• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"

dud

dud

Diamond Member
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this article in Time:

What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"?

I am not anti-gay ... but when I saw this I thought "This is a the worst tactic I've ever seen in my life". Passive protesting is a great way to make your point but I have a really bad feeling that the tactic of "calling out" people who don't believe in what you do (in gay marriage) is going to come back and haunt the movement in California. It appears to me to be an act of desperation. What do you think?

For all those who would point to posting this in P&N ... I considered that as well but this (IMHO) is bigger then that. I really think that the movement in California has gone off the deep end.

 
All states should just offer civil unions between consenting adults with full legal and financial benefits. let the churches handle how they want to define marriage in their own archaic way.
 
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
All states should just offer civil unions between consenting adults with full legal and financial benefits. let the churches handle how they want to define marriage in their own archaic way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wish there was an easy way to remove the language of "marriage" from law books and replace it with "civil unions". So that all states must recognize civil unions from other states and if you get married by a church you still need to fill out civil union papers like everyone else.
 
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to protest anything, and I'm too unprincipled to boycott an entity that has something I really want.
 
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?
Click to expand...
They could have given that $1000 to some cause that would have helped someone who is genuinely in need, rather than a cause intended to oppress a group of people.



Originally posted by: Mo0o
All states should just offer civil unions between consenting adults with full legal and financial benefits. let the churches handle how they want to define marriage in their own archaic way.
Click to expand...
And I think if it went on like this for enough time, society would begin to redefine the term for it, as they've done with other terms. Junk e-mail became spam, "copies" became "xerox," tissues became "kleenex," and so on. Eventually, it'd just be easier to say "married" rather than "civil unioned," or whatever the proper word form of that would be.

 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?
Click to expand...
They could have given that $1000 to some cause that would have helped someone who is genuinely in need, rather than a cause intended to oppress a group of people.
Click to expand...

Who cares? It's their money.
 
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?
Click to expand...
They could have given that $1000 to some cause that would have helped someone who is genuinely in need, rather than a cause intended to oppress a group of people.
Click to expand...

Who cares? It's their money.
Click to expand...
True, but it speaks volumes of their priorities in life.

 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?
Click to expand...
They could have given that $1000 to some cause that would have helped someone who is genuinely in need, rather than a cause intended to oppress a group of people.
Click to expand...

Who cares? It's their money.
Click to expand...
True, but it speaks volumes of their priorities in life.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you aren't going to be changing their priorities in life, nor will you be able to change their mind even if their business is boycotted by a small percentage of the population.
 
Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?
Click to expand...
They could have given that $1000 to some cause that would have helped someone who is genuinely in need, rather than a cause intended to oppress a group of people.
Click to expand...

Who cares? It's their money.
Click to expand...
True, but it speaks volumes of their priorities in life.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you aren't going to be changing their priorities in life, nor will you be able to change their mind even if their business is boycotted by a small percentage of the population.
Click to expand...

Small percentage of the population, but a large percentage of their intended audience. I'm assuming this is about that music and arts something or other in Sacramento.

I don't agree with his donation or his "forced" resignation but hey, its a free country. As an entity, they should be able decide his views don't coincide with theirs and decide that they don't want his part anymore.
 
Originally posted by: Baked
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
You now what the problem is with gays? If there are two men, who has the vagina?
Click to expand...

The one w/ the shaved ass.
Click to expand...

:wine:
rose.gif
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
All states should just offer civil unions between consenting adults with full legal and financial benefits. let the churches handle how they want to define marriage in their own archaic way.
Click to expand...

Winner. I've been saying that for years.

ZV
 
From the article:
"Meanwhile, lists of donors to Proposition 8, once trumpeted on the Yes on 8 Web site, have been taken down to protect individuals from harassment."

What? You mean they don't appreciate "unwarranted" harassment? You mean the bill that stripped the rights of marriage from two consenting adults who, more than likely, the harassees would, almost assuredly, never meet?

Huh. Weird...
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
All states should just offer civil unions between consenting adults with full legal and financial benefits. let the churches handle how they want to define marriage in their own archaic way.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?
Click to expand...

Race and sexual orientation are two different things. Apples and oranges.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Would you boycott and protest someone who donated $1000 to an anti-interracial marriage amendment campaign?
Click to expand...
They could have given that $1000 to some cause that would have helped someone who is genuinely in need, rather than a cause intended to oppress a group of people.
Click to expand...

Who cares? It's their money.
Click to expand...
True, but it speaks volumes of their priorities in life.
Click to expand...

It speaks volumes about the people that give $$$ to support either side of this. Millions of people have no food and people want to waste time on not being considered "married".
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
All states should just offer civil unions between consenting adults with full legal and financial benefits. let the churches handle how they want to define marriage in their own archaic way.
Click to expand...

that sounds logical and reasonable.
 
Originally posted by: Hadrian
Originally posted by: Mo0o
All states should just offer civil unions between consenting adults with full legal and financial benefits. let the churches handle how they want to define marriage in their own archaic way.
Click to expand...

that sounds logical and reasonable.
Click to expand...

And no bringing reason here. :|
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top