What Does Proposition 8 Mean for the Future of Gay Marriage?

[Rick in Kansas]

ILuvLA wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I thought M.J. liked prepubescent boys. Some of the youngsters he hung around with eventually became teens. That's true. But many of them started their relationship with M.J. when they were preteens. Eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Does that ring any bells? If it doesn't then it's my memory that's bad. Sorry, I was never a fan.

I wasn't a fan either, but if I remember right, the one that got the pay-off, the one he was charged with and the one he did that infamous interview with were all 12-13 years old. He hung around with a lot of children, but the only ones that he seemed to end up in bed with were a little past puberty and IF anything sexual actually went on, that would make him a hebephile...

[deeter1013]

ILuvLA wrote:

<quoted text>
Not true. None of it! Many will indeed listen to their opponents and will respect their opinions. Many of the GLBT people on these threads will even patiently answer questions. I've seen it happen.
And as you would assume, the majority who haunt these gay marriage threads are definitely for gay marriage. Our opponents on most of these threads are the minority.
And Trolls like Truth who assume many aliases are always going to be hated and disrespected. If you act like a fool you will be treated like one. And if you are disrespectful, rude, crude, arrogant, mean, slanderous, etc. you can expect such treatment in return. But then again, that's anywhere you go.
But for the most part, no one will hassle you if you don't hassle them. By the way, I should warn you that Truth posts in many names. Knowing One, Real Truth, Lie Buster, Lie Detector, Moses, X and Y, are just a few. The list literally goes on and on.
Plus, Truth will try to post in other people's names and say mean things to people to try and make the person he's trying to imitate look bad. Truth also "tweaks" our quoted comments to make them say strange things that we didn't really write. Then he'll reply to them.
Truth is the only person hated by both sides of this issue. Everywhere he goes his bad reputation follows him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Marcia Neil]

ILuvLA wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I thought M.J. liked prepubescent boys. Some of the youngsters he hung around with eventually became teens. That's true. But many of them started their relationship with M.J. when they were preteens. Eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Does that ring any bells? If it doesn't then it's my memory that's bad. Sorry, I was never a fan.

With two marriages subject to influence-network interference (i.e., "arranged"), perhaps the boys served to protect MJ from consistently adverse criticism.[in Stuart, FL]

[keeping h8 str8]

DebJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Another one pretending love for all human kind, but hung up on a word? Sorry, you fool no one with that. everchanging world.....
The problem isn't the word, it's your attitude, which is no one's problem but your own.

funny thing is deb, you're the one with the problem over the terms "civil unions" & "domestic partnerships". you stand opposed to a term that better represents your union. you are the one caught up on definitions.

straight from california law.....
297.5.(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

and before you tell me some horror story about a hospital or an employers health insurance company, realize that's a concern you should address with those institutions and not the state of california and the institution of marriage.

[deeter1013]

keeping h8 str8 wrote:

<quoted text>
funny thing is deb, you're the one with the problem over the terms "civil unions" & "domestic partnerships". you stand opposed to a term that better represents your union. you are the one caught up on definitions.
straight from california law.....
297.5.(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
and before you tell me some horror story about a hospital or an employers health insurance company, realize that's a concern you should address with those institutions and not the state of california and the institution of marriage.

I find it very telling and convenient that you purposely only stated what the law pertains to regarding STATE laws.
the laws you listed are different from the FEDERAL laws....
that is where MOST ignorance comes from regarding straight people who assume because of what you just listed.they asume that civil union means exactly the same except for the term marriage.
and THAT is where your argument goes horribly wrong..
over 1400 FEDERAL laws are not afforded to civil unions. There would not be anywhere NEAR the stink around this topic if civil unions provided identical rights across the board, but in typical fashion straight people hear the soundbytes such as the one you provided, and do not understand why we are claiming we have fewer rights...you assume because of this misinformation, or rather (lack of COMPLETE information) gtaht the rights we seek are "special rights."
you are wrong...please feel free to google this
civil union versus marriage. there you will find the list of 1400 laws we are not given that YOU are. perhaps THAT will educate and enlighten you as to the truth behind what we are fighting for.
I could care less what we call our unions...but whatever we call it...we demand at least equal protection, coverage, and laws!

