Obama-Marriage Debate - Los Angeles, CA

Discuss the national Obama-Marriage debate in Los Angeles, CA.

Are you with President Obama in supporting gay marriage?

Los Angeles is with Obama on gay marriage.
Yes, all the way
 
95
Not at all
 
35
I'm on the fence
 
2

Vote now in Los Angeles:

hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#106 Jun 6, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>I don't argue for polygamy. I merely state that the Obama Administration would love nothing more than more regulations; the more complex (headachy) the better - and gave examples.
Marriage has traditionally been defined as being 'Between A Man And A Woman'. Singular, not plural, and not same-sex. Marriage has ALSO been more of a religious recognition than of a civil. Civil got involved when it was determined that it could be regulated; via inheritance and via succession.
An example - right to succession through Monarchy. Bastards were recognized as rightful heirs only when a recognized marriage produced none. Otherwise, siblings or their progeny. And in almost ALL cases, the succession had to be either blood (predominately) or marriage (seconarily).
Same Sex couples cannot produce children of blood of both 'parents'. ONE is left out of the genetic make-up. Adoption was RARELY recognized.
And this has nothing to do with Christianity; even the Jews; even the human 'representatives' of the Greek, Roman and Egyptian Gods - even the Mongols (the Khans of Mongolia, the Emperors of China and Japan) recognized through the religions of the time the union of a male and female for succession primarily in their rulers; but also in many official standings.
This does NOT mean that Homosexuality did not occur. It did. However, it was not considered 'normal'; it was 'separate but equal' only in the sense that many of those earlier civilizations tolerated it.
Many, however, made it a death penalty offense. Many do today.
Regardless of the standing in the United States for same sex unions - the arrogance of we Americans will not grant immunity for a same sex couple in the Middle East - or other nations where it's not only frowned upon but considered a deviant behavior worthy of severe punishment - including death.
American or not - two guys caught kissing in public in the middle of Tehran will be arrested and jailed for a long, long time.
Also, Same Sex Marriage is STILL a 'States Rights Issue'. They are liable to remain such for the long-term.
Just like abortion. And making those two issues (Same Sex and Abortion) a condition for FEDERAL office is a waste of energy. Regardless of what the candidate for Federal Office believes; he or she is powerless to act. People are fed up as it is with the Federal Government tromping on States Issues, an example would be withholding Federal Highway Funds to control speed limits (which are state mandates). Those taxes were collected in the state in question for the purpose of Interstate Infrastructure, to withold this puts the state at liability if there's an incident on the highway.
I give you those comparisons to make you aware - there are limits to rights. ALL rights. Both sides need to recognize that. And not change definitions from what they've traditionally been to something that benefits strictly a minority.
A 'Marriage' is basically a religious ceremony; though it's generically called that when there is no religion.
Guess what - a 'Marriage' performed before a Justice Of The Peace is a Civil Union. A 'Marriage' is also a 'Civil Union'. The difference? Religious involvement.
And until the secular government repeals the 1st Amendment and controls religion; Mainstream religion will not recognize a same-sex union as a marriage.
Regarding the ability to leave your property to your loved one? To have your loved one make decisions for your care when you are incapacitated?
You've always had that. Power of Attorney for the latter; and a Written Will for the former.
Why are you fighting for what you pretty much already have? Marriage is overrated anyway. Not many last. Just ask Ellen Degeneres. Melissa Etherege. Demi Moore. Kris Humphreys.
But hey - do what you want.
I actually read every word. I'll respond below.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#107 Jun 6, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>I don't argue for polygamy. I merely state that the Obama Administration would love nothing more than more regulations; the more complex (headachy) the better - and gave examples.
Marriage has traditionally been defined as being 'Between A Man And A Woman'. Singular, not plural, and not same-sex. Marriage has ALSO been more of a religious recognition than of a civil. Civil got involved when it was determined that it could be regulated; via inheritance and via succession.
An example - right to succession through Monarchy. Bastards were recognized as rightful heirs only when a recognized marriage produced none. Otherwise, siblings or their progeny. And in almost ALL cases, the succession had to be either blood (predominately) or marriage (seconarily).
Same Sex couples cannot produce children of blood of both 'parents'. ONE is left out of the genetic make-up. Adoption was RARELY recognized.
And this has nothing to do with Christianity; even the Jews; even the human 'representatives' of the Greek, Roman and Egyptian Gods - even the Mongols (the Khans of Mongolia, the Emperors of China and Japan) recognized through the religions of the time the union of a male and female for succession primarily in their rulers; but also in many official standings.
This does NOT mean that Homosexuality did not occur. It did. However, it was not considered 'normal'; it was 'separate but equal' only in the sense that many of those earlier civilizations tolerated it.
Many, however, made it a death penalty offense. Many do today.
Regardless of the standing in the United States for same sex unions - the arrogance of we Americans will not grant immunity for a same sex couple in the Middle East - or other nations where it's not only frowned upon but considered a deviant behavior worthy of severe punishment - including death.
American or not - two guys caught kissing in public in the middle of Tehran will be arrested and jailed for a long, long time.
Also, Same Sex Marriage is STILL a 'States Rights Issue'. They are liable to remain such for the long-term.
Just like abortion. And making those two issues (Same Sex and Abortion) a condition for FEDERAL office is a waste of energy. Regardless of what the candidate for Federal Office believes; he or she is powerless to act. People are fed up as it is with the Federal Government tromping on States Issues, an example would be withholding Federal Highway Funds to control speed limits (which are state mandates). Those taxes were collected in the state in question for the purpose of Interstate Infrastructure, to withold this puts the state at liability if there's an incident on the highway.
I give you those comparisons to make you aware - there are limits to rights. ALL rights. Both sides need to recognize that. And not change definitions from what they've traditionally been to something that benefits strictly a minority.
A 'Marriage' is basically a religious ceremony; though it's generically called that when there is no religion.
Guess what - a 'Marriage' performed before a Justice Of The Peace is a Civil Union. A 'Marriage' is also a 'Civil Union'. The difference? Religious involvement.
And until the secular government repeals the 1st Amendment and controls religion; Mainstream religion will not recognize a same-sex union as a marriage.
Regarding the ability to leave your property to your loved one? To have your loved one make decisions for your care when you are incapacitated?
You've always had that. Power of Attorney for the latter; and a Written Will for the former.
Why are you fighting for what you pretty much already have? Marriage is overrated anyway. Not many last. Just ask Ellen Degeneres. Melissa Etherege. Demi Moore. Kris Humphreys.
But hey - do what you want.
Response below.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#108 Jun 6, 2012
I apologize for shortening your post but topix *literally FORCED* me to or I could not append *one single word* to your post without its failing to show on the board.

