Obama chooses Rick Warren

[Frame57]

Well, you will be seeing this on the news today. Obama chose Pastor Rick Warren to officiate swearing in the soon to be POTUS. Intersting choice I thought. Comically, I thought how funny it would be to have Jeremiah Wright perform this ceremony. The extreme right was concerned that he would use a Koran rather than a Bible upon which to place his hand. The Gay community especially here in CA has already erupted in flames over this choice. Guess you cannot please all the people all the time.

[Aramike]

Guess you cannot please all the people all the time.Truer words have never been spoken...

[baggygreen]

And what is rick warrens background that the gay and lesbian community are so angry?

[August]

And what is rick warrens background that the gay and lesbian community are so angry?

He supported Californias proposition 8 (ban on gay marriages).

[Frame57]

Well, I just do not see what the problem is. First of all the "Gay" community does not represent the majority of people here in America. Secondly, this is for the inauguration ceremony. Not like he is appointing the fellow to be a cabinet member. Thirdly, Obama professes to be a Christian and I guess he wanted a Christian to officiate the ceremony.

[A Very Super Market]

What? You mean Obama isn't a muslim!!!?



Just cuz he selected a guy against gay marriage doesn't mean Obama is...

[Enigma]

Yeah, this whole thing is very silly. I could care less what this man's opinions and positions are. I disagree with him, but so does Obama. It's absurd this is the fodder of "news" talk shows right now. As if anyone should care. :doh::roll:

[Frame57]

I am pretty sure BO publicly announced his faith. He is for traditional marriage, but I think he was against prop 8 which is why people are in a rage over this....

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, I just do not see what the problem is. First of all the "Gay" community does not represent the majority of people here in America. Secondly, this is for the inauguration ceremony. Not like he is appointing the fellow to be a cabinet member. Thirdly, Obama professes to be a Christian and I guess he wanted a Christian to officiate the ceremony.

What the gay community is attempting to do is turn this in to a civil rights issue. Is it really a civil right issue? I think not.

What do you fellas think?

[AVGWarhawk]

I am pretty sure BO publicly announced his faith. He is for traditional marriage, but I think he was against prop 8 which is why people are in a rage over this....

BO said he did not support gay marriage. I believe he stated this in one of the debates.

[Enigma]

What the gay community is attempting to do is turn this in to a civil rights issue. Is it really a civil right issue? I think not.

What do you fellas think?

Is Obama's choice of this man a civil rights issue? No.

Is prop 8, or denying gay folks the right to marry a civil rights issue? Absolutely.

"A couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion," he said. "Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak. And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about -- that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans." -Barack Obama

That's podium speak for: "Liberals. I know this upsets some of you, and I don't care". And frankly, I agree with him.

[Frame57]

Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. The reality is that we are allowing sexual based behavior to hijack traditional family structures for money and benefits. What's next the beastiality freaks will have the same argument and the ACLU will no doubt support them as well.:nope:

[Enigma]

Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. The reality is that we are allowing sexual based behavior to hijack traditional family structures for money and benefits. What's next the beastiality freaks will have the same argument and the ACLU will no doubt support them as well.:nope:

Anybody that equated 2 HUMAN homosexuals wanting to be married with bestiality, (even while spelling bestiality incorrectly) has no place in the conversation. If you consider gay people less than human, then who are you to speak on human rights?

[AVGWarhawk]

Is prop 8, or denying gay folks the right to marry a civil rights issue? Absolutely.

How? The civil right movement was for voter rights, equal opportunity in work, pay and abolishing segregation. This movement was for a race of peoples, not a decision to marry. I think they are far off the mark by labeling this a civil rights movement. What civil rights have they lost?

[AVGWarhawk]

Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. The reality is that we are allowing sexual based behavior to hijack traditional family structures for money and benefits. What's next the beastiality freaks will have the same argument and the ACLU will no doubt support them as well.:nope:
Anybody that equated 2 HUMAN homosexuals wanting to be married with bestiality, (even while spelling bestiality incorrectly) has no place in the conversation. If you consider gay people less than human, then who are you to speak on human rights?

I think he was pointing out that if this 'odd' behavior as some see it gets the OK, then any other 'odd' behavior will be drawn in under the same premise. In other words, should the 'odd' behavior of the Man/Boy group be included now?

[AVGWarhawk]

I think he was pointing out that if this 'odd' behavior as some see it gets the OK, then any other 'odd' behavior will be drawn in under the same premise. In other words, should the 'odd' behavior of the Man/Boy group be included now?
Oh boy, how to sugar coat a crock of sh!t, I hope not to see you complaining about political correctness in the future :o

How is it a crock of sh!t? My nephew is openly gay. I have met his other half. My kids have had dinner at his house and played board games. So really, what do you know about political correctness? Do I agree with my nephews lifestyle? No. Do I condemn him for it. No. Do I use derogatory words of wit that people use for the gay community? No. I support it so I do not see him hanging himself in the closet over the issues he faces. Is he left out of life, pay and lost liberties because he can not marry? No. He just finished college and is now sixth grade teacher. Political correctness and addressing the real emotional issue I experienced with my nephew who came out of the closet are two very different things in my reality. Do I believe gays should be able to marry, yes but I do not see it as a civil rights issue.

[mookiemookie]

Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. The reality is that we are allowing sexual based behavior to hijack traditional family structures for money and benefits. What's next the beastiality freaks will have the same argument and the ACLU will no doubt support them as well.:nope:
Anybody that equated 2 HUMAN homosexuals wanting to be married with bestiality, (even while spelling bestiality incorrectly) has no place in the conversation. If you consider gay people less than human, then who are you to speak on human rights?
I think he was pointing out that if this 'odd' behavior as some see it gets the OK, then any other 'odd' behavior will be drawn in under the same premise. In other words, should the 'odd' behavior of the Man/Boy group be included now?
Two grown adults can consent to a committed adult sexual relationship whereas an animal or child cannot.

[AVGWarhawk]

Ok, clearer: you sugar coated Frame57's crock of sh!t :)


oooooooooooo...sometimes you just make me mad :nope: :rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. The reality is that we are allowing sexual based behavior to hijack traditional family structures for money and benefits. What's next the beastiality freaks will have the same argument and the ACLU will no doubt support them as well.:nope:
Anybody that equated 2 HUMAN homosexuals wanting to be married with bestiality, (even while spelling bestiality incorrectly) has no place in the conversation. If you consider gay people less than human, then who are you to speak on human rights?
I think he was pointing out that if this 'odd' behavior as some see it gets the OK, then any other 'odd' behavior will be drawn in under the same premise. In other words, should the 'odd' behavior of the Man/Boy group be included now?
Two grown adults can consent to a committed adult sexual relationship whereas an animal or child cannot.

Very true and a valid argument presumably in a court of law.

[Frame57]

Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. The reality is that we are allowing sexual based behavior to hijack traditional family structures for money and benefits. What's next the beastiality freaks will have the same argument and the ACLU will no doubt support them as well.:nope:

Anybody that equated 2 HUMAN homosexuals wanting to be married with bestiality, (even while spelling bestiality incorrectly) has no place in the conversation. If you consider gay people less than human, then who are you to speak on human rights?Oooops! I had a typo and you must be the hall monitor here... No! What i am saying is that this is a sexual behavior issue. i.e. sexual behavior does not mandate rights in any way shape or form. This does not impy that homosexuals are sub human...that is your false interpretation of what I have written.

[Zachstar]

Regardless on where you stand on Gay Marriage you have to admit this is a PR disaster..

"It will ease fears in the christian community" You mean until he supposedly repeals DOMA?

"It will bring the right into the equation" The right is already involved. It is called politics.

"He has done tons of good things!" Matters little as he is not up there to be appointed to something. He is there to confirm Obama has been sworn in.

A much better choice would have been a Joe Smo pastor or priest that nobody knows about.

[subchaser12]

The gay marriage cat is out of the bag. It's just a matter of time now. The right can kick and scream and delay the game all they want, we all know what will happen. As sure as blacks got their freedom in 1964 so will gays.

It's not a matter of if but when. In the future they will look back and laugh when there was a time gays could be discriminated against.

