Discussion: Gay Rights II

[amazingfantasy15]

as long as its one man and one woman its a-ok remember

But it's gotta be one man and one woman under God, not Thor or Buddha or nothing at all.

[amazingfantasy15]

as long as its one man and one woman its a-ok remember

But it's gotta be one man and one woman under God, not Thor or Buddha or nothing at all.

[amazingfantasy15]

as long as its one man and one woman its a-ok remember

But it's gotta be one man and one woman under God, not Thor or Buddha or nothing at all.

[Ion Kenshin]

hahaha under Thor...honestly i dont even follow this stuff anymore its all hypocrisy and bs at this point in the game...all that matters to them is that there is a penis and vagina involved im just so done with having to hear their stupid reasonings that make no sense at all.

[Ion Kenshin]

hahaha under Thor...honestly i dont even follow this stuff anymore its all hypocrisy and bs at this point in the game...all that matters to them is that there is a penis and vagina involved im just so done with having to hear their stupid reasonings that make no sense at all.

[Ion Kenshin]

hahaha under Thor...honestly i dont even follow this stuff anymore its all hypocrisy and bs at this point in the game...all that matters to them is that there is a penis and vagina involved im just so done with having to hear their stupid reasonings that make no sense at all.

[Nitehawk013]

Yes, it's of course us that pervert the Bible. It couldn't possibly be the homsexuals themselves that have tried to twist and pervert the Bible to give some kind of pass to their behavior.

I mean it has to be us being clearly mistaken about multiple verses that condemn same sex relations. Clearly we are wrong and it is the vast minority of kook theologians who understand it. I mean even those pesky Hebrews who wrote and maintained the word for centuries were mistaken.

[Nitehawk013]

Yes, it's of course us that pervert the Bible. It couldn't possibly be the homsexuals themselves that have tried to twist and pervert the Bible to give some kind of pass to their behavior.

I mean it has to be us being clearly mistaken about multiple verses that condemn same sex relations. Clearly we are wrong and it is the vast minority of kook theologians who understand it. I mean even those pesky Hebrews who wrote and maintained the word for centuries were mistaken.

[Nitehawk013]

Yes, it's of course us that pervert the Bible. It couldn't possibly be the homsexuals themselves that have tried to twist and pervert the Bible to give some kind of pass to their behavior.

I mean it has to be us being clearly mistaken about multiple verses that condemn same sex relations. Clearly we are wrong and it is the vast minority of kook theologians who understand it. I mean even those pesky Hebrews who wrote and maintained the word for centuries were mistaken.

[Ion Kenshin]

so much for god putting everything on this earth fopr a reason and all people being made in his image and loving everyone

[Ion Kenshin]

so much for god putting everything on this earth fopr a reason and all people being made in his image and loving everyone

[Ion Kenshin]

so much for god putting everything on this earth fopr a reason and all people being made in his image and loving everyone

[cerealkiller182]

Yes, it's of course us that pervert the Bible. It couldn't possibly be the homsexuals themselves that have tried to twist and pervert the Bible to give some kind of pass to their behavior.

I mean it has to be us being clearly mistaken about multiple verses that condemn same sex relations. Clearly we are wrong and it is the vast minority of kook theologians who understand it. I mean even those pesky Hebrews who wrote and maintained the word for centuries were mistaken.

Now you're getting it :oldrazz:

[cerealkiller182]

Yes, it's of course us that pervert the Bible. It couldn't possibly be the homsexuals themselves that have tried to twist and pervert the Bible to give some kind of pass to their behavior.

I mean it has to be us being clearly mistaken about multiple verses that condemn same sex relations. Clearly we are wrong and it is the vast minority of kook theologians who understand it. I mean even those pesky Hebrews who wrote and maintained the word for centuries were mistaken.

Now you're getting it :oldrazz:

[cerealkiller182]

Yes, it's of course us that pervert the Bible. It couldn't possibly be the homsexuals themselves that have tried to twist and pervert the Bible to give some kind of pass to their behavior.

I mean it has to be us being clearly mistaken about multiple verses that condemn same sex relations. Clearly we are wrong and it is the vast minority of kook theologians who understand it. I mean even those pesky Hebrews who wrote and maintained the word for centuries were mistaken.

Now you're getting it :oldrazz:

[The Senator]

Yes, it's of course us that pervert the Bible. It couldn't possibly be the homsexuals themselves that have tried to twist and pervert the Bible to give some kind of pass to their behavior.

I mean it has to be us being clearly mistaken about multiple verses that condemn same sex relations. Clearly we are wrong and it is the vast minority of kook theologians who understand it. I mean even those pesky Hebrews who wrote and maintained the word for centuries were mistaken.

Wow, so I take it you spoke to God about this, considering no verse in the Bible directly refers to homosexuality as a sin? :huh: And don't try throwing Bible verses at me considering I can point to different interpretations from Biblical scholars which refute the points you are trying to make.

Anyway, the Bible's fictitious claims shouldn't be governing our society at all, so I really don't care what Christians have to say about homosexuality... though again, I'm certain most of you have shaved this morning... so I don't really consider your opinions relevant on this topic, considering you will pick and choose which aspects of your faith to use as a shield for your personal bigotry...

[The Senator]

Yes, it's of course us that pervert the Bible. It couldn't possibly be the homsexuals themselves that have tried to twist and pervert the Bible to give some kind of pass to their behavior.

I mean it has to be us being clearly mistaken about multiple verses that condemn same sex relations. Clearly we are wrong and it is the vast minority of kook theologians who understand it. I mean even those pesky Hebrews who wrote and maintained the word for centuries were mistaken.

Wow, so I take it you spoke to God about this, considering no verse in the Bible directly refers to homosexuality as a sin? :huh: And don't try throwing Bible verses at me considering I can point to different interpretations from Biblical scholars which refute the points you are trying to make.

Anyway, the Bible's fictitious claims shouldn't be governing our society at all, so I really don't care what Christians have to say about homosexuality... though again, I'm certain most of you have shaved this morning... so I don't really consider your opinions relevant on this topic, considering you will pick and choose which aspects of your faith to use as a shield for your personal bigotry...

[The Senator]

Yes, it's of course us that pervert the Bible. It couldn't possibly be the homsexuals themselves that have tried to twist and pervert the Bible to give some kind of pass to their behavior.

I mean it has to be us being clearly mistaken about multiple verses that condemn same sex relations. Clearly we are wrong and it is the vast minority of kook theologians who understand it. I mean even those pesky Hebrews who wrote and maintained the word for centuries were mistaken.

Wow, so I take it you spoke to God about this, considering no verse in the Bible directly refers to homosexuality as a sin? :huh: And don't try throwing Bible verses at me considering I can point to different interpretations from Biblical scholars which refute the points you are trying to make.

Anyway, the Bible's fictitious claims shouldn't be governing our society at all, so I really don't care what Christians have to say about homosexuality... though again, I'm certain most of you have shaved this morning... so I don't really consider your opinions relevant on this topic, considering you will pick and choose which aspects of your faith to use as a shield for your personal bigotry...

[The Senator]

so much for god putting everything on this earth fopr a reason and all people being made in his image and loving everyone

And those Africans? They didn't believe in God and Christ, so they deserved to be enslaved. Savages...

[The Senator]

so much for god putting everything on this earth fopr a reason and all people being made in his image and loving everyone

And those Africans? They didn't believe in God and Christ, so they deserved to be enslaved. Savages...

[The Senator]

so much for god putting everything on this earth fopr a reason and all people being made in his image and loving everyone

And those Africans? They didn't believe in God and Christ, so they deserved to be enslaved. Savages...

[Ion Kenshin]

i know all us black people were just blights on gods wonderful white earth

[Ion Kenshin]

i know all us black people were just blights on gods wonderful white earth

[Ion Kenshin]

i know all us black people were just blights on gods wonderful white earth

[amazingfantasy15]

Wow, so I take it you spoke to God about this, considering no verse in the Bible directly refers to homosexuality as a sin? :huh: And don't try throwing Bible verses at me considering I can point to different interpretations from Biblical scholars which refute the points you are trying to make.

Anyway, the Bible's fictitious claims shouldn't be governing our society at all, so I really don't care what Christians have to say about homosexuality... though again, I'm certain most of you have shaved this morning... so I don't really consider your opinions relevant on this topic, considering you will pick and choose which aspects of your faith to use as a shield for your personal bigotry...

Didn't you read Nighthawk's post, you can't interept the bible correctly, only a true Christian can do that. You're just perverted God's word to serve your own icky agenda.

[amazingfantasy15]

Wow, so I take it you spoke to God about this, considering no verse in the Bible directly refers to homosexuality as a sin? :huh: And don't try throwing Bible verses at me considering I can point to different interpretations from Biblical scholars which refute the points you are trying to make.

Anyway, the Bible's fictitious claims shouldn't be governing our society at all, so I really don't care what Christians have to say about homosexuality... though again, I'm certain most of you have shaved this morning... so I don't really consider your opinions relevant on this topic, considering you will pick and choose which aspects of your faith to use as a shield for your personal bigotry...

Didn't you read Nighthawk's post, you can't interept the bible correctly, only a true Christian can do that. You're just perverted God's word to serve your own icky agenda.