[DebJ]

keeping h8 str8 wrote:

<quoted text>
funny thing is deb, you're the one with the problem over the terms "civil unions" & "domestic partnerships". you stand opposed to a term that better represents your union. you are the one caught up on definitions.
straight from california law.....
297.5.(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
and before you tell me some horror story about a hospital or an employers health insurance company, realize that's a concern you should address with those institutions and not the state of california and the institution of marriage.

If it's the same thing, it can be called the same thing...see? Problem solved!

Congratulations! You just expanded a definition;0)

[ILuvLA]

Marcia Neil wrote:

<quoted text>
With two marriages subject to influence-network interference (i.e., "arranged"), perhaps the boys served to protect MJ from consistently adverse criticism.[in Stuart, FL]

I agree. Marriages are often cover ups for many things. It's usually a cover up for homosexuality. But second to that, it's a cover up for pedophilia.

After all this time, I'm not so convinced that M.J. was innocent of all charges after all. The first time he was accused, I thought it was a ploy to receive money. The second time he was accused, I had more doubts, but then I thought, "Well, it's still probably all about the money. And since he had a prior case, someone else got hip to the idea and thought it would be much more easier to go through with these accusations and extort money."

But then the third time he was accused, that was a brow raiser for me. And when I found out that the little boy who described M.J.'s penis was telling the truth, all doubts about whether he was guilty or not left me. I do believe there is at least some truth to all those accusations after all.

[Telstar]

harry potter wrote:

proposition 8 means im proposing sticking my full thick 8 inches in your juicy butterscotch smeared rearend

To each his own, I suppose.

[keeping h8 str8]

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>
I find it very telling and convenient that you purposely only stated what the law pertains to regarding STATE laws.

as you should. the TOPIX thread is titled "What Does Proposition 8 Mean for the Future of Gay Marriage?". proposition 8 only pertains to california.

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>that is where MOST ignorance comes from regarding straight people who assume because of what you just listed.

add assumptive ignorance to the growing list of putdowns i've received for having an alternative position.

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>There would not be anywhere NEAR the stink around this topic if civil unions provided identical rights across the board (federally),........

i added federally for you. because in CA, it is identical. the next "expand civil unions federally" sign i see, will be the first. seems to me like there would be little to no resistance from the american voters to recognize civil unions to same level as marriage.

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>but in typical fashion straight people hear the soundbytes such as the one you provided, and do not understand why we are claiming we have fewer rights...you assume because of this misinformation,.....

quality pigeonholing from such a lover of all things equality. wonder what that sentence looks like in a mirror...... "but in typical fashion gay people get a pamphlet at a pride festival, and get all uppity about a right they perceived they lost some how....you assume because of this propaganda,.....

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>I could care less what we call our unions...but whatever we call it...we demand at least equal protection, coverage, and laws!

well let's start the movement right here and now, you and i. when i say "civil", you say "unions", when i say.........wait a minute......we probably should have started this crusade a long time ago. instead we put a bad taste in middle americas mouth with the whole "we want marriage" thingy. that's not gonna fare well for our federal aspirations.

[deeter1013]

keeping h8 str8 wrote:

<quoted text>
as you should. the TOPIX thread is titled "What Does Proposition 8 Mean for the Future of Gay Marriage?". proposition 8 only pertains to california.
<quoted text>
add assumptive ignorance to the growing list of putdowns i've received for having an alternative position.
<quoted text>
i added federally for you. because in CA, it is identical. the next "expand civil unions federally" sign i see, will be the first. seems to me like there would be little to no resistance from the american voters to recognize civil unions to same level as marriage.
<quoted text>
quality pigeonholing from such a lover of all things equality. wonder what that sentence looks like in a mirror...... "but in typical fashion gay people get a pamphlet at a pride festival, and get all uppity about a right they perceived they lost some how....you assume because of this propaganda,.....
<quoted text>
well let's start the movement right here and now, you and i. when i say "civil", you say "unions", when i say.........wait a minute......we probably should have started this crusade a long time ago. instead we put a bad taste in middle americas mouth with the whole "we want marriage" thingy. that's not gonna fare well for our federal aspirations.