I actually read every word you write.

I can sit here and write a response and it'll be 3-5 boxes long. You show an *outsider's* understanding of the gay and pro-gay weltanschauung where marriage is concerned; just as bad, you presume I am fighting for rights *for myself* because the traditional republican viewpoint *is* very selfish and fights only for itself, never for anyone else. I shouldn't assume (of you), but you did of me, of course.

Basically, what you say at the end tells me everything I need to know: You claim gay couples "already have" these rights but they have to go through EXPENSIVE LEGAL HOOPS to get them. A married couple *DOES NOT* have to do this.

Regarding the rest, and the way in which some countries treat gay people, I am supremely uninterested in societies whose behavior I honestly, deeply and morally feel is little different from apes shitting in the gutter and then vomiting on top of it and eating it up.

Seriously.

To me, dignity lies in recognizing all as equal. Societies which *blatantly* don't do this (and nearly ALL use "religion" as an excuse) are not treated kindly in my mind, nor do I see adherents to these views as fully formed humans worthy of much of anything. Ya know, kinda like they treat gay people.

In the meantime, I'll leave it at that. I don't see an *internal* understanding in your post, which is always, always so bone-chilling because YOU SHOULD HAVE THE IQ TO KNOW that these couples are doing for themselves and their children what any STRAIGHT couple is doing; it is the constant, fucking *obsessive* need to see gay as "separate" and "strange" which leads you to such hopeless non-understanding of why ANY NORMAL PERSON would want the same things that married couples have.