[Zachstar]

Agreed

Hopefully using the bible as an excuse for bigotry will go with it.

[August]

Regardless on where you stand on Gay Marriage you have to admit this is a PR disaster..

So what are the gay and lesbian community going to do about it? Vote republican next election?

[AVGWarhawk]

The gay marriage cat is out of the bag. It's just a matter of time now. The right can kick and scream and delay the game all they want, we all know what will happen. As sure as blacks got their freedom in 1964 so will gays.

It's not a matter of if but when. In the future they will look back and laugh when there was a time gays could be discriminated against.


With the exception of no marriage, what is the gay community being discriminated on? Last time I checked, gays did not have to use the back of the bus or had a water fountain soley for gays. They voted in the last election. I have not seen any discrimination in jobs or pay. I have not seen signs on restaurants that say straight people only. Sorry, but this is not a tough row to hoe for gays as the blacks experienced and some still do today. Gays can hide where as a black can not change color or hide it. Most blacks are judged immediately because of color. IMO, there is a substantial difference. When I look at my nephew I see a 22 year old fresh out of college who just landed a job as a 6th grade teacher. There is no big 'G' on his chest like the scarlet letter 'A'. Personally, I have no issue with gay marriage. Many gays I know are very productive members of society and are just as normal as you and I. I can not see labeling this as a civil rights issue. In fact, IMO, it is not even remotely close.

[AVGWarhawk]

Regardless on where you stand on Gay Marriage you have to admit this is a PR disaster..

So what are the gay and lesbian community going to do about it? Vote republican next election?

PR disaster? Probably not because Obama was not soliciting the gay vote. He openly stated in the debates he supported many gay rights but did not support gay marriage as marriage is defined. In retrospect, Obama has not waivered from his thoughts on gay marriage. Also, you are not going to please everyone all the time. Throw Rev Wright up there and see how that goes. :roll:

[Enigma]

With the exception of no marriage, what is the gay community being discriminated on? Last time I checked, gays did not have to use the back of the bus or had a water fountain soley for gays. They voted in the last election. I have not seen any discrimination in jobs or pay. I have not seen signs on restaurants that say straight people only. Sorry, but this is not a tough row to hoe for gays as the blacks experienced and some still do today. Gays can hide where as a black can not change color or hide it. Most blacks are judged immediately because of color. IMO, there is a substantial difference. When I look at my nephew I see a 22 year old fresh out of college who just landed a job as a 6th grade teacher. There is no big 'G' on his chest like the scarlet letter 'A'. Personally, I have no issue with gay marriage. Many gays I know are very productive members of society and are just as normal as you and I. I can not see labeling this as a civil rights issue. In fact, IMO, it is not even remotely close.
Gay folks want to have the same rights that you do. Meaning, they want to have the freedom to be married, like you do. Some places allow ceremonial marriages, but those alone include no civil laws and no legal benefits. Gay couples want to be able to adopt, which only 19 states currently allow, and then it's a ridiculous dog and pony show of a process. They Cannot have a non-U.S. spouse become a full citizen, like you can. They cannot collect benefits when a spouse dies. They cannot file jointly as a married couple. A homosexual cannot be a troop leader in the Boy Scouts of America, like you can. An openly gay person can be discharged from the U.S military for stating his/her sexual preference, etc, etc, etc....

The mistake you and many others make, is you don't see a civil rights issue unless people are segregated by skin color and owned as slaves, or made to ride at the back of the bus, etc. Gay people is this country do not share the same rights and liberties that straight Americans do. It's textbook discrimination, and it absolutely is a civil rights issue, and if Republicans (edit: Americans. Dems, repubs, folks in general) want to be the champions of freedom, and keep waving the freedom flag, they should start practicing what they preach and include all Americans in our civil liberties, even those who are gay, who are business owners, politicians, parents, teachers, doctors, lawyers, soldiers, you name it.

[Frame57]

An absolutely ridiculous argument. I know the gays want people to believe they are "born" that way. There is no proof of this whatsoever. Being black or any other ethnicity or gender is not a choice. Sexual behavior is, therefore it is not a cilivil rights issue. The reason I do not believe they are born that way is because everything in the universe we know of is based on opposite attraction. Magnetism requires polar opposites, electricity requires bias flow which need a cathode and anode, all molecular structures require this in order remain intact. Life as we know it on planet earth requires this basic law in order to be and survive.

[Enigma]

An absolutely ridiculous argument. I know the gays want people to believe they are "born" that way. There is no proof of this whatsoever. Being black or any other ethnicity or gender is not a choice. Sexual behavior is, therefore it is not a cilivil rights issue. The reason I do not believe they are born that way is because everything in the universe we know of is based on opposite attraction. Magnetism requires polar opposites, electricity requires bias flow which need a cathode and anode, all molecular structures require this in order remain intact. Life as we know it on planet earth requires this basic law in order to be and survive.

And you call mine a ridiculous argument? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I'm all for having this conversation with people who heads are not so firmly buried in their asses.

[August]

I'm all for having this conversation with people who heads are not so firmly buried in their asses.

Meaning those who agree with your point of view?

[Frame57]

An absolutely ridiculous argument. I know the gays want people to believe they are "born" that way. There is no proof of this whatsoever. Being black or any other ethnicity or gender is not a choice. Sexual behavior is, therefore it is not a cilivil rights issue. The reason I do not believe they are born that way is because everything in the universe we know of is based on opposite attraction. Magnetism requires polar opposites, electricity requires bias flow which need a cathode and anode, all molecular structures require this in order remain intact. Life as we know it on planet earth requires this basic law in order to be and survive.

And you call mine a ridiculous argument? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I'm all for having this conversation with people who heads are not so firmly buried in their asses.Mine is born of natural observation of life, yours is apparantly just going with the flow as it were....Take some science and biology courses and call me in five years when you become an educated human being. Honestly, lets be frank here, have you ever wondered why the male orgasm produces an ejaculation of life bearing seed??? Or are you too damn dense to realize the design behind it???:know:

[August]

It's not a point of view here, it's scientifical facts against looney theories.

Is scientifical even a real word? :hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

It's not a point of view here, it's scientifical facts against looney theories.
Is scientifical even a real word? :hmm:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Scientif ically speaking, no.

[Digital_Trucker]

Well I have no idea, let's say it's scientifique :know:

Touché:D

[kurtz]

Just back to topic...

I think this is a human rights issue: it seems to me that the 'gay community' want Rick Warren to be excluded from public life because he spoke against gay marriage. This violates a very basic human right.

[kurtz]

I'm all for having this conversation with people who heads are not so firmly buried in their asses.

Meaning those who agree with your point of view?

Please not those who have their heads buried in other peoples asses:D

[AVGWarhawk]

Just back to topic...

I think this is a human rights issue: it seems to me that the 'gay community' want Rick Warren to be excluded from public life because he spoke against gay marriage. This violates a very basic human right.

As side from the scientifantastical stuff and peoples asses with heads in them. Frame57 first line is valid. White, black, yellow, red........you are born with the color. Not a choice. You are therefore born into the stigmata that is socially labeled upon your race. Tell me why Obama got every racial joke thrown at him in the book? Now, scientifically it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuals do have hormon inbalances. No one can argue that medical tests are performed on male and female only to find each might exhibit more hormons of the opposite gender. This is were the sexuality confusion arises. Some do choose this lifestyle without exhibiting these hormonal characteristics. Do you really think the twit Lindsay Lohan was born into lesbianism as she still and states she dates men? She found a gal who is obviously a lesbian and showed/flaunted affection on a very confused drunken girl. Smurk all you like, Lohan was not born into lesbianism. She gets her sexual and social gratification from someone who is non-judgemental.

Now, the civil rights argument for marriage, ie. get benefits, medical benefits? Probably not, money benefits for 401K? Absolutely! You can write in anyone you want. File jointly on taxes? Have you not heard of the marriage penalty tax? Not being able to be a boy scout leader? Some cases have come up in the news. I'm betting there are gay scout leaders. Hell, if a school hires on gays as teachers, why not a scout leader? I think this argument is a stretch. Anyone can get discharged from the army by saying just about anything. Sorry, I do not a civil rights movement here.

