...and yet the President of the US signed into law, a DEmocrat mind you, the ability to slaughter and eat horses in the United States on 11/18/2011. Even after campaigning against it throughout 2008. Makes him quite person I would say...I mean at least based on how sensitive and smart you portrya horses in your post.
:? Chill out with the disparaging tone man. I was simply offering the facts of why people would be against eating horses. I didn't install any of my own personal feelings about it at all. I am actually quite indifferent on the issue specifically, even though I think standards generally need to be improved as far as animal slaughtering goes. I didn't even know about his Obama's stance on it. And I don't vote for him. I'm Canadian. But I'd way prefer a leader who supports gay marriage but goes back on his word about horse meat than one who is anti-gay rights and stood strong on eating Mr. Ed!
How do you feel about a presient that lies?
That is a matter of degrees. I'm pretty sure there has never in the history of America a president who hasn't lied, and there never will be. One must choose the best of a bad bunch when choosing who to support as a national leader ... since there is no alternative to that, I've made my peace with that fact. I think that Romney has already lied more in the last few months than Obama has throughout the last 4 years as president though. So... whatever I guess.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Wasn't that the point? That the government went against what their voters wanted because it was the moral thing to do?
Absolutley not. The money won out. The North was a far superior section of the government not only monetarily but industrialy. I'll put it this way...if the North in the 60's wanted segregation and the south didn't...we would still have segragation.
... what exactly are you saying about people in the South?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I am quite sure that millions and millions of people's votes did not go towards this guy at any point.
Really? And yet he's the Vice Presidential cnadidate?
:?: I don't get what you mean. People didn't vote for him to be that... I mean, Sarah Palin was one of those too. Millions and millions didn't vote for her either.
Yes...he was just plucked out of a hat one day. It's funny how they do it here in this country actually. The republicans pick a name out of a hat and the democrats play duck duck goose to pick vice presidiental candidates.
Wasn't that the point? That the government went against what their voters wanted because it was the moral thing to do?
Absolutley not. The money won out. The North was a far superior section of the government not only monetarily but industrialy. I'll put it this way...if the North in the 60's wanted segregation and the south didn't...we would still have segragation.
... what exactly are you saying about people in the South?
Well, they did lose the civil war and they did lose the segregation war. Nothing against the Southern people, its just that this country was settled and developed in the north...northeast more specifically, and spread from there. The infrastructure at those times was and still remains pretty much to this day much stronger in that region of the country.
Really? And yet he's the Vice Presidential cnadidate?
:?: I don't get what you mean. People didn't vote for him to be that... I mean, Sarah Palin was one of those too. Millions and millions didn't vote for her either.
Yes...he was just plucked out of a hat one day. It's funny how they do it here in this country actually. The republicans pick a name out of a hat and the democrats play duck duck goose to pick vice presidiental candidates.
Wtf are you talking about?? Do you think that citizens vote for who the vice-presidential candidate is?? You're not making any sense. I know Ryan has garnered votes in his past, making him a qualified candidate... yet millions and millions still haven't cast a vote for him in his career... what is it you are talking about?
Btw, how's that cancelling your membership going? Or was that just some weird twitter lie? Just wondering. Not suggesting you fuck off or anything.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Wtf are you talking about?? Do you think that citizens vote for who the vice-presidential candidate is?? You're not making any sense. I know Ryan has garnered votes in his past, making him a qualified candidate... yet millions and millions still haven't cast a vote for him in his career... what is YOU are talking about?
Btw, how's that cancelling your membership going? Or was that just some weird twitter lie? Just wondering. Not suggesting you fuck off or anything.
Perhaps you should read all of the twitter posts and you can find out yourself and I appreciate being told to fuck off actually. Usually that's the step before people realize they are arguing a point they can't win.
Now back to the Vice President. The Vice Presidentail candidate is chsoen by the Presidential candidate who he believes will support his views, his constituents, and his political supporters the best to his own views. The Vice Presidential candidate also has to worry about his constituents and political supporters. As a whole they represent millions and millions of Republican or Democratic views...as a whole.
The idea that allowing me to be my husband's legal next of kin will "cost money" is stupid. It's wrong and incorrect and it's the latest in a long line of dumb-ass excuses that anti-gay people make to keep my family legally beneath theirs.
