In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles

Nov 28, 2012 Full story: Reuters 1,144

Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.

Full Story
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#533 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!
--Hopefully you'll get it.
And no...I do not wish to 'take it back' idiot.
most people do when there are more than ten typos...and it is intelligible because of it...

but that's your choice...

like its mine to decide to read your post or not...
with the second LOL its not looking good for you..
but I'll see....
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#534 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
most people do when there are more than ten typos...and it is intelligible because of it...
but that's your choice...
like its mine to decide to read your post or not...
with the second LOL its not looking good for you..
but I'll see....
If we're to speak of grammatical mistakes I don't deny making them but apparently you forgot you do as well hypocrite as well as blatant grammatical infractions which greatly diminish or erase completely the meaning you were attempting to gain in your individual postings.

Take this one post you display above for example.

There are no separations of sentences with capital letters but instead it seems to run on.

And your use of the word 'intelligible' in the format of your rant would infer my typos make my posts more understanding so quite possibly you were attempting to say 'unintelligible' but given your hypocritical head is buried so far up your ass you became best friends with your lower colon who knows.

If laughing at you online with the use of 'LOL' drives you away faster than the bug spray OFF would keep a mosquito at bay get ready butcause I'd like to unleash a plethora of them with the hopes your loser self will be gone.

As far as the difficulty in understanding some of my posts;

AyE BeT yu kAN rEd tHis yU k uMpLeT FreEK.

LOL!!!!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#535 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the part i apparently have to do to have a few rational discussions around here...
I don't love it, but I don;t fear it that's for sure...
You do appreciate that many on your side literally try to bully people off the board, right?
In identifying yourself as 'I' it needs to be capitalized.

When utilizing tghe shortened version of 'do not' you need to use apostrophies as such; 'don't' and not 'don;t'.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#536 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
are you translating this from another language or something?
it reads like instructions from ikea.
Please utulize the grammatical rule of capitalizing your sentences. It is but one tool which separates one sentence from another.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#537 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
for you to claim my rationalizations are not rational?
I've had enough pete and repeat...
Also...do not introduce non-existant words such as your use of "pete and repeat". There is no 'pete'.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#538 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
you guys like my name change?
Its a woman's name, but that's okay for all of you, RIGHT?
I also figured since Mona was going to snipe from afar that I would include him for more fun....
Since you're suddenly so keen on grammactical mistakes I'd like to point out it is "it's" and not your use of "its".
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#539 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
says you.
see how easy that is?
A few month ago, a high court of judges found something, and little ole you thinks you saying its wrong means anything...
Again...."it's" and not "its".
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#540 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>

LOL!!!!
yup, so I did not type UNintelgiible...
but I meant it, I couldn't even figure what you were trying to say in that post because of it..
do my ellipses do that to you?

lmfaoaotp.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#541 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
In identifying yourself as 'I' it needs to be capitalized.
When utilizing tghe shortened version of 'do not' you need to use apostrophies as such; 'don't' and not 'don;t'.
LOL!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#542 Dec 4, 2012
Moan a Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
no, they are pursuing a marriage LICENSE...what do you make of the LICESE part?
Notice there is no birth LICENSE?
<quoted text>
Is there a WOMAN's right to choose? With equality how can that be?
oh right, rights are a FLUID concept...
are you sure you should be insulting ME?(especially since I didn't hand have not insulted you, isn't the HATE supposed to be on my side?)
<quoted text>
I think you are going to have to try this one again...it is intelligible...
it would be nice if you could make your point without childish insults, its also very telling if you cannot...
I'm sorry....but what's a "LICESE"????
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#543 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Please utulize the grammatical rule of capitalizing your sentences. It is but one tool which separates one sentence from another.
and not something that makes my posts tougher to understand, but what you wrote read like german translated to chinese and then to english...

