Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Holiday]

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

[Holiday]

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

[Franklin Richards]

No. I say it W. style.

Tah-KOE!


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

No. I say it W. style.

Tah-KOE!


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

No. I say it W. style.

Tah-KOE!


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Holiday]

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

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

[Holiday]

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

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

[Holiday]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

Too homosexual for me, sadly.

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

Too homosexual for me, sadly.

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

Too homosexual for me, sadly.

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

[Ion Kenshin]

i am not a fan of cats TBH

[Ion Kenshin]

i am not a fan of cats TBH

[Ion Kenshin]

i am not a fan of cats TBH

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I don't.

Those bastards can kill me.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I don't.

Those bastards can kill me.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I don't.

Those bastards can kill me.

[spideyboy_1111]

*sicks my kitteh's on you*

[spideyboy_1111]

*sicks my kitteh's on you*

[spideyboy_1111]

*sicks my kitteh's on you*

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[Kelly]

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

[Kelly]

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

[Kelly]

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

[Holiday]

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

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


:oldrazz:

[Holiday]

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

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


:oldrazz:

[Holiday]

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

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


:oldrazz:

[spideyboy_1111]

well its kinda dead right now on news. :(

[spideyboy_1111]

well its kinda dead right now on news. :(

[spideyboy_1111]

well its kinda dead right now on news. :(

[The Senator]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Senator]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly]

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

[Kelly]

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

[Kelly]

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

why is polygamy brought up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

why is polygamy brought up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paradoxium]

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

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

why is polygamy brought up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marx]

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

It certainly seems like there is some potential.

[Marx]

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

It certainly seems like there is some potential.

[Marx]

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

It certainly seems like there is some potential.

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[Heretic]

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

[The Senator]

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

[The Senator]

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

[The Senator]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

? says who

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

? says who

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

? says who

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hobgoblin]

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

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

[Hobgoblin]

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

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

[Hobgoblin]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[Bathead]

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

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

[Bathead]

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

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

[Bathead]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

[The Senator]

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

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

[The Senator]

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

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

[CaptainClown]

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

"Women are for puffs"

[CaptainClown]

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

"Women are for puffs"

[CaptainClown]

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

"Women are for puffs"

[ShadowBoxing]

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

[ShadowBoxing]

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

[ShadowBoxing]

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[The Senator]

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

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

[deathfromabove]

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

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

:ikyn

what an ignorant world...

[deathfromabove]

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

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

:ikyn

what an ignorant world...

[deathfromabove]

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

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

:ikyn

what an ignorant world...

[Marx]

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

Exactly.

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

A good point that many forget.

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

Chuck Norris is a moron.

[Marx]

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

Exactly.

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

A good point that many forget.

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

Chuck Norris is a moron.

[Marx]

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

Exactly.

Since when are all homosexuals effeminate?

A good point that many forget.

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

Chuck Norris is a moron.

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[Holiday]

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

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

[Holiday]

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

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

[Holiday]

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

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

[Marx]

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

:facepalm

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

[Marx]

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

:facepalm

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

[Marx]

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

:facepalm

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

:facepalm

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

:facepalm

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

:facepalm

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

:facepalm

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

:facepalm

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

:facepalm

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

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

[ShadowBoxing]

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

:facepalm

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

[ShadowBoxing]

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

:facepalm

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

[ShadowBoxing]

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

:facepalm

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

[Kelly]

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



wow....

[Kelly]

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



wow....

[Kelly]

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



wow....

[Franklin Richards]

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

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


Don't hurt your cause.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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

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


Don't hurt your cause.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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

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


Don't hurt your cause.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

[BlackLantern]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


Don't hurt your cause.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


Don't hurt your cause.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


Don't hurt your cause.



:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[Franklin Richards]

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


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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[deathfromabove]

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

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

[deathfromabove]

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

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

[deathfromabove]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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


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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[Franklin Richards]

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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Kelly]

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


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

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

[Kelly]

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


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

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

[Kelly]

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


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

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

[Bathead]

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

[Bathead]

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

[Bathead]

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

[Bathead]

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

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

[Bathead]

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

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

[Bathead]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

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

[Kelly]

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

[Kelly]

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

[Kelly]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[Kelly]

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

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

[Kelly]

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

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

[Kelly]

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

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

[Franklin Richards]

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


The ERA was never passed.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


The ERA was never passed.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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


The ERA was never passed.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[8wid]

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

[8wid]

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

[8wid]

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

[thedeadite]

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

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

[thedeadite]

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

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

[thedeadite]

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

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

[CaptainClown]

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

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

[CaptainClown]

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

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

[CaptainClown]

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

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

[Marx]

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

[Marx]

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

[Marx]

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

[rdh007]

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

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

[rdh007]

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

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

[rdh007]

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

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[Marx]

It turned into that one day. :ikyn

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

[Marx]

It turned into that one day. :ikyn

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

[Marx]

It turned into that one day. :ikyn

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

[CaptainClown]

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


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

[CaptainClown]

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


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

[CaptainClown]

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


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

[ShadowBoxing]

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

[ShadowBoxing]

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

[ShadowBoxing]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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


:thing: :doom: :thing:

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[Franklin Richards]

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

I'm keeping us strong. :D

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

So I'm gonna pick at your presentation.

:word:

:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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

I'm keeping us strong. :D

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

So I'm gonna pick at your presentation.

:word:

:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Franklin Richards]

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

I'm keeping us strong. :D

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

So I'm gonna pick at your presentation.

:word:

:thing: :doom: :thing:

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

[SuperT]

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

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

[SuperT]

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

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

[SuperT]

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

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

[CaptainClown]

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

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

[CaptainClown]

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

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

[CaptainClown]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[ShadowBoxing]

Yes we are most certainly having both an education crisis.

[ShadowBoxing]

Yes we are most certainly having both an education crisis.

[ShadowBoxing]

Yes we are most certainly having both an education crisis.

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[BlackLantern]

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

[spideyboy_1111]

Yes we are most certainly having both an education crisis.

both? where is there a huge climbing crime crisis?

[spideyboy_1111]

Yes we are most certainly having both an education crisis.

both? where is there a huge climbing crime crisis?

[spideyboy_1111]

Yes we are most certainly having both an education crisis.

both? where is there a huge climbing crime crisis?

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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