want to hit these people over the head with my bat made from the tree of knowledge.

[spideyboy_1111]

ahh okay....i dont think im gonna look him up if he is gonna anger me

mama and daughers phelps on tyra

part 1
mEqlcxW8aS8

part 2
w43tiOZARLw

[Paradoxium]

Well, then I guess there is no incentive, then. I just figured someone out there would be able to make an arguement against gay marriage without using their religion as a crutch.
Take out the legal teeth of marriage laws. Lets just say all the legal teeth goes into Civil Unions now. If it was lacking in anything - it now gains more teeth. Ok? So now straight or gays and make use of the SAME legal teeth.

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

With this noted, what is the difference between marriage and a couple in love with each other (and spend a lot of time together etc...)...? What is the difference in utility?

[Hotwire]

mama and daughers phelps on tyra

part 1
mEqlcxW8aS8

part 2
w43tiOZARLw
It's funny you should bring up these folks. I was searching on a geneology site looking at their ancestors. I even found a picture of the fossilized remains of Rev. Phelp's great-great-great-great-grandfather. Check it out. It's amazing how much they resemble each other.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/politician_20skeleton.jpg

[spideyboy_1111]

It's funny you should bring up these folks. I was searching on a geneology site looking at their ancestors. I even found a picture of the fossilized remains of Rev. Phelp's great-great-great-great-grandfather. Check it out. It's amazing how much they resemble each other.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/mkrolfe/politician_20skeleton.jpg

haha thats hilarious

[spideyboy_1111]

Take out the legal teeth of marriage laws. Lets just say all the legal teeth goes into Civil Unions now. If it was lacking in anything - it now gains more teeth. Ok? So now straight or gays and make use of the SAME legal teeth.

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

With this noted, what is the difference between marriage and a couple in love with each other (and spend a lot of time together etc...)...? What is the difference in utility?

depends, if we throw out the term "marriage" fine, but as long as there's a different word for both, its still discriminatory. It's like the "white" and "colored" drinking fountains back in the day. Separate but equal, is not equal. Because it's still essentially saying we are not "good enough" to hold that title.

[Hotwire]

Take out the legal teeth of marriage laws. Lets just say all the legal teeth goes into Civil Unions now. If it was lacking in anything - it now gains more teeth. Ok? So now straight or gays and make use of the SAME legal teeth.

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

With this noted, what is the difference between marriage and a couple in love with each other (and spend a lot of time together etc...)...? What is the difference in utility?
Marriage is simply a promise. A promise between two loving individuals to committ their lives to each other. Government makes it more than that. Government makes it an institution protected under law.

[Paradoxium]

depends, if we throw out the term "marriage" fine, but as long as there's a different word for both, its still discriminatory. It's like the "white" and "colored" drinking fountains back in the day. Separate but equal, is not equal. Because it's still essentially saying we are not "good enough" to hold that title.Who gives a **** about a title. Does not having a title mean you can't love whomever? I say this of course in the context of no legal teeth. To me this is just another case of wanting what you can't have. Even if this amounts to nothing.

How about straight couples protest and demand they be able to call themselves homosexuals? Will that amount to anything?



I am only trying to play devil's advocate here :woot:

[Paradoxium]

Marriage is simply a promise. A promise between two loving individuals to committ their lives to each other. Government makes it more than that. Government makes it an institution protected under law.No it doesn't. Like you said it is a promise to one and another.

Simply put, marriage is not suppose to be a legally binding contract enforced by the government. Otherwise you should do the same to friendships if you remain consistent on this principle. But of course they do it anyways. But you know we are talking in normatives :yay:

[spideyboy_1111]

Who gives a **** about a title. Does not having a title mean you can't love whomever? I say this of course in the context of no legal teeth. To me this is just another case of wanting what you can't have. Even if this amounts to nothing.

How about straight couples protest and demand they be able to call themselves homosexuals? Will that amount to anything?



I am only trying to play devil's advocate here :woot:

we can love each other with or without marriage... but the title means alot of things, hospitals for one don't usually recognize "family" as "civil partner" so in many cases you have no say over there medical decisions in a case of an emergency. It's also making us feel unequal. Your whole life your programed to grow up, fall in love, get married. To say we can't have that, even if just a title, is a huge slap in the face.

[The Senator]

I dont even know WHAT we are arguing :huh: I agree with what youve been saying yet you continue responding with these condescending, *****y posts :huh:

YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY WE ARE PROTESTING!

That's the basis of this argument, Excel. You came into this thread under the nonchalant idea that gays were protesting solely because they're angry, then had the sheer idiocy to post "well, the people of California have spoken, nothing can change that."

THAT is why we are protesting-- it can be changed. The whole proposition violated several state laws in California and we are fighting for it to be overturned. Moreover, we are drawing attention to this issue because this is the first case in the country where a minority group has had a civil right taken away from them.

You don't see protests in Phoenix because Arizona banned gay marriage. You don't see protests in Tampa because Florida banned gay marriage. But you are seeing protests in those cities and protests nationwide because Proposition 8 took rights away from the gay community.

SERIOUSLY, start reading news articles. And no, glancing at the cover of TIME with Obama's face on it doesn't count as READING a news article.


I said the only reason I voted for him was because he was black ONCE. I have ALWAYS said him looking like me got me interested in who he was back in 2004. By that time, I liked his ideas enough to be sold and his skin color wasnt the only reason he had my vote all but locked up.

Right, and half the candidates who ran for the Democratic Party's nomination had the exact same ideas as Obama had, yet you did nothing but trash his opponents on a daily basis. And again, you are wrong, because had you NOT said that you were voting for Obama because he was black, I never would have responded to that exact same post back in February and we would NOT be having this argument at all.


I did read it and already knew that. My point was, wether the ban is held or overturned and they have to do it again in 2010, I dont think itll pass. Hopefully it will, but I have a lot of doubts.

Right, well, as I just outlined in my post above (even though you continue to skip it out of convenience), if the amendment went to the California state legislature like the first one SHOULD have, it wouldn't pass, and the voters wouldn't even be in a position to vote for or against it.

[Hotwire]

we can love each other with or without marriage... but the title means alot of things, hospitals for one don't usually recognize "family" as "civil partner" so in many cases you have no say over there medical decisions in a case of an emergency. It's also making us feel unequal. Your whole life your programed to grow up, fall in love, get married. To say we can't have that, even if just a title, is a huge slap in the face.
Very true. I think the whole anti-gay marriage movement stems from fear. Fear that is drilled into the heads of those who hate gays by their religion.

[Paradoxium]

we can love each other with or without marriage... but the title means alot of things, hospitals for one don't usually recognize "family" as "civil partner" so in many cases you have no say over there medical decisions in a case of an emergency. It's also making us feel unequal. Your whole life your programed to grow up, fall in love, get married. To say we can't have that, even if just a title, is a huge slap in the face.No legal argument, this has already been fixed under the rationale of civil unions (employed to gay and straight the same way) so the problems you highlight, are now fixed (hospital example). I say this again in a normative sense.

By virtue of you being a homosexual you are different from a heterosexual. But since when does being different denote inferiority? We all love to celebrate diversity and uniqueness but you want to force equals out of everything. Don't you find that ironic?