lol what a waste of human life.....civil unions are not the same as marriage federally, or in the eyes of the law....we pay MORE taxes than the straights, and get fewer benefits..if you don't like it, and are too fucking ignorant to see that well then fuck you....you will never be any smarter than you are now....a third grade education, and understanding of the law, will not get you far. May you have a lovely long lingering death from cancer.may you suffer horribly with each breath you breath into your dying mouth. may your family know the same pain....

god bless..LOL

[Shadow Dragon]

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>
lol what a waste of human life.....civil unions are not the same as marriage federally, or in the eyes of the law....we pay MORE taxes than the straights, and get fewer benefits..if you don't like it, and are too fucking ignorant to see that well then fuck you....you will never be any smarter than you are now....a third grade education, and understanding of the law, will not get you far. May you have a lovely long lingering death from cancer.may you suffer horribly with each breath you breath into your dying mouth. may your family know the same pain....
god bless..LOL

Something tells me they want us pay more because they think we have more money,they feel that it is not "fair" and want us to pay more to "even" things out.

[ILuvLA]

keeping h8 str8 wrote:

<quoted text>

I see Deeter wished you a happy farewell. I however, do not wish those bad things on you.

You'll have to forgive Deeter. He's a little younger than most of us and he's got a lot of manly war fighting in him still. Actually, Deeter is a very good person. But you have to know him to love him -- especially if you're straight.

Anyway, Deeter is right. Civil unions don't offer the same protection and benefits as marriage. That's what all the fuss is really about.

What you have to keep in mind is that only 3% of our population is homosexual. And only about half of that 3% wants to marry anyway. That is really too small of a human population to worry about.

Honestly, what these very few individuals do with their lives is not likely to affect yours in the least bit. So try not to be overly angry about this whole ordeal. This gay marriage issue has been blown way out of proportion. And frankly, I have found that campaigners on both sides of this issue can be full of slanderous, bogus, Bull$hit.

[snyper]

Gonzallo wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is that it is not normal that a grown man such as Michael Jackson would share his bed so to speak with little boys.
We or the world has this admission of Michael Jackson on a television interview He gave.
In addition settling or having hordes of money, would in a way make these allegations or MJ's accusers silent in the way MJ settled or came into financial settelments in the millions with the families of these molested kids.
Thus it is both immoral, odd, and perverse that MJ would continue to insist upon his sharing the bed with little boys.
Have a nice day.

You are missing it.(and that was the most grammatically screwed up thing you've writen in a long while)

News: Michael Jackson accuser recants allegations. Says that he was put up to it by his father to get money.

I am of the opinion that perhaps all of the allegations by all of the boys may have been the same.

Remember the McMartin Preschool case? I do.

I liked some of Mr. Jackson's music. I thought his plastic surgery and "high yaller" obsessions were nuts. Apart from his music, I never saw or heard anything that encouraged me to like him a s aperson. Still, I was always doubtful about the molestation charges, and suspected that they were money schemes. Any public statements as part of any settlements, or publicity campaigns are just fodder. Further, there is another view about the whole "bed" incident that can be drawn if one is not setting out with preconceived notions, and that view is quite innocent, homey and playful. No different than kids romping on a big bed In Michael's case more of an upholstered soccer field), or piling on a bed to watch TV with friends or family. This was the first image that came to my mind when I heard the allegations, and nothing that Mr. Jackson said indicated anything different. I guess I don't have a dirty mind.

"Honi soit qui mal y pense",

Regardless, this is far off topic, which is the effects of Prop 8 on the future of Gay Marriages.

[snyper]

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>
well you know what?..I am a gay man that agrees with you..You DO have the right to free speech..you also have the right to hate me..you also have the right to call me names, and to think I am disgusting...you have ALL those rights...what you DO NOT HAVE, is the right to use your opinions or beliefs to strip me of my rights, simply because YOU don't agree with me.