[amazingfantasy15]

Wow, so I take it you spoke to God about this, considering no verse in the Bible directly refers to homosexuality as a sin? :huh: And don't try throwing Bible verses at me considering I can point to different interpretations from Biblical scholars which refute the points you are trying to make.

Anyway, the Bible's fictitious claims shouldn't be governing our society at all, so I really don't care what Christians have to say about homosexuality... though again, I'm certain most of you have shaved this morning... so I don't really consider your opinions relevant on this topic, considering you will pick and choose which aspects of your faith to use as a shield for your personal bigotry...

Didn't you read Nighthawk's post, you can't interept the bible correctly, only a true Christian can do that. You're just perverted God's word to serve your own icky agenda.

[ShadowBoxing]

Didn't you read Nighthawk's post, you can't interept the bible correctly, only a true Christian can do that. You're just perverted God's word to serve your own icky agenda.
No rational person could ever interpret the Bible correctly. It's not like they could "read" and "comprehend" it. The toothless illiterate church goer though, he's got his finger on the pulse of America.

[ShadowBoxing]

Didn't you read Nighthawk's post, you can't interept the bible correctly, only a true Christian can do that. You're just perverted God's word to serve your own icky agenda.
No rational person could ever interpret the Bible correctly. It's not like they could "read" and "comprehend" it. The toothless illiterate church goer though, he's got his finger on the pulse of America.

[ShadowBoxing]

Didn't you read Nighthawk's post, you can't interept the bible correctly, only a true Christian can do that. You're just perverted God's word to serve your own icky agenda.
No rational person could ever interpret the Bible correctly. It's not like they could "read" and "comprehend" it. The toothless illiterate church goer though, he's got his finger on the pulse of America.

[cerealkiller182]

There are plenty of archaic verses in the bible that no Christian would follow today, a number of which have already been brought up in this very thread, why this one in particular is so damn special to them, I dont know? But i think they should get their stick out of their asses, respect the non-endorsement clause of the Constitution, and let the government fairly come to a decision.

Your own organizations beliefs are not supposed to be enough overturn government decisions and create constitutional bans. And No! this is not persecution of Christians but simply not playing favorites since in the eye of the government (at least on paper) we are all supposed to be equal no matter what religion we subscribe too

[cerealkiller182]

There are plenty of archaic verses in the bible that no Christian would follow today, a number of which have already been brought up in this very thread, why this one in particular is so damn special to them, I dont know? But i think they should get their stick out of their asses, respect the non-endorsement clause of the Constitution, and let the government fairly come to a decision.

Your own organizations beliefs are not supposed to be enough overturn government decisions and create constitutional bans. And No! this is not persecution of Christians but simply not playing favorites since in the eye of the government (at least on paper) we are all supposed to be equal no matter what religion we subscribe too

[cerealkiller182]

There are plenty of archaic verses in the bible that no Christian would follow today, a number of which have already been brought up in this very thread, why this one in particular is so damn special to them, I dont know? But i think they should get their stick out of their asses, respect the non-endorsement clause of the Constitution, and let the government fairly come to a decision.

Your own organizations beliefs are not supposed to be enough overturn government decisions and create constitutional bans. And No! this is not persecution of Christians but simply not playing favorites since in the eye of the government (at least on paper) we are all supposed to be equal no matter what religion we subscribe too

[The Senator]

Didn't you read Nighthawk's post, you can't interept the bible correctly, only a true Christian can do that. You're just perverted God's word to serve your own icky agenda.

Then that technically means no single person can correctly interpret the Bible, since people are not born Christians. They become Christians.

I read the Bible when I was thinking about converting... then I realized the book was inconsistent and completely insane, so I put it down and decided against it after three years of trying...

[The Senator]

Didn't you read Nighthawk's post, you can't interept the bible correctly, only a true Christian can do that. You're just perverted God's word to serve your own icky agenda.

Then that technically means no single person can correctly interpret the Bible, since people are not born Christians. They become Christians.

I read the Bible when I was thinking about converting... then I realized the book was inconsistent and completely insane, so I put it down and decided against it after three years of trying...

[The Senator]

Didn't you read Nighthawk's post, you can't interept the bible correctly, only a true Christian can do that. You're just perverted God's word to serve your own icky agenda.

Then that technically means no single person can correctly interpret the Bible, since people are not born Christians. They become Christians.

I read the Bible when I was thinking about converting... then I realized the book was inconsistent and completely insane, so I put it down and decided against it after three years of trying...

[ChrisBaleBatman]

What I had heard about the mention of Homosexuality being mentioned in the bible was that it had a different meaning when it was written. Being another word for Pedophile, and that the mentioned line that so many people cry out over is speaking against pedophiles, not same sex realtionships.

MY take? It doesn't matter. A group of people are being wrongfully mistreated. So...stop it. They're still human beings, so that's it for me. They deserve all the rights "straight" people do. Including marriage. Especially marriage, actually.

I mean, with most straight people getting married...and then divorcing like it's no big deal....yet, gay people can't get married...because marriage...is sacred??

Then what's up with all the divorces? Or all the extramartial sex? Should that disqualify someone from getting married? Or should not be allowed to divorce?

It's gotta be one way or the other. Not just cherry picking what self-serves people best.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

What I had heard about the mention of Homosexuality being mentioned in the bible was that it had a different meaning when it was written. Being another word for Pedophile, and that the mentioned line that so many people cry out over is speaking against pedophiles, not same sex realtionships.

MY take? It doesn't matter. A group of people are being wrongfully mistreated. So...stop it. They're still human beings, so that's it for me. They deserve all the rights "straight" people do. Including marriage. Especially marriage, actually.

I mean, with most straight people getting married...and then divorcing like it's no big deal....yet, gay people can't get married...because marriage...is sacred??

Then what's up with all the divorces? Or all the extramartial sex? Should that disqualify someone from getting married? Or should not be allowed to divorce?

It's gotta be one way or the other. Not just cherry picking what self-serves people best.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

What I had heard about the mention of Homosexuality being mentioned in the bible was that it had a different meaning when it was written. Being another word for Pedophile, and that the mentioned line that so many people cry out over is speaking against pedophiles, not same sex realtionships.

MY take? It doesn't matter. A group of people are being wrongfully mistreated. So...stop it. They're still human beings, so that's it for me. They deserve all the rights "straight" people do. Including marriage. Especially marriage, actually.

I mean, with most straight people getting married...and then divorcing like it's no big deal....yet, gay people can't get married...because marriage...is sacred??

Then what's up with all the divorces? Or all the extramartial sex? Should that disqualify someone from getting married? Or should not be allowed to divorce?

It's gotta be one way or the other. Not just cherry picking what self-serves people best.

[Mister Sinister]

Oj-0xMrsyxESamuel L Jackson does an anti-Prop 8 ad.

[Mister Sinister]

Oj-0xMrsyxESamuel L Jackson does an anti-Prop 8 ad.

[Mister Sinister]

Oj-0xMrsyxESamuel L Jackson does an anti-Prop 8 ad.

[psychocheeseman]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

I'm still kinda shocked that it's taking this long to get Gay Marriage recognised. (not just in California but the rest of the US and over here too) You guys finally get the Courts to recognise it's legality, then someone actually tries to take that right away? There's no rational reason for a legal distinction and different rights for hetrosexual or homosexual couples.

I think Samuel L Jackson says it best:
Oj-0xMrsyxESamuel L Jackson does an anti-Prop 8 ad.

[psychocheeseman]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

I'm still kinda shocked that it's taking this long to get Gay Marriage recognised. (not just in California but the rest of the US and over here too) You guys finally get the Courts to recognise it's legality, then someone actually tries to take that right away? There's no rational reason for a legal distinction and different rights for hetrosexual or homosexual couples.

I think Samuel L Jackson says it best:
Oj-0xMrsyxESamuel L Jackson does an anti-Prop 8 ad.

[psychocheeseman]

I don't want to get cocky, but we're talking about a state which has a history of voting against repressive measures, including the Briggs Amendment in the 1970s. I have a feeling high liberal voter turnout in California will defeat this.

I'm still kinda shocked that it's taking this long to get Gay Marriage recognised. (not just in California but the rest of the US and over here too) You guys finally get the Courts to recognise it's legality, then someone actually tries to take that right away? There's no rational reason for a legal distinction and different rights for hetrosexual or homosexual couples.

I think Samuel L Jackson says it best:
Oj-0xMrsyxESamuel L Jackson does an anti-Prop 8 ad.

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 27% of precints reporting)

YES: 53%
NO: 47%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 27% of precints reporting)

YES: 53%
NO: 47%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 8
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 27% of precints reporting)

YES: 53%
NO: 47%

[JustABill]

The fact that FL banned gay marriage but failed to support their community colleges just shows how wrong their priorities are right now. :rolleyes:

[JustABill]

The fact that FL banned gay marriage but failed to support their community colleges just shows how wrong their priorities are right now. :rolleyes:

[JustABill]

The fact that FL banned gay marriage but failed to support their community colleges just shows how wrong their priorities are right now. :rolleyes:

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: ARIZONA PROPOSITION 102
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 91% of precints reporting)

YES: 56%
NO: 44%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: ARIZONA PROPOSITION 102
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 91% of precints reporting)

YES: 56%
NO: 44%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: ARIZONA PROPOSITION 102
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 91% of precints reporting)

YES: 56%
NO: 44%

[chaseter]

So gay marriage may likely be lifted in California tonight?