Being gay isn't a "lifestyle" and when you hear someone call it that it tells us more about their own insecurities than anything else.
The idea that allowing me to be my husband's legal next of kin will "cost money" is stupid. It's wrong and incorrect and it's the latest in a long line of dumb-ass excuses that anti-gay people make to keep my family legally beneath theirs.
Being gay isn't a "lifestyle" and when you hear someone call it that it tells us more about their own insecurities than anything else.
Yeah, this economic excuse for being bigoted towards gays is absolutely ludicrous, and I can't believe it's even been suggested. Being gay is a lifestyle as much as as being straight is a lifestyle. I'm not sure what the term is actually supposed to mean.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not sure what the term is actually supposed to mean.
It's more slander against the GLBT community to suggest that we chose to be gay and that we have some odd group mentality and are a threat to one's way of life.
While they blather endlessly on about "freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness," they take every chance to vote to make sure that nobody is different than them.
I'm not sure what the term is actually supposed to mean.
It's more slander against the GLBT community to suggest that we chose to be gay and that we have some odd group mentality and are a threat to one's way of life.
While they blather endlessly on about "freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness," they take every chance to vote to make sure that nobody is different than them.
It does kind of seem to turn gayness into a verb, doesn't it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It does kind of seem to turn gayness into a verb, doesn't it.
And one that rhymes with "anus."
As I've said many times... "gay" is not something that I do.
"Gay" is something that I AM.
I don't like the word, but it's better than fairy and easier to say than "the kind of guy who had Barbie's dream house but had Ken and GI Joe living in it."
The idea that allowing me to be my husband's legal next of kin will "cost money" is stupid. It's wrong and incorrect and it's the latest in a long line of dumb-ass excuses that anti-gay people make to keep my family legally beneath theirs.
Being gay isn't a "lifestyle" and when you hear someone call it that it tells us more about their own insecurities than anything else.
And Prince, I'm curious (and somewhat uninformed in this area) - but why can't you get power of attorney? Or have wills, etc. drawn up? Is it a citizenship issue?
I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:
I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:
Once all the homosexual consertatives come out of the closet the number will be closer to 35%.
Enlightened humans realize it matters not to whom one is attracted. Its just flesh, has no more meaning than that. Having rights for one group and not the other is simple discrimination. In 20 years we will see this issue as we see racial discrimination today
It does kind of seem to turn gayness into a verb, doesn't it.
And one that rhymes with "anus."
As I've said many times... "gay" is not something that I do.
"Gay" is something that I AM.
I don't like the word, but it's better than fairy and easier to say than "the kind of guy who had Barbie's dream house but had Ken and GI Joe living in it."
I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:
Once all the homosexual consertatives come out of the closet the number will be closer to 35%.
Enlightened humans realize it matters not to whom one is attracted. Its just flesh, has no more meaning than that. Having rights for one group and not the other is simple discrimination. In 20 years we will see this issue as we see racial discrimination today
We concentrate all of this time and energy for at a highest estimation 4% of the population? Makes perfect sense.
I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:
Hm. I've never heard a number over 10% before. I think it's very obvious that a quarter of the population isn't LBGT. 10% I can see, assuming it estimates an inclusion of those who aren't out about it. Either way, I don't see why it matters. I wouldn't feel any different if it were 1%.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:
Once all the homosexual consertatives come out of the closet the number will be closer to 35%.
Enlightened humans realize it matters not to whom one is attracted. Its just flesh, has no more meaning than that. Having rights for one group and not the other is simple discrimination. In 20 years we will see this issue as we see racial discrimination today
We concentrate all of this time and energy for at a highest estimation 4% of the population? Makes perfect sense.
Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:
Hm. I've never heard a number over 10% before. I think it's very obvious that a quarter of the population isn't LBGT. 10% I can see, assuming it estimates an inclusion of those who aren't out about it. Either way, I don't see why it matters. I wouldn't feel any different if it were 1%.
I said the US population "believes" it's over 25%. Read the article. The press does a great job making the AMerican public believe this is a bigger issue than it really is and affects more people than it really does.
Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.
You're right. But if the US public doesn't want it...they don't want it. That's why we vote and that's why we have people representing us in government.
I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:
Once all the homosexual consertatives come out of the closet the number will be closer to 35%.
Enlightened humans realize it matters not to whom one is attracted. Its just flesh, has no more meaning than that. Having rights for one group and not the other is simple discrimination. In 20 years we will see this issue as we see racial discrimination today
We concentrate all of this time and energy for at a highest estimation 4% of the population? Makes perfect sense.
Though I don't feel like looking for sources now, I doubt your % but thats not the point. Its about fairness, equality and the democratic party is courting those that value equality. The Dems are also courting those that want to move forward as a society versus those that use the religious ignorant to pursue $$$'s and move backwards. As such repugs bring this up as much as dems to court the ignorant.
Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.
You're right. But if the US public doesn't want it...they don't want it. That's why we vote and that's why we have people representing us in government.
Wrong....we as a society need to protect the minority. Having a majority means squat. Hell W was re-elected
As we evolve we will see equality and will look back and scratch our heads why anyone cares who fks who. Just as we now do for equal rights for women.
I think the last number I found was that that only about 4% (at the highest of estimations)of the US population is gay or lesbian in spite of the general public "believing" the number is over 25%. Sounds like a pretty powerful propaganda machine/group to me. Just wonder why the Democrats make this such a "hot button" issue? Perhaps they are just trying to avoid the issues they have shortcomings in? :corn:
Hm. I've never heard a number over 10% before. I think it's very obvious that a quarter of the population isn't LBGT. 10% I can see, assuming it estimates an inclusion of those who aren't out about it. Either way, I don't see why it matters. I wouldn't feel any different if it were 1%.
I said the US population "believes" it's over 25%. Read the article. The press does a great job making the AMerican public believe this is a bigger issue than it really is and affects more people than it really does.
Yeah, fair enough. Just saying that I have never heard of any number of 10%... so the hype couldn't be that effective. It's ridiculous for any to say or think 25%... I'd say that any American who "believes" that 25% of the population is gay, then they probably have a real problem with gay people. It is not anyone's problem that a bunch of people are eager to believe any old thing they hear or read. In any case, even if they do think it's 25% and there is some group of people making a point of it seeming this way, so what??? Are you suggesting there is some kind of threat here? I'm not following you on these points, in that I don't see how they matter to the topic at hand.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.
You're right. But if the US public doesn't want it...they don't want it. That's why we vote and that's why we have people representing us in government.
Wrong....we as a society need to protect the minority. Having a majority means squat. Hell W was re-elected
As we evolve we will see equality and will look back and scratch our heads why anyone cares who fks who. Just as we now do for equal rights for women.
Do you really care who fks who?
Exactly. DS, you really think that if, say, a population is largely super racist towards a group of people, then that's the thinking that should be applied when creating law???
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Why is it more right or wrong to discriminate against 4% of the population or 25% or 12% or 51%? In any case it's just wrong.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Time and energy spent on human and civil rights is always valuable. I didn't know that human worth and the right to equality was based on numbers.
You're right. But if the US public doesn't want it...they don't want it. That's why we vote and that's why we have people representing us in government.
Wrong....we as a society need to protect the minority. Having a majority means squat. Hell W was re-elected
As we evolve we will see equality and will look back and scratch our heads why anyone cares who fks who. Just as we now do for equal rights for women.
Do you really care who fks who?
I don't think this is about who fucks who....
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If nobody cares who's fucking whom, why do some straight couples insist on publishing their wedding announcements in the paper?
Frankly... We're seeing the desperate straw-grabbing that people do when every argument they have falls apart. It doesn't matter what percentage of us there are... There is a very low percentage of deaf people but all TVs have the ability to display closed captions. If you don't need them, you don't display them and nobody seems to complain about it. They certainly don't vote on them saying "I don't need them and find them annoying so I'll keep you from having access to them."
We've seen a lot of silly arguments against allowing my husband and I have the same legal rights as Kim Kardashian and whomever she's married to this month... None of them can withstand a single-sentence rebuttal.
And in the end, just like interracial couples didn't beg people to vote for them, glbt couples are going to the courts where public opinion isn't supposed to matter.
Though I don't feel like looking for sources now, I doubt your % but thats not the point. Its about fairness, equality and the democratic party is courting those that value equality. The Dems are also courting those that want to move forward as a society versus those that use the religious ignorant to pursue $$$'s and move backwards. As such repugs bring this up as much as dems to court the ignorant.
I already quoted the top 3 that came up on google. I'm sure there are many more. Would you like me to post them all? :corn:
Comments
Yes...he was just plucked out of a hat one day. It's funny how they do it here in this country actually. The republicans pick a name out of a hat and the democrats play duck duck goose to pick vice presidiental candidates.
Well, they did lose the civil war and they did lose the segregation war. Nothing against the Southern people, its just that this country was settled and developed in the north...northeast more specifically, and spread from there. The infrastructure at those times was and still remains pretty much to this day much stronger in that region of the country.
Btw, how's that cancelling your membership going? Or was that just some weird twitter lie? Just wondering. Not suggesting you fuck off or anything.
Perhaps you should read all of the twitter posts and you can find out yourself and I appreciate being told to fuck off actually. Usually that's the step before people realize they are arguing a point they can't win.
Now back to the Vice President. The Vice Presidentail candidate is chsoen by the Presidential candidate who he believes will support his views, his constituents, and his political supporters the best to his own views. The Vice Presidential candidate also has to worry about his constituents and political supporters. As a whole they represent millions and millions of Republican or Democratic views...as a whole.
Being gay isn't a "lifestyle" and when you hear someone call it that it tells us more about their own insecurities than anything else.
And as I've said many times before...
http://aggravatedjasun.tumblr.com/post/29968706745
It's more slander against the GLBT community to suggest that we chose to be gay and that we have some odd group mentality and are a threat to one's way of life.
While they blather endlessly on about "freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness," they take every chance to vote to make sure that nobody is different than them.
And one that rhymes with "anus."
As I've said many times... "gay" is not something that I do.
"Gay" is something that I AM.
I don't like the word, but it's better than fairy and easier to say than "the kind of guy who had Barbie's dream house but had Ken and GI Joe living in it."
Really?
However, I asked this on another thread but perhaps you missed it - I'd sincerely like to know how this works, if you can tell me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 46348.html
http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/257753/
Once all the homosexual consertatives come out of the closet the number will be closer to 35%.
Enlightened humans realize it matters not to whom one is attracted. Its just flesh, has no more meaning than that. Having rights for one group and not the other is simple discrimination. In 20 years we will see this issue as we see racial discrimination today
So, then a Gay is somethng that you do?
We concentrate all of this time and energy for at a highest estimation 4% of the population? Makes perfect sense.
I said the US population "believes" it's over 25%. Read the article. The press does a great job making the AMerican public believe this is a bigger issue than it really is and affects more people than it really does.
You're right. But if the US public doesn't want it...they don't want it. That's why we vote and that's why we have people representing us in government.
Though I don't feel like looking for sources now, I doubt your % but thats not the point. Its about fairness, equality and the democratic party is courting those that value equality. The Dems are also courting those that want to move forward as a society versus those that use the religious ignorant to pursue $$$'s and move backwards. As such repugs bring this up as much as dems to court the ignorant.
As we evolve we will see equality and will look back and scratch our heads why anyone cares who fks who. Just as we now do for equal rights for women.
Do you really care who fks who?
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Frankly... We're seeing the desperate straw-grabbing that people do when every argument they have falls apart. It doesn't matter what percentage of us there are... There is a very low percentage of deaf people but all TVs have the ability to display closed captions. If you don't need them, you don't display them and nobody seems to complain about it. They certainly don't vote on them saying "I don't need them and find them annoying so I'll keep you from having access to them."
We've seen a lot of silly arguments against allowing my husband and I have the same legal rights as Kim Kardashian and whomever she's married to this month... None of them can withstand a single-sentence rebuttal.
And in the end, just like interracial couples didn't beg people to vote for them, glbt couples are going to the courts where public opinion isn't supposed to matter.
A marriage is about sharing your life and building a home together.
Do you refer to your mother as "that woman my dad has sex with?" Do you call your brother-in-law "the guy who fucks my sister?"
Of course not.
I already quoted the top 3 that came up on google. I'm sure there are many more. Would you like me to post them all?