Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Anita18]

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 Our only hope is that it is repealed by a future amendment, or ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.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

[Anita18]

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 Our only hope is that it is repealed by a future amendment, or ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.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

[Anita18]

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 Our only hope is that it is repealed by a future amendment, or ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.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

[Excel]

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

It's only a matter of time.

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

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

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

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

[Excel]

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

It's only a matter of time.

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

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

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

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

[Excel]

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

It's only a matter of time.

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

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

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

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

[wiegeabo]

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

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

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


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

[wiegeabo]

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

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

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


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

[wiegeabo]

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

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

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


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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

YES. I DID.

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

YES. I DID.

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

YES. I DID.

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Excel]

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

ok, but that is not what I posted.

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

Aye, you really are upset about this

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

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

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

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

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

:bow:

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

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

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

im aware

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

hopefully that is the case.

[Excel]

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

ok, but that is not what I posted.

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

Aye, you really are upset about this

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

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

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

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

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

:bow:

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

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

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

im aware

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

hopefully that is the case.

[Excel]

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

ok, but that is not what I posted.

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

Aye, you really are upset about this

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

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

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

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

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

:bow:

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

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

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

im aware

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

hopefully that is the case.

[Excel]

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

Do you have to go the extreme on everything?

I SAID THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST.

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

[Excel]

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

Do you have to go the extreme on everything?

I SAID THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST.

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

[Excel]

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

Do you have to go the extreme on everything?

I SAID THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST.

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[wiegeabo]

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

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

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

[wiegeabo]

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

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

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

[wiegeabo]

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

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

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

[Oddzball]

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

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

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

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

[Oddzball]

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

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

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

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

[Oddzball]

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

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

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

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

[The Senator]

ok, but that is not what I posted.

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


Aye, you really are upset about this

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



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

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


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

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


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

EXCEL.

Seriously.

You need to start READING what I write.

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


im aware

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

[The Senator]

ok, but that is not what I posted.

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


Aye, you really are upset about this

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



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

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


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

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


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

EXCEL.

Seriously.

You need to start READING what I write.

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


im aware

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

[The Senator]

ok, but that is not what I posted.

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


Aye, you really are upset about this

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



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

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


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

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


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

EXCEL.

Seriously.

You need to start READING what I write.

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


im aware

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

[The Senator]

Do you have to go the extreme on everything?

I SAID THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST.

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

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

[The Senator]

Do you have to go the extreme on everything?

I SAID THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST.

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

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

[The Senator]

Do you have to go the extreme on everything?

I SAID THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST.

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

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

[Kelly]

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


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


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

[Kelly]

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


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


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

[Kelly]

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


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


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

[Excel]

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

:lmao:

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

Wage peace :up: :up:

[Excel]

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

:lmao:

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

Wage peace :up: :up:

[Excel]

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

:lmao:

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

Wage peace :up: :up:

[Excel]

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

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

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

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


EXCEL.

Seriously.

You need to start READING what I write.

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


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

[Excel]

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

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

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

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


EXCEL.

Seriously.

You need to start READING what I write.

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


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

[Excel]

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

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

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

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


EXCEL.

Seriously.

You need to start READING what I write.

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


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

[Hotwire]

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

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

[Hotwire]

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

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

[Hotwire]

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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



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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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



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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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



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

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

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

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

[Ion Kenshin]

who is this phelps brigade?

[Ion Kenshin]

who is this phelps brigade?

[Ion Kenshin]

who is this phelps brigade?

[Franklin Richards]

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[spideyboy_1111]

who is this phelps brigade?

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

[spideyboy_1111]

who is this phelps brigade?

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

[spideyboy_1111]

who is this phelps brigade?

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[CaptainClown]

I love the shirt that says

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

some things are black and white


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

[CaptainClown]

I love the shirt that says

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

some things are black and white


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

[CaptainClown]

I love the shirt that says

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

some things are black and white


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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

mama and daughers phelps on tyra

part 1
mEqlcxW8aS8

part 2
w43tiOZARLw

[spideyboy_1111]

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

mama and daughers phelps on tyra

part 1
mEqlcxW8aS8

part 2
w43tiOZARLw

[spideyboy_1111]

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

mama and daughers phelps on tyra

part 1
mEqlcxW8aS8

part 2
w43tiOZARLw

[Paradoxium]

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

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

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

[Paradoxium]

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

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

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

[Paradoxium]

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

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

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

[Hotwire]

mama and daughers phelps on tyra

part 1
mEqlcxW8aS8

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

[Hotwire]

mama and daughers phelps on tyra

part 1
mEqlcxW8aS8

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

[Hotwire]

mama and daughers phelps on tyra

part 1
mEqlcxW8aS8

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

haha thats hilarious

[spideyboy_1111]

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

haha thats hilarious

[spideyboy_1111]

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

haha thats hilarious

[spideyboy_1111]

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

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

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

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

[Hotwire]

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

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

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

[Hotwire]

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

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

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

[Hotwire]

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

Marriage no longer has a legal meaning.