[chaseter]

So gay marriage may likely be lifted in California tonight?

[chaseter]

So gay marriage may likely be lifted in California tonight?

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: ARKANSAS INITIATIVE 1
Do you support a ban on gay couples adopting children?

(With 77% of precints reporting)

YES: 57%
NO: 43%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: ARKANSAS INITIATIVE 1
Do you support a ban on gay couples adopting children?

(With 77% of precints reporting)

YES: 57%
NO: 43%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: ARKANSAS INITIATIVE 1
Do you support a ban on gay couples adopting children?

(With 77% of precints reporting)

YES: 57%
NO: 43%

[Marx]

So gay marriage may likely be lifted in California tonight?

No knows seems to be saying where these precints are that are reporting. (That could make a huge difference in the numbers.)

[Marx]

So gay marriage may likely be lifted in California tonight?

No knows seems to be saying where these precints are that are reporting. (That could make a huge difference in the numbers.)

[Marx]

So gay marriage may likely be lifted in California tonight?

No knows seems to be saying where these precints are that are reporting. (That could make a huge difference in the numbers.)

[JustABill]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.

[JustABill]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.

[JustABill]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: FLORIDA AMENDEMENT 2
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 98% of precints reporting)

YES: 62%
NO: 38%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: FLORIDA AMENDEMENT 2
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 98% of precints reporting)

YES: 62%
NO: 38%

[Marx]

CNN PROJECTS: FLORIDA AMENDEMENT 2
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 98% of precints reporting)

YES: 62%
NO: 38%

[JustABill]

CNN PROJECTS: ARKANSAS INITIATIVE 1
Do you support a ban on gay couples adopting children?

(With 77% of precints reporting)

YES: 57%
NO: 43%
This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

[JustABill]

CNN PROJECTS: ARKANSAS INITIATIVE 1
Do you support a ban on gay couples adopting children?

(With 77% of precints reporting)

YES: 57%
NO: 43%
This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

[JustABill]

CNN PROJECTS: ARKANSAS INITIATIVE 1
Do you support a ban on gay couples adopting children?

(With 77% of precints reporting)

YES: 57%
NO: 43%
This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

[Marx]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.

California's Prop 8 has yet to be called. The results are still low.

[Marx]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.

California's Prop 8 has yet to be called. The results are still low.

[Marx]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.

California's Prop 8 has yet to be called. The results are still low.

[Marx]

This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

I agree, Bill.

[Marx]

This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

I agree, Bill.

[Marx]

This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

I agree, Bill.

[danoyse]

This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

Yes, they do. I can't believe people are that ignorant about this.

[danoyse]

This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

Yes, they do. I can't believe people are that ignorant about this.

[danoyse]

This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

Yes, they do. I can't believe people are that ignorant about this.

[Anita18]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.
Me too. Everyone I knew voted against it, but most of them are from the San Francisco area anyway. :oldrazz:

And with 10% of precincts reporting, it's passing in LA county.

I AM SHAMED. :csad: Even though I voted no on it.

[Anita18]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.
Me too. Everyone I knew voted against it, but most of them are from the San Francisco area anyway. :oldrazz:

And with 10% of precincts reporting, it's passing in LA county.

I AM SHAMED. :csad: Even though I voted no on it.

[Anita18]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.
Me too. Everyone I knew voted against it, but most of them are from the San Francisco area anyway. :oldrazz:

And with 10% of precincts reporting, it's passing in LA county.

I AM SHAMED. :csad: Even though I voted no on it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Im friggin pissed don't the mormons have better things to spend there money on ... like i dunno the poor? **** religion, friggin biggots

[spideyboy_1111]

Im friggin pissed don't the mormons have better things to spend there money on ... like i dunno the poor? **** religion, friggin biggots

[spideyboy_1111]

Im friggin pissed don't the mormons have better things to spend there money on ... like i dunno the poor? **** religion, friggin biggots

[spideyboy_1111]

This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

Bill i know you mentioned earlier you didn't care to much about the marriage issue... but i learned a long time ago, if it's about rights, in order to get them, you have to fight them on everything. You can't lax on anything, you can't let anything slide. You have to stick by and fight for whats right if you want it because you never know what they could take away next.

[spideyboy_1111]

This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

Bill i know you mentioned earlier you didn't care to much about the marriage issue... but i learned a long time ago, if it's about rights, in order to get them, you have to fight them on everything. You can't lax on anything, you can't let anything slide. You have to stick by and fight for whats right if you want it because you never know what they could take away next.

[spideyboy_1111]

This however exceptionally pisses me off. I want kids one day, whether it be by artifical means or adoption. This is just silly as hell. Silly. Silly.

This country needs to grow up when it comes to gay rights.

Bill i know you mentioned earlier you didn't care to much about the marriage issue... but i learned a long time ago, if it's about rights, in order to get them, you have to fight them on everything. You can't lax on anything, you can't let anything slide. You have to stick by and fight for whats right if you want it because you never know what they could take away next.

[Microchip]

Whaaaat? California voted TODAY to ban same-sex marriage? Like, today as in the same day of the election?

And they voted to BAN IT? That's a pretty good case of the people as a whole speaking, and the people being just plain wrong. That's annoying to see.

[Microchip]

Whaaaat? California voted TODAY to ban same-sex marriage? Like, today as in the same day of the election?

And they voted to BAN IT? That's a pretty good case of the people as a whole speaking, and the people being just plain wrong. That's annoying to see.

[Microchip]

Whaaaat? California voted TODAY to ban same-sex marriage? Like, today as in the same day of the election?

And they voted to BAN IT? That's a pretty good case of the people as a whole speaking, and the people being just plain wrong. That's annoying to see.

[Marx]

Whaaaat? California voted TODAY to ban same-sex marriage? Like, today as in the same day of the election?

And they voted to BAN IT? That's a pretty good case of the people as a whole speaking, and the people being just plain wrong. That's annoying to see.

The results are low, nothing is official yet.

[Marx]

Whaaaat? California voted TODAY to ban same-sex marriage? Like, today as in the same day of the election?

And they voted to BAN IT? That's a pretty good case of the people as a whole speaking, and the people being just plain wrong. That's annoying to see.

The results are low, nothing is official yet.

[Marx]

Whaaaat? California voted TODAY to ban same-sex marriage? Like, today as in the same day of the election?

And they voted to BAN IT? That's a pretty good case of the people as a whole speaking, and the people being just plain wrong. That's annoying to see.

The results are low, nothing is official yet.

[spideyboy_1111]

The results are low, nothing is official yet.

only 10% of LA is counted for... but still it really doesnt look good.

the bright side is our judicial branch is amazing here, add to that we have our senator, our governor, and presidential elect against prop 8... so just because we could have lost this battle doesn't mean the war is over. There's still alot of hope.

[spideyboy_1111]

The results are low, nothing is official yet.

only 10% of LA is counted for... but still it really doesnt look good.

the bright side is our judicial branch is amazing here, add to that we have our senator, our governor, and presidential elect against prop 8... so just because we could have lost this battle doesn't mean the war is over. There's still alot of hope.

[spideyboy_1111]

The results are low, nothing is official yet.

only 10% of LA is counted for... but still it really doesnt look good.

the bright side is our judicial branch is amazing here, add to that we have our senator, our governor, and presidential elect against prop 8... so just because we could have lost this battle doesn't mean the war is over. There's still alot of hope.

[SentinelMind]

CNN PROJECTS: FLORIDA AMENDEMENT 2
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 98% of precints reporting)

YES: 62%
NO: 38%

What's interesting is that analysts believe it was the high turn-out of Blacks and Latinos that led to these amendments passing. They tend to be more culturally conservative than whites even in their own political party.

[SentinelMind]

CNN PROJECTS: FLORIDA AMENDEMENT 2
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 98% of precints reporting)

YES: 62%
NO: 38%

What's interesting is that analysts believe it was the high turn-out of Blacks and Latinos that led to these amendments passing. They tend to be more culturally conservative than whites even in their own political party.

[SentinelMind]

CNN PROJECTS: FLORIDA AMENDEMENT 2
Do you support a ban on Gay Marriage?

(With 98% of precints reporting)

YES: 62%
NO: 38%

What's interesting is that analysts believe it was the high turn-out of Blacks and Latinos that led to these amendments passing. They tend to be more culturally conservative than whites even in their own political party.

[spideyboy_1111]

What's interesting is that analysts believe it was the high turn-out of Blacks and Latinos that led to these amendments passing. They tend to be more culturally conservative than whites even in their own political party.

yeah that's exactly whats happening here in LA.... black people tend to not care to much about the gays (especially of there own kind)... so it was indeed a horrible double-edged sword. It's far from over sadly.

[spideyboy_1111]

What's interesting is that analysts believe it was the high turn-out of Blacks and Latinos that led to these amendments passing. They tend to be more culturally conservative than whites even in their own political party.

yeah that's exactly whats happening here in LA.... black people tend to not care to much about the gays (especially of there own kind)... so it was indeed a horrible double-edged sword. It's far from over sadly.