Inserting head in ass:dead:

[Enigma]

Well, ignoring it doesn't make it go away, I'm afraid.

Mine is born of natural observation of life, yours is apparantly just going with the flow as it were....Take some science and biology courses and call me in five years when you become an educated human being. Honestly, lets be frank here, have you ever wondered why the male orgasm produces an ejaculation of life bearing seed??? Or are you too damn dense to realize the design behind it???:know:

Ha. I could tell you about where exactly I took my biology classes, and trust me, you'd feel a bit silly for making such a comment. But, it's not becoming of me to list my credentials to you.

I'm an "uneducated human being" because I'm aware that there are gay people in the world. :rotfl:God, it's astounding....

[Enigma]

August, pal, make sure you know where the fire escapes are in the peanut gallery. You know, for safeteys sake. :roll:

As side from the scientifantastical stuff and peoples asses with heads in them. Frame57 first line is valid. White, black, yellow, red........you are born with the color. Not a choice. You are therefore born into the stigmata that is socially labeled upon your race. Tell me why Obama got every racial joke thrown at him in the book? Now, scientifically it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuals do have hormon inbalances. No one can argue that medical tests are performed on male and female only to find each might exhibit more hormons of the opposite gender. This is were the sexuality confusion arises. Some do choose this lifestyle without exhibiting these hormonal characteristics. Do you really think the twit Lindsay Lohan was born into lesbianism as she still and states she dates men? She found a gal who is obviously a lesbian and showed/flaunted affection on a very confused drunken girl. Smurk all you like, Lohan was not born into lesbianism. She gets her sexual and social gratification from someone who is non-judgemental.

Now, the civil rights argument for marriage, ie. get benefits, medical benefits? Probably not, money benefits for 401K? Absolutely! You can write in anyone you want. File jointly on taxes? Have you not heard of the marriage penalty tax? Not being able to be a boy scout leader? Some cases have come up in the news. I'm betting there are gay scout leaders. Hell, if a school hires on gays as teachers, why not a scout leader? I think this argument is a stretch. Anyone can get discharged from the army by saying just about anything. Sorry, I do not a civil rights movement here.

Inserting head in ass:dead:
Warhawk, when I said I'd discuss this with people who's head was not firmly planted in said asses, I wasn't referring to you. You are perfectly capable of having a good discussion, and in this environment, I appreciate that despite our differences of opinion.:up:

As for Lohan, I agree with you, but thats a piss poor example of what we are talking about here. Step one would be accepting that there are homosexual human beings. Millions. Not like, a group of people in liberal cities. It's not a new, cool fad as in perhaps Miss Lohan's case. Soctates, Ceaser, da Vinci, have been historilcally noted as having sexual encounters with people of their own sex. Plato wrote about such things. You said it yourself, there is proven medical evidence that homosexuality exists. "hormon imbalances" I think you said.

Also, you cited that maybe you saw a news paper article that included a gay boy scout leader. Wonderful. My argument is simply this = Gay people in America do not share the same rights as straight people.

Here are some examples found in a quick goole search. Bold mine.

In November, California voters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, thereby overturning the state Supreme Court decision that gave gay couples the right to wed just months ago.
Why are civil unions not enough for gay rights activists? The federal government accords 1,138 benefits and responsibilities based on marital status, not on civil union status. A few of those benefits are unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse, social security survivor benefits and spousal benefits, and the right not to testify against one’s spouse, among others.
It's a simple formula. These folks do not share the same rights as you and I, for these reasons, and for those I stated earlier. So, when a group of people in this country our denied rights the straight community have, they are, by definition, discrimnated against. Therefore, by definition, it is a civil rights issue. We know this, because the definition of civil rights is...

Civil and political rights are a class of rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_fairness) in law; protection from discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) based on gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism), religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_intolerance), race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism), sexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia), etc; individual freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_%28political%29) of belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_belief), speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association), and the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press); and political participation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29). -per Wiki

[UnderseaLcpl]

EZ Gay marriage fix

1) Remove state authority from religious and/or civil unions.

2) Fixed

[bradclark1]

An absolutely ridiculous argument. I know the gays want people to believe they are "born" that way. There is no proof of this whatsoever. Being black or any other ethnicity or gender is not a choice. Sexual behavior is, therefore it is not a cilivil rights issue. The reason I do not believe they are born that way is because everything in the universe we know of is based on opposite attraction. Magnetism requires polar opposites, electricity requires bias flow which need a cathode and anode, all molecular structures require this in order remain intact. Life as we know it on planet earth requires this basic law in order to be and survive.
I'd say you have led a pretty sheltered life. Grab a drink and a bench at the mall sometime and do some people watching.

[Frame57]

An absolutely ridiculous argument. I know the gays want people to believe they are "born" that way. There is no proof of this whatsoever. Being black or any other ethnicity or gender is not a choice. Sexual behavior is, therefore it is not a cilivil rights issue. The reason I do not believe they are born that way is because everything in the universe we know of is based on opposite attraction. Magnetism requires polar opposites, electricity requires bias flow which need a cathode and anode, all molecular structures require this in order remain intact. Life as we know it on planet earth requires this basic law in order to be and survive.
I'd say you have led a pretty sheltered life. Grab a drink and a bench at the mall sometime and do some people watching.Gimme a break. because i make these obsevations of which i am qualified to having higher education in Anatomy, Physiology and Biology, you say sheltered? Nonsense, the scientific community not 30 years agreed with my theory on thea matter. You cannot escape facts. The debate over the hormone issue is not one taken at birth. Children do not produce certain hormones on a regular basis until adolenscence has arrived. There is no scientific proof "Gays" are born that way. Hormone imbalances are not present in every Gay person either. A woman who has higher testosterone is more likely just to be more active sexually with no particular inclination toward lesbianism. Doctors will sometimes prescribe testosterone to women who have lost their libido. I spend my time saving lives in Biomedical engineering, perhaps you should hang at the mall while I continue to observe the universe with an IQ perhaps 75 points above yours....:yep:

[Enigma]

I spend my time saving lives in Biomedical engineering, perhaps you should hang at the mall while I continue to observe the universe with an IQ perhaps 75 points above yours....:yep:

;):roll:

[August]

August, pal, make sure you know where the fire escapes are in the peanut gallery. You know, for safeteys sake. :roll:

What's the matter Enigma? Are you getting upset again because people don't value your opinions enough or are your arguments so weak that you have to resort to childish insults? :roll:

[AVGWarhawk]

August, pal, make sure you know where the fire escapes are in the peanut gallery. You know, for safeteys sake. :roll:

As side from the scientifantastical stuff and peoples asses with heads in them. Frame57 first line is valid. White, black, yellow, red........you are born with the color. Not a choice. You are therefore born into the stigmata that is socially labeled upon your race. Tell me why Obama got every racial joke thrown at him in the book? Now, scientifically it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuals do have hormon inbalances. No one can argue that medical tests are performed on male and female only to find each might exhibit more hormons of the opposite gender. This is were the sexuality confusion arises. Some do choose this lifestyle without exhibiting these hormonal characteristics. Do you really think the twit Lindsay Lohan was born into lesbianism as she still and states she dates men? She found a gal who is obviously a lesbian and showed/flaunted affection on a very confused drunken girl. Smurk all you like, Lohan was not born into lesbianism. She gets her sexual and social gratification from someone who is non-judgemental.

Now, the civil rights argument for marriage, ie. get benefits, medical benefits? Probably not, money benefits for 401K? Absolutely! You can write in anyone you want. File jointly on taxes? Have you not heard of the marriage penalty tax? Not being able to be a boy scout leader? Some cases have come up in the news. I'm betting there are gay scout leaders. Hell, if a school hires on gays as teachers, why not a scout leader? I think this argument is a stretch. Anyone can get discharged from the army by saying just about anything. Sorry, I do not a civil rights movement here.