The original and traditional intent of marriage was to have a man and a woman provide the environment to pop and raise a child; to raise the population numbers. That was its main utility. A gay male couple can't do that, a gay female couple requires a willing third party to enable it to. Adoption does not mathematically raise the population numbers. Polygamy creates a mathematical problem of having less women around, thus not allowing greater diversity in the gene pool.

[Anita18]

The original and traditional intent of marriage was to have a man and a woman provide the environment to pop and raise a child; to raise the population numbers. That was its main utility. A gay male couple can't do that, a gay female couple requires a willing third party to enable it to. Adoption does not mathematically raise the population numbers. Polygamy creates a mathematical problem of having less women around, thus not allowing greater diversity in the gene pool.
Actually I thought marriage was mostly a political tool to forge alliances between rival families. :hehe: And the women were to pop out male heirs, if it were so convenient for them.

And polygamy doesn't create a mathematical problem - women don't die from being married to a man with multiple wives. There's just less women to go around for other men. Which, of course, said other men probably have an issue with. :cwink:

The "institution" of marriage has changed so much, I don't see the point of calling it an institution anymore.

[Paradoxium]

Actually I thought marriage was mostly a political tool to forge alliances between rival families. :hehe: And the women were to pop out male heirs, if it were so convenient for them.I admit you are right it had the utility for alliances, but I am going back to its most basic roots in terms of intent and utility.

And polygamy doesn't create a mathematical problem - women don't die from being married to a man with multiple wives. There's just less women to go around for other men. Which, of course, said other men probably have an issue with. :cwink:I wouldn't have an issue, I would welcome the challenge. :woot:

The "institution" of marriage has changed so much, I don't see the point of calling it an institution anymore.
I think the institution of marriage nowadays has changed into a gigantic joke. So I more or less agree with you. At one point in my life, I thought I would get married and settle down, I don't think I will even if the option presents itself. Yes, if it means walking away from a girl I deeply care for but is forcing the issue of marriage.

[spideyboy_1111]

Very true. I think the whole anti-gay marriage movement stems from fear. Fear that is drilled into the heads of those who hate gays by their religion.

it's quite obvious. There scared to death.

Not to mention now things are really starting to kick them in the ass.
More layoffs at Focus on the Family (http://coloradoindependent.com/15287/after-pumping-money-into-prop-8-focus-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs)
UPDATE: Focus on the Family announced this afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide — more than 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Critics are holding up the layoffs, which come just two months after the organization’s last round of dismissals, as a sad commentary on the true priorities of ministry.

“If I were their membership I would be appalled,” said Mark Lewis, a longtime Colorado Springs activist who helped organize a Proposition 8 protest in Colorado Springs on Saturday. “That [Focus on the Family] would spend any money on anything that’s obviously going to get blocked in the courts is just sad. [Prop. 8] is guaranteed to lose, in the long run it doesn’t have a chance — it’s just a waste of money.”

In all, Focus pumped $539,000 in cash and another $83,000 worth of non-monetary support into the measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to marry in that state. The group was the seventh-largest donor to the effort in the country. The cash contributions are equal to the salaries of 19 Coloradans earning the 2008 per capita income of $29,133.

In addition Elsa Prince, the auto parts heiress and longtime funder of conservative social causes who sits on the Focus on the Family board, contributed another $450,000 to Prop. 8.

“They should do more with their half-million dollars than spending it to collect signatures to take the rights away from a class of people,” said Fred Karger, the founder of the anti-Prop 8 group Californians Against Hate. “I think it’s wrong and it’s hurtful to so many Americans.”

In addition to promoting socially conservative issues such opposition to abortion and gay rights, and supporting abstinence-only education, the evangelical Christian ministry is a purveyor of Christian books, CDs and DVDs. Two months ago, citing Wal-Mart and online retailers as having cut into its product market, Focus announced that 46 employees would be laid off from its distribution department. Late Friday, Focus spokesman Gary Schneeberger confirmed that more layoffs are in store, but said the ministry will not release details until Monday afternoon. Schneeberger hinted that some programs may be eliminated entirely, but declined to elaborate.

“We’re going to need to talk to our own family first,” he said. “We need to respect the people who are affected.”

Schneeberger also refused to discuss the funding priorities that Focus made this fall, including pumping money and in-kind contributions into Proposition 8.

This is the third year that Focus has laid off employees due to budget cuts. In its heyday, the ministry, which relocated to Colorado Springs from Arcadia, Calif., in 1991, employed more than 1,500 people. Many of those employees worked in mailroom and line assembly jobs, processing so much incoming and outgoing correspondences that the U.S. Postal Service gave Focus its own ZIP code.

In September 2005, nearly 80 employees were reassigned or laid off in an effort to trim millions of dollars from its 2006 budget. In addition, 83 open positions were not filled in the layoff, which included eliminating some of the ministry’s programs. At the time, Focus employed 1,342 full-time employees.

“To the extent that we can place them within the ministry, we will try to do that,” said then-spokesman Paul Hetrick. “Most of them will not be able to be placed.”

In September 2007, amid a reported $8 million in budget shortfalls, Focus on the Family laid off another 30 employees; 15 more were reassigned within the company. Most of the layoffs were from Focus’ constituent response services department (i.e. the mailroom).

At the time, Schneeberger, who had replaced Hetrick, said that giving was actually up by $1 million during the fiscal year. However, a very “aggressive” budget goal of $150 million did not materialize.

In a statement issued this September, marking the end of the ministry’s fiscal year, Chief Operating Officer Glenn Williams weighed in on the additional layoffs of 46 people.

“It is certainly heartbreaking that in this case fulfilling that duty means having to say goodbye to some members of our Focus family, but industry realities really leave us no alternative,” he note in his statement. “We are accountable to our donors to spend their money in the most cost-effective and productive manner possible.”

But Lewis, the Colorado Springs activist, wonders whether the families who donate to the nonprofit ministry, realize where their funds really end up.

“Seriously, I would imagine their supporters have got to be asking the question about whether their church is really practicing their theology.”

For Lewis, who is straight, the issue boils down to the significance of targeting a class of citizens for exclusion, at the expense of the families that the ministry could be helping — in this case their own employees.

Lewis likened Proposition 8 to Colorado’s Amendment 2, the 1992 anti-gay measure that was designed to prohibit gays and lesbians from seeking legal protections. Colorado voters approved the measure, which was marketed by proponents, including Focus on the Family, as an effort to prohibit gays and lesbians from seeking “special rights.” The U.S. Supreme Court stuck down the measure as unconstitutional four years later.

“You can’t make homosexuals second class citizens — we’ve learned that already,” Lewis said. “People will look back on this and see how absurd it is.”

Days before this year’s election, Focus founder James Dobson appeared at a closing rally at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego to rally the anti-gay troops.

Karger of Californians Against Hate, termed the rally a “big bust.” Organizers promised that more than 70,000 supporters would show up; the final tally was close to 10,000, he said.

Yet three days later, California voters approved the measure with 52 percent of the vote. While the measure will certainly head back to court, California has become the 31st state in the country to pass measures that define marriage as being between a man and woman only. In all, Proposition 8 has proven to be the most expensive social issue in the country, with more than $73 million pumped into the cause from both sides. One of the larger contributors to the anti-Prop. 8 efforts was Colorado gay philanthropist Tim Gill, who contributed $720,000 to oppose the measure.

“I’m very disturbed by organizations from out of state like Focus on the Family,” Karger said. “They came in early to make sure the measure got on ballot; they’ve got muscle and they are out to hurt a lot of people and destroy a lot of lives.”