Period.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#109 Jun 6, 2012
hi hi wrote:
I apologize for shortening your post but topix *literally FORCED* me to or I could not append without its failing to show on the board.
Considering I'm not gay, all I can give you is the 'outsiders' understanding. By the same token; you can't give me the 'Nuclear' or 'Biological' Family understanding - the right to succession that has traditionally relied on bloodlines and marriage - between a male and female - for centuries.
And which has ALWAYS followed Natural Law; where it applies to definite male and female identities.
Thus, we leave the androgenous species (those with both sexes) out of the equasion.
I stated homosexuality has existed throughout all time - I'll go further and state that homosapiens are not the only species that exhibit homosexual preferences.
I will say it goes against the natural order of propogation of the species.
Yet society has come a LONG way towards acceptance, tolerance and extension of the rights you are fighting for today. Again; why are you fighting for what you already have? Just so you can wave a piece of paper around?
Without a will, even logical lines of decent stand to lose their rightful inheritance in a heterosexual marriage. It's assumed that the marriage prevent the seizure of property; but that is not always true - especially if there is value to that property. Both hetero- and homo-sexual couples MUST SPECIFICALLY STATE THROUGH A WILL WHAT THEIR WISHES ARE!!!!!!
If not - you get what you deserve.
Power of Attorney - Hetero-sexual couples - partners - marrieds - who don't designate such are only 'assumed'(there's that word again) to have the right to make decisions. That assumption is NOT LAW.
So both hetero- and homo-sexual couples MUST SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE A TRUSTED PARTY WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY!!!!!
Guess what - that does NOT have to be a relative. It can be ANYBODY!!!!!
And the cost is the same regardless if your's same sex or opposing sex.
But then - that's an outsider's view. Based on information obtained from friends and co-workers who are on the INSIDE.
Where YOU claim to be.
By the way - not ONE Gay person of either gender voted 'No' on California's Proposition 8. Why? Because of the radical element (think 'Gavin Newsome', though he's straight) who shoved what should be private into the public mainstream. And by private - the right to live one's lives OUT of public scrutiny.
People of the radical element embarrassed and shames mainstream gays. And fed the wrong information about their wants, needs and desired in an attempt to falsely claim discrimination.
Gender discrimination - except in small pockets - ended three decades ago. As for those small pockets - there's no law that will eliminate those. No 'Civil Right'. Just ask the blacks. They'll tell you there are still areas that won't accept them even 50+ years after the passage of the Civil Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
Like they've learned; you sometimes have to wait, educate and guide people to accept. You can't force it.
All you'll get is rebellion.
And understand this about Obama and Biden.
Biden was sincere in what he stated. He's too stupid to be crafty and decietful. This is why he has always been considered 'Assassination Insurance'. Who'd take out Obama knowing that Dumbass Joe would step into his place?
As for Obama?
Votes. Period.
And he's coming back to California tonight to get money from his gay 'supporters'. Now that he was trapped into taking a position; he wants the gays to pay for it.
Haven't you caught on yet that Obama is the WORST thing to happen to Gay Civil Rights? How far backwards his false support of your efforts will set you?
Get a grip.
He wants your money and he wants your vote. And like those he made promises to in his first campaign; once he gets them you're of no further use to him and he'll cast you aside.
Mark my words. His second term (should he get one) will NOT be a new dawn for gays.
Obama's already proven where HIS allegiance lies.
Himself.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#110 Jun 6, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Considering I'm not gay, all I can give you is the 'outsiders' understanding. By the same token; you can't give me the 'Nuclear' or 'Biological' Family understanding - the right to succession that has traditionally relied on bloodlines and marriage - between a male and female - for centuries.
And which has ALWAYS followed Natural Law; where it applies to definite male and female identities.
Thus, we leave the androgenous species (those with both sexes) out of the equasion.
I stated homosexuality has existed throughout all time - I'll go further and state that homosapiens are not the only species that exhibit homosexual preferences.
I will say it goes against the natural order of propogation of the species.
Yet society has come a LONG way towards acceptance, tolerance and extension of the rights you are fighting for today. Again; why are you fighting for what you already have? Just so you can wave a piece of paper around?
Without a will, even logical lines of decent stand to lose their rightful inheritance in a heterosexual marriage. It's assumed that the marriage prevent the seizure of property; but that is not always true - especially if there is value to that property. Both hetero- and homo-sexual couples MUST SPECIFICALLY STATE THROUGH A WILL WHAT THEIR WISHES ARE!!!!!!
If not - you get what you deserve.
Power of Attorney - Hetero-sexual couples - partners - marrieds - who don't designate such are only 'assumed'(there's that word again) to have the right to make decisions. That assumption is NOT LAW.
So both hetero- and homo-sexual couples MUST SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE A TRUSTED PARTY WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY!!!!!
Guess what - that does NOT have to be a relative. It can be ANYBODY!!!!!
And the cost is the same regardless if your's same sex or opposing sex.
...
Marriage automatically grants certain rights, responcibilities and privileges that would cost a fortune to attempt to creat separately through an attourney.
In most states that I am aware of, the spouse automatically inherets property in the absence of a will. So too with the power to make decisions of an incapacitated spouse.
Raydot