Inserting head in ass:dead:
Warhawk, when I said I'd discuss this with people who's head was not firmly planted in said asses, I wasn't referring to you. You are perfectly capable of having a good discussion, and in this environment, I appreciate that despite our differences of opinion.:up:

As for Lohan, I agree with you, but thats a piss poor example of what we are talking about here. Step one would be accepting that there are homosexual human beings. Millions. Not like, a group of people in liberal cities. It's not a new, cool fad as in perhaps Miss Lohan's case. Soctates, Ceaser, da Vinci, have been historilcally noted as having sexual encounters with people of their own sex. Plato wrote about such things. You said it yourself, there is proven medical evidence that homosexuality exists. "hormon imbalances" I think you said.

Also, you cited that maybe you saw a news paper article that included a gay boy scout leader. Wonderful. My argument is simply this = Gay people in America do not share the same rights as straight people.

Here are some examples found in a quick goole search. Bold mine.


In November, California voters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, thereby overturning the state Supreme Court decision that gave gay couples the right to wed just months ago.
Why are civil unions not enough for gay rights activists? The federal government accords 1,138 benefits and responsibilities based on marital status, not on civil union status. A few of those benefits are unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse, social security survivor benefits and spousal benefits, and the right not to testify against one’s spouse, among others.
It's a simple formula. These folks do not share the same rights as you and I, for these reasons, and for those I stated earlier. So, when a group of people in this country our denied rights the straight community have, they are, by definition, discrimnated against. Therefore, by definition, it is a civil rights issue. We know this, because the definition of civil rights is...

Civil and political rights are a class of rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_fairness) in law; protection from discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) based on gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism), religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_intolerance), race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism), sexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia), etc; individual freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_%28political%29) of belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_belief), speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association), and the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press); and political participation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_%28decision_making%29). -per Wiki

I know you were not talking about me and the head in anus deal:rotfl: I was just making light of it. Your arguments are valid but perhaps I'm not explaining myself enough as to why I do not see this a civil rights issue. Refering back to my previous posts concerning what it took and years of being classified as nothing better than a farm animal for the blacks in America far outweight what the gay community is up against in this present day. Blacks in America were not provided the most basic civil rights. None! They fought, clawed and gave their lives to obtain the most basic of civil rights enjoyed in America. It was numerous rights fought for one step at a time. They were not fighting for a right to get married so to enjoy some benefits. Basically, all I see here is obtaining the right to marry so as to obtain some benefits, not civil rights. I find these rights that you refer to as not obtainable are nowhere remotely close to the rights the slaves fought over 200 years. I do not think the gay community is suffering a blight as black America has. If I were a black American I would be upset to compare getting married for benies with struggling to achieve the basic rights offer to American. Again, I'm not against gay marriage in any form. I'm of the mind that I do not see this as a civil rights issue. It is more of an ass grab for benefits. As far as being a scout leader, this is not on the table. It is marriage and marriage only from what I read. So, we will see how this pans out. Obama has stated his idea on gay marriage. Not by definition. Should they be afforded some of the things enjoyed by hetersexual married? Obama said yes. Furthermore, Biden, Palin and McCain all stated the same. California has spoken. Much of America is against it. So, perhaps the gay community will have to fight and claw their way into this as the black American has done in the 200 years on this soil.

As far as Lohan, she is not a poor example of choice. She is a perfect example and one of millions who make the choice. One day I might talk to you about my nephew and how he arrived at this type of lifestyle. Until then, what I know personally and what science tells me, homosexuality can be born into a person and it can also be a choice. Hence another reason why I do not see this as a civil rights issue.

[bradclark1]

I spend my time saving lives in Biomedical engineering, perhaps you should hang at the mall while I continue to observe the universe with an IQ perhaps 75 points above yours....:yep:
Now thats a laugh. Get out of the lab Mr. Booksmart and get down to the mall and observe people and adjust your 19th century prejudices. Use your eyes and common sense if thats at all possible.
Read about halfway down page 11 about your science.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=z471AuPWnfoC&dq=gay+science&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=HZMTx2VkGN&sig=aTEYpJjc6vnl6tWhGVizYX5g4QE&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA11,M1

[mookiemookie]

Gimme a break. because i make these obsevations of which i am qualified to having higher education in Anatomy, Physiology and Biology, you say sheltered? Nonsense, the scientific community not 30 years agreed with my theory on thea matter. You cannot escape facts. The debate over the hormone issue is not one taken at birth. Children do not produce certain hormones on a regular basis until adolenscence has arrived. There is no scientific proof "Gays" are born that way. Hormone imbalances are not present in every Gay person either. A woman who has higher testosterone is more likely just to be more active sexually with no particular inclination toward lesbianism. Doctors will sometimes prescribe testosterone to women who have lost their libido. I spend my time saving lives in Biomedical engineering, perhaps you should hang at the mall while I continue to observe the universe with an IQ perhaps 75 points above yours....:yep:
You may want to catch up on some current research there, Doc:

But, in October, California researchers studying fetal development identified 54 genes that play a role in the expression of sex -- before hormones are ever released.


"This refutes the idea that hormones are the only story in sexual differentiation of the brain. That has been the dogma in the field for 30 years," said Dr. Eric Vilain, an assistant professor of human genetics and urology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles, who led the research.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2003/12/02/the_biological_basis_of_homosexuality/

[bradclark1]

Looks like those 75 points aren't doing much good.

[AVGWarhawk]

So, homosexuals would have to be treated like worst sh!t than blacks were back then, then some of them could die, and then maybe they would have the right to marry ? :D Ok I'm again being sarcastic but I had a hard time reading your post fully after that line.

As for the born as is/choice thing, it's a non issue IMO, even if it were proven that all homosexuals are so by choice. You just can't brag about freedom and deny rights to millions of people because they chose not to live like the majority.

No, they do not need to be treated like black America for me to see this as a civil rights issue. My what I'm saying is the gay community is likening this "rights violation" for marriage to the basic rights black America clawed to achieve. To all, is marriage a right or just an institution created by religion? You know, the religious notion that marriage should be between a man and women. It all gets very complicated:hmm:

[August]

Personally i don't care what they do as long as it doesn't cost me the taxpayer any additional money.

[Frame57]

I found the study interesting but this has been in debate for years. First of all plaese re-read the article and note that The UCLA study suggested that children who were confused about their sexuality had an iclination to grow up to be gay. A child can become "un-confused" by proper instruction about their bodies.

Dr. Pillard also noted that if homosexuality were totally genetic then the figures would be 100% and they are not in his study.

The 91 autopsy revealed hypothalamus irregularities in homosexual me who died of AIDS, but it is determined that the brain anomaly id due to the disease rather than the homosexual behavior. Which I would agree on.

On thing that people fail to realize is that brain and other body chemistry can and does change from exogenous activity or behavior. The flight or fight syndrome is a classic example of this, thusly releasing adrenaline in the body. This is why drug addicts often are found with atrophied adrenals glands during autopsies. They have overburdened the gland to failure. Sexual behavior also causes many changes in the body. If you or I took a complete blood panel prior to sexual activity and then during our hormone counts would be off the charts. So for a male to take on a feminine mind set will in no doubt have a different hormone profile from a masculine male. But my take on it is that the changes occur after the fact and remain permanent.

Not be offensive here but a Colo-rectal surgeon who is a colleague discussed the dangers of anal sex. The continuous activity leads to a weakened rectum and i will try to find a UCSF study on this to reference for you. This weakened rectum results in what is called a rectal prolapse where the inner parts of the rectum is protruding out of the anus. This is serious and requires immediate surgey to correct. The point is that 99% of people who get this engage in anal sex. So it becomes clear to the scientific mind that this is not a healthy practice to engage in.

I am aware of the studies ongoing but nothing yet has been proven scientifically, you are dealing with statistics in these matters. It is not my intention to offend anyone but to show that there is clear and reasonble alternatives as to why some just do not accept what people think because they say so.

[Sailor Steve]

In the last discussion on gay marriage I came out firmly on the side of freedom. Period. I haven't changed that opinion, but I was discussing this with a friend who has a background in Anthropology, Archeology and History, and I thought his observations were worth commenting on.

To all, is marriage a right or just an institution created by religion? You know, the religious notion that marriage should be between a man and women. It all gets very complicated:hmm:
I think it's a right, but we all know what I think, so I'm going to talk about what my friend thinks. He doesn't believe marriage is a right, nor does he believe marriage is religious in nature.