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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



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

[Paradoxium]

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

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



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

[Paradoxium]

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

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



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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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



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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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



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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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



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

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

[The Senator]

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

YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY WE ARE PROTESTING!

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

[The Senator]

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

YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY WE ARE PROTESTING!

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

[The Senator]

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

YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHY WE ARE PROTESTING!

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Hotwire]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

it's quite obvious. There scared to death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

it's quite obvious. There scared to death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

it's quite obvious. There scared to death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

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

why is polygamy brought up?

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

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

why is polygamy brought up?

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

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

why is polygamy brought up?

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


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

[Franklin Richards]

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


It sounds weird but it really is great.


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




:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


It sounds weird but it really is great.


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




:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


It sounds weird but it really is great.


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




:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Anita18]

it's quite obvious. There scared to death.

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

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

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

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

[Anita18]

it's quite obvious. There scared to death.

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

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

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

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

[Anita18]

it's quite obvious. There scared to death.

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

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

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

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

[Holiday]

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

[Holiday]

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

[Holiday]

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

[CaptainClown]

lazur? he is gone now though

[CaptainClown]

lazur? he is gone now though

[CaptainClown]

lazur? he is gone now though

[The Senator]

lazur? he is gone now though

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

[The Senator]

lazur? he is gone now though

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

[The Senator]

lazur? he is gone now though

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

[Holiday]

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

[Holiday]

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

[Holiday]

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

[The Senator]

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

Interesting. I wonder if DADT will be revoked soon?

[The Senator]

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

Interesting. I wonder if DADT will be revoked soon?

[The Senator]

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

Interesting. I wonder if DADT will be revoked soon?

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Anita18]

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

[Anita18]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


It sounds weird but it really is great.


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




:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


It sounds weird but it really is great.


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




:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


It sounds weird but it really is great.


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




:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[Marx]

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

Interesting. I wonder if DADT will be revoked soon?

Now that is an interesting turn of events.

[Marx]

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

Interesting. I wonder if DADT will be revoked soon?

Now that is an interesting turn of events.

[Marx]

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

Interesting. I wonder if DADT will be revoked soon?

Now that is an interesting turn of events.

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

[Marx]

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

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

[The Senator]

I want one child:

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

I will call him "Good Barney."



And, if we decide to have another:

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

[name pending]

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

[The Senator]

I want one child:

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

I will call him "Good Barney."



And, if we decide to have another:

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

[name pending]

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

[The Senator]

I want one child:

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

I will call him "Good Barney."



And, if we decide to have another:

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

[name pending]

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

[Marx]

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

[Marx]

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

[Marx]

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

[Anita18]

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

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

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

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

:funny:

[Anita18]

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

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

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

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

:funny:

[Anita18]

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

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

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

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

:funny:

[Marx]

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

[Marx]

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

[Marx]

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

[Oddzball]

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[Oddzball]

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[Oddzball]

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[Marx]

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

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

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


Yeeeeah, no.

:funny:

I can completely relate Anita. :oldrazz:

[Marx]

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

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

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


Yeeeeah, no.

:funny:

I can completely relate Anita. :oldrazz:

[Marx]

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

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

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


Yeeeeah, no.

:funny:

I can completely relate Anita. :oldrazz:

[Oddzball]

who is this phelps brigade?


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

[Oddzball]

who is this phelps brigade?


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

[Oddzball]

who is this phelps brigade?


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

[Franklin Richards]

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

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



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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

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



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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

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



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Marx]

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

[Marx]

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

[Marx]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

beat ya to it ;)

[spideyboy_1111]

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

beat ya to it ;)

[spideyboy_1111]

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

beat ya to it ;)

[The Senator]

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

[The Senator]

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

[The Senator]

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

[Oddzball]

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



:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[Oddzball]

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



:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[Oddzball]

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



:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[The Senator]

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

:lmao:

This is ironic in all its glory.

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

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

[The Senator]

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

:lmao:

This is ironic in all its glory.

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

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

[The Senator]

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

:lmao:

This is ironic in all its glory.

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

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

[The Senator]

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



:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[The Senator]

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



:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[The Senator]

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



:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[Franklin Richards]

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


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Holiday]

Kansas is not the south at all.

[Holiday]

Kansas is not the south at all.

[Holiday]

Kansas is not the south at all.

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[Franklin Richards]

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


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


:D



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[spideyboy_1111]

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

i like my fat himalayan

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

i like my fat himalayan

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

i like my fat himalayan

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

[The Senator]

i like my fat himalayan

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

Too homosexual for me, sadly.

[The Senator]

i like my fat himalayan

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

Too homosexual for me, sadly.

[The Senator]

i like my fat himalayan

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

Too homosexual for me, sadly.

[Holiday]

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