They dug themselves into a grave big time. All that ridiculous amount of money will be going to a complete waste. We will eventually be allowed gay marriage so all that money will mean nothing, especially when our economy is in a crap hole and will take years to fix. All that money could have went to so much more. It's disgusting.

[spideyboy_1111]

No legal argument, this has already been fixed under the rationale of civil unions (employed to gay and straight the same way) so the problems you highlight, are now fixed (hospital example). I say this again in a normative sense.

By virtue of you being a homosexual you are different from a heterosexual. But since when does being different denote inferiority? We all love to celebrate diversity and uniqueness but you want to force equals out of everything. Don't you find that ironic?

The original and traditional intent of marriage was to have a man and a woman provide the environment to pop and raise a child; to raise the population numbers. That was its main utility. A gay male couple can't do that, a gay female couple requires a willing third party to enable it to. Adoption does not mathematically raise the population numbers. Polygamy creates a mathematical problem of having less women around, thus not allowing greater diversity in the gene pool.

so your saying its ok to be segregated in terms of sexuality but not race? And that we should celebrate our segregation? :huh:

Marriage was created in 2 ways.. for Love, and for money. Back in ancient times very few wed out of love, but it was usually a binding agreement with business to unite 2 families "ill trade you 2 goats and my daughter for a piece of your land" and what not... or politically by uniting 2 kingdoms together. The kid was used in royalty as just a way to produce and heir and "seal the deal". It was not created just for men and women to become one, it was created for business. Those who were lucky wed for love. Only religion brings "man and women marry to have kids" into it.. so without the sake of religion, because that argument never goes anywhere. Bring something actually logical to the table. I plan on having kids, and i know many gay families that have kids. You don't need to adopt or marry a woman to have kids.

why is polygamy brought up?

and just while were on the subject of kids... i plan on finding a surrogate. Ideally i'd like to find a surrogate who would have 2 kids, one from me and one from my partner. so that way our kids are still siblings. :)

[spideyboy_1111]

I admit you are right it had the utility for alliances, but I am going back to its most basic roots in terms of intent and utility.


No your actually bringing it back to it's religious definition.

[Franklin Richards]

As an adopted child myself, I wouldn't rule out that possibility. There's another level of pride when you chose your child.


It sounds weird but it really is great.


And trust me. Blood doesn't make siblings. Love does.




:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Anita18]

it's quite obvious. There scared to death.

Not to mention now things are really starting to kick them in the ass.
More layoffs at Focus on the Family (http://coloradoindependent.com/15287/after-pumping-money-into-prop-8-focus-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs)

They dug themselves into a grave big time. All that ridiculous amount of money will be going to a complete waste. We will eventually be allowed gay marriage so all that money will mean nothing, especially when our economy is in a crap hole and will take years to fix. All that money could have went to so much more. It's disgusting.
This is the third year that Focus has laid off employees due to budget cuts. In its heyday, the ministry, which relocated to Colorado Springs from Arcadia, Calif., in 1991, employed more than 1,500 people.
:eek: I used to live in Arcadia! Well, kinda. Just passed through, really, but I still have relatives who live there. And checking the LAT website, Arcadia passed Prop 8 67% to 33%. I am shamed. :csad: Darned conservative Asian churchgoers!

My current city wasn't all that better. 61% yes, 39% no. :o

And yeah, I'm still amused that so much money was thrown in to support 8 when it's clearly a losing battle. It could have been used to help people, instead of taking people's rights away. But whatever - it's their money, and it's come back to bite them.

[Holiday]

Does anyone in this thread actually oppose gay marriage? I would read through the thread but I don't have a year to kill.

[CaptainClown]

lazur? he is gone now though

[The Senator]

lazur? he is gone now though

No, lazur actually supported gay marriage. He just thought that gay people shouldn't raise children, and that homosexuals should be housed in separate barracks if they were to serve in the military because they would be naturally inclined to rape their fellow soldiers... or something to that effect...

[Holiday]

I didn't think there would be. I just couldn't imagine anybody thinking gays should haven't equal rights.

[The Senator]

ADMIRALS, GENERALS: LET GAYS SERVE OPENLY
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774058/

Interesting. I wonder if DADT will be revoked soon?

[Heretic]

let the gays serve, but theyd better not wear ski masks!

[Anita18]

No, lazur actually supported gay marriage. He just thought that gay people shouldn't raise children, and that homosexuals should be housed in separate barracks if they were to serve in the military because they would be naturally inclined to rape their fellow soldiers... or something to that effect...
Yes, because me and the 4 guys I live with TOTALLY have sex orgies every night. :oldrazz:

Some of them might be gay though, I dunno. They're all asexual Asian dudes to me.

[spideyboy_1111]

As an adopted child myself, I wouldn't rule out that possibility. There's another level of pride when you chose your child.


It sounds weird but it really is great.


And trust me. Blood doesn't make siblings. Love does.




:thing: :doom: :thing:

if i decide i want a third, i def plan on adopting :) (which i probably will decide i want)

[Marx]

ADMIRALS, GENERALS: LET GAYS SERVE OPENLY
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774058/

Interesting. I wonder if DADT will be revoked soon?

Now that is an interesting turn of events.

[spideyboy_1111]

asexuals freak me out... my old roomate was asexual.. but i think she just called herself cuz she lacked any form of self-confidence and gave up on love cuz all she attracts are black men who like her fat ass.. the idea of sex has always made her uncomfortable. So I think she calls herself Asexual to make herself feel better for not getting the kinda guy she wants

[The Senator]

Yes, because me and the 4 guys I live with TOTALLY have sex orgies every night. :oldrazz:

Some of them might be gay though, I dunno. They're all asexual Asian dudes to me.

I have been naturally inclined to have sex with the guy I live with... then again, we're dating, so I don't think this is on the same level...

[Marx]

asexuals freak me out... my old roomate was asexual.. but i think she just called herself cuz she lacked any form of self-confidence and gave up on love cuz all she attracts are black men who like her fat ass.. the idea of sex has always made her uncomfortable. So I think she calls herself Asexual to make herself feel better for not getting the kinda guy she wants

A friend of mine used to claim that he was asexual...I think it was more a case that he hadn't been with the right person.

[The Senator]

I want one child:

http://www.advice-on-pet-care-and-pet-product-supplies-online.com/images/scottish-terrier-BP.jpg

I will call him "Good Barney."



And, if we decide to have another:

http://www.jumillas.com/bilder/20040902luna06homepage.JPG

[name pending]

Beyond that... I have no other plans for children at this time.

[Marx]

I like the cat choice Jman! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Anita18]

asexuals freak me out... my old roomate was asexual.. but i think she just called herself cuz she lacked any form of self-confidence and gave up on love cuz all she attracts are black men who like her fat ass.. the idea of sex has always made her uncomfortable. So I think she calls herself Asexual to make herself feel better for not getting the kinda guy she wants
Well, I think the case with most traditional Asian guys is to wait on serious relationships until they get their careers sorted out.

Plus they're probably not stupid enough to try and date one of several roommates. :oldrazz: And I'm not attracted to any of them anyway.

I guess people consider me pretty asexual, but I'm not. I'm just really picky. :hehe:

I have been naturally inclined to have sex with the guy I live with... then again, we're dating, so I don't think this is on the same level...
Yeeeeah, no.

