Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Paradoxium]

How does this work?

Do we send away....

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


I dare say, there would be few people left......Old crippled anorexic minority transsexuals who are deaf, balding, and reads Fantastic Four comics drawn by Rob Liefield, who also happens to be lactose intolerant? :huh:

[BlackLantern]

im a pastry chef i'd totally do it

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

I'm talking doing some seriously extravagant stuff...like a gay couple that wants a Tiger to feast on a gazelle at the exact moment they kiss to consecrate their union.....

[BlackLantern]

im a pastry chef i'd totally do it

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

I'm talking doing some seriously extravagant stuff...like a gay couple that wants a Tiger to feast on a gazelle at the exact moment they kiss to consecrate their union.....

[BlackLantern]

im a pastry chef i'd totally do it

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

I'm talking doing some seriously extravagant stuff...like a gay couple that wants a Tiger to feast on a gazelle at the exact moment they kiss to consecrate their union.....

[Kelly]

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


So we can discriminate against posters named Thing2005 aka Carp Man???

[Kelly]

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


So we can discriminate against posters named Thing2005 aka Carp Man???

[Kelly]

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


So we can discriminate against posters named Thing2005 aka Carp Man???

[The Senator]

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

Leave FranklinRichards alone. :o

[The Senator]

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

Leave FranklinRichards alone. :o

[The Senator]

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

Leave FranklinRichards alone. :o

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[wiegeabo]

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

Can we at least ship away Rob Liefield?

[wiegeabo]

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

Can we at least ship away Rob Liefield?

[wiegeabo]

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

Can we at least ship away Rob Liefield?

[BlackLantern]

Can we at least ship away Rob Liefield?

...to Mars??

[BlackLantern]

Can we at least ship away Rob Liefield?

...to Mars??

[BlackLantern]

Can we at least ship away Rob Liefield?

...to Mars??

[Kelly]

Leave FranklinRichards alone. :o

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

[Kelly]

Leave FranklinRichards alone. :o

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

[Kelly]

Leave FranklinRichards alone. :o

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[The Senator]

Waahahaha top 10 greatest stunt ever at SHH :funny:

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

[The Senator]

Waahahaha top 10 greatest stunt ever at SHH :funny:

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

[The Senator]

Waahahaha top 10 greatest stunt ever at SHH :funny:

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

How does this work?

Do we send away....

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


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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

How does this work?

Do we send away....

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


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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

How does this work?

Do we send away....

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


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

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

[Hotwire]

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

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

[Hotwire]

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

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

[Hotwire]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[The Senator]

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

That makes me :csad:

[The Senator]

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

That makes me :csad:

[The Senator]

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

That makes me :csad:

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Franklin Richards]

Leave FranklinRichards alone.

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

Waahahaha top 10 greatest stunt ever at SHH

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

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

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


<bow>

I love you all.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

Leave FranklinRichards alone.

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

Waahahaha top 10 greatest stunt ever at SHH

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

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

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


<bow>

I love you all.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

Leave FranklinRichards alone.

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

Waahahaha top 10 greatest stunt ever at SHH

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

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

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


<bow>

I love you all.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Holiday]

Oh man that is great.

[Holiday]

Oh man that is great.

[Holiday]

Oh man that is great.

[spideyboy_1111]

Hey spideyboy_1111 can vouch for me! :csad:

tiz, your a bone-a-fide baby maker

[spideyboy_1111]

Hey spideyboy_1111 can vouch for me! :csad:

tiz, your a bone-a-fide baby maker

[spideyboy_1111]

Hey spideyboy_1111 can vouch for me! :csad:

tiz, your a bone-a-fide baby maker

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[Paradoxium]

Hey Spideyboy.

Meet Harisu

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


and...


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

[Paradoxium]

Hey Spideyboy.

Meet Harisu

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


and...


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

[Paradoxium]

Hey Spideyboy.

Meet Harisu

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


and...