California City, CA

#111 Jun 6, 2012
Obama and Senator Reid were against same sex marriage and still are. They are only looking for votes. What they are doing will create problems and they know it. It just isn't right. Think about it. Think about our children seeing two men kissing each other at the Mall or making out at the park. I mean come on, what the hell is really going on here. If I see two men making out in public, I will kick their ass. How do ya like that!#@%*&%#@+*& Obama is a one term puppit boy. Obama is gay. Remember, do exactly what George Clooney tells you to do or else. You know, this is getting way out of hand.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#112 Jun 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Considering I'm not gay, all I can give you is the 'outsiders' understanding.
Such false claptrap. How on earth do actors play roles in films? They get *inside* a viewpoint. Those who claim they can't don't WANT to; the usual (predominant) fear is that it will change their own precious viewpoint. Meryl Streep was politically *unchanged* by her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher, but said she came to see Thatcher's viewpoints.
lastoutlaw wrote:
By the same token; you can't give me the 'Nuclear' or 'Biological' Family understanding - the right to succession that has traditionally relied on bloodlines and marriage - between a male and female - for centuries.
This horrified me: You have made an assumption about a stranger about whom you know *quite literally nothing*. You simply presumed, without thinking twice, or so I imagine.
lastoutlaw wrote:
And which has ALWAYS followed Natural Law; where it applies to definite male and female identities.
BECAUSE it is presumed upon heterosexuality. It has *zero* to do with homosexuality and not one living person can *force* it to do so.
lastoutlaw wrote:
Thus, we leave the androgenous species (those with both sexes) out of the equasion.
I stated homosexuality has existed throughout all time - I'll go further and state that homosapiens are not the only species that exhibit homosexual preferences.
I will say it goes against the natural order of propogation of the species.
But that's a non-issue. Note even how YOU YOURSELF word it: as if there is some "horror" attendant upon this existentiality that *no one* can or will ever change. I have no way of knowing you meant it in such a negative way; the virulently antigay *DO*, nonstop, day after day, and excuse their own horrifically subhuman, rapist behavior by claiming it's a "choice," which is borne out by *no* educated opinion nor the firsthand testimony of millions of gay people worldwide.
lastoutlaw wrote:
Yet society has come a LONG way towards acceptance, tolerance and extension of the rights you are fighting for today. Again; why are you fighting for what you already have? Just so you can wave a piece of paper around?
Again, I mistrust you so enormously because you *so blatantly and repetitively* make assumptions which have no basis. You don't know who I am or what I am "fighting" for, if anything, or why.

You literally have no idea and are *repetitively*, at this point, presuming.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#113 Jun 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
Without a will, even logical lines of decent stand to lose their rightful inheritance in a heterosexual marriage. It's assumed that the marriage prevent the seizure of property; but that is not always true - especially if there is value to that property. Both hetero- and homo-sexual couples MUST SPECIFICALLY STATE THROUGH A WILL WHAT THEIR WISHES ARE!!!!!!
If not - you get what you deserve.
Power of Attorney - Hetero-sexual couples - partners - marrieds - who don't designate such are only 'assumed'(there's that word again) to have the right to make decisions. That assumption is NOT LAW.
So both hetero- and homo-sexual couples MUST SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE A TRUSTED PARTY WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY!!!!!
Guess what - that does NOT have to be a relative. It can be ANYBODY!!!!!
And the cost is the same regardless if your's same sex or opposing sex.
But then - that's an outsider's view. Based on information obtained from friends and co-workers who are on the INSIDE.
Where YOU claim to be.
And you presumed *how and why* I am "on the inside." Perhaps I make colossal efforts to understand differing points of view.