His observation was that the Greeks, and some other ancient groups, believed that the only true love could happen between members of the same sex, because only they could understand each other. In his opinion, those cultures invented marriage as a social contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of establishing a family unit for the purpose of raising children. Marriage didn't really become a religious function until the middle ages, when the Catholic Church came to the conclusion that control could be exerted over the civil institutions by getting religion into the marriage game.

While in the original thread I argued against the right of a society or community to dictate law according to arbitrary standards, my friend challenged that opinion on the basis that all licenses - from plumbers to drivers to electricians - are awarded by the state according to set standards, and this includes marriage licenses.

I still stand by my original beliefs, but I thought his ideas were worth sharing.

As far as benefits go, in my opinion the purpose of benefits for spouses is to guarantee the safety of families if the breadwinner can no longer supply the bread. But aren't benefits a function of the heads of the company awarding them, and not state interference?

@ Frame57: a lot of your observations are worth considering, but "I'm smarter than you!" is hardly going to get people to consider your opinions. Just the opposite, I'd say. And, do medical problems and whether people are born that way or choose to be that way really have anything to do with rights and liberty. I've heard doctors back up their opinion that motorcycle riders should be forced to wear helmets on the grounds that they've had to treat a lot of head injuries. I didn't swallow that one either.

[baggygreen]

I normally like to think i'm rational, level-headed, and open-minded.

I can understand in many respects why gay couples should be allowed civil unions. But for reasons I can't explain, i hate the notion.

I'm all for personal freedoms when they don't impinge on others, but I still hate the idea of gay marriage.

I have a number of gay and lesbian friends, but I still hate gay marriage.

I think my main issues are as follows, and I'll do my best to explain it, but I can't guarantee it'll come out clearly. (no pun intended)

1: Children. Now I know not all married couples have kids, but the majority do. I'm a firm believer that 2 gay men or 2 lesbian women cannot raise children in as.. fulfilling a manner as a straight couple. Now yes I know there are exceptions to every rule. But generally speaking, a straight couple provides 2 completely different approaches to life, the universe, and everything. Again, a generalisation so don't jump on me, but men and women the world over share common traits - take away that element in familial life and a child is to an extent deprived of the experiences and information that would otherwise be on offer. No man can replace a woman, nor can a woman ever replace a man, our views on the world are unavoidably altered to some extent by our chromosomes.

For instance, no matter how much a son may trust and love his mother, he would never go to her for guidance after discovering the joys of women. Who would he turn to in a gay marriage - mum, or mum? Same applies for girls, when they hit puberty, how comfortable would they be approaching dad or daddy for advice, reassurance, etc?

Forgive me for the rather sweeping statements, its something I find difficult to explain. I've done the best I can though.

[Frame57]

In the last discussion on gay marriage I came out firmly on the side of freedom. Period. I haven't changed that opinion, but I was discussing this with a friend who has a background in Anthropology, Archeology and History, and I thought his observations were worth commenting on.

To all, is marriage a right or just an institution created by religion? You know, the religious notion that marriage should be between a man and women. It all gets very complicated:hmm:
I think it's a right, but we all know what I think, so I'm going to talk about what my friend thinks. He doesn't believe marriage is a right, nor does he believe marriage is religious in nature.

His observation was that the Greeks, and some other ancient groups, believed that the only true love could happen between members of the same sex, because only they could understand each other. In his opinion, those cultures invented marriage as a social contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of establishing a family unit for the purpose of raising children. Marriage didn't really become a religious function until the middle ages, when the Catholic Church came to the conclusion that control could be exerted over the civil institutions by getting religion into the marriage game.

While in the original thread I argued against the right of a society or community to dictate law according to arbitrary standards, my friend challenged that opinion on the basis that all licenses - from plumbers to drivers to electricians - are awarded by the state according to set standards, and this includes marriage licenses.

I still stand by my original beliefs, but I thought his ideas were worth sharing.

As far as benefits go, in my opinion the purpose of benefits for spouses is to guarantee the safety of families if the breadwinner can no longer supply the bread. But aren't benefits a function of the heads of the company awarding them, and not state interference?

@ Frame57: a lot of your observations are worth considering, but "I'm smarter than you!" is hardly going to get people to consider your opinions. Just the opposite, I'd say. And, do medical problems and whether people are born that way or choose to be that way really have anything to do with rights and liberty. I've heard doctors back up their opinion that motorcycle riders should be forced to wear helmets on the grounds that they've had to treat a lot of head injuries. I didn't swallow that one either.Steve, it is when I make a case for someting using illustartion and some nitwit tells me to go the mall for education i feel i need to put them in their place...

[Frame57]

Not to be offensive, but what has anal sex to do with gay marriage ?

And to reiterate, whether it's natural or a choice is irrelevant, even if it were a choice what does that change ?The reference regarding the prolapse that happens is indicative that the practice is not in the natural order of things. Vaginas do not prolapse from having intercourse. Hence, i do not believe it to be a normal sexual practice. Thread drifted-sorry...

[Frame57]

I normally like to think i'm rational, level-headed, and open-minded.

I can understand in many respects why gay couples should be allowed civil unions. But for reasons I can't explain, i hate the notion.

I'm all for personal freedoms when they don't impinge on others, but I still hate the idea of gay marriage.

I have a number of gay and lesbian friends, but I still hate gay marriage.

I think my main issues are as follows, and I'll do my best to explain it, but I can't guarantee it'll come out clearly. (no pun intended)

1: Children. Now I know not all married couples have kids, but the majority do. I'm a firm believer that 2 gay men or 2 lesbian women cannot raise children in as.. fulfilling a manner as a straight couple. Now yes I know there are exceptions to every rule. But generally speaking, a straight couple provides 2 completely different approaches to life, the universe, and everything. Again, a generalisation so don't jump on me, but men and women the world over share common traits - take away that element in familial life and a child is to an extent deprived of the experiences and information that would otherwise be on offer. No man can replace a woman, nor can a woman ever replace a man, our views on the world are unavoidably altered to some extent by our chromosomes.

For instance, no matter how much a son may trust and love his mother, he would never go to her for guidance after discovering the joys of women. Who would he turn to in a gay marriage - mum, or mum? Same applies for girls, when they hit puberty, how comfortable would they be approaching dad or daddy for advice, reassurance, etc?

Forgive me for the rather sweeping statements, its something I find difficult to explain. I've done the best I can though.You make some sensible observations. I see in your observations one sterling mechanic and that is "balance". Why apologize for such an observation? You offended no one. Because there are a few who lash out in vile wretched anger and name call because other people have different opinions are simply ignorant and do not know how to have an intelligent debate without having a tantrum.

[baggygreen]

The why, frame, is easy - there are countless examples where there is, for example, only a mother's influence over her youngsters. Same applies for fathers.

One can argue that both a male and female influence isn't needed for a child's development, and argue strongly at that.

Another could argue that 2 mothers or not, that doesnt exclude other male role models such as grandparents, uncles, male friends, etc.

They're but a few counterpoints to what I've raised, and I know there are many others. I'm stating my opinion, and my argument behind that (to the best of my ability) even when I know there are a number of flaws in the argument. It is, at best, weakly put forward.

I think that stems from my thoughts toward it being from a deep, emotional reaction, and as such is inexplicable to others.

[1480]

Just thought I would stir the pot a bit.

SS, observations from his buddy made me raise an eyebrow. The institution of marriage is a social contract to basically retain property. Has nothing to do with feelings. I do not believe there were implications in W2 forms back then.

I can legally perform a marriage. I signed up to be a minister in the ULC. (google it, though the reason I did it is a long story)

There are laws that prohibit marriage between family members. In Illinois, unless there is a doctors note that states one or both parties are sterile, then you have to wait till you are 50 years old to marry as first cousins.


We can take this a couple of ways, is marriage a social contract or a religious obligation or the ever sickening prospect that people do actually find their soul mate?

The gays have a leg up since they can possibly claim two. Yet, the argument was brought up that it might lead to really deviant legal unions, here is my quick argument that holds a lot more water, Judism says there is nothing wrong with 1st cousins marrying, but there is a prohibition on that in Illinois and I KNOW for a fact in Clark county, Nevada. Where is the line drawn. And yes, I do not believe it is a civil rights issue.... I'm ready for the knocks.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not to be offensive, but what has anal sex to do with gay marriage ?