[spideyboy_1111]

What's interesting is that analysts believe it was the high turn-out of Blacks and Latinos that led to these amendments passing. They tend to be more culturally conservative than whites even in their own political party.

yeah that's exactly whats happening here in LA.... black people tend to not care to much about the gays (especially of there own kind)... so it was indeed a horrible double-edged sword. It's far from over sadly.

[gap5ewl]

WTF.. It baffles me that peopl focus on such a trivial issue. Seriously what do they expect to happen if gay marriage is allowed?

[gap5ewl]

WTF.. It baffles me that peopl focus on such a trivial issue. Seriously what do they expect to happen if gay marriage is allowed?

[gap5ewl]

WTF.. It baffles me that peopl focus on such a trivial issue. Seriously what do they expect to happen if gay marriage is allowed?

[spideyboy_1111]

WTF.. It baffles me that peopl focus on such a trivial issue. Seriously what do they expect to happen if gay marriage is allowed?
there just simply biggots. it's simply ridiculous.

[spideyboy_1111]

WTF.. It baffles me that peopl focus on such a trivial issue. Seriously what do they expect to happen if gay marriage is allowed?
there just simply biggots. it's simply ridiculous.

[spideyboy_1111]

WTF.. It baffles me that peopl focus on such a trivial issue. Seriously what do they expect to happen if gay marriage is allowed?
there just simply biggots. it's simply ridiculous.

[Manic]

Wow. This was a shocker. You'd think between San Francisco and LA, Prop 8 would've been incinerated. Since I was doing a county-by-county breakdown of prop results at the State Secretary website, I decided to jot down which counties were for and against what props-- including Prop 8. Gays, prepare to hate the following counties who all said "Yes"...

Amador County
Butte County
Calaveras County
Colusa County
Del Norte County
El Dorado
Fresno County
Glenn County
Imperial County
Inyo County
Kern County
Kings County
Lake County
Lassen County
Los Angeles County (I kid you not, 53.9% said Yes on 8)
Madera County
Mariposa County
Merced County
Modoc County
Nevada County
Orange County
Placer County
Plumas County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Benito County
San Berndardino County
San Diego County
San Joaquin County
San Luis Obispo County
Shasta County
Sierra County
Siskiyou County
Solano County
Stanisloaus County
Sutter County
Tehama County
Trinity County
Tulare County
Tuolumne County
Ventura County
Yuba County


It looks like more counties said "Yes" than "No." If you start some kind of revolution, feel free to skip over the San Francisco Bay Area. We all voted "No."

[Manic]

Wow. This was a shocker. You'd think between San Francisco and LA, Prop 8 would've been incinerated. Since I was doing a county-by-county breakdown of prop results at the State Secretary website, I decided to jot down which counties were for and against what props-- including Prop 8. Gays, prepare to hate the following counties who all said "Yes"...

Amador County
Butte County
Calaveras County
Colusa County
Del Norte County
El Dorado
Fresno County
Glenn County
Imperial County
Inyo County
Kern County
Kings County
Lake County
Lassen County
Los Angeles County (I kid you not, 53.9% said Yes on 8)
Madera County
Mariposa County
Merced County
Modoc County
Nevada County
Orange County
Placer County
Plumas County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Benito County
San Berndardino County
San Diego County
San Joaquin County
San Luis Obispo County
Shasta County
Sierra County
Siskiyou County
Solano County
Stanisloaus County
Sutter County
Tehama County
Trinity County
Tulare County
Tuolumne County
Ventura County
Yuba County


It looks like more counties said "Yes" than "No." If you start some kind of revolution, feel free to skip over the San Francisco Bay Area. We all voted "No."

[Manic]

Wow. This was a shocker. You'd think between San Francisco and LA, Prop 8 would've been incinerated. Since I was doing a county-by-county breakdown of prop results at the State Secretary website, I decided to jot down which counties were for and against what props-- including Prop 8. Gays, prepare to hate the following counties who all said "Yes"...

Amador County
Butte County
Calaveras County
Colusa County
Del Norte County
El Dorado
Fresno County
Glenn County
Imperial County
Inyo County
Kern County
Kings County
Lake County
Lassen County
Los Angeles County (I kid you not, 53.9% said Yes on 8)
Madera County
Mariposa County
Merced County
Modoc County
Nevada County
Orange County
Placer County
Plumas County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Benito County
San Berndardino County
San Diego County
San Joaquin County
San Luis Obispo County
Shasta County
Sierra County
Siskiyou County
Solano County
Stanisloaus County
Sutter County
Tehama County
Trinity County
Tulare County
Tuolumne County
Ventura County
Yuba County


It looks like more counties said "Yes" than "No." If you start some kind of revolution, feel free to skip over the San Francisco Bay Area. We all voted "No."

[Raiden]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.

As a Californian, I'm very embarrassed by this backward-thinking by voters' support of Prop 8. It shows that even though we are progressive as a state by far, we still have a long way to go.

[Raiden]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.

As a Californian, I'm very embarrassed by this backward-thinking by voters' support of Prop 8. It shows that even though we are progressive as a state by far, we still have a long way to go.

[Raiden]

While I'm so happy that Obama won. I'm deeply depressed that 3 states are so dead set against gays marrying. It's not something I myself want to do, but it'd be nice for those who want that right.

Just ridic that all three states, especially California, one of the most liberal and democratic states passed the ban.

As a Californian, I'm very embarrassed by this backward-thinking by voters' support of Prop 8. It shows that even though we are progressive as a state by far, we still have a long way to go.

[spideyboy_1111]

i'm so incredibly shocked at the difference between LA and San frans numbers... its crazy

[spideyboy_1111]

i'm so incredibly shocked at the difference between LA and San frans numbers... its crazy

[spideyboy_1111]

i'm so incredibly shocked at the difference between LA and San frans numbers... its crazy

[Manic]

And this is why the X-Men didn't move to LA.


No, seriously, I'm shocked too.

[Manic]

And this is why the X-Men didn't move to LA.


No, seriously, I'm shocked too.

[Manic]

And this is why the X-Men didn't move to LA.


No, seriously, I'm shocked too.

[Poetic Chaos]

I'll probably BART it to SF tomorrow just to checkout the outrage. Get your president, lose your rights. Sweet drama.

[Poetic Chaos]

I'll probably BART it to SF tomorrow just to checkout the outrage. Get your president, lose your rights. Sweet drama.

[Poetic Chaos]

I'll probably BART it to SF tomorrow just to checkout the outrage. Get your president, lose your rights. Sweet drama.

[Anita18]

Wow. This was a shocker. You'd think between San Francisco and LA, Prop 8 would've been incinerated. Since I was doing a county-by-county breakdown of prop results at the State Secretary website, I decided to jot down which counties were for and against what props-- including Prop 8. Gays, prepare to hate the following counties who all said "Yes"...

It looks like more counties said "Yes" than "No." If you start some kind of revolution, feel free to skip over the San Francisco Bay Area. We all voted "No."
I'm surprised it passed in LA too. Everyone I know voted no on it.

And the difference is made even more clear when you see it on a map:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd87/sugarfiend06/prop8map.jpg

[Anita18]

Wow. This was a shocker. You'd think between San Francisco and LA, Prop 8 would've been incinerated. Since I was doing a county-by-county breakdown of prop results at the State Secretary website, I decided to jot down which counties were for and against what props-- including Prop 8. Gays, prepare to hate the following counties who all said "Yes"...

It looks like more counties said "Yes" than "No." If you start some kind of revolution, feel free to skip over the San Francisco Bay Area. We all voted "No."
I'm surprised it passed in LA too. Everyone I know voted no on it.

And the difference is made even more clear when you see it on a map:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd87/sugarfiend06/prop8map.jpg

[Anita18]

Wow. This was a shocker. You'd think between San Francisco and LA, Prop 8 would've been incinerated. Since I was doing a county-by-county breakdown of prop results at the State Secretary website, I decided to jot down which counties were for and against what props-- including Prop 8. Gays, prepare to hate the following counties who all said "Yes"...

It looks like more counties said "Yes" than "No." If you start some kind of revolution, feel free to skip over the San Francisco Bay Area. We all voted "No."
I'm surprised it passed in LA too. Everyone I know voted no on it.

And the difference is made even more clear when you see it on a map:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd87/sugarfiend06/prop8map.jpg

[Manic]

It really does hammer home the idea that most parts of California don't think like the more popular regions. Although I still don't know what was up with LA.

[Manic]

It really does hammer home the idea that most parts of California don't think like the more popular regions. Although I still don't know what was up with LA.

[Manic]

It really does hammer home the idea that most parts of California don't think like the more popular regions. Although I still don't know what was up with LA.

[spideyboy_1111]

part of me likes to think people just simply got confused... i knew a few people who weren't following the proposition, and were asking which meant what.... because at first thought you think "yes" means to allow gay marriage. When it means No due to the prop being the amendment. So i'm really hoping that that is not what happened.