Most people are locked inside a viewpoint. Online has taught me this in spades. It's worldwide. Your emphasis is *AGAIN* on what you stated in your previous post,*again* ignoring specifically any point of view I may have established in my previous post concerning a viewpoint about marriage -- that which, in your reiteration of its principles,*ignores* numerous rights that married couples have.

I will tell you this: I am goddamn sick to death of all these arguments and I engage in them *solely* because I believe so deeply in the principle. I actually see everyone antigay as a subhuman, rapist, Nazi scumbag whose behavior and actions make me think of them as minions of satan. INCIDENTALLY, I AM NOT classifying you in that group.
lastoutlaw wrote:
By the way - not ONE Gay person of either gender voted 'No' on California's Proposition 8. Why? Because of the radical element (think 'Gavin Newsome', though he's straight) who shoved what should be private into the public mainstream. And by private - the right to live one's lives OUT of public scrutiny.
People of the radical element embarrassed and shames mainstream gays. And fed the wrong information about their wants, needs and desired in an attempt to falsely claim discrimination.
Gender discrimination - except in small pockets - ended three decades ago. As for those small pockets - there's no law that will eliminate those. No 'Civil Right'. Just ask the blacks. They'll tell you there are still areas that won't accept them even 50+ years after the passage of the Civil Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
I am so gigantically suspicious of what you have said here that I have no words; on its face, it looks *senseless*(the first part) and then certainly more logical, and I'd have said until recently that gays were fighting only for rights. Turns out they might ACTUALLY BE searching for public acceptance, which I find a hilariously foolish and stupid thing to look for and which cannot ever be forced. But what gay couples clearly want is *marital rights*.
lastoutlaw wrote:
Like they've learned; you sometimes have to wait, educate and guide people to accept. You can't force it.
All you'll get is rebellion.
I agree with you but if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't be giving a shit about waiting. I would have zero concern with rebellion because *logic itself dictates* that it comes with every change.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#114 Jun 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
Without a will, even logical lines of decent stand to lose their rightful inheritance in a heterosexual marriage. It's assumed that the marriage prevent the seizure of property; but that is not always true - especially if there is value to that property. Both hetero- and homo-sexual couples MUST SPECIFICALLY STATE THROUGH A WILL WHAT THEIR WISHES ARE!!!!!!
If not - you get what you deserve.
Power of Attorney - Hetero-sexual couples - partners - marrieds - who don't designate such are only 'assumed'(there's that word again) to have the right to make decisions. That assumption is NOT LAW.
So both hetero- and homo-sexual couples MUST SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE A TRUSTED PARTY WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY!!!!!
Guess what - that does NOT have to be a relative. It can be ANYBODY!!!!!
And the cost is the same regardless if your's same sex or opposing sex.
But then - that's an outsider's view. Based on information obtained from friends and co-workers who are on the INSIDE.
Where YOU claim to be.
And you presumed *how and why* I am "on the inside." Perhaps I make colossal efforts to understand differing points of view.

Most people are locked inside a viewpoint. Online has taught me this in spades. It's worldwide. Your emphasis is *AGAIN* on what you stated in your previous post,*again* ignoring specifically any point of view I may have established in my previous post concerning a viewpoint about marriage -- that which, in your reiteration of its principles,*ignores* numerous rights that married couples have.

I will tell you this: I am goddamn sick to death of all these arguments and I engage in them *solely* because I believe so deeply in the principle. I actually see everyone antigay as a subhuman, rapist, Nazi scumbag whose behavior and actions make me think of them as minions of satan. INCIDENTALLY, I AM NOT classifying you in that group.
lastoutlaw wrote:
By the way - not ONE Gay person of either gender voted 'No' on California's Proposition 8. Why? Because of the radical element (think 'Gavin Newsome', though he's straight) who shoved what should be private into the public mainstream. And by private - the right to live one's lives OUT of public scrutiny.
People of the radical element embarrassed and shames mainstream gays. And fed the wrong information about their wants, needs and desired in an attempt to falsely claim discrimination.
Gender discrimination - except in small pockets - ended three decades ago. As for those small pockets - there's no law that will eliminate those. No 'Civil Right'. Just ask the blacks. They'll tell you there are still areas that won't accept them even 50+ years after the passage of the Civil Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
I am so gigantically suspicious of what you have said here that I have no words; on its face, it looks *senseless*(the first part) and then certainly more logical, and I'd have said until recently that gays were fighting only for rights. Turns out they might ACTUALLY BE searching for public acceptance, which I find a hilariously foolish and stupid thing to look for and which cannot ever be forced. But what gay couples clearly want is *marital rights*.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#115 Jun 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
Like they've learned; you sometimes have to wait, educate and guide people to accept. You can't force it.
All you'll get is rebellion.
I agree with you but if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't be giving a shit about waiting. I would have zero concern with rebellion because *logic itself dictates* that it comes with every change.
lastoutlaw wrote:
And understand this about Obama and Biden.
Biden was sincere in what he stated. He's too stupid to be crafty and decietful. This is why he has always been considered 'Assassination Insurance'. Who'd take out Obama knowing that Dumbass Joe would step into his place?
As for Obama?
Votes. Period.
Absolutely, although you miss that *votes may be ONLY ONE of several motivations*. EVERY statement from EVERY politician is about furthering themselves -- but there can be subsidiary benefits, as well.
lastoutlaw wrote:
And he's coming back to California tonight to get money from his gay 'supporters'. Now that he was trapped into taking a position; he wants the gays to pay for it.
I mistrust political rhetoric of the type you're engaging in here.

Why?

I'll tell you *exactly* why.

Because people like you DO NOT SPEAK THIS WAY when it's about a cause you believe in. If you did, I'd trust you. None of you ever do. You badmouth SOLELY the causes you don't relate to on a primary level, as you see fit.
lastoutlaw wrote:
Haven't you caught on yet that Obama is the WORST thing to happen to Gay Civil Rights? How far backwards his false support of your efforts will set you?
Get a grip.
Disagreed, primarily because of *how* you have framed what you say. I am deeply suspicious of some of what you're saying, quite bluntly.
lastoutlaw wrote:
He wants your money and he wants your vote. And like those he made promises to in his first campaign; once he gets them you're of no further use to him and he'll cast you aside.
Mark my words. His second term (should he get one) will NOT be a new dawn for gays.
Obama's already proven where HIS allegiance lies.
Himself.
But. they. are. all. this. way.

If you deny that they are all this way, I will basically be "forced" to ignore what you say here because you will *demonstrate firsthand* that you have no objectivity.

I am literally agreeing with you but I am not about to put up with any bullshit from you that there are any politicians OF ANY PARTY who ARE NOT this way.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#116 Jun 8, 2012
Raydot wrote:
Obama and Senator Reid were against same sex marriage and still are. They are only looking for votes.
Some of you people are some of the most *literally evil* sons of vomiting bitches I have ever seen in my life. It's mind-boggling to me that UNTIL OBAMA DECLARED SUPPORT for same-sex marriage, the pro-gay said he only wanted votes.

Now this has flipped ONE. HUNDRED. EIGHTY. DEGREES. Only the ANTIGAY and the CONSERVATIVES attack him for wanting votes.

That's because *you* don't want anyone VOTING FOR HIM in the next election.
Raydot wrote:
What they are doing will create problems and they know it. It just isn't right. Think about it. Think about our children seeing two men kissing each other at the Mall or making out at the park. I mean come on, what the hell is really going on here.
The reason the antigay are getting *no one pro-gay to pay the slightest attention to them*-- except to call you people out for lies -- is that YOU HAVE NO SENSE and you refuse to acknowledge it, you refuse day after day and year after year. If orientation is inborn,*there will be no adverse effect* upon children; what you say posits THAT IT IS A CHOICE, which is a deliberate, knowing, willful lie.
Raydot wrote:
If I see two men making out in public, I will kick their ass.
Christ, I hope you get sent to jail and raped repeatedly. I no longer have a way to be "nice" to someone like you. I hope you get jail time if you ever attempt something like this, and I hope it wrecks you.

You have zero, zero, zero right to *FORCE* your literal goddamned hatred upon someone else.
Raydot wrote:
How do ya like that!#@%*&%#@+*&
I wonder how you'd like prison. You could be limping a *lot* in there, champ.
Raydot wrote:
Obama is a one term puppit boy. Obama is gay.
Nothing is more virulently antigay than these claims that have arisen among the viciously hateful that he is LITERALLY gay.
Raydot wrote:
Remember, do exactly what George Clooney tells you to do or else. You know, this is getting way out of hand.
Sounds like you're the one getting out of hand. You lace a post with hatred and threats of *physical violence* against gay people on a public message board. You claim the president of the United States is gay. That is too typically antigay for words: the constant, unending assumption that *no one* could *conceivably* support minority rights for gay people except a gay person.

You are behaving like walking, talking filth.
pervert

United States

#117 Jun 11, 2012
I love watching hot steamy lesbian porn.

Since: Jun 12

San Diego, CA

#119 Jun 26, 2012
I don't see why there needs to be gay "marriage", when domestic partnerships are honored.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#120 Jun 27, 2012
blkmalcolm wrote:
I don't see why there needs to be gay "marriage", when domestic partnerships are honored.
Because separate is not equal, and equal rights are Constitutionally guaranteed for all.
welll ughhh

Kent, OH

#121 Jun 29, 2012
Gay marriage should not be aloud. It is not a normal thing. Marriage is between man and woman. Our country seems to keep going down the drain...
Naw

United States

#122 Jun 29, 2012
welll ughhh wrote:
Gay marriage should not be aloud. It is not a normal thing. Marriage is between man and woman. Our country seems to keep going down the drain...
How is it not normal when homosexuality is found throughout nature

Just because you don't partake in it doesn't mean it isn't normal

I don't have a foot fetish but I woulden't call people who do abnormal just because I don't enjoy what they do
welll ughhh

Ashland, KY

#123 Jun 29, 2012
Naw wrote:
<quoted text>How is it not normal when homosexuality is found throughout nature

Just because you don't partake in it doesn't mean it isn't normal

I don't have a foot fetish but I woulden't call people who do abnormal just because I don't enjoy what they do
It's still not normal if an animal does it. The butt hole was not meant for a penis.
Naw

United States

#124 Jun 30, 2012
welll ughhh wrote:
<quoted text>
It's still not normal if an animal does it. The butt hole was not meant for a penis.
there is nothing wrong with anal

many women and many men enjoy it :)
welll ughhh

Ashland, KY

#126 Jun 30, 2012
Naw wrote:
<quoted text>there is nothing wrong with anal

many women and many men enjoy it :)
Obviously, but that doesn't make it normal.
Naw

United States

#127 Jun 30, 2012
welll ughhh wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, but that doesn't make it normal.
and why isn't it normal

unless you are going to start quoting backwards religious beliefs

life is short so why don't you stop being a prude and learn to enjoy yourself
what makes you better than anyone else? Why do you have the priviledge to look down on others and judge them when if someone we're to peer into your life they would likely find plenty to condemn you for?

Seems like you are just an egotistical f**ktard who wants to put other people down to make himself feel better :D

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.

Los Angeles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr I hate taggers 20,108
Ripple Effect Management Adds Two More Managers... 5 hr Ripple Effect Man... 1
occupy leader hires soundgarden for police offi... Tue los angles occupy... 1
head of los angles occuppy leader is also a pol... Tue bomb sqaud leader 1
Resolution to Move On From the Hate Crimes in L... Tue Patricia_McGurk 1
News Collecting fire trucks becomes career for Joe O... (Jul '09) Tue concerned citizen 14
10/325 watson norco's 4 sale Los Angeles, Pasad... (Jul '09) Tue Morris 4
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]