Originally Posted By dshyates Mork, I suppose you believe they should teach that gays are minions of Satan, and are trying to steal to souls of the GOOD POEPLE OF CALIFORNIA. Don't tell me you believe there is a "gay agenda", and that is to recruit new gays. "WATCH OUT, the liberals will infect your children with "The Gay".
Originally Posted By dshyates Yes Mork, it is for the people and by the people. And it clearly states that all men are created equal.
Originally Posted By dshyates Oh,wait. The "For the people and by the people" and "All men are created equal..." stuff aren't from the Constitution. They are from the Declaration of Independance.
Originally Posted By Mr F I am not COO-COO in the head! My opinions and ideas are very valid. And I mean it, DVC_dad says he doesn't care about Gay marriage, but I better he would if ones of his kids turn out to be gay. In fact, if more people were gay, we'd be living in a more tolerant and more open minded society. ...and the fact that anyone would think that being gay is insulting, is pretty insulting to me!
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By dshyates "ladies dont go naked in the streets of san francisco and act like that. Ever been to New Orleans? "Ladies have class" I should take you for a ride around my area. The coal camps in Southern West Virginia are fill with classy ladies. 250lb. camo clad, corn-fed American Beauties. Where the men like their ladies like their steaks. Slathered in gravy.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster So why are we even discussing anything with a sock puppet? Obviously this is some other LP'er under a different name. Sad, but true.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I am not COO-COO in the head!*** You're a little coo-coo, Butters. But we luvs ya anyway. ***My opinions and ideas are very valid.*** That they are. Most certainly. Do try not to look for offense around every corner though. Most people on these boards are on the same page as you are (as DVC_Dad made clear). It's not that calling someone "gay" is offensive, but to say "I hope all your kids and grandkids turn gay" is inflammatory, and not useful. Obviously attacks like that are used to offend and shock people (whether you meant it that way or not).
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/11/proposition_8_and_the_mor.php" target="_blank">http://www.laobserved.com/arch..._mor.php</a> Some excerpts: "You might think that an organization that for most of the first of its not yet two centuries of existence was the world’s most notorious proponent of startlingly unconventional forms of wedded bliss would be a little reticent about issuing orders to the rest of humanity specifying exactly who should be legally entitled to marry whom. But no. The Mormon Church—as anyone can attest who has ever answered the doorbell to find a pair of polite, persistent, adolescent “elders” standing on the stoop, tracts in hand—does not count reticence among the cardinal virtues. Nor does its own history of matrimonial excess bring a blush to its cheek." "Some conservative commentators, who didn’t have much else to gloat about, dwelt lingeringly on what they evidently regarded as the upside of the huge, Obama-sparked African-American turnout. “It was the black vote that voted down gay marriage,” Bill O’Reilly, of Fox News, insisted triumphantly—and, it turns out, wrongly. If exit polling is to be believed, seventy per cent of California’s African-American voters did indeed vote yes on Prop. 8, as did upward of eighty per cent of Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, and weekly churchgoers. But the initiative would have passed, barely, even if not a single African-American had shown up at the polls." 'Still, this was a fight that should have been won, and after the initial shock—which tempted a few gay and lesbian voices to blame blacks for what O’Reilly credited them with—California’s gay activists and their straight allies, judging from their online postmortems, have begun to direct more criticism at themselves than at their opponents. They were complacent: early polls had shown Prop. 8 losing by double digits. Their television ads were timid and ineffective, focussing on worthy abstractions like equality and fairness, while the other side’s were powerfully emotional. (Also dishonest—they implied that gay marriage would threaten churches’ tax exemptions, force church-affiliated adoption agencies to place children with gay couples, and oblige children to attend gay weddings—but that sort of thing was to be expected.)"
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Prop 8 won because churches have a built-in, weekly, grass roots effort (Sunday church service) that they were able to tap into. It's easy to get the message out to millions of voters when you have a captive audience each week - as the Mormons and Catholics know very well. The foes of Prop 8 have no such network to tap into and instead relied too heavily on ineffective ads. And the ads came too late as a large percentage of the donations came in during the last month of the campaign. Honestly, I am amazed Prop 8 came close to failing with how shoddy the effort was against it. I think that says a lot about California voters - they may be more reasonable than we give them credit for. I mean, a large number of religious folk must've voted against it (despite what their pastors, bishops, priests were saying) in order to get within a few percentage points.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I mean, a large number of religious folk must've voted against it (despite what their pastors, bishops, priests were saying) in order to get within a few percentage points.<< Don't assume. My Dad, who is a pastor, was dead set against Prop 8.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Their television ads were timid and ineffective, focussing on worthy abstractions like equality and fairness, while the other side’s were powerfully emotional./// ----maybe you didn't see that one ad out of the no 8 camp? No 8er's in disgusting fashion strategically used a black male voice to narrate historical shames against US citizens with Japanese ties whom the US forced into desert camps during WWII. No 8er's jumped on the historical wrongs against blacks and Japs to push their agenda; so both sides used propaganda to play on emotions.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Why do conservitives HATE smart people?>>> Hummm...let me guess... there are no smart Conservatives? Of course Palin is not among any great intelligensia. I'll have to admit that. I think this election really exposed her on this. She wasn't the right VP candidate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No 8er's in disgusting fashion strategically used a black male voice to narrate historical shames against US citizens with Japanese ties whom the US forced into desert camps during WWII" I fail to see the problem.
Originally Posted By barboy You fail to see the problem......and I suppose many other no 8er's too. But those confined by the 1942 executive order lost just about everything---- stores, homes, cars, family treasures--- including personal freedoms. To equate losing marital status with mandatory relocation in the desert is beyond ludicrous. Furthermore, invoking a black voice to narrate parallels between the struggles of blacks over the years to same genered couples losing marital status is also offensive to blacks. Maybe seeing sleazy ads like that ticked off a few US citizens with Japanese ties and blacks who were neutral prior to the campaign.