[spideyboy_1111]

part of me likes to think people just simply got confused... i knew a few people who weren't following the proposition, and were asking which meant what.... because at first thought you think "yes" means to allow gay marriage. When it means No due to the prop being the amendment. So i'm really hoping that that is not what happened.

[spideyboy_1111]

part of me likes to think people just simply got confused... i knew a few people who weren't following the proposition, and were asking which meant what.... because at first thought you think "yes" means to allow gay marriage. When it means No due to the prop being the amendment. So i'm really hoping that that is not what happened.

[spideyboy_1111]

It really does hammer home the idea that most parts of California don't think like the more popular regions. Although I still don't know what was up with LA.

studies are showing the voter turnout was a double edged sword. The black community came out in droves (Which usually has a low voter turn out) and alot of blacks are very religious and also tend to not be so gay friendly compared to other races. LA has a pretty significantly larger black community than San Fran does...

[spideyboy_1111]

It really does hammer home the idea that most parts of California don't think like the more popular regions. Although I still don't know what was up with LA.

studies are showing the voter turnout was a double edged sword. The black community came out in droves (Which usually has a low voter turn out) and alot of blacks are very religious and also tend to not be so gay friendly compared to other races. LA has a pretty significantly larger black community than San Fran does...

[spideyboy_1111]

It really does hammer home the idea that most parts of California don't think like the more popular regions. Although I still don't know what was up with LA.

studies are showing the voter turnout was a double edged sword. The black community came out in droves (Which usually has a low voter turn out) and alot of blacks are very religious and also tend to not be so gay friendly compared to other races. LA has a pretty significantly larger black community than San Fran does...

[Anita18]

It really does hammer home the idea that most parts of California don't think like the more popular regions. Although I still don't know what was up with LA.
LA County is REALLY big, and includes some more rural/conservative areas than just Hollywood.

Still surprised, though.

[Anita18]

It really does hammer home the idea that most parts of California don't think like the more popular regions. Although I still don't know what was up with LA.
LA County is REALLY big, and includes some more rural/conservative areas than just Hollywood.

Still surprised, though.

[Anita18]

It really does hammer home the idea that most parts of California don't think like the more popular regions. Although I still don't know what was up with LA.
LA County is REALLY big, and includes some more rural/conservative areas than just Hollywood.

Still surprised, though.

[Manic]

LA County is REALLY big, and includes some more rural/conservative areas than just Hollywood.

Still surprised, though.
You know, I always assumed LA was a deceptively small county because I never knew when I was in LA or Orange whenever I went down there. I went to Disneyland 3 times before I realized it wasn't in LA.

[Manic]

LA County is REALLY big, and includes some more rural/conservative areas than just Hollywood.

Still surprised, though.
You know, I always assumed LA was a deceptively small county because I never knew when I was in LA or Orange whenever I went down there. I went to Disneyland 3 times before I realized it wasn't in LA.

[Manic]

LA County is REALLY big, and includes some more rural/conservative areas than just Hollywood.

Still surprised, though.
You know, I always assumed LA was a deceptively small county because I never knew when I was in LA or Orange whenever I went down there. I went to Disneyland 3 times before I realized it wasn't in LA.

[spideyboy_1111]

You know, I always assumed LA was a deceptively small county because I never knew when I was in LA or Orange whenever I went down there. I went to Disneyland 3 times before I realized it wasn't in LA.

LA county, it's pretty big, and oddly shaped
http://www.laalmanac.com/images/map_unincorporated.gif

[spideyboy_1111]

You know, I always assumed LA was a deceptively small county because I never knew when I was in LA or Orange whenever I went down there. I went to Disneyland 3 times before I realized it wasn't in LA.

LA county, it's pretty big, and oddly shaped
http://www.laalmanac.com/images/map_unincorporated.gif

[spideyboy_1111]

You know, I always assumed LA was a deceptively small county because I never knew when I was in LA or Orange whenever I went down there. I went to Disneyland 3 times before I realized it wasn't in LA.

LA county, it's pretty big, and oddly shaped
http://www.laalmanac.com/images/map_unincorporated.gif

[percoset]

I'm embarrassed that my state(Arkansas) feels the need to prevent children being adopted into caring families.

[percoset]

I'm embarrassed that my state(Arkansas) feels the need to prevent children being adopted into caring families.

[percoset]

I'm embarrassed that my state(Arkansas) feels the need to prevent children being adopted into caring families.

[spideyboy_1111]

^yeah that one is friggin messed up

[spideyboy_1111]

^yeah that one is friggin messed up

[spideyboy_1111]

^yeah that one is friggin messed up

[Manic]

studies are showing the voter turnout was a double edged sword. The black community came out in droves (Which usually has a low voter turn out) and alot of blacks are very religious and also tend to not be so gay friendly compared to other races. LA has a pretty significantly larger black community than San Fran does...
I don't know if the black community has as much to do with it. We have a fairly large black community here in Alameda County. Berkeley (outside of the college area, it's 90% hood), Oakland, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Hayward (so hood, its state college changed its name from Cal State Hayward to Cal State East Bay so it would sound less unappealing). Plenty of black people, "No" vote on 8.

[Manic]

studies are showing the voter turnout was a double edged sword. The black community came out in droves (Which usually has a low voter turn out) and alot of blacks are very religious and also tend to not be so gay friendly compared to other races. LA has a pretty significantly larger black community than San Fran does...
I don't know if the black community has as much to do with it. We have a fairly large black community here in Alameda County. Berkeley (outside of the college area, it's 90% hood), Oakland, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Hayward (so hood, its state college changed its name from Cal State Hayward to Cal State East Bay so it would sound less unappealing). Plenty of black people, "No" vote on 8.

[Manic]

studies are showing the voter turnout was a double edged sword. The black community came out in droves (Which usually has a low voter turn out) and alot of blacks are very religious and also tend to not be so gay friendly compared to other races. LA has a pretty significantly larger black community than San Fran does...
I don't know if the black community has as much to do with it. We have a fairly large black community here in Alameda County. Berkeley (outside of the college area, it's 90% hood), Oakland, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Hayward (so hood, its state college changed its name from Cal State Hayward to Cal State East Bay so it would sound less unappealing). Plenty of black people, "No" vote on 8.

[Anita18]

You know, I always assumed LA was a deceptively small county because I never knew when I was in LA or Orange whenever I went down there. I went to Disneyland 3 times before I realized it wasn't in LA.
That's cause the city-ish part is near the bottom of the county line, as spideyboy_1111's link shows. It takes me about 1.5 hours to drive to Gorman, which is near the northern county line, and I'm coming from the 210/605 intersection.

[Anita18]

You know, I always assumed LA was a deceptively small county because I never knew when I was in LA or Orange whenever I went down there. I went to Disneyland 3 times before I realized it wasn't in LA.
That's cause the city-ish part is near the bottom of the county line, as spideyboy_1111's link shows. It takes me about 1.5 hours to drive to Gorman, which is near the northern county line, and I'm coming from the 210/605 intersection.

[Anita18]

You know, I always assumed LA was a deceptively small county because I never knew when I was in LA or Orange whenever I went down there. I went to Disneyland 3 times before I realized it wasn't in LA.
That's cause the city-ish part is near the bottom of the county line, as spideyboy_1111's link shows. It takes me about 1.5 hours to drive to Gorman, which is near the northern county line, and I'm coming from the 210/605 intersection.

[Anita18]

As the last precincts are being counted, the "no" vote is creeping up in LA....not sure if it'll be enough for the 300,000 needed to overtake the lead the "yes" vote already has though.

[Anita18]

As the last precincts are being counted, the "no" vote is creeping up in LA....not sure if it'll be enough for the 300,000 needed to overtake the lead the "yes" vote already has though.

[Anita18]

As the last precincts are being counted, the "no" vote is creeping up in LA....not sure if it'll be enough for the 300,000 needed to overtake the lead the "yes" vote already has though.

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't know if the black community has as much to do with it. We have a fairly large black community here in Alameda County. Berkeley (outside of the college area, it's 90% hood), Oakland, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Hayward (so hood, its state college changed its name from Cal State Hayward to Cal State East Bay so it would sound less unappealing). Plenty of black people, "No" vote on 8.

hey im just saying what the local news said tonight...

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't know if the black community has as much to do with it. We have a fairly large black community here in Alameda County. Berkeley (outside of the college area, it's 90% hood), Oakland, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Hayward (so hood, its state college changed its name from Cal State Hayward to Cal State East Bay so it would sound less unappealing). Plenty of black people, "No" vote on 8.

hey im just saying what the local news said tonight...

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't know if the black community has as much to do with it. We have a fairly large black community here in Alameda County. Berkeley (outside of the college area, it's 90% hood), Oakland, Emeryville, San Leandro, and Hayward (so hood, its state college changed its name from Cal State Hayward to Cal State East Bay so it would sound less unappealing). Plenty of black people, "No" vote on 8.

hey im just saying what the local news said tonight...

[spideyboy_1111]

That's cause the city-ish part is near the bottom of the county line, as spideyboy_1111's link shows. It takes me about 1.5 hours to drive to Gorman, which is near the northern county line, and I'm coming from the 210/605 intersection.

yeah and i've noticed genuinely, the areas with less population (throughout the US) typically have the most conservative... very interesting.