Applause Applause Applause (my palms are getting sore)

[snyper]

ILuvLA wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I thought M.J. liked prepubescent boys. Some of the youngsters he hung around with eventually became teens. That's true. But many of them started their relationship with M.J. when they were preteens. Eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. Does that ring any bells? If it doesn't then it's my memory that's bad. Sorry, I was never a fan.

Whoa! I never expected YOU to fall for the negative spin that victimized Mr. Jackson. Where'd that come from?

[DebJ]

snyper42 wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoa! I never expected YOU to fall for the negative spin that victimized Mr. Jackson. Where'd that come from?

MJ was a very troubled individual period. He had talent, fame and money. It's just a shame isn't it? He's gone now and it doesn't matter what any of us think. It's all speculation.

Ya'know, I think I saw Elvis at the local diner last week;0)

[ILuvLA]

snyper42 wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoa! I never expected YOU to fall for the negative spin that victimized Mr. Jackson. Where'd that come from?

Well, frankly I don't care much for this issue. I was never a fan of M.J. And the first couple of times M.J. was accused, I never paid that too much attention. I thought the accusations were merely ploys to extort money. And they were for the most part. On that I agree with you.

But when M.J. was accused the third time, that was kind of a brow raiser for me, like I've said before to other posters. What I particularly disliked immensely -- and what I personally found shocking -- was the book "The Boy" they found at M.J.'s ranch.

Shocking too was the testimony of the boy who described the birthmark and other characteristics of M.J. penis accurately enough to raise reasonable doubt in my opinion. "The Boy" book really did it for me, though. And the young boys penis testimony was icing on the cake.

[ILuvLA]

Sorry for the double post.

[keeping h8 str8]

ILuvLA wrote:

<quoted text>
I see Deeter wished you a happy farewell. I however, do not wish those bad things on you.
You'll have to forgive Deeter. He's a little younger than most of us and he's got a lot of manly war fighting in him still. Actually, Deeter is a very good person. But you have to know him to love him -- especially if you're straight.
Anyway, Deeter is right. Civil unions don't offer the same protection and benefits as marriage. That's what all the fuss is really about.
What you have to keep in mind is that only 3% of our population is homosexual. And only about half of that 3% wants to marry anyway. That is really too small of a human population to worry about.
Honestly, what these very few individuals do with their lives is not likely to affect yours in the least bit. So try not to be overly angry about this whole ordeal. This gay marriage issue has been blown way out of proportion. And frankly, I have found that campaigners on both sides of this issue can be full of slanderous, bogus, Bull$hit.

thanks luv. i do appreciate it. his keyboard fit speaks louder than your testament to his good name. my guess is deeter never knew the love of a father or someone that would knock the teeth out of his skull for running his mouth like that.

as to your position, are you prepared to defend all personal freedoms as vehemently as you do the ones that pertain to your lifestyle? polygamists probably want their due, smokers probably want their rights back, and illegal aliens surely feel entitled to something. it's a noble position to undertake. best of luck with that.

[deeter1013]

keeping h8 str8 wrote:

<quoted text>
thanks luv. i do appreciate it. his keyboard fit speaks louder than your testament to his good name. my guess is deeter never knew the love of a father or someone that would knock the teeth out of his skull for running his mouth like that.
as to your position, are you prepared to defend all personal freedoms as vehemently as you do the ones that pertain to your lifestyle? polygamists probably want their due, smokers probably want their rights back, and illegal aliens surely feel entitled to something. it's a noble position to undertake. best of luck with that.

problems:
1.) you will note the term ILLEGAL when you mentioned the aliens
2.)polygamists are MULTIPLE partnered relationships.not a couple
3.)smokers make the CHOICE to smoke

so your efforts have fallen short. You are not as laborious as your counterparts..they usually also throw in bestiality and pets, or pedophilia.

but I realize you are new to this sheeple mentality. unfortunately all the silly scenarios you brought up have been played to death and proven irrelevant.

back to the drawing board for you...

if you want to save some time by not posting ignorant uninformed rants, I would be more than happy to provide you with a list of all the heretofor played out, old, and disproven arguments.that way you won't have to get so frustrated typing in so much only to be told you
have no point or significance to the debate.