And to reiterate, whether it's natural or a choice is irrelevant, even if it were a choice what does that change ?

Anal sex is certainly not pertinent to the discussion and mean nothing in the context of the debate.

Good point on the choice/change question when I think about it. Marriage after all is a choice here in America. So, yes, choice of partner does not really play a part in the correct answer to gay marriage I would think.

[bradclark1]

Steve, it is when I make a case for someting using illustartion and some nitwit tells me to go the mall for education i feel i need to put them in their place...
A pity you found the comment nitwitty when it was made seriously. To me someone with your line of thinking isn't seeing whats in front of your face. A lot of gays can be identified just by seeing people walk by. For instance a person walking/moving in a cross sex manner. Mannerisims while communicating, etc. All the grief gays get from the straight community it is beyond belief that people would become gay by choice. I find gay sex personaly revolting and can't imagine someone waking up and say "Hey! I think I'll love and have relations with just other men." voluntarily. I've known enough gays to know it's not a choice thing. So to me for someone that has your line of reasoning that its a choice thing or a disease shows someone who is sheltered from the real world. So take your 75 points to the mall and do some people watching. And also just for your education it's not only gay men that travels the hershey highway.

[Frame57]

1480: You must have a hot cousin....:rotfl:

Warhawk: Yes it is as it illustrates an un-natural sex act that cripples the human body.....:hmm:

Brad: Uh? Get a life and an education. You are in the little leagues still...:know:

[AVGWarhawk]

1480: You must have a hot cousin....:rotfl:

Warhawk: Yes it is as it illustrates an un-natural sex act that cripples the human body.....:hmm:

Brad: Uh? Get a life and an education. You are in the little leagues still...:know:

Un-natural act however you are already assuming that anal sex is being performed. You can not assume anything in a relationship. Therefore, it is not a legitimate argument IMO. Furthermore, male and female perform the un-natural act. So, were does this place them? :hmm:

[bradclark1]

Brad: Uh? Get a life and an education. You are in the little leagues still...:know:
Come on, get out to the mall. Get out of that shelter.

[Frame57]

Steve, it is when I make a case for someting using illustartion and some nitwit tells me to go the mall for education i feel i need to put them in their place...
A pity you found the comment nitwitty when it was made seriously. To me someone with your line of thinking isn't seeing whats in front of your face. A lot of gays can be identified just by seeing people walk by. For instance a person walking/moving in a cross sex manner. Mannerisims while communicating, etc. All the grief gays get from the straight community it is beyond belief that people would become gay by choice. I find gay sex personaly revolting and can't imagine someone waking up and say "Hey! I think I'll love and have relations with just other men." voluntarily. I've known enough gays to know it's not a choice thing. So to me for someone that has your line of reasoning that its a choice thing or a disease shows someone who is sheltered from the real world. So take your 75 points to the mall and do some people watching. And also just for your education it's not only gay men that travels the hershey highway.Well "Brad", you seem to have a severe misunderstanding in human sexuality and well most other related topics that would require higher education to debate rather than this "Mall" mentality you prescribe. I do not have to join them to know them. You obviously gravitate toward that philosophy. Also, by golly you are right not all anal sex is limited to gay men, however 99% of those that have corrective surgery are gay men, so statistically speaking what would that tell you. So to have an educated opinion on this whole matter IYO is to be sheltered? Uh? Let's see where do I begin...Born In SF, I have gay relatives for that matter and we discuss these points without resorting to the "Mall" word. Been around the world a few times, been married, raised kids, have higher education with real world experience. Ah, yes and forgot the most sterling prize and I do boast it, real submariner for a decade...So if you think that is being sheltered let's hear what you have seen and done that makes you squirm because I have arrived at a different polar opinion that what you have??? All the points I have made are indicators that I feel make a case that homosexuality is not an Indigenous process, therefore it can and should not be defined the same as a heterosexual relationship. Son, all you have to do is look around and see the human race. We are here because of heterosexual relationships. From that very simple observation one can conclude that homosexuality does not support the wheel of life. This in no way means that gay people are substandard and should be treated in any ill mannered way. But to define 5000 years of recorded history pertaining to marriage and have it hijacked is just not acceptable to me.

[Frame57]

Brad: Uh? Get a life and an education. You are in the little leagues still...:know:
Come on, get out to the mall. Get out of that shelter. OK! Only if you take me to a movie and buy popcorn...Ooops, that sounds a bit....never mind:D

[Kapt Z]

[quote=Frame57]Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. /quote]

I don't follow your reasoning. If all of these gays who want to get married to eachother were 'straight' they'd be marrying someone anyway and 'raping the taxpayer for benefits'. So what difference would it make???:hmm:

[Aramike]

Does anybody here really think that the left-wing Barney Frank nuts would be up in arms if Obama chose a Muslim to conduct his swearing-in? I mean, Islam is far more harsh towards gays than Rick Warren...

Make no mistake ... this isn't because of an issue with gays. This is an issue with Christianity.

And, Barney Frank is one of the biggest idiots in American political history.

[Frame57]

[quote=Frame57]Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. /quote]

I don't follow your reasoning. If all of these gays who want to get married to eachother were 'straight' they'd be marrying someone anyway and 'raping the taxpayer for benefits'. So what difference would it make???:hmm:There is no doubt that AIDS has not gone away and is endemic as ever. It has higher rates of killing gay men in particular. Gay men in particular want to have spousal rights such as employee health care and then could qualify for spousal SSI benefits (SDI as well). I realize AIDS affects hemophiliacs and drug abusers as well, so no need to bring that up. For those of you who stated that anal sex in not relevant, that is precisely how gay men get AIDS as well as anal prolapse. So the tax burden will fall mainy of the social security funds and Medical funding.

[Frame57]

Frame, assuming you're married, did anybody asked you if you considered anal sex with your wife to be before marriage ? Do you think it's relevant ?

If you can't help equating homosexuality with anal sex then I'm affraid you have a problem.It is not equating it with it, but that lifestyle amongst gay men perform that act to a far greater degree that heterosexuals. Would you agree to that Mikhayl...?

[AVGWarhawk]

[quote=Frame57]Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. /quote]

I don't follow your reasoning. If all of these gays who want to get married to eachother were 'straight' they'd be marrying someone anyway and 'raping the taxpayer for benefits'. So what difference would it make???:hmm:There is no doubt that AIDS has not gone away and is endemic as ever. It has higher rates of killing gay men in particular. Gay men in particular want to have spousal rights such as employee health care and then could qualify for spousal SSI benefits (SDI as well). I realize AIDS affects hemophiliacs and drug abusers as well, so no need to bring that up. For those of you who stated that anal sex in not relevant, that is precisely how gay men get AIDS as well as anal prolapse. So the tax burden will fall mainy of the social security funds and Medical funding.
AID is a hetersexual problem as well. AIDS is transmitted by bodily fluid containing blood. Small vessels in the skin break and sexual contact in any form cause this to happen. Anal sex is not precisely how gay men get AIDS in all cases. It is passed vaginally between heterosexuals. Anal sex is about as relavent as the cost of tea in China.

[Frame57]

[quote=Frame57]Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. /quote]

I don't follow your reasoning. If all of these gays who want to get married to eachother were 'straight' they'd be marrying someone anyway and 'raping the taxpayer for benefits'. So what difference would it make???:hmm:There is no doubt that AIDS has not gone away and is endemic as ever. It has higher rates of killing gay men in particular. Gay men in particular want to have spousal rights such as employee health care and then could qualify for spousal SSI benefits (SDI as well). I realize AIDS affects hemophiliacs and drug abusers as well, so no need to bring that up. For those of you who stated that anal sex in not relevant, that is precisely how gay men get AIDS as well as anal prolapse. So the tax burden will fall mainy of the social security funds and Medical funding.
AID is a hetersexual problem as well. AIDS is transmitted by bodily fluid containing blood. Small vessels in the skin break and sexual contact in any form cause this to happen. Anal sex is not precisely how gay men get AIDS in all cases. It is passed vaginally between heterosexuals. Anal sex is about as relavent as the cost of tea in China.I am sure that if you looked into it, you would find that statistically the AIDS problem by far affects gay men than any other other group. Plus again I will say that I know it affects others...Can we not try to put someone in a box...When i make a point it does not axiomatically mean that only one group is mentioned, but that statistically one group can and does portray the illustration with greater magnitude. I will agree with you that no, not all gay men get AIDS that way, but, most do...