[spideyboy_1111]

That's cause the city-ish part is near the bottom of the county line, as spideyboy_1111's link shows. It takes me about 1.5 hours to drive to Gorman, which is near the northern county line, and I'm coming from the 210/605 intersection.

yeah and i've noticed genuinely, the areas with less population (throughout the US) typically have the most conservative... very interesting.

[spideyboy_1111]

That's cause the city-ish part is near the bottom of the county line, as spideyboy_1111's link shows. It takes me about 1.5 hours to drive to Gorman, which is near the northern county line, and I'm coming from the 210/605 intersection.

yeah and i've noticed genuinely, the areas with less population (throughout the US) typically have the most conservative... very interesting.

[Schlosser85]

So does this mean the marriages already performed are void?

[Schlosser85]

So does this mean the marriages already performed are void?

[Schlosser85]

So does this mean the marriages already performed are void?

[spideyboy_1111]

So does this mean the marriages already performed are void?

it will go to court first, and if the cali courts decide to follow through with it, then yeah :(

[spideyboy_1111]

So does this mean the marriages already performed are void?

it will go to court first, and if the cali courts decide to follow through with it, then yeah :(

[spideyboy_1111]

So does this mean the marriages already performed are void?

it will go to court first, and if the cali courts decide to follow through with it, then yeah :(

[Schlosser85]

Damn...at the very least, these bastards shouldn't be able to touch marriages already performed.

These people have waited all their lives to be able to marry, and then a few months after seeing it achieved, someone is gonna come along and say "oh, no, you're not married".

[Schlosser85]

Damn...at the very least, these bastards shouldn't be able to touch marriages already performed.

These people have waited all their lives to be able to marry, and then a few months after seeing it achieved, someone is gonna come along and say "oh, no, you're not married".

[Schlosser85]

Damn...at the very least, these bastards shouldn't be able to touch marriages already performed.

These people have waited all their lives to be able to marry, and then a few months after seeing it achieved, someone is gonna come along and say "oh, no, you're not married".

[Poetic Chaos]

I don't think the marriages done before the election can be voided by this. Otherwise there wouldn't have been so many people getting married just to beat the deadline.

[Poetic Chaos]

I don't think the marriages done before the election can be voided by this. Otherwise there wouldn't have been so many people getting married just to beat the deadline.

[Poetic Chaos]

I don't think the marriages done before the election can be voided by this. Otherwise there wouldn't have been so many people getting married just to beat the deadline.

[Bathead]

I don't pretend to understand the law regarding this sort of thing, so I'm asking, can these bans be declared unconsitutional? Or does this not apply?

[Bathead]

I don't pretend to understand the law regarding this sort of thing, so I'm asking, can these bans be declared unconsitutional? Or does this not apply?

[Bathead]

I don't pretend to understand the law regarding this sort of thing, so I'm asking, can these bans be declared unconsitutional? Or does this not apply?

[The Senator]

And people wonder why I have more than a few gripes against the Mormon church. It strikes me as odd that an organization which was long known for its own sexually-deviant behavior would pump millions upon millions of dollars into California over this. Never in my life have I seen such homophobic, downright appalling ads against homosexuality; and never in my life have I been more angry at a religious organization for its vicious, hate-filled agenda.

But never mind that. I have this funny feeling gay marriage may see federal action within the next few years... so these propositions won't matter in the great scheme of things...

[The Senator]

And people wonder why I have more than a few gripes against the Mormon church. It strikes me as odd that an organization which was long known for its own sexually-deviant behavior would pump millions upon millions of dollars into California over this. Never in my life have I seen such homophobic, downright appalling ads against homosexuality; and never in my life have I been more angry at a religious organization for its vicious, hate-filled agenda.

But never mind that. I have this funny feeling gay marriage may see federal action within the next few years... so these propositions won't matter in the great scheme of things...

[The Senator]

And people wonder why I have more than a few gripes against the Mormon church. It strikes me as odd that an organization which was long known for its own sexually-deviant behavior would pump millions upon millions of dollars into California over this. Never in my life have I seen such homophobic, downright appalling ads against homosexuality; and never in my life have I been more angry at a religious organization for its vicious, hate-filled agenda.

But never mind that. I have this funny feeling gay marriage may see federal action within the next few years... so these propositions won't matter in the great scheme of things...

[Marx]

So I see that Prop 8 still hasn't been called. The results thus far are incredibly disappointing.

[Marx]

So I see that Prop 8 still hasn't been called. The results thus far are incredibly disappointing.

[Marx]

So I see that Prop 8 still hasn't been called. The results thus far are incredibly disappointing.

[Malice]

So I see that Prop 8 still hasn't been called. The results thus far are incredibly disappointing.

Its still undecided at this time?

[Malice]

So I see that Prop 8 still hasn't been called. The results thus far are incredibly disappointing.

Its still undecided at this time?

[Malice]

So I see that Prop 8 still hasn't been called. The results thus far are incredibly disappointing.

Its still undecided at this time?

[Paradoxium]

Not trying to make light of the situation but the divorce rate in Cali is 80%. Marriage in Cali = financial suicide for guys.

[Paradoxium]

Not trying to make light of the situation but the divorce rate in Cali is 80%. Marriage in Cali = financial suicide for guys.

[Paradoxium]

Not trying to make light of the situation but the divorce rate in Cali is 80%. Marriage in Cali = financial suicide for guys.

[The Senator]

Not trying to make light of the situation but the divorce rate in Cali is 80%. Marriage in Cali = financial suicide for guys.

NONE OF US CARE.

The issue isn't finances. It's being able to marry the person we love. And obviously, the backwards psycho-Christians came out in full force yesterday to prevent us from achieving that ability.

[The Senator]

Not trying to make light of the situation but the divorce rate in Cali is 80%. Marriage in Cali = financial suicide for guys.

NONE OF US CARE.

The issue isn't finances. It's being able to marry the person we love. And obviously, the backwards psycho-Christians came out in full force yesterday to prevent us from achieving that ability.

[The Senator]

Not trying to make light of the situation but the divorce rate in Cali is 80%. Marriage in Cali = financial suicide for guys.

NONE OF US CARE.

The issue isn't finances. It's being able to marry the person we love. And obviously, the backwards psycho-Christians came out in full force yesterday to prevent us from achieving that ability.

[Tanin]

Gah California sucks. I'm glad to be in Virginia ^_^

[Tanin]

Gah California sucks. I'm glad to be in Virginia ^_^

[Tanin]

Gah California sucks. I'm glad to be in Virginia ^_^

[Paradoxium]

Ignoring finances and divorces.

Since when does marrying someone necessary in proving your love? Gay or straight for that matter.

[Paradoxium]

Ignoring finances and divorces.

Since when does marrying someone necessary in proving your love? Gay or straight for that matter.

[Paradoxium]

Ignoring finances and divorces.

Since when does marrying someone necessary in proving your love? Gay or straight for that matter.

[The Lizard]

Sometimes I wonder if Hollywood celebrities aggressively supporting a cause can actually create more damage than success. Since celebrities are generally considered a bunch of fickle, coddled, pretentious nitwits, their support in itself seems to cause backlash at times.

[The Lizard]

Sometimes I wonder if Hollywood celebrities aggressively supporting a cause can actually create more damage than success. Since celebrities are generally considered a bunch of fickle, coddled, pretentious nitwits, their support in itself seems to cause backlash at times.

[The Lizard]

Sometimes I wonder if Hollywood celebrities aggressively supporting a cause can actually create more damage than success. Since celebrities are generally considered a bunch of fickle, coddled, pretentious nitwits, their support in itself seems to cause backlash at times.

[cerealkiller182]

Ignoring finances and divorces.

Since when does marrying someone necessary in proving your love? Gay or straight for that matter.

Marriage is in theory the highest symbol of a couple's love and the groundwork work for a family as far as many Americans are concerned, the same Americans who are probably trying to keep gay marriage down. Plus its completely unconstitutional to say all people are created equal but only allowing certain people to participate in this form of union.

[cerealkiller182]

Ignoring finances and divorces.

Since when does marrying someone necessary in proving your love? Gay or straight for that matter.

Marriage is in theory the highest symbol of a couple's love and the groundwork work for a family as far as many Americans are concerned, the same Americans who are probably trying to keep gay marriage down. Plus its completely unconstitutional to say all people are created equal but only allowing certain people to participate in this form of union.

[cerealkiller182]

Ignoring finances and divorces.

Since when does marrying someone necessary in proving your love? Gay or straight for that matter.

Marriage is in theory the highest symbol of a couple's love and the groundwork work for a family as far as many Americans are concerned, the same Americans who are probably trying to keep gay marriage down. Plus its completely unconstitutional to say all people are created equal but only allowing certain people to participate in this form of union.

[Paradoxium]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

[Paradoxium]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

[Paradoxium]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

[cerealkiller182]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

Theres a need for equality. Whenever you say that an American citizen cannot do something because of the way they are thats discrimination and unconstitutional. Theres also a want, and I dont think they are asking for much.

[cerealkiller182]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

Theres a need for equality. Whenever you say that an American citizen cannot do something because of the way they are thats discrimination and unconstitutional. Theres also a want, and I dont think they are asking for much.