:funny:

[Marx]

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ASKED TO HEAR GAY MARRIAGE CASES
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/calif-high-court-asked-to_n_144505.html

[Oddzball]

You don't wanna know. Just imagine Hitler with a southern accent and a propensity to say, "God".


:thing: :doom: :thing:

I thought the SoB Phelps was a Topeka native...

[Marx]

Well, I think the case with most traditional Asian guys is to wait on serious relationships until they get their careers sorted out.

Plus they're probably not stupid enough to try and date one of several roommates. :oldrazz: And I'm not attracted to any of them anyway.

I guess people consider me pretty asexual, but I'm not. I'm just really picky. :hehe:


Yeeeeah, no.

:funny:

I can completely relate Anita. :oldrazz:

[Oddzball]

who is this phelps brigade?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps oh, yeah... him.

[Franklin Richards]

I thought the SoB Phelps was a Topeka native...

Well yeah. But to most of the world that's the South.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Marx]

AFTER PUMPING MONEY INTO PROP 8, 'FOCUS ON THE FAMILY' ANNOUNCES LAYOFFS
http://coloradoindependent.com/15287/after-pumping-money-into-prop-8-focus-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs

[CaptainClown]

I was reading about Phelps, that guy is hilarious... I love how he praises someone then immediately after calls em a gay enabler and protests them. The protesting part is cracking me up to be honest cause in my head I have this wonderful image of people with signs for literally everything.

[spideyboy_1111]

AFTER PUMPING MONEY INTO PROP 8, 'FOCUS ON THE FAMILY' ANNOUNCES LAYOFFS
http://coloradoindependent.com/15287/after-pumping-money-into-prop-8-focus-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs

beat ya to it ;)

[The Senator]

Fred Phelps humors me... my favorite website of his is "GodHatesSweden.com"...

[Oddzball]

Well yeah. But to most of the world that's the South.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

Actially the wiki bio says he's Missisippian by birth.

[The Senator]

AFTER PUMPING MONEY INTO PROP 8, 'FOCUS ON THE FAMILY' ANNOUNCES LAYOFFS
http://coloradoindependent.com/15287/after-pumping-money-into-prop-8-focus-on-the-family-announcing-layoffs

:lmao:

This is ironic in all its glory.

Focus on the Family is laying off many of its employees... where is its "focus on the family?" Why is it not concerned about the lives of those who will be affected by this decision?

It seems to me that layoffs tend to harm our society more than allowing those waskly qweers the right to marry. I'm sure if you asked thousands of factory workers in the Midwest what has been more harmful to their lives-- layoffs or them marryin' gays-- the former would trump the latter...

[The Senator]

Well yeah. But to most of the world that's the South.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

I consider Kansas an "in between" state... it is "in between" the plains state of Nebraska and the Southern state of Oklahoma in terms of scenery and social constructs...

[Franklin Richards]

The election is over. Why do they need them now? Casualty of their own success.


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Holiday]

Kansas is not the south at all.

[The Senator]

I like the cat choice Jman! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

It is a tough call between a Russian Blue or a Siamese... I have had both in my short life and find them to be amazing pets...

[Franklin Richards]

Well I was raised in Texas and I have friends that go to school in Coffeyville and it's close enough. Those KansASSians are pretty podunk.


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[spideyboy_1111]

It is a tough call between a Russian Blue or a Siamese... I have had both in my short life and find them to be amazing pets...

i like my fat himalayan

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/spideyboy_1111/chloe44.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/spideyboy_1111/chloe-1.jpg

[The Senator]

i like my fat himalayan

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/spideyboy_1111/chloe44.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/spideyboy_1111/chloe-1.jpg

Too homosexual for me, sadly.

[Holiday]

My grandmom is from Texas. Do you say "taca" as opposed to "taco"? She sure as heck does.

[Franklin Richards]

No. I say it W. style.

Tah-KOE!


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Holiday]

Nice. She also says "warsh" as in I'm gonna "warsh" the dishes. I say it too and get s*** for it sometimes.

By the way, is this now the cat threadf? :)

[spideyboy_1111]

Too homosexual for me, sadly.

really? and the scottish terrier isn't? :-P i thought only old gay men and old ladies had them?

Chloe is technically mine, i got her for an x-mas present... but she lives in ohio with my mom... Eenie (dog) and Gizmo are also mine, but live there too... i miss them :( only one more month till i get to see em though :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/spideyboy_1111/IMGP4458.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/spideyboy_1111/IMGP4812.jpg

i really wanna get a grey tiger stripe like cat with blue eyes soon ... i miss having pets out here.

[spideyboy_1111]

Nice. She also says "warsh" as in I'm gonna "warsh" the dishes. I say it too and get s*** for it sometimes.

By the way, is this now the cat threadf? :)

it's no secret gays and cats go together as much as mullets and trailer parks do :o

we've got alot in common with the, we're moody, we're scatter brained, were playful, we demand attention, we purr when you rub us the right way, and scratch our backs and we will stick our butts right up in the air ;)

[Ion Kenshin]

i am not a fan of cats TBH

[The Senator]

really? and the scottish terrier isn't? :-P i thought only old gay men and old ladies had them?

Nope... young gay men have them too...

[spideyboy_1111]

twas a joke, but alot of us do like cats.....

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I don't.

Those bastards can kill me.

[spideyboy_1111]

*sicks my kitteh's on you*

[BlackLantern]

not gay but I prefer cats, they are independent and I like that

[spideyboy_1111]

not gay but I prefer cats, they are independent and I like that

and very easy to take care of :), dont get me wrong, i love dogs too, but for a guy on the go, a dog can be a lil more attention needing.

[Kelly]

When did this go from being a "Gay Rights Thread" to being a "Gay Lounge"?????

[Holiday]

When did this go from being a "Gay Rights Thread" to being a "Gay Lounge"?????

I think around the time I got in here... Wait, is the Hype trying to tell me something?


:oldrazz:

[spideyboy_1111]

well its kinda dead right now on news. :(

[The Senator]

THE END OF 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'?
CNN


WASHINGTON (CNN) – The lead sponsor of a bill to overturn the controversial Don't Ask, Don't Tell law said the law could conceivably be passed in the first year of President-elect Obama's administration.

President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military.

A transition office spokesman refused to comment for this story but two months ago, Obama signaled he would move cautiously, telling the Philadelphia Gay News newspaper he would first get the military on board:

"Although I have consistently said I would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I believe that the way to do it is to make sure that we are working through processes, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be," he said.

A bill to replace "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", with a policy of nondiscrimination, has 149 co-sponsors in the house, including California's Ellen Tauscher, a Democrat. Tauscher said with new administration, the timing is right to try and pass the bill.

"The key here is to get bills that pass the House and the Senate, that we can get to president-elect Obama to sign, and I think that we can do that, certainly the first year of the administration," Tauscher said in an interview with CNN.

Gay rights advocates say it's important for the new President to avoid the ham-fisted attempt President Clinton tried in 1993, when he naively promised to lift the ban by executive order.

That roiled the Pentagon brass — including then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell — and provoked a fierce backlash from conservatives in Congress.

As a result Congress stripped President Clinton of his power to change the policy and forced him to accept the Don't Ask Don't Tell compromise — a law that can only be repealed by Congress.

But after 15 years and four wars, attitudes in the Pentagon — and among the public — have changed dramatically.

