[abouthotels]

I've bagged a female and I didn't even want it. That's how easy it is.

[Smeaphvalialm]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Strangely enough, our homosexual Canadian friend has it exact. Only if you only need one thrust.

[paydayus]

I know. I thought they reproduced via asexual meiosis.

[emuffette]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Finally someone spotted that error.

BTW: The Calif. Supreme Court has set Monday as the deadline for the opposition papers to the suit to overturn Prop. 8. The Court is moving with unusual speed. If I understand correctly the opponents are claiming that prop 8 amounts to a revision of the constitution (which must be passed through the state legislature) instead of just being an amendment (which can be passed via a proposition). This actually gives me hope that it may be over turned because the ban on gay marriage was previously over turned because it violated the equal protection clause in the state constitution.

[iiilizium]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
I bet Asher gets a lot more attention from women than you do. Naw. I've seen his photos. He needs to lose weight.

[Gymnarnemia]

Does that mean she was flat chested with a boyish look?

[atmowasia]

Interesting op-ed in the LA Times today...

Most Americans insist that they want the word "marriage" to continue to mean a long-term, opposite-sex union, as it has in the Judeo-Christian world for nearly two millenniums. To put this issue into better perspective, imagine that English were more like German and that the word marriage had a lot more syllables: longtermoppositesexunion. Should same-sex couples wed under that label? I say no -- and that gay activists have been fighting the wrong battle.

The real challenge is to have the state begin to recognize the full range of healthy, non-exploitative, romantic partnerships that actually exist among human beings. Gays are correct in expressing outrage over the fact that official recognition, the power to make health decisions, inheritance rights and tax benefits, have long been granted to only one kind of committed partnership in the United States. But wanting their own committed relationships to be shoe-horned into an old institution makes little sense, especially given the poor, almost pathetic performance of that institution in recent decades. Half of first marriages fail in the U.S., after all, as do nearly two-thirds of second marriages. Is that really a club you want to join?



Even if marriage were redefined to accommodate same-sex couples in California, would any real benefits ensue? The state's current domestic partnership law -- wait, I mean its longtermsamesexunion law -- does everything a state can do for a romantic same-sex couple, creating complete parity between gay and straight couples. Gay "marriage" adds nothing except the label, still leaving those all-important federal rights -- accelerated immigration rights, Social Security and federal tax benefits, veterans benefits and many others -- completely inaccessible.

Let's fight a larger battle, namely to have government catch up to human behavior. That means recognizing the legitimacy of a wide range of consensual, non-exploitative romantic partnerships, each of which should probably have its own distinct label. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...tory?track=rss

Polygamy

[CiccoineFed]

The more important point is that polygamy is a far more common and accepted practice worldwide than gay marriage is. It's bigotry to deny Mormons the right to engage in their version of marriage while allowing their enemies in the gay community the right to engage in their version of marriage.

[usatramadolusa]

Why are gay activists protesting the Mormon church anyway? They weren't even the largest denomination that supported the ban. When will we see protests of black churches and the like pursued with equal vigor.

[JJoon077]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why are gay activists protesting the Mormon church anyway? They weren't even the largest denomination that supported the ban. When will we see protests of black churches and the like pursued with equal vigor. You're very wrong. The overwhelming financial backing for Prop 8 was from the Mormons. Black churches had very little to do with organizing/supporting the proposition efforts.

And black voters were not the deciding factor in the passage of the proposition, either. This is just an attempt to stir up animosity between gays and blacks where none need be.

[Joircarm]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And black voters were not the deciding factor in the passage of the proposition, either. This is just an attempt to stir up animosity between gays and blacks where none need be. Most of California's Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban

[Polopolop]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Most of California's Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban That neither refutes what I said, nor supports your claim. Try again.

I'll help: The number of black voters in the California Electorate isn't enough to account for the margin of victory for Prop 8. If blacks had voted for it in the same ratio as whites, it still would have passed.

The blame for Prop 8's passage is pretty obvious: a deceitful campaign hugely financed by the Mormon church, and a complete dropping of the ball by the anti-Prop 8 organizations, particularly the ever-useless HRC.

[delnisfernan]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


Mormons have it far worse than gay people. Gays are only suffering from the lack of a right that they've never had; the Mormons had a preexisting right to polygamy taken away by the government. Gays have it WORSE since we do not even have rights such as equal employment protection and so forth. Mormons already have such rights.

And I've already stated my position on polygamy before. Those who actually support legalizing polygamy can have at it with you.

What's pathetic is that I don't believe you sincerely believe that polygamous relationshps should be legally recognized anyway - you're just grasping for red herrings or strawmen to further your position in denying gays and lesbians their civil rights.

And DD should stop shedding crocodile tears for the Mormons. I know how well his gives-a-sh*t functioned before on other things, so there is no reason for me to beieve he sincerely cares about the so-called "plight" of the oh-so-poor Mormons.

This fact eludes him - gays and lesbians were not out to take away or deny any civil rights to Mormons, whereas Mormons have set out to take away the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Who here really holds the higher moral ground?

[bonyrek]

damn right

[nancywind]

Someone more knowledgeable can correct me, but isn't it the case that the majority of Mormons have turned away from polygamous marriages anyway? Romney was/is not polygamous is he?

Since my support for equal marriage rights is based on the monogamous structure of marriage, I don't see how it is illogical that I refuse to extend the same advocacy to polygamous relationships.

[elektikaka]

Originally posted by MrFun
Someone more knowledgeable can correct me, but isn't it the case that the majority of Mormons have turned away from polygamous marriages anyway? Romney was/is not polygamous is he?

Since my support for equal marriage rights is based on the monogamous structure of marriage, I don't see how it is illogical that I refuse to extend the same advocacy to polygamous relationships. The official stance of the Mormon Church is now against bigamy. Bigamy is outlawed in Utah, although some break-away sects still practice it. (IIRC, Utah outlawed bigamy as a condition of being admitted as a state.)

Not only is Romney not a bigamist, his "joke" during the campaign was that he was the only Republican candidate who'd had only one wife...all the rest had divorces and remarried at least once.

[Escamsrasiush]

So if Mormons no longer see legal recognition of polygamous relationship as a compelling civil rights issue, then Drake's point is moot. Of course they still see it as a compelling civil rights issue; they care enough that breakaway sects formed to practice polygamy in spite of the ban on the practice by the main church. This ban, as Zkrib pointed on, was forced on the Mormon church by the United States government as a condition of statehood for Utah.

The fact that a number of gay men and lesbians do not have an interest in legal marriage protection does not invalidate the compelling need for equal protection of such a civil right, Drake. There are plenty other gay and lesbians who have a passionate drive for this cause. Are you really too dense to see that the same dynamic exists in the Mormon community? Some Mormons do not have an interest in a legal right to polygamy, but there are others that have a passionate drive for the cause that leads them to form breakaway sects.

You're not coming up with very convincing arguments to justify your continued bigotry against Mormons and other groups who wish to practice polygamy...