[cerealkiller182]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

Theres a need for equality. Whenever you say that an American citizen cannot do something because of the way they are thats discrimination and unconstitutional. Theres also a want, and I dont think they are asking for much.

[Schlosser85]

And people wonder why I have more than a few gripes against the Mormon church. It strikes me as odd that an organization which was long known for its own sexually-deviant behavior would pump millions upon millions of dollars into California over this. Never in my life have I seen such homophobic, downright appalling ads against homosexuality; and never in my life have I been more angry at a religious organization for its vicious, hate-filled agenda.

But never mind that. I have this funny feeling gay marriage may see federal action within the next few years... so these propositions won't matter in the great scheme of things...


There is no reason for this other than simple blatant bigotry, and there is nothing "sacred" or "Christian" about it.

What we are seeing is the last, flailing, desperate brays of people and groups of people who do not yet realize (or refuse to accept) that their era has passed them by. A few setbacks here and there does not change the fact that gay marriage will eventually be legalized everywhere.

Time is on our side, not the homophobes. The future is ours, not theirs. Unless they want to slip even further into complete irrelevance, they might start getting used to that.

[Schlosser85]

And people wonder why I have more than a few gripes against the Mormon church. It strikes me as odd that an organization which was long known for its own sexually-deviant behavior would pump millions upon millions of dollars into California over this. Never in my life have I seen such homophobic, downright appalling ads against homosexuality; and never in my life have I been more angry at a religious organization for its vicious, hate-filled agenda.

But never mind that. I have this funny feeling gay marriage may see federal action within the next few years... so these propositions won't matter in the great scheme of things...


There is no reason for this other than simple blatant bigotry, and there is nothing "sacred" or "Christian" about it.

What we are seeing is the last, flailing, desperate brays of people and groups of people who do not yet realize (or refuse to accept) that their era has passed them by. A few setbacks here and there does not change the fact that gay marriage will eventually be legalized everywhere.

Time is on our side, not the homophobes. The future is ours, not theirs. Unless they want to slip even further into complete irrelevance, they might start getting used to that.

[Schlosser85]

And people wonder why I have more than a few gripes against the Mormon church. It strikes me as odd that an organization which was long known for its own sexually-deviant behavior would pump millions upon millions of dollars into California over this. Never in my life have I seen such homophobic, downright appalling ads against homosexuality; and never in my life have I been more angry at a religious organization for its vicious, hate-filled agenda.

But never mind that. I have this funny feeling gay marriage may see federal action within the next few years... so these propositions won't matter in the great scheme of things...


There is no reason for this other than simple blatant bigotry, and there is nothing "sacred" or "Christian" about it.

What we are seeing is the last, flailing, desperate brays of people and groups of people who do not yet realize (or refuse to accept) that their era has passed them by. A few setbacks here and there does not change the fact that gay marriage will eventually be legalized everywhere.

Time is on our side, not the homophobes. The future is ours, not theirs. Unless they want to slip even further into complete irrelevance, they might start getting used to that.

[Marx]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

Marriage has rights that civil unions do not. Plain and simple.

[Marx]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

Marriage has rights that civil unions do not. Plain and simple.

[Marx]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

Marriage has rights that civil unions do not. Plain and simple.

[UltimateJustin]

I think alot of people don't even stop to think about their fellow man, neighbors and co-workers anymore. So they just don't understand why gays want the right to marry. They just see themselves as normal and gays as creatures or hordes. But I try to think otherwise. Even beyond marriage, a gay person is going to be shown in subtle, passing ways several times a day that they are not considered normal or appropriate by the public. For instance, how many times do you hear someone say "that's gay" when they really mean that something is retarded? When I'm around me nieces, I hear my grandparents ask them things like "oh, aren't you just so pretty, do you have a little BOYFRIEND at school?" Um, hello? Thanks for trying to force a child into the particular sexual identity you want it to embrace, but that's NOT how it works.

[UltimateJustin]

I think alot of people don't even stop to think about their fellow man, neighbors and co-workers anymore. So they just don't understand why gays want the right to marry. They just see themselves as normal and gays as creatures or hordes. But I try to think otherwise. Even beyond marriage, a gay person is going to be shown in subtle, passing ways several times a day that they are not considered normal or appropriate by the public. For instance, how many times do you hear someone say "that's gay" when they really mean that something is retarded? When I'm around me nieces, I hear my grandparents ask them things like "oh, aren't you just so pretty, do you have a little BOYFRIEND at school?" Um, hello? Thanks for trying to force a child into the particular sexual identity you want it to embrace, but that's NOT how it works.

[UltimateJustin]

I think alot of people don't even stop to think about their fellow man, neighbors and co-workers anymore. So they just don't understand why gays want the right to marry. They just see themselves as normal and gays as creatures or hordes. But I try to think otherwise. Even beyond marriage, a gay person is going to be shown in subtle, passing ways several times a day that they are not considered normal or appropriate by the public. For instance, how many times do you hear someone say "that's gay" when they really mean that something is retarded? When I'm around me nieces, I hear my grandparents ask them things like "oh, aren't you just so pretty, do you have a little BOYFRIEND at school?" Um, hello? Thanks for trying to force a child into the particular sexual identity you want it to embrace, but that's NOT how it works.

[Marx]

I think alot of people don't even stop to think about their fellow man, neighbors and co-workers anymore. So they just don't understand why gays want the right to marry. They just see themselves as normal and gays as creatures or hordes. But I try to think otherwise. Even beyond marriage, a gay person is going to be shown in subtle, passing ways several times a day that they are not considered normal or appropriate by the public. For instance, how many times do you hear someone say "that's gay" when they really mean that something is retarded? When I'm around me nieces, I hear my grandparents ask them things like "oh, aren't you just so pretty, do you have a little BOYFRIEND at school?" Um, hello? Thanks for trying to force a child into the particular sexual identity you want it to embrace, but that's NOT how it works.

I have several friends who use 'that's gay' as an insult...

[Marx]

I think alot of people don't even stop to think about their fellow man, neighbors and co-workers anymore. So they just don't understand why gays want the right to marry. They just see themselves as normal and gays as creatures or hordes. But I try to think otherwise. Even beyond marriage, a gay person is going to be shown in subtle, passing ways several times a day that they are not considered normal or appropriate by the public. For instance, how many times do you hear someone say "that's gay" when they really mean that something is retarded? When I'm around me nieces, I hear my grandparents ask them things like "oh, aren't you just so pretty, do you have a little BOYFRIEND at school?" Um, hello? Thanks for trying to force a child into the particular sexual identity you want it to embrace, but that's NOT how it works.

I have several friends who use 'that's gay' as an insult...

[Marx]

I think alot of people don't even stop to think about their fellow man, neighbors and co-workers anymore. So they just don't understand why gays want the right to marry. They just see themselves as normal and gays as creatures or hordes. But I try to think otherwise. Even beyond marriage, a gay person is going to be shown in subtle, passing ways several times a day that they are not considered normal or appropriate by the public. For instance, how many times do you hear someone say "that's gay" when they really mean that something is retarded? When I'm around me nieces, I hear my grandparents ask them things like "oh, aren't you just so pretty, do you have a little BOYFRIEND at school?" Um, hello? Thanks for trying to force a child into the particular sexual identity you want it to embrace, but that's NOT how it works.

I have several friends who use 'that's gay' as an insult...

[Marx]

So IF Prop 8 passes, will it be retro-active? I'm not all that familiar with the language of the proposition.

[Marx]

So IF Prop 8 passes, will it be retro-active? I'm not all that familiar with the language of the proposition.

[Marx]

So IF Prop 8 passes, will it be retro-active? I'm not all that familiar with the language of the proposition.

[The Senator]

Gah California sucks. I'm glad to be in Virginia ^_^

Virginia's constitution bans gay marriage as well :huh:

[The Senator]

Gah California sucks. I'm glad to be in Virginia ^_^

Virginia's constitution bans gay marriage as well :huh:

[The Senator]

Gah California sucks. I'm glad to be in Virginia ^_^

Virginia's constitution bans gay marriage as well :huh:

[chaseter]

So IF Prop 8 passes, will it be retro-active?
I don't think they can do that. Usually, once a new law passes, you are safe if you did things under the old law.

[chaseter]

So IF Prop 8 passes, will it be retro-active?
I don't think they can do that. Usually, once a new law passes, you are safe if you did things under the old law.

[chaseter]

So IF Prop 8 passes, will it be retro-active?
I don't think they can do that. Usually, once a new law passes, you are safe if you did things under the old law.

[UltimateJustin]

I have several friends who use 'that's gay' as an insult...
Well Hillary Duff says to them: Knock it off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2qtenJqVlg

And I kind of see why. It's basically a way of keep homosexuals from being taken seriously. If a lousy top is considered gay, then what does that say about gay people. It's saying they are both crap.

[UltimateJustin]

I have several friends who use 'that's gay' as an insult...
Well Hillary Duff says to them: Knock it off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2qtenJqVlg

And I kind of see why. It's basically a way of keep homosexuals from being taken seriously. If a lousy top is considered gay, then what does that say about gay people. It's saying they are both crap.