[AVGWarhawk]

[quote=Frame57]Definitely they are using it for their agenda. Gays do not marry or want to marry to have a family as nature dictates, they cannot unless they adopt. So it is just a slick way for them to manipulate the system and rape the tax payer for benefits. It will burden companies and the social security system further. /quote]

I don't follow your reasoning. If all of these gays who want to get married to eachother were 'straight' they'd be marrying someone anyway and 'raping the taxpayer for benefits'. So what difference would it make???:hmm:There is no doubt that AIDS has not gone away and is endemic as ever. It has higher rates of killing gay men in particular. Gay men in particular want to have spousal rights such as employee health care and then could qualify for spousal SSI benefits (SDI as well). I realize AIDS affects hemophiliacs and drug abusers as well, so no need to bring that up. For those of you who stated that anal sex in not relevant, that is precisely how gay men get AIDS as well as anal prolapse. So the tax burden will fall mainy of the social security funds and Medical funding.
AID is a hetersexual problem as well. AIDS is transmitted by bodily fluid containing blood. Small vessels in the skin break and sexual contact in any form cause this to happen. Anal sex is not precisely how gay men get AIDS in all cases. It is passed vaginally between heterosexuals. Anal sex is about as relavent as the cost of tea in China.I am sure that if you looked into it, you would find that statistically the AIDS problem by far affects gay men than any other other group. Plus again I will say that I know it affects others...Can we not try to put someone in a box...When i make a point it does not axiomatically mean that only one group is mentioned, but that statistically one group can and does portray the illustration with greater magnitude. I will agree with you that no, not all gay men get AIDS that way, but, most do...

Even so, AIDS happens with homo/hetersexuals. Can you provide me the statistics?

[Frame57]

AVG, I think anyone knows this to be true. The SF Chronicle used to write often of this topic in relation to the SF bath houses, but stopped due to pressure from the gay community. SF General has a ward exclusivly for AIDS patients. I work there often and cannot photograph all the dying/treated men there and 99% of them are indeed gay men. I am sure some internet site will have the stats, but it may take some time to find.

[AVGWarhawk]

AVG, I think anyone knows this to be true. The SF Chronicle used to write often of this topic in relation to the SF bath houses, but stopped due to pressure from the gay community. SF General has a ward exclusivly for AIDS patients. I work there often and cannot photograph all the dying/treated men there and 99% of them are indeed gay men. I am sure some internet site will have the stats, but it may take some time to find.

It took 2 seconds to find. 70% of new AIDS cases are men. 30% are women. Now, the point is, AIDS affects everyone so anal sex has nothing to do with marriage rights. In fact, how did the discussion of AIDS even start. Mute point.

[Frame57]

OK, I found the CDC stats for 2006 and out of the reported cases 17,465 of all AIDS cases were gay men. 3,016 were drug users and the list demises according to risk categories after that.

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...

[joegrundman]

Frame57 has got issues...

[AVGWarhawk]

OK, I found the CDC stats for 2006 and out of the reported cases 17,465 of all AIDS cases were gay men. 3,016 were drug users and the list demises according to risk categories after that.

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...
Dude, it is almost 2009. My stats are right off AIDS.org. Current stats. Anal sex and AIDS are not relevant to the discussion of gay marriage. If that is the case, then all men and women should not be allowed to marry because anal sex is partaken. If you do not think anal sex is not partaken between males and females then I really do not know what to think about your point.

[mookiemookie]

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...

So you demonize gay people by saying that they engage in promiscuous behavior that spreads AIDS, but then you also demonize them when they want to be in a monogamous and committed married relationship. There's no winning with you, is there?

[AVGWarhawk]

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...
So you demonize gay people by saying that they engage in promiscuous behavior that spreads AIDS, but then you also demonize them when they want to be in a monogamous and committed married relationship. There's no winning with you, is there?

I would venture to guess that two women in a lesbian relationship is ok? If we are lynching homosexual males because of anal sex, where do lesbian women fit in the picture?

[mookiemookie]

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...
So you demonize gay people by saying that they engage in promiscuous behavior that spreads AIDS, but then you also demonize them when they want to be in a monogamous and committed married relationship. There's no winning with you, is there?
I would venture to guess that two women in a lesbian relationship is ok? If we are lynching homosexual males because of anal sex, where do lesbian women fit in the picture?

http://funnyshirts.fusepages.com/images/uploads/GayMarriage.jpg

[Frame57]

OK, I found the CDC stats for 2006 and out of the reported cases 17,465 of all AIDS cases were gay men. 3,016 were drug users and the list demises according to risk categories after that.

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...
Dude, it is almost 2009. My stats are right off AIDS.org. Current stats. Anal sex and AIDS are not relevant to the discussion of gay marriage. If that is the case, then all men and women should not be allowed to marry because anal sex is partaken. If you do not think anal sex is not partaken between males and females then I really do not know what to think about your point.Dude:D Sorry but the CDC is what i found to satify your request for stats...Still not happy though are you? Again you put words in my mouth, I never said heteros do not do this, but I am sure that most do not...Again it is relevent because it gets back to the original argument of why they should not be absorbed into the classical definition of marriage for the myriad of reasons already cited. If you do not get it, sorry...

[Frame57]

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...

So you demonize gay people by saying that they engage in promiscuous behavior that spreads AIDS, but then you also demonize them when they want to be in a monogamous and committed married relationship. There's no winning with you, is there?Nope! No demonization here at all...Just pointed out facts and statistics to make an educated analysis and that is all.

[Enigma]

Nope! No demonization here at all...Just pointed out facts and statistics to make an educated analysis and that is all.

Well, if you think all homosexuality is a choice, you have to think that homosexuals suffer from some kind of mass delusion, no?

Understand, I'm not taking a swipe,I'm asking my question out of genuine curiosity....

[1480]

Again, I posed a question and never got an answer: is marriage a social contract, an emotional ideal, or a religous obligation????

[nikimcbee]

Again, I posed a question and never got an answer: is marriage a social contract, an emotional ideal, or a religous obligation????

wait, you left out ball and chain.

[nikimcbee]

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...
So you demonize gay people by saying that they engage in promiscuous behavior that spreads AIDS, but then you also demonize them when they want to be in a monogamous and committed married relationship. There's no winning with you, is there?
I would venture to guess that two women in a lesbian relationship is ok? If we are lynching homosexual males because of anal sex, where do lesbian women fit in the picture?

http://funnyshirts.fusepages.com/images/uploads/GayMarriage.jpg

roger that mookie.:up:

[1480]

Again, I posed a question and never got an answer: is marriage a social contract, an emotional ideal, or a religous obligation????

wait, you left out ball and chain.

The breeders would know that SIR.

[Frame57]

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...
So you demonize gay people by saying that they engage in promiscuous behavior that spreads AIDS, but then you also demonize them when they want to be in a monogamous and committed married relationship. There's no winning with you, is there?

I would venture to guess that two women in a lesbian relationship is ok? If we are lynching homosexual males because of anal sex, where do lesbian women fit in the picture?Who is lynching? Nor am I demonizing. I stated simple facts that you saw yourself statistically. From these observations I have made my case, also consider this before you do your impression of a Mina bird and repeat yourself without facts. The majority of voters supported a ban against gay marriage right here in the liberal land of California, so I have good company with common sense. The difference is, is that I can medically make a case why it is not a good idea for gay marriage to be allowed in society. OK, this is a dead horse and I will end this because I sense that only gay supporters are responding to this thread and oppose any "diverse" views presented. One parting question to the thinking man. Since the Inception of HIV/AIDS, why has it inflicted gay men more so than any other group of people percentage wise and continues to this day? The disease in un-biased and does not have a mind of its own, what then is the answer?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Since the Inception of HIV/AIDS, why has it inflicted gay men more so than any other group of people percentage wise and continues to this day? The disease in un-biased and does not have a mind of its own, what then is the answer?
http://www.thebody.com/index/whatis/gaymen.html

I didn't read it, but a quick Google search turned this up. I would also have to think that condom usage is lower among gay men seeing as they don't fear getting anybody pregnant.