A Washington Post-ABC news poll this summer found 75 percent of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly, compared to only 45 percent back in 1993.

More than 100 retired U.S. military leaders — including the former head of the Naval Academy — have signed a statement calling for an end to the military's "don't ask-don't tell" policy, according to a California-based think tank that supports the movement.

Retired Admiral Charles Larson, the former Naval Academy superintendent, tops the list of 104 retired general and admirals who want the government to repeal the policy, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced Monday.

It looks like this issue is gathering steam... something tells me DADT might be repealed within the next few months if this bill goes to the House floor...

[Kelly]

I never understood the "don't ask, don't tell" anyway........kinda silly if you ask me.

[Paradoxium]

so your saying its ok to be segregated in terms of sexuality but not race? And that we should celebrate our segregation? :huh:

Marriage was created in 2 ways.. for Love, and for money. Back in ancient times very few wed out of love, but it was usually a binding agreement with business to unite 2 families "ill trade you 2 goats and my daughter for a piece of your land" and what not... or politically by uniting 2 kingdoms together. The kid was used in royalty as just a way to produce and heir and "seal the deal". It was not created just for men and women to become one, it was created for business. Those who were lucky wed for love. Only religion brings "man and women marry to have kids" into it.. so without the sake of religion, because that argument never goes anywhere. Bring something actually logical to the table. I plan on having kids, and i know many gay families that have kids. You don't need to adopt or marry a woman to have kids.

why is polygamy brought up?

and just while were on the subject of kids... i plan on finding a surrogate. Ideally i'd like to find a surrogate who would have 2 kids, one from me and one from my partner. so that way our kids are still siblings. :)No your actually bringing it back to it's religious definition.There are three dimensions. The legal one, the religious and cultural one, and the utilitarian one.

The marriage I talk about is on the utilitarian level. I am talking in calculable value. To elaborate, a man and a woman, and a homosexual couple without children - for the utilitarian - are not married. These straight and gay couples might adopt but they are not married utility wise.

Only the couple who can produce a fresh newborn and raise the child together actually constitute a marriage.

The first utility being a mathematical increase by one, adopting a child does not mathematically increase the population, you are displacing a value. Artificial insemination requires a third party, normatively speaking we talking about two people.

The second utility is this environment is the most stable one as far as families goes. When I say this, I am not saying homosexual sucks as parents - this is not even the argument. My point is, they can't even get this second utility without the first; that is mathematically increasing the population density by one firstly. The only alternatives to this second utility beyond a nuclear family are a single parent (i.e. widowed or divorce) OR matriarchy whereon children are raised in a village like setting.

But there is a reason why most matriarchal environments that raise children do not become that large. They simply do not reproduce in high volumes. The foundation of many civilizations follow with the nuclear family. You destroy this foundation you start depopulating, and collapse a civilization slowly. Every value you learned and discovered is not passed on. This logic all runs on utility. It doesn't give a damn about skin color, it doesn't give damn about women or men's rights, and it doesn't give a damn about religion and it most definitely does not give a damn about love and being able to celebrate it. Just cold hard amoral calculations.

Do you understand this? To me, on a question whether gays should have the same legal rights as straight couples, is yes. Nowadays the term marriage has no semblance to utilitarian meanings. It is a label for a legal right, that is why I am fine if gays are to be able to wed.. But if you are going to argue the semantics and utility of this, then you are going to get the arguments I just presented to you.

The matter about ceremonial and ritualistic issues has nothing to do with legality and utility, but actually more religious and cultural - which has been divorced from this whole entire argument as you have requested.

[Marx]

It looks like this issue is gathering steam... something tells me DADT might be repealed within the next few months if this bill goes to the House floor...

It certainly seems like there is some potential.

[Heretic]

If homosexuals want to stand in the way of bullets so I dont have to, I say let them do it. Thats a ridiculous rule that never should have been enacted.

[The Senator]

As far as I'm concerned, one of the most honorable thing one can do for his country is serve in the military. It shows that we are willing to take responsibility to defend this nation from attack, and that we are willing to put our lives on the line in its defense. Therefore, I see no logical reason why homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military without having to fear exposure.

[spideyboy_1111]

There are three dimensions. The legal one, the religious and cultural one, and the utilitarian one.

The marriage I talk about is on the utilitarian level. I am talking in calculable value. To elaborate, a man and a woman, and a homosexual couple without children - for the utilitarian - are not married. These straight and gay couples might adopt but they are not married utility wise.

Only the couple who can produce a fresh newborn and raise the child together actually constitute a marriage.

? says who

The first utility being a mathematical increase by one, adopting a child does not mathematically increase the population, you are displacing a value. Artificial insemination requires a third party, normatively speaking we talking about two people. what exactly does marriage have ANYTHING to do with populating? people who are unmarried populate, and there's people who are married who don't.

The second utility is this environment is the most stable one as far as families goes. When I say this, I am not saying homosexual sucks as parents - this is not even the argument. My point is, they can't even get this second utility without the first; that is mathematically increasing the population density by one firstly. The only alternatives to this second utility beyond a nuclear family are a single parent (i.e. widowed or divorce) OR matriarchy whereon children are raised in a village like setting.

But there is a reason why most matriarchal environments that raise children do not become that large. They simply do not reproduce in high volumes. The foundation of many civilizations follow with the nuclear family. You destroy this foundation you start depopulating, and collapse a civilization slowly. Every value you learned and discovered is not passed on. This logic all runs on utility. It doesn't give a damn about skin color, it doesn't give damn about women or men's rights, and it doesn't give a damn about religion and it most definitely does not give a damn about love and being able to celebrate it. Just cold hard amoral calculations.

again there's ways around this, and please don't tell me the only good way to raise a child is from a nuclear family.. thats complete horse $h!+

Do you understand this? To me, on a question whether gays should have the same legal rights as straight couples, is yes. Nowadays the term marriage has no semblance to utilitarian meanings. It is a label for a legal right, that is why I am fine if gays are to be able to wed.. But if you are going to argue the semantics and utility of this, then you are going to get the arguments I just presented to you. I understand it fine, but it comes off as nothing but ignorant. Your arguments are half assed and bogus based upon what some believe is morally right. You can't say gays can't marry due to children, many don't want kids, many do, the kid is still going to have a very loving home and grow up perfectly normal like everyone else.

The matter about ceremonial and ritualistic issues has nothing to do with legality and utility, but actually more religious and cultural - which has been divorced from this whole entire argument as you have requested.

doesn't change the fact there is absolutely no good reason why we can't have the title. And your just further proving it.

[Hobgoblin]

As far as I'm concerned, one of the most honorable thing one can do for his country is serve in the military. It shows that we are willing to take responsibility to defend this nation from attack, and that we are willing to put our lives on the line in its defense. Therefore, I see no logical reason why homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military without having to fear exposure.

Agreed. But try getting a bunch of uber macho soldiers to agree with you. They wouldnt want to serve with a "sissy." How does that mindset change?

[spideyboy_1111]

Agreed. But try getting a bunch of uber macho soldiers to agree with you. They wouldnt want to serve with a "sissy." How does that mindset change?

there generals smack that ignorance off there face? it has to start with the chains of command... if those people change they can knock it out of the others.

[Bathead]

Agreed. But try getting a bunch of uber macho soldiers to agree with you. They wouldnt want to serve with a "sissy." How does that mindset change?

I've seen a number of news stories dealing with this angle. Sixty minutes had a story dealing with a couple of soldiers who came out, I believe while serving in Iraq. It ended up with them eventually getting in a lot of trouble, but the one thing that was clear, their fellow soldiers that they served with had absloutely no problems with them being gay. All they cared about was the fact thay were good soldiers trying to serve their country, like them. Apparently the only ones who had a problem were deskbound bureaucrats who didn't even know them.

[The Senator]

Agreed. But try getting a bunch of uber macho soldiers to agree with you. They wouldnt want to serve with a "sissy." How does that mindset change?

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

[CaptainClown]

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?
Best homosexual manly quote I have ever heard was from Layer Cake

"Women are for puffs"

[ShadowBoxing]

Chuck Norris was calling the Anti-Prop 8 protests "anarchy" apparently.

[The Senator]

Chuck Norris was calling the Anti-Prop 8 protests "anarchy" apparently.

There was no anarchy here in DC, so he's probably just referring to the fact that so many of us queers were out in public...

[deathfromabove]

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

they are also all perverts, deviants, and fans of judy garland.

:ikyn

what an ignorant world...

[Marx]

there generals smack that ignorance off there face? it has to start with the chains of command... if those people change they can knock it out of the others.

Exactly.

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

A good point that many forget.

Chuck Norris was calling the Anti-Prop 8 protests "anarchy" apparently.

Chuck Norris is a moron.

[spideyboy_1111]

Chuck Norris was calling the Anti-Prop 8 protests "anarchy" apparently.

yeah after the first major protest a few weeks ago.. some douche on anderson cooper said we were "rioting" anderson looked at him and was like? where?

[Holiday]

yeah after the first major protest a few weeks ago.. some douche on anderson cooper said we were "rioting" anderson looked at him and was like? where?

I think I know who you're talking about. He claimed protesters (plural) we're jumping on cars. I only saw one kid do that. These "riots" have been pretty peaceful from what I've seen. :cwink:

[Marx]

HUCKABEE: GAYS HAVEN'T CROSSED CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLENCE THRESHOLD
4UkXo9tCv48

:facepalm

Let's just ignore the horrific deaths of Matthew Shepherd and Lawrence King. And the countless others who have been beaten up, cast out, or made fun of. I understand that the black struggle and gay struggle are different in many ways, but to suggest that there has to be some imaginary level that must be reached before something is recognized is ridiculous.

[spideyboy_1111]

HUCKABEE: GAYS HAVEN'T CROSSED CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLENCE THRESHOLD
4UkXo9tCv48

:facepalm

Let's just ignore the horrific deaths of Matthew Shepherd and Lawrence King. And the countless others who have been beaten up, cast out, or made fun of. I understand that the black struggle and gay struggle are different in many ways, but to suggest that there has to be some imaginary level that must be reached before something is recognized is ridiculous.

exactly.. it's not like the woman's right movement had women getting beaten by cops and hosed off in the streets.

[BlackLantern]

HUCKABEE: GAYS HAVEN'T CROSSED CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLENCE THRESHOLD
4UkXo9tCv48

:facepalm

Let's just ignore the horrific deaths of Matthew Shepherd and Lawrence King. And the countless others who have been beaten up, cast out, or made fun of. I understand that the black struggle and gay struggle are different in many ways, but to suggest that there has to be some imaginary level that must be reached before something is recognized is ridiculous.

It's sad. but that's how it works in this country....we are galvanized by violence and tragedy....like I said last week...You have a long time gay couple and their child or children brutally beaten to death and their house burned down, then the people who don't give a **** would probably stand up and fight with you guys

[ShadowBoxing]

HUCKABEE: GAYS HAVEN'T CROSSED CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLENCE THRESHOLD
4UkXo9tCv48

:facepalm

Let's just ignore the horrific deaths of Matthew Shepherd and Lawrence King. And the countless others who have been beaten up, cast out, or made fun of. I understand that the black struggle and gay struggle are different in many ways, but to suggest that there has to be some imaginary level that must be reached before something is recognized is ridiculous.
I think, at least from the examples he gave, he's talking about state sanctioned acts of violence where the police and state officials conspired against the rights, lives and advancement of certain groups, whereas gay marriage has to do with more institutional change, and hasn't provoked the same type of segregation...although it's still a superficial line he's drawing and a pretty foolish argument.

[Kelly]

exactly.. it's not like the woman's right movement had women getting beaten by cops and hosed off in the streets.



wow....

[Franklin Richards]

exactly.. it's not like the woman's right movement had women getting beaten by cops and hosed off in the streets.

It didn't happen in the streets. It happened in the home and the voting booth.


Don't hurt your cause.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[BlackLantern]

exactly.. it's not like the woman's right movement had women getting beaten by cops and hosed off in the streets.

...that's a bit close-minded of you....Women today are still getting beaten because their significant others think less of them....

[spideyboy_1111]

It didn't happen in the streets. It happened in the home and the voting booth.


Don't hurt your cause.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

o i'm definatley aware, and i didn't mean to come off like i wasn't. But it was no where near the level of the black community. People didn't go out and kill women just for the fact they were women, there was no equivalent of the KKK for women.

[Franklin Richards]

Which one is worse, Spidey? To be beat on the streets or to be beat at home? To be hunted by an organization or half the population?


You can't better your cause by playing, "Who's had it worse?".

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3dPF0SGh_PQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3dPF0SGh_PQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[deathfromabove]

o i'm definatley aware, and i didn't mean to come off like i wasn't. But it was no where near the level of the black community. People didn't go out and kill women just for the fact they were women, there was no equivalent of the KKK for women.

women have had a far worse time of it historically than any other group.

[spideyboy_1111]

Which one is worse, Spidey? To be beat on the streets or to be beat at home? To be hunted by an organization or half the population?


You can't better your cause by playing, "Who's had it worse?".

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3dPF0SGh_PQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3dPF0SGh_PQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


:thing: :doom: :thing:

ive not once said someone had it worse. i believe all situations are equal. women have had an equally hard time as us all. All i was saying was saying was in the 1900's they didn't have people killing them just because they had a vagina. It was a statement, not a generalization of the womans rights movements compared to the african-american or gay rights. there all equal in my eyes.

[Franklin Richards]

What about the women who are getting their clitoris clipped off so they won't enjoy sex as much? What about the women who are decapitated at stadiums because they showed their ankles in public? What about women who's feet are broken on purpose so that they can wear a type of shoewear that men find attractive?

I highly recommend that you look in the atrocities being dealt to women even today.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Kelly]

ive not once said someone had it worse. i believe all situations are equal. women have had an equally hard time as us all. All i was saying was saying was in the 1900's they didn't have people killing them just because they had a vagina. It was a statement, not a generalization of the womans rights movements compared to the african-american or gay rights. there all equal in my eyes.


I do not believe that woman have had it as hard as blacks as far as what we see in the media, I can't speak for those women who have their nightmares behind closed doors.......and here in the United States we have come a long way, as opposed to worldwide.....but to say that the gay rights movement is equal to the civil rights movement?

IMO, not even close to equal.....

[Bathead]

These "who's had it worse" arguments are irrelevant and a distraction. We (as a nation) need to get off this and get back on the real issue, that gays are indeed being discriminated against and being treated like second class citizens. They have had their share of violence done to them, the degree as compared to other groups is totally irrelevant.