[UltimateJustin]

I have several friends who use 'that's gay' as an insult...
Well Hillary Duff says to them: Knock it off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2qtenJqVlg

And I kind of see why. It's basically a way of keep homosexuals from being taken seriously. If a lousy top is considered gay, then what does that say about gay people. It's saying they are both crap.

[Franklin Richards]

Sorry about Prop 8 guys. But I'm sure it will be kicked when it goes to the Supreme Court.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

Sorry about Prop 8 guys. But I'm sure it will be kicked when it goes to the Supreme Court.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

Sorry about Prop 8 guys. But I'm sure it will be kicked when it goes to the Supreme Court.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[The Senator]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

Oh, sweet chocolate Christ on a cracker, put the economic ramifications of marriage aside for one moment and think about this emotionally for a second. This isn't about proving anything to anyone. This isn't about being financially secure, or financial benefits. This is about having the RIGHT to express my love for my partner the way I WANT to, without the government coming in and telling me that I am not allowed to do so. This is about the sanctity of marriage, the symbolic union of two people who are in love with one another under the holiest bond known to man.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but we're not all living calculators like you are. I don't go to bed with my boyfriend every night and say, "gee, it would be so nice if I could have access to your life insurance someday," or "you know, we should get married, so if we break up, I can get some of that money you have in the bank." It is about being able to raise a family, to grow old together, under the bond of marriage. It is the highest representation of love you can show for each other, to take the sacred vow of marriage. This isn't about how much money I can milk from my boyfriend, and for you to insinuate such deeply offends me. And don't respond saying that you "guarantee" most other gay couples think that way, because if you want a challenge, I could find HUNDREDS of same-sex individuals right here in DC who will say differently.

Marriage isn't about charts and graphs, bank accounts and benefits. Plain and simple.

[The Senator]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

Oh, sweet chocolate Christ on a cracker, put the economic ramifications of marriage aside for one moment and think about this emotionally for a second. This isn't about proving anything to anyone. This isn't about being financially secure, or financial benefits. This is about having the RIGHT to express my love for my partner the way I WANT to, without the government coming in and telling me that I am not allowed to do so. This is about the sanctity of marriage, the symbolic union of two people who are in love with one another under the holiest bond known to man.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but we're not all living calculators like you are. I don't go to bed with my boyfriend every night and say, "gee, it would be so nice if I could have access to your life insurance someday," or "you know, we should get married, so if we break up, I can get some of that money you have in the bank." It is about being able to raise a family, to grow old together, under the bond of marriage. It is the highest representation of love you can show for each other, to take the sacred vow of marriage. This isn't about how much money I can milk from my boyfriend, and for you to insinuate such deeply offends me. And don't respond saying that you "guarantee" most other gay couples think that way, because if you want a challenge, I could find HUNDREDS of same-sex individuals right here in DC who will say differently.

Marriage isn't about charts and graphs, bank accounts and benefits. Plain and simple.

[The Senator]

I think it is ******** normative semantics.

If you love someone, you don't need to conduct a marriage to prove it. Why the hell do you need to prove this to anyone? You love someone and someone loves you, it just is. Gay or straight. You can call it marriage or not a marriage in your minds, but it doesn't matter. Why is there a need to legalize love? This is the same as legalizing friendships. If anything, gay people proven this idea beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Now if its the legal and financial perks and so forth, I understand completely. But Jmanspice said NO ONE CARES ABOUT FINANCES. If there is no legal and financial perks I guarantee you, the marriage rate of gays and straights will be lower.

Oh, sweet chocolate Christ on a cracker, put the economic ramifications of marriage aside for one moment and think about this emotionally for a second. This isn't about proving anything to anyone. This isn't about being financially secure, or financial benefits. This is about having the RIGHT to express my love for my partner the way I WANT to, without the government coming in and telling me that I am not allowed to do so. This is about the sanctity of marriage, the symbolic union of two people who are in love with one another under the holiest bond known to man.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but we're not all living calculators like you are. I don't go to bed with my boyfriend every night and say, "gee, it would be so nice if I could have access to your life insurance someday," or "you know, we should get married, so if we break up, I can get some of that money you have in the bank." It is about being able to raise a family, to grow old together, under the bond of marriage. It is the highest representation of love you can show for each other, to take the sacred vow of marriage. This isn't about how much money I can milk from my boyfriend, and for you to insinuate such deeply offends me. And don't respond saying that you "guarantee" most other gay couples think that way, because if you want a challenge, I could find HUNDREDS of same-sex individuals right here in DC who will say differently.

Marriage isn't about charts and graphs, bank accounts and benefits. Plain and simple.

[Anita18]

The issue isn't finances. It's being able to marry the person we love. And obviously, the backwards psycho-Christians came out in full force yesterday to prevent us from achieving that ability.
Well, if it convinces some of the conservative folk that more marriages would be a good thing for the state, I'm all for bringing it up. :oldrazz: Weddings are expensive, and I'll bet that if gay marriage were allowed, the state's economy would be boosted by the extra sales tax revenue. The divorce lawyers probably wouldn't complain either. :oldrazz: But that's just me thinking reasonably again. The real issue is what cerealkiller182 mentioned:

Theres a need for equality. Whenever you say that an American citizen cannot do something because of the way they are thats discrimination and unconstitutional. Theres also a want, and I dont think they are asking for much.
Exactly. You cannot say to an American, "By law, you can do this" and turn around to say to another American, "Sorry, but by law, you can't." That is unconstitutional. Sanctioning discrimination by law is the most shameful, un-American thing there is, and I'm glad we have seen the light in terms of race back in the 60s and 70s, but this is our new fight. I can't comprehend why seeing the fact that this kind of discrimination is un-American is so difficult for these conservative people who voted to pass it.

Either do away with marriage as a legally-sanctioned entity entirely (everyone have civil unions instead) or allow it for everybody.

I have several friends who use 'that's gay' as an insult...
The ironic thing is my sister used to use that phrase back in HS, and she's one of the most pro-gay people out there, attending "No on Prop 8" rallies and such. She stopped using it, though. I suppose she wised up and realized how stupid it was. :oldrazz:

[Anita18]

The issue isn't finances. It's being able to marry the person we love. And obviously, the backwards psycho-Christians came out in full force yesterday to prevent us from achieving that ability.
Well, if it convinces some of the conservative folk that more marriages would be a good thing for the state, I'm all for bringing it up. :oldrazz: Weddings are expensive, and I'll bet that if gay marriage were allowed, the state's economy would be boosted by the extra sales tax revenue. The divorce lawyers probably wouldn't complain either. :oldrazz: But that's just me thinking reasonably again. The real issue is what cerealkiller182 mentioned:

Theres a need for equality. Whenever you say that an American citizen cannot do something because of the way they are thats discrimination and unconstitutional. Theres also a want, and I dont think they are asking for much.
Exactly. You cannot say to an American, "By law, you can do this" and turn around to say to another American, "Sorry, but by law, you can't." That is unconstitutional. Sanctioning discrimination by law is the most shameful, un-American thing there is, and I'm glad we have seen the light in terms of race back in the 60s and 70s, but this is our new fight. I can't comprehend why seeing the fact that this kind of discrimination is un-American is so difficult for these conservative people who voted to pass it.

Either do away with marriage as a legally-sanctioned entity entirely (everyone have civil unions instead) or allow it for everybody.

I have several friends who use 'that's gay' as an insult...
The ironic thing is my sister used to use that phrase back in HS, and she's one of the most pro-gay people out there, attending "No on Prop 8" rallies and such. She stopped using it, though. I suppose she wised up and realized how stupid it was. :oldrazz:

[Anita18]

The issue isn't finances. It's being able to marry the person we love. And obviously, the backwards psycho-Christians came out in full force yesterday to prevent us from achieving that ability.
Well, if it convinces some of the conservative folk that more marriages would be a good thing for the state, I'm all for bringing it up. :oldrazz: Weddings are expensive, and I'll bet that if gay marriage were allowed, the state's economy would be boosted by the extra sales tax revenue. The divorce lawyers probably wouldn't complain either. :oldrazz: But that's just me thinking reasonably again. The real issue is what cerealkiller182 mentioned:

Theres a need for equality. Whenever you say that an American citizen cannot do something because of the way they are thats discrimination and unconstitutional. Theres also a want, and I dont think they are asking for much.
Exactly. You cannot say to an American, "By law, you can do this" and turn around to say to another American, "Sorry, but by law, you can't." That is unconstitutional. Sanctioning discrimination by law is the most shameful, un-American thing there is, and I'm glad we have seen the light in terms of race back in the 60s and 70s, but this is our new fight. I can't comprehend why seeing the fact that this kind of discrimination is un-American is so difficult for these conservative people who voted to pass it.

Either do away with marriage as a legally-sanctioned entity entirely (everyone have civil unions instead) or allow it for everybody.

I have several friends who use 'that's gay' as an insult...
The ironic thing is my sister used to use that phrase back in HS, and she's one of the most pro-gay people out there, attending "No on Prop 8" rallies and such. She stopped using it, though. I suppose she wised up and realized how stupid it was. :oldrazz:

[Dr. Evil]

Ellen DeGeneres will rant on this on her talk show today.