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

[Ion Kenshin]

wow she is pretty

[Ion Kenshin]

wow she is pretty

[Ion Kenshin]

wow she is pretty

[The Lizard]

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



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

[The Lizard]

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



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

[The Lizard]

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



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

[Anita18]

Hey Spideyboy.

Meet Harisu

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

:dry:

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

[Anita18]

Hey Spideyboy.

Meet Harisu

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

:dry:

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

[Anita18]

Hey Spideyboy.

Meet Harisu

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

:dry:

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

[Paradoxium]

Are you saying I'm really a dude?

:dry:

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

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

[Paradoxium]

Are you saying I'm really a dude?

:dry:

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

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

[Paradoxium]

Are you saying I'm really a dude?

:dry:

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

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

[Anita18]

It's a camera angle dammit :cmad:

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

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

[Anita18]

It's a camera angle dammit :cmad:

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

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

[Anita18]

It's a camera angle dammit :cmad:

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

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

[Schlosser85]

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

[Schlosser85]

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

[Schlosser85]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

Pfft...you know you loved it, Dox

[BlackLantern]

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

Pfft...you know you loved it, Dox

[BlackLantern]

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

Pfft...you know you loved it, Dox

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

[Schlosser85]

Man-on-man action is hot, dude.



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

[Schlosser85]

Man-on-man action is hot, dude.



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

[Schlosser85]

Man-on-man action is hot, dude.



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

[Anita18]

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Ion Kenshin]

whats slash fiction?

[Ion Kenshin]

whats slash fiction?

[Ion Kenshin]

whats slash fiction?

[Marx]

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

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

Rick Sanchez gets on my nerves.

[Marx]

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

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

Rick Sanchez gets on my nerves.

[Marx]

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

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

Rick Sanchez gets on my nerves.

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Anita18]

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

[Moviefan2k4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with this picture? Lots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moviefan2k4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with this picture? Lots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Moviefan2k4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with this picture? Lots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[iDannyR]

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

[iDannyR]

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

[iDannyR]

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

[The Senator]

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

[The Senator]

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

[The Senator]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[Kelly]

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


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

[Kelly]

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


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

[Kelly]

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


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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

[Kelly]

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

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


I don't, never have really

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

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

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

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


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

[Kelly]

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

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


I don't, never have really

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

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

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

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


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

[Kelly]

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

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


I don't, never have really

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

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

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

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


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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

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

[BMM]

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

[BMM]

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

[BMM]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Excel]

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

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

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

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

:lmao:

Aye, ignorance.

:(

[Excel]

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

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

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

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

:lmao:

Aye, ignorance.

:(

[Excel]

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

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

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

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

:lmao:

Aye, ignorance.

:(

[The Senator]

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

[Addendum]

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

[Addendum]

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

[Addendum]

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

[Excel]

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

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

The threads 80 pages, to hell with that :o


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

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

[Excel]

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

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

The threads 80 pages, to hell with that :o


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

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

[Excel]

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

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

The threads 80 pages, to hell with that :o


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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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


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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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


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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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


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

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

[Excel]

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

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

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

[Excel]

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

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

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

[Excel]

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

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

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

[The Senator]

Jman, you are gay. I am not.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

[The Senator]

Jman, you are gay. I am not.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

[The Senator]

Jman, you are gay. I am not.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

[The Battousai]

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

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

[The Battousai]

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

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

[The Battousai]

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

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

[Kelly]

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

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


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

[Kelly]

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

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


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

[Kelly]

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

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


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

[Excel]

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

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

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

Aye, Jman..

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Excel]

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

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

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

Aye, Jman..

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Excel]

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

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

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

Aye, Jman..

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

It's only a matter of time.

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

It's only a matter of time.

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

It's only a matter of time.

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

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

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

[wiegeabo]

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

It's only a matter of time.

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

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

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


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

[wiegeabo]

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

It's only a matter of time.

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

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

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


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

[wiegeabo]

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

It's only a matter of time.

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

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

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


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