[Bathead]

I think I know who you're talking about. He claimed protesters (plural) we're jumping on cars. I only saw one kid do that. These "riots" have been pretty peaceful from what I've seen. :cwink:

Compared to what fans in Philadelphia did when the Phillies won the world series the gay rights protests were totally peaceful.

[BlackLantern]

These "who's had it worse" arguments are irrelevant and a distraction. We (as a nation) need to get off this and get back on the real issue, that gays are indeed being discriminated against and being treated like second class citizens. They have had their share of violence done to them, the degree as compared to other groups is totally irrelevant.

To black people it is relevant....the opinion is that no one has suffered as much as black people have.....and until you do, you don't get to complain...that's the viewpoint I've been hearing....

My uncle, who is about 72, says that it's more of an inconvenience than anything else for the gays....he said it's not like they aren't allowed to vote or buy cars or do what everyone else does...they just can't get married....he doesn't see the big deal about it

[Kelly]

IMO, I think the biggest difference TODAY, between Women's Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights is the fact that in the first 2, women went through centuries around the world, not being heard. Blacks here in American went 150+ years not being heard.....the Gay Rights issue has a strong voice, and plenty of venues in which it can be heard................

[BlackLantern]

try 400 years Kel...there was that whole slavery thing

[Kelly]

try 400 years Kel...there was that whole slavery thing

True.....but our country isn't 400 years old.....and as far as my Civil Rights point, I'm looking at the US as a sovereign nation and a big step was taken with the whole Emancipation Proclamation thingy......:cwink:

[Franklin Richards]

The 19th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1920. The last time the Cubs won the World Series women couldn't vote.


The ERA was never passed.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[8wid]

I think Prop 8 will eventually pass in California during the 2010 elections when fewer people are as active.

[thedeadite]

I think the talk about "who had it worse" when it comes to a group of people's civil rights struggle to be offensive personally.
I don't care if the group had NEVER experienced violence against it. If that particular group (homosexuals in this case) isn't being given the same rights as the rest of the population (within means mind you...meaning that the particular group gaining these rights would not encroach on the rights of others) then something needs to be done to rectify the problem.

It doesn't matter what kind of threats/violence homosexuals have had to deal with, what matters is that they aren't being given the same rights as others. That should be the end of the story, and if society had learned from their previous faults at denying groups equal rights than this wouldn't be an issue at all.

[CaptainClown]

I think that the tragedies of mistreatment are something that people HAVE to acknowledge. However to say you had it equal to certain groups just never sits well with me because simply no group has had it equal to another.

I think just the idea of going to a group and saying "I know what your going through" is insulting cause frankly nobody does. It would like a black person going to a Native American and saying "I know exactly how you feel" Both had it bad but not the same. Best thing I feel is relate to the persecuted but not to compare groups struggle to another.

[Marx]

No one is trying to argue 'who's had it worse'. There is no acceptable form of discrimination.

[rdh007]

IMO, I think the biggest difference TODAY, between Women's Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights is the fact that in the first 2, women went through centuries around the world, not being heard. Blacks here in American went 150+ years not being heard.....the Gay Rights issue has a strong voice, and plenty of venues in which it can be heard................

They went along time not admitting they existed. That's gotta count for something.

[CaptainClown]

No one is trying to argue 'who's had it worse'. There is no acceptable form of discrimination.
It turned into that one day. :ikyn

[Marx]

It turned into that one day. :ikyn

Well, it shouldn't turn into that. I'm glad I missed that conversation. Each situation has its own uniqueness...to suggest otherwise is insane. It doesn't matter who has had it worse. It's all wrong.

[CaptainClown]

Well, it shouldn't turn into that. I'm glad I missed that conversation. Each situation has its own uniqueness...to suggest otherwise is insane. It doesn't matter who has had it worse. It's all wrong.
weerddd


Anyway I am doing a presentation about Prop 8 tomorrow in my Religion/Politics class tomorrow. I am thinking about going with the "Why to vote for Prop 8" angle. I have been narrowing it down and have yet to find a good reason to pass Prop 8, the only reasonable one is financing which is still ridiculous because it treats homosexual's unions as not real unions. Though its significantly cheaper.

[ShadowBoxing]

It seems the difference though between Civil Rights and Gay Rights is Civil Rights was fighting for something directly outlined in the constitution that was being denied, whereas Gay Rights, or at least the marriage issue, is not directly addressed in the constitution at all (since, despite what the right says, there is no definition of marriage as far as what the Founding Father's intended). So basically the fight is over something that has yet to exist. Barring any amendment there is nothing in the Constitution that overtly allows or does not allow gays to marry, or even addresses the topic of homosexuality.

[spideyboy_1111]

What about the women who are getting their clitoris clipped off so they won't enjoy sex as much? What about the women who are decapitated at stadiums because they showed their ankles in public? What about women who's feet are broken on purpose so that they can wear a type of shoewear that men find attractive?

I highly recommend that you look in the atrocities being dealt to women even today.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

*Sigh.. i guess i should have been more clearer.. and and classified US only. considering that is where (when i think of the womens rights movement, that's where i consider it taking place.) You guys are seriously taking what i said and blowing it out of proportion, im sorry for not being more clear. I never once have said women have not suffered. I am not ignorant to that. Come on people, stop attacking just for the hell of it. I'm sorry for the way I made a statement, geeze.

[spideyboy_1111]

These "who's had it worse" arguments are irrelevant and a distraction. We (as a nation) need to get off this and get back on the real issue, that gays are indeed being discriminated against and being treated like second class citizens. They have had their share of violence done to them, the degree as compared to other groups is totally irrelevant.

agreed, like I've said, we've all had it hard, from concentration camps, rape, slave labor, forced prostitution, being beaten or killed for the way we are born, Some form of that has happened to all 3.. so I don't see why it's a big deal to not associate one with the other. We've all been oppressed and that alone should unite us, not cause more bickering.

[spideyboy_1111]

To black people it is relevant....the opinion is that no one has suffered as much as black people have.....and until you do, you don't get to complain...that's the viewpoint I've been hearing....

My uncle, who is about 72, says that it's more of an inconvenience than anything else for the gays....he said it's not like they aren't allowed to vote or buy cars or do what everyone else does...they just can't get married....he doesn't see the big deal about it

see thats the now, but the then was different. People need to look at everything as a whole. Just because things are better now, doesn't mean we had it easy back when.

[Franklin Richards]

*Sigh.. i guess i should have been more clearer.. and and classified US only. considering that is where (when i think of the womens rights movement, that's where i consider it taking place.) You guys are seriously taking what i said and blowing it out of proportion, im sorry for not being more clear. I never once have said women have not suffered. I am not ignorant to that. Come on people, stop attacking just for the hell of it. I'm sorry for the way I made a statement, geeze.

I'm keeping us strong. :D

We must fuss amongst ourselves. No one can mess with us because we're like a family.

So I'm gonna pick at your presentation.

:word:

:thing: :doom: :thing:

[spideyboy_1111]

im surprised it hasn't been posted yet on here, but the news today said the cali supreme court is going to be hearing 3 cases against prop 8, this is great news because it directly goes to the court rather then waiting months to reach that point. we could have this mess all sorted out by march or may (forget which month)

[SuperT]

I'm against Proposition 8 and all, but as an Af-Am it does make me a bit uncomfortable and kinda frustrated that this whole thing keeps getting compared to the Civil Rights movement.