I was commenting on what makes you tough to understand... not stupid stuff like "utulize" which are just typos...
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#544 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, so I did not type UNintelgiible...
but I meant it, I couldn't even figure what you were trying to say in that post because of it..
do my ellipses do that to you?
lmfaoaotp.
Fine by me because as far as I'm concerned you mean jackshit.

LOL!!!
AzAdam

United States

#545 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
then what is the reason we do this?
<quoted text>
but why should they?
that's the whole point.
see, a rational difference...
Because the point of marriage is to make a familial relationship, not reinforce it. Because incestuous relationships are prone to abuse.

It's not a real hard stretch.

You love to associate the word rational with your ideas but your a priory assumptions are wrong so nothing rational flows from them whether or not the logic is correct.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#546 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Also...do not introduce non-existant words such as your use of "pete and repeat". There is no 'pete'.
now you must be joking...please say you are!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#547 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Again...."it's" and not "its".
its not something that makes me tougher to understand...
see what I mean?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#548 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeff...JEFF! The national organizations orchestrated it from square one, no amount of dancing around it is going to change that fact.
Nor that you specifically stated in error that this was not the case.
Okay have it your way. Yes, we have nation-wide (actually, world-wide) organizations striving for greater equality for gays and lesbians. We get whatever rights we can get where ever and when ever we can. We help each other out. We give each other advice about what has succeeded and failed in the past.

But don't think Vermont is really all that special. Vermont may have been first with civil unions, but Massachusetts was first with marriage. Vermont came in only fourth.

You can be sure that the fight for equality will move beyond the nine states that now recoginze marriage equality. And we will win those battles by utilizing local resources and letting people get to know their gay and lesbian friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family members.

We are also working in many states to effect non-discrimination laws in employment and accommodations.(Less than half the states provide such protection, and the federal government provides no such protection.) That, too, is part of a nationwide campaign.

We will fight for greater rights around the world, as well. In some places, like Uganda, a victory is simply getting the government to allow us to live, albeit in prison for the rest of our lives.

But at the end of the day, NOM et al will need to learn from our strategies if they want to continue winning. Mobilizing individuals in the various localities to carry the message to friends, family, and co-workers is effective. I rather doubt that the anti-gay will be able to mobilize a similarly successful counter-offensive. But it's the only chance they have of beating our strategy. And now that we've found how to make the strategy work, we will continue to employ it.

But maybe you'd prefer not to understand how we did it. That's fine with me. Live in your bubble and keep following your decreasingly-effective strategies. That just makes it easier for us to keep winning.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#549 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and I cited to what the high court found to avoid ad hominem attacks...
and look at what you are "talking about"?
I was right to do so, huh?
So when you attack the person who came up with the reason, you are attacking the high court of NY...
a much tougher target than lil ole me...
Apparently you cannot even get American slang right.

It's "li'l" and not "lil".

FYI
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#550 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry....but what's a "LICESE"????
if you cant infer from that, that's kinda sad...

you could, right?

so what was your point?

At least I understood what you meant her, I think keeping with short sentences helps ...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#551 Dec 4, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine by me because as far as I'm concerned you mean jackshit.
LOL!!!
yawn.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#552 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you back peddled so far I can't even hear you now...
you claimed the vermont movement was local and homegrown. I showed you where national campaigns admitted to picking Vermont off the map and coming here to raise this...
and you change AGAIN...
I won't even try to keep up with your moving target...
The states like California, Ohio, Hawaii and even Vermont are always to be capitalized.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 4 min ecnomist 219,717
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 6 min TAAM 57,930
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 12 min Frankie Rizzo 202
Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 13 min WasteWater 249
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 16 min Frankie Rizzo 15,783
Gay rights activist charged with faking abducti... 19 min Earl 9
Kelly Clarkson doesn't mind if her daughter is gay 21 min WasteWater 32
Texas lawmaker married five times files error-f... 2 hr Kellys Hair 42
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 9 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,230
More from around the web