eh, I think Donald is just giving a PC answer. how do you have such inside info anyway? lol
anyway good debate. my bottom line..I'm for gay marriage. I want gay people to have the same rights I do as a straight man.
ALL things aside, I do not think its fair for Mz Cali to lose this contest based on her personal beliefs. thats all I was getting at. ok I'm out.
and many disagree, and not just donald trump...don't think she lost this contest b/c of her personal beliefs.
all the rest, we can agree....and THAT's the important stuff....so all good!
workday is almost over, it's going to be a GORGEOUS weekend...we've got pj news monday....it's ALL GOOD!
I've been thinking about this idea since yesterday.
I've been thinking we must be backward as a society if we're just now realizing that it's unfair to exclude certain adults from marriage like this. What's been going on? Was this all due to homophobia in the first place? Religious fear of same sex pairs?
How were these people excluded from the right to marry and bond proudly/openly in the first place?! :shock:
How were these people excluded from the right to marry and bond proudly/openly in the first place?! :shock:
My understanding is that for all the blathering on about how "marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by God" that goes on, it was really just fathers selling their daughters once they had reached child bearing age. It was all about money and property acquisition. Not about love or God or anything.
The good news is that the tables really have turned. Although there's people who don't really "like" the gay community or even gay people much.. they still think we should have the same rights.
And let's take another look at Prop 8 in California. We've been told it was the "black" vote that killed it but what it really was was generational. The biggest pro-Prop8 group was "above 65" not "black." Yes... the black community had a higher than average "yes" vote but the voting block that really did us in was the senior vote.
Not a nice thing to say but in 10 years.. that vote is going to turn around. The younger generation doesn't care.
How were these people excluded from the right to marry and bond proudly/openly in the first place?! :shock:
My understanding is that for all the blathering on about how "marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by God" that goes on, it was really just fathers selling their daughters once they had reached child bearing age. It was all about money and property acquisition. Not about love or God or anything.
The good news is that the tables really have turned. Although there's people who don't really "like" the gay community or even gay people much.. they still think we should have the same rights.
And let's take another look at Prop 8 in California. We've been told it was the "black" vote that killed it but what it really was was generational. The biggest pro-Prop8 group was "above 65" not "black." Yes... the black community had a higher than average "yes" vote but the voting block that really did us in was the senior vote.
Not a nice thing to say but in 10 years.. that vote is going to turn around. The younger generation doesn't care.
I think it's older people too. This idea will probably just take some time to sink in.
Equality is taking a while to be truly born...slavery had to go first, then women had to be pulled up, now minorities and homosexuals have to get out into the light as equals too...
Maybe this should be the century to examine what's still hiding in the area of discrimination in general? There are certainly pockets left to be turned inside out!!
So much for free speech. This is dangerous territory.
these comments interest me.
how was her rights of free speech infringed upon exactly? :?
she can, and did, say exactly what she wanted.
the fact that said comments had consequences, well, most of the time, they do. even the most innocuous comments usually have some 'result.' she was basically on a lame-ass job interview.....the judges, her interviewers, were not impressed with her answers...thus she didn't get the job. however, her rights to free speech, 100% intact. even here....your rights of free speech, intact. you have the right to be here, to visit and post, and to follow guidelines you agreed to upon joining this privately hosted forum. if one doesn't do so, or doesn't like it...they don't have to join, or they can post elsewhere. once again, freedom of speech intact. sometimes i think people are confused about just exactly what the rights of free speech really are about and what they encompass.
So much for free speech. This is dangerous territory.
these comments interest me.
how was her rights of free speech infringed upon exactly? :?
she can, and did, say exactly what she wanted.
the fact that said comments had consequences, well, most of the time, they do. even the most innocuous comments usually have some 'result.' she was basically on a lame-ass job interview.....the judges, her interviewers, were not impressed with her answers...thus she didn't get the job. however, her rights to free speech, 100% intact. even here....your rights of free speech, intact. you have the right to be here, to visit and post, and to follow guidelines you agreed to upon joining this privately hosted forum. if one doesn't do so, or doesn't like it...they don't have to join, or they can post elsewhere. once again, freedom of speech intact. sometimes i think people are confused about just exactly what the rights of free speech really are about and what they encompass.
thats an interesting way to look at...as a "job interview". you're right, it basically is. and her freedom of speech was not taken away. she had every right to say what she said. what she said had consequences, but she is still free to say whatever she wants.
So much for free speech. This is dangerous territory.
these comments interest me.
how was her rights of free speech infringed upon exactly? :?
she can, and did, say exactly what she wanted.
the fact that said comments had consequences, well, most of the time, they do. even the most innocuous comments usually have some 'result.' she was basically on a lame-ass job interview.....the judges, her interviewers, were not impressed with her answers...thus she didn't get the job. however, her rights to free speech, 100% intact. even here....your rights of free speech, intact. you have the right to be here, to visit and post, and to follow guidelines you agreed to upon joining this privately hosted forum. if one doesn't do so, or doesn't like it...they don't have to join, or they can post elsewhere. once again, freedom of speech intact. sometimes i think people are confused about just exactly what the rights of free speech really are about and what they encompass.
thats an interesting way to look at...as a "job interview". you're right, it basically is. and her freedom of speech was not taken away. she had every right to say what she said. what she said had consequences, but she is still free to say whatever she wants.
wow...we're on a roll now, is that actually 2, maybe even 3, things we've managed to agree on lately?
Comments
and many disagree, and not just donald trump...don't think she lost this contest b/c of her personal beliefs.
all the rest, we can agree....and THAT's the important stuff....so all good!
workday is almost over, it's going to be a GORGEOUS weekend...we've got pj news monday....it's ALL GOOD!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I've been thinking we must be backward as a society if we're just now realizing that it's unfair to exclude certain adults from marriage like this. What's been going on? Was this all due to homophobia in the first place? Religious fear of same sex pairs?
How were these people excluded from the right to marry and bond proudly/openly in the first place?! :shock:
My understanding is that for all the blathering on about how "marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by God" that goes on, it was really just fathers selling their daughters once they had reached child bearing age. It was all about money and property acquisition. Not about love or God or anything.
The good news is that the tables really have turned. Although there's people who don't really "like" the gay community or even gay people much.. they still think we should have the same rights.
And let's take another look at Prop 8 in California. We've been told it was the "black" vote that killed it but what it really was was generational. The biggest pro-Prop8 group was "above 65" not "black." Yes... the black community had a higher than average "yes" vote but the voting block that really did us in was the senior vote.
Not a nice thing to say but in 10 years.. that vote is going to turn around. The younger generation doesn't care.
I think it's older people too. This idea will probably just take some time to sink in.
Equality is taking a while to be truly born...slavery had to go first, then women had to be pulled up, now minorities and homosexuals have to get out into the light as equals too...
Maybe this should be the century to examine what's still hiding in the area of discrimination in general? There are certainly pockets left to be turned inside out!!
these comments interest me.
how was her rights of free speech infringed upon exactly? :?
she can, and did, say exactly what she wanted.
the fact that said comments had consequences, well, most of the time, they do. even the most innocuous comments usually have some 'result.' she was basically on a lame-ass job interview.....the judges, her interviewers, were not impressed with her answers...thus she didn't get the job. however, her rights to free speech, 100% intact. even here....your rights of free speech, intact. you have the right to be here, to visit and post, and to follow guidelines you agreed to upon joining this privately hosted forum. if one doesn't do so, or doesn't like it...they don't have to join, or they can post elsewhere. once again, freedom of speech intact. sometimes i think people are confused about just exactly what the rights of free speech really are about and what they encompass.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
thats an interesting way to look at...as a "job interview". you're right, it basically is. and her freedom of speech was not taken away. she had every right to say what she said. what she said had consequences, but she is still free to say whatever she wants.
wow...we're on a roll now, is that actually 2, maybe even 3, things we've managed to agree on lately?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
so how do we pay for UHC? lol jk.
xoxo