And the whole "Blame the Af-Am community" attitude in Cali isn't helping either.

[CaptainClown]

I'm against Proposition 8 and all, but as an Af-Am it does make me a bit uncomfortable and kinda frustrated that this whole thing keeps getting compared to the Civil Rights movement.

And the whole "Blame the Af-Am community" attitude in Cali isn't helping either.
Ya, whenever someone brings up it passed the first the tend to say is. "Well the Af-Am community barely voted for it" They make up what? 6-7% of the total population of california?

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm against Proposition 8 and all, but as an Af-Am it does make me a bit uncomfortable and kinda frustrated that this whole thing keeps getting compared to the Civil Rights movement.

And the whole "Blame the Af-Am community" attitude in Cali isn't helping either.

to be honest the gay black community is more upset about it then the gay white community. they feel betrayed by there own.

the blame on the African community, while still hurtful, has gone down alot out here.

And I'm sorry but what exactly is wrong with comparing it to the civil rights movement? Were not saying "we are going through 100% the same" but i do think the woman's rights, African-American rights, and gay rights all fall under the same category of CIVIL rights. The comparison is that on a CIVIL comparison. For some reason people are only viewing the struggles when people compare the 2, not the fight. The fight for all 3 is exactly the same.

[BlackLantern]

^^^that's not how the black community sees it....it's not the same, and I'm inclined to agree

[spideyboy_1111]

^^^that's not how the black community sees it....it's not the same, and I'm inclined to agree

well im sorry you feel that way. Our struggles are different. But as a whole our fight is the same. You can't view this movement by just the marriage alone. Gay's have been fighting a very long time. As a whole all 3 scenarios are just as different as they are equal. We bled the same, though different struggles; We died for how we were born, though instances very; We've been treated like an abomination, by many different sets of eyes; Each movement has differences, each movement has similarities, but all 3 have the same goal. Equality.

If you can't see that, then I truly pity you. I don't think the way I compared any of the 3 lessons the value of the other. And i don't see how it would.

One thing i do see though, is that the African-American community does not like being compared to GAYS.

[BlackLantern]

black people had to sit in the back of the bus, take separate staircases, drink from different fountains, stay in different hotels, and were arrested at voting booths are barred from them by police....and that's some of the more tame things that have happened to black people.....and you're right, the black community does not want to be compared to the gay community....

like women and like black people, both groups had to wait until more prudent minds prevailed to achieve equality....now it's your turn....sack up and go protest a community that had 70 percent turnout for Prop 8.....

[spideyboy_1111]

black people had to sit in the back of the bus, take separate staircases, drink from different fountains, stay in different hotels, and were arrested at voting booths are barred from them by police....and that's some of the more tame things that have happened to black people.....and you're right, the black community does not want to be compared to the gay community....

like women and like black people, both groups had to wait until more prudent minds prevailed to achieve equality....now it's your turn....sack up and go protest a community that had 70 percent turnout for Prop 8.....

Do we seriously even need to list what the gay community has been through as well? for like the 50th time? (Jman feel free to repost that). I've specifically said all 3 have taken different paths, but our goals have all been the same. The goal and intolerance that was inflicted on us are the SAME.

[BlackLantern]

....and you can wait....just like my relatives had to....I have a great aunt and uncle who had to wait until they were in their thirties to be able to vote without fear of being arrested or beaten.....I give this thing a timetable of about 12-24 months before any real resolution is achieved

[spideyboy_1111]

....and you can wait....just like my relatives had to....I have a great aunt and uncle who had to wait until they were in their thirties to be able to vote without fear of being arrested or beaten.....I give this thing a timetable of about 12-24 months before any real resolution is achieved

so your telling me the civil rights movement did nothing? and the same result would have happened if people just waited? sure im sure tolerance would come eventually , but by not fighting, by not protesting, do you honestly think african american rights would have came at the same time as they did?? :huh:

[BlackLantern]

The country is a different place now....and the issue of gay marriage is hardly on top of the countrys "To Do" list....I still maintain there is going to have to be a sacrifice in order to get people behind this thing....

[spideyboy_1111]

The country is a different place now....and the issue of gay marriage is hardly on top of the countrys "To Do" list....I still maintain there is going to have to be a sacrifice in order to get people behind this thing....

and ? I'm prepared for that. If something bad has to happen for us to get our rights finally, I think majority of us would be ok with that. This is, one of, if not the few causes i'd actually die or get hurt fighting for. And actually it is a major thing happening in our country, it might not be on a "to do" list, but it's definately on a list, or it wouldn't of been a continuous topic during presidential debated and candidacies even back during the primary. Sure it's not a goal right now for the US, that'd be fixing the economy, pulling out of Iraq, and fixing our ties with other nations. Those i'd say would all come before it. But if this movement keeps snowballing like it has been, then it very well could be the #4 issue on america's list of important things to come to an agreement on.

[BlackLantern]

1. The Economy
2. Iraq
3. Global Community Relations
4. Energy
5. Education
6. Crime
Id put it somewhere between 7 and 10

[spideyboy_1111]

1. The Economy
2. Iraq
3. Global Community Relations
4. Energy
5. Education
6. Crime
Id put it somewhere between 7 and 10

Crime and Education issues are never going away.. so i'd hardly put those on the list. We are not having a Crime or Eduction crisis in America.. and the whole world is having an energy crisis, that i'd buy, hell health care i'd buy to if it was on your list, but crime and education? thats not anywhere near on our top to do list, especially crime.

[ShadowBoxing]

Yes we are most certainly having both an education crisis.

[BlackLantern]

Education is a serious issue in this country....we have college freshmen who have the reading equivalency of an 8th grader....40 percent of HS students can't identify Africa on a world map, and both HS and college dropout rates are climbing....it's a problem, I tend to think the future of this countys children is a bit more important than gay people getting married

[spideyboy_1111]

Yes we are most certainly having both an education crisis.

both? where is there a huge climbing crime crisis?

[spideyboy_1111]

Education is a serious issue in this country....we have college freshmen who have the reading equivalency of an 8th grader....40 percent of HS students can't identify Africa on a world map, and both HS and college dropout rates are climbing....it's a problem, I tend to think the future of this countys children is a bit more important than gay people getting married

True, but I've seen very little of what i'd call a "crisis" college and HS drop out rates due tend to climb during a dwindling economy and war time. We fix both of those, and we should be fine. Money can go back into education.

[BlackLantern]

It's not a problem that you can throw money at and fix....We have a climate of kids that don't want to learn, we have teachers who burn out in 2-4 years because of that climate, you have parents suing school districts because their kids get failing grades.....the education system, as a whole, needs to be overhauled....

[spideyboy_1111]

It's not a problem that you can throw money at and fix....We have a climate of kids that don't want to learn, we have teachers who burn out in 2-4 years because of that climate, you have parents suing school districts because their kids get failing grades.....the education system, as a whole, needs to be overhauled....

Kids who don't want to learn, i can't honestly blame the educational system for, i blame the parents and the way they were raised. How else can anyone for that matter actually fix the educational system without funding them more? Isn't that the main problem? The only thing i could say is pass a law that does not allow high school drop outs period. They should face jail time or charges if they do. And continue to attend till they pass. Then mandate a law where after a certain date of birth, you are not allowed to hire unless they have a Diploma/GED. There'd have to be acceptations, but I personally think the only thing we can do other then fund better, is make the school system stricter.