PD

[Aramike]

The funny part of this whole debate is that issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion effect such a miniscule percentage of the population, but drives such a high percentage of the votes.

[Frame57]

Nope! No demonization here at all...Just pointed out facts and statistics to make an educated analysis and that is all.

Well, if you think all homosexuality is a choice, you have to think that homosexuals suffer from some kind of mass delusion, no?

Understand, I'm not taking a swipe,I'm asking my question out of genuine curiosity....Even the gay communtiy years back vaunted it as a lifestyle choice, but then saw it more fitting to have it defined as being a natural selection when one is born. Personally, I think there are a few things that need to be looked at. One study that was already cited in this thread suggested that children who are confused about their sexuality are more apt to grow to be gay. This suggest to me that there is a reason why the confusion exists and confusion can be overcome. The gay people I know personally have had abusive childhoods, this could be a factor... One gay man who is a friend of mine willingly admits that he turned gay after being rejected by women once too often, so in his case clearly this was a choice on his part. I do feel that hormonal and emotional adaptation changes in a human being to the point where they may feel within themselves that this is indigenous process rather than exogenous. I have always been a staunch supporter of Mendel's law in which adaptation in evolution occurs after sensory stimuli has occured. This is proven in the medical field and perfectly explains the races as we know ourselves to be. Hormones are a powerful driver for the human psyche. This may be a factor in adults who are experiencing confusion over their sexuality to the point where they seek a sex change surgically. It is easy to say we are what we are just because....In truth there is a reason. Chinese people look the way they do because of Mendel's law, as does everybody really. The un-educated advocate of evolution would say of the asian or black race that they look the way they do because they are not as far on the evolutionary scale as a caucasion, in other words they feel they are closer to their primate ancestors. That is ridiculous obviously! The black race has unique hair and often wider nostrils. The reason is because the sensory stimuli after living for generations in a very hot dry climate resulted in evolutionary adaptation. The hair helps radiate heat from the cranium and the wider nostrils help one to breath in such an environment etc.. etc.. So we see incredible changes of adaptabilty in the human race, but these changes only occur after the fact and not before it. My premise is that the same thing happens sexually...

[Frame57]

Again, I posed a question and never got an answer: is marriage a social contract, an emotional ideal, or a religous obligation????All of the above I guess. Historically it has it roots steeped in religion with a view toward family. Some crazy guy must have come up with some silly notion that when men and women get together and do the hokey pokey, 9 months later... well you know, here we are...

[AVGWarhawk]

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...
So you demonize gay people by saying that they engage in promiscuous behavior that spreads AIDS, but then you also demonize them when they want to be in a monogamous and committed married relationship. There's no winning with you, is there?

I would venture to guess that two women in a lesbian relationship is ok? If we are lynching homosexual males because of anal sex, where do lesbian women fit in the picture?Who is lynching? Nor am I demonizing. I stated simple facts that you saw yourself statistically. From these observations I have made my case, also consider this before you do your impression of a Mina bird and repeat yourself without facts. The majority of voters supported a ban against gay marriage right here in the liberal land of California, so I have good company with common sense. The difference is, is that I can medically make a case why it is not a good idea for gay marriage to be allowed in society. OK, this is a dead horse and I will end this because I sense that only gay supporters are responding to this thread and oppose any "diverse" views presented. One parting question to the thinking man. Since the Inception of HIV/AIDS, why has it inflicted gay men more so than any other group of people percentage wise and continues to this day? The disease in un-biased and does not have a mind of its own, what then is the answer?

Ah, read my post a few back that stated, the American voter has said it say and opposed gay marriage. For some reason, you have focused on gay males and did not address my question concerning lesbian relationships that preclude anal sex. No one is opposing a diverse view, only questioning and countering. It is called a debate. :D

[AVGWarhawk]

Again, I posed a question and never got an answer: is marriage a social contract, an emotional ideal, or a religous obligation????All of the above I guess. Historically it has it roots steeped in religion with a view toward family. Some crazy guy must have come up with some silly notion that when men and women get together and do the hokey pokey, 9 months later... well you know, here we are...

I believe it is a social contract and the contracts wording is found among religious groups often found in the bound book called the Bible the groups believe in. The states, countries laws as the fine print bestow some benefits as a result of the binding social contract. The laws also bestow grievious aftermath if the contract is broken in a form called divorce. In short, you get your ass taken to the cleaners.

[Frame57]

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...
So you demonize gay people by saying that they engage in promiscuous behavior that spreads AIDS, but then you also demonize them when they want to be in a monogamous and committed married relationship. There's no winning with you, is there?

I would venture to guess that two women in a lesbian relationship is ok? If we are lynching homosexual males because of anal sex, where do lesbian women fit in the picture?Who is lynching? Nor am I demonizing. I stated simple facts that you saw yourself statistically. From these observations I have made my case, also consider this before you do your impression of a Mina bird and repeat yourself without facts. The majority of voters supported a ban against gay marriage right here in the liberal land of California, so I have good company with common sense. The difference is, is that I can medically make a case why it is not a good idea for gay marriage to be allowed in society. OK, this is a dead horse and I will end this because I sense that only gay supporters are responding to this thread and oppose any "diverse" views presented. One parting question to the thinking man. Since the Inception of HIV/AIDS, why has it inflicted gay men more so than any other group of people percentage wise and continues to this day? The disease in un-biased and does not have a mind of its own, what then is the answer?

Ah, read my post a few back that stated, the American voter has said it say and opposed gay marriage. For some reason, you have focused on gay males and did not address my question concerning lesbian relationships that preclude anal sex. No one is opposing a diverse view, only questioning and countering. It is called a debate. :DI suppose I just happen to know and encounter gay males and it is one side of the coin to be sure. I am not really sure about lesbians. My gut tells me they are more monogomous than men in their relationships. They have a far, far less history of dealing with AIDS than men do. Which was an illustration of sexual behavior that can and does bring on a dread disease. Men, even heterosexuals tend to be wired for sex. Women seem to be wired for a more emotional impact that pervades both gay and straight lifestyles. I cannot speak on behalf of why each person chose to vote the way they did. My reasons stem from my own personal observations of how I view the life cycle and try to gage it with the science i know. Some may have religious views regarding it. But for most I am guessing that they simply do not view gay marriage in light of traditional marriage. traditional marriage is the ground zero of the family, so I would logically Infere that others see this as being deleterious to the family institution. Mating men and women equal the human race and its continuance. Mating men and men, women and women do not, it is a very simple concept that I think people negotiate within themselves without any religious guidance.

[AVGWarhawk]

Relevency to the topic??? You are kidding right? I believe my points all have been directed to being a behavioral issue, which started with rebuttals of why gays should not be grouped with the historical definition of marriage. I think the many topics discussed prove the point to the naysayers...
So you demonize gay people by saying that they engage in promiscuous behavior that spreads AIDS, but then you also demonize them when they want to be in a monogamous and committed married relationship. There's no winning with you, is there?
I would venture to guess that two women in a lesbian relationship is ok? If we are lynching homosexual males because of anal sex, where do lesbian women fit in the picture?Who is lynching? Nor am I demonizing. I stated simple facts that you saw yourself statistically. From these observations I have made my case, also consider this before you do your impression of a Mina bird and repeat yourself without facts. The majority of voters supported a ban against gay marriage right here in the liberal land of California, so I have good company with common sense. The difference is, is that I can medically make a case why it is not a good idea for gay marriage to be allowed in society. OK, this is a dead horse and I will end this because I sense that only gay supporters are responding to this thread and oppose any "diverse" views presented. One parting question to the thinking man. Since the Inception of HIV/AIDS, why has it inflicted gay men more so than any other group of people percentage wise and continues to this day? The disease in un-biased and does not have a mind of its own, what then is the answer?
Ah, read my post a few back that stated, the American voter has said it say and opposed gay marriage. For some reason, