Aerotan2008-11-06 12:24:42
I think the avatars help all three of those images...
Saran2008-11-06 13:58:28
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 6 2008, 05:56 PM) 579763
@xavius: get off your high horse. Allowing gays to have domestic partners, and civil unions doesn't restrict any rights away from gay people. Different relationships are given different names, and theres nothing "nutjob" about that position.
Obviously then you will have no problem with your marriage being referred to as such. You may not call the person you live with your wife only your domestic partner.
Also I so love the word "gays" when used in these discussions, this isn't homosexuals V heterosexuals this is humans wanting to have their love recognized by others just like all such relationships.
Now for some YouTube (no rickrolls, but swearing)
Wanda Sykes - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oGKm8Upp8
Margaret Cho - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf5KdK1Fe38
Noola2008-11-06 14:16:28
QUOTE(Saran @ Nov 6 2008, 07:58 AM) 579809
Obviously then you will have no problem with your marriage being referred to as such. You may not call the person you live with your wife only your domestic partner.
Also I so love the word "gays" when used in these discussions, this isn't homosexuals V heterosexuals this is humans wanting to have their love recognized by others just like all such relationships.
Now for some YouTube (no rickrolls, but swearing)
Wanda Sykes - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oGKm8Upp8
Margaret Cho - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf5KdK1Fe38
Also I so love the word "gays" when used in these discussions, this isn't homosexuals V heterosexuals this is humans wanting to have their love recognized by others just like all such relationships.
Now for some YouTube (no rickrolls, but swearing)
Wanda Sykes - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oGKm8Upp8
Margaret Cho - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf5KdK1Fe38
I love the Wanda Sykes one. She pretty much echos my feelings on the whole thing. Of course everyone should be able to get married. No one should be able to prevent anyone from marrying the person they love just because the person they love happens to be of the same sex. Nothing about allowing others to marry who they want forces anyone else to do anything they don't want to do. It really is common sense.
My favorite line is, "If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex."
It really should be that simple.
Saran2008-11-06 14:28:26
QUOTE(Noola @ Nov 7 2008, 01:16 AM) 579810
I love the Wanda Sykes one. She pretty much echos my feelings on the whole thing. Of course everyone should be able to get married. No one should be able to prevent anyone from marrying the person they love just because the person they love happens to be of the same sex. Nothing about allowing others to marry who they want forces anyone else to do anything they don't want to do. It really is common sense.
My favorite line is, "If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex."
It really should be that simple.
My favorite line is, "If you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex."
It really should be that simple.
tru
I also like Margaret Chos proposition to make all the wedding planners go on strike
Yrael2008-11-06 14:28:42
You don't understand, Noola.
It undermines the fabric of society, because those godless heathens are teaching kids it is okay to be gay in schools and that two men or two women married are normal rather than dirty and filthy and something to be looked down upon, those hellbound dykes and sodom dwelling fags. They're undermining society itself! What the hell is wrong with you? You need to read more from Daganev. He knows what he's talking about.
It undermines the fabric of society, because those godless heathens are teaching kids it is okay to be gay in schools and that two men or two women married are normal rather than dirty and filthy and something to be looked down upon, those hellbound dykes and sodom dwelling fags. They're undermining society itself! What the hell is wrong with you? You need to read more from Daganev. He knows what he's talking about.
Diamondais2008-11-06 14:31:23
QUOTE(Yrael @ Nov 6 2008, 09:28 AM) 579813
You don't understand, Noola.
It undermines the fabric of society, because those godless heathens are teaching kids it is okay to be gay in schools and that two men or two women married are normal rather than dirty and filthy and something to be looked down upon, those hellbound dykes and sodom dwelling fags. They're undermining society itself! What the hell is wrong with you? You need to read more from Daganev. He knows what he's talking about.
It undermines the fabric of society, because those godless heathens are teaching kids it is okay to be gay in schools and that two men or two women married are normal rather than dirty and filthy and something to be looked down upon, those hellbound dykes and sodom dwelling fags. They're undermining society itself! What the hell is wrong with you? You need to read more from Daganev. He knows what he's talking about.
God damn those igneous intrusions.
(It means both if anyone misses my joking.)
Noola2008-11-06 14:31:41
QUOTE(Yrael @ Nov 6 2008, 08:28 AM) 579813
You don't understand, Noola.
It undermines the fabric of society, because those godless heathens are teaching kids it is okay to be gay in schools and that two men or two women married are normal rather than dirty and filthy and something to be looked down upon, those hellbound dykes and sodom dwelling fags. They're undermining society itself! What the hell is wrong with you? You need to read more from Daganev. He knows what he's talking about.
It undermines the fabric of society, because those godless heathens are teaching kids it is okay to be gay in schools and that two men or two women married are normal rather than dirty and filthy and something to be looked down upon, those hellbound dykes and sodom dwelling fags. They're undermining society itself! What the hell is wrong with you? You need to read more from Daganev. He knows what he's talking about.
Unknown2008-11-06 14:50:35
QUOTE
Failure to Blow Election Stuns Democrats
Party Faithful Mourn End to Losing Tradition
Just minutes after their party's longstanding losing tradition lay in tatters on the ground, millions of shell-shocked Democrats stared at their television screens in disbelief, asking themselves what went right.
For Democrats, who have become accustomed to their party blowing an election even when it seemed like a sure thing, Tuesday night's results were a bitter pill to swallow.
Party Faithful Mourn End to Losing Tradition
Just minutes after their party's longstanding losing tradition lay in tatters on the ground, millions of shell-shocked Democrats stared at their television screens in disbelief, asking themselves what went right.
For Democrats, who have become accustomed to their party blowing an election even when it seemed like a sure thing, Tuesday night's results were a bitter pill to swallow.
Saran2008-11-06 14:54:26
Funny that sodom is brought up, even christians have said that the story actually has nothing against homosexuality in it.
The site I read actually said Inhospitality was the sin that got sodom squished.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html
The site I read actually said Inhospitality was the sin that got sodom squished.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html
Desitrus2008-11-06 15:55:45
If people are comparing the previous version of "Separate but Equal", which is to say not equal because the END RESULT (in Xenthos's poorly chosen example, TWO water fountains) is not equal because it is not the same. Here, we have the same end result. Microsoft Paintbrush called and left you the following Video Voice Mail:
Now, this brings us to a similar situation in which women seek equal rights to me, a situation still not perfect by any means; however, there is quite a bit of progress. Take voting, for instance. Women wanted to vote. They didn't want to be called men in addition to voting. They didn't starve themselves to be called men and thereby gain the vote, they just wanted the vote and they got it. Now, in this case, the right idea is to change the terminology involved to people or person. With that in mind, I have a new proposal, which is:
Replace all marriage/civil union terminology with "State-Sanctioned -Buddies.
Also Saran, this is probably the single worst thing you could possibly say when trying to convince traditionalists:
"this is humans wanting to have their love recognized by others just like all such relationships. "
Because that says nothing about wanting equal rights, just validation, which is far harder to come by and far less likely. Saying "Christians even say that blah blah" and citing gaychristian101.com is sort of like Stangmar saying "Staunch Right-winger Christians say that homosexuality is a crime against God" and then citing staunchrightwingerchristians.com.
Now, this brings us to a similar situation in which women seek equal rights to me, a situation still not perfect by any means; however, there is quite a bit of progress. Take voting, for instance. Women wanted to vote. They didn't want to be called men in addition to voting. They didn't starve themselves to be called men and thereby gain the vote, they just wanted the vote and they got it. Now, in this case, the right idea is to change the terminology involved to people or person. With that in mind, I have a new proposal, which is:
Replace all marriage/civil union terminology with "State-Sanctioned -Buddies.
Also Saran, this is probably the single worst thing you could possibly say when trying to convince traditionalists:
"this is humans wanting to have their love recognized by others just like all such relationships. "
Because that says nothing about wanting equal rights, just validation, which is far harder to come by and far less likely. Saying "Christians even say that blah blah" and citing gaychristian101.com is sort of like Stangmar saying "Staunch Right-winger Christians say that homosexuality is a crime against God" and then citing staunchrightwingerchristians.com.
Unknown2008-11-06 15:57:21
Those are some mighty small breats you've drawn there Desitrus.
Desitrus2008-11-06 15:59:03
QUOTE(Archer2 @ Nov 6 2008, 09:57 AM) 579826
Those are some mighty small breats you've drawn there Desitrus.
I was trying to be sensitive, gosh.
Diamondais2008-11-06 16:02:17
QUOTE(Desitrus @ Nov 6 2008, 10:59 AM) 579828
I was trying to be sensitive, gosh.
Is that what those things around the stick-figures neck is?
Ilyarin2008-11-06 16:02:37
Oh, that's what it is. I thought it was a bowtie.
Desitrus2008-11-06 16:05:05
Look, it was that or draw stick figure penises.
Unknown2008-11-06 16:10:36
Yes, the disturbing part is their size...
Not the fact that they are located above the shoulders, no. Of course not.
Not the fact that they are located above the shoulders, no. Of course not.
Desitrus2008-11-06 16:18:32
STICK FIGURES ARE NOT ANATOMICALLY CORRECT GO AWAY.
Stangmar2008-11-06 16:19:41
So are they Noobs (Neck Boobs)?
Desitrus2008-11-06 16:32:41
If I placed them under the arms people would be all zomg boobs in the pits wtfux?
Diamondais2008-11-06 16:41:00
QUOTE(Desitrus @ Nov 6 2008, 11:32 AM) 579841
If I placed them under the arms people would be all zomg boobs in the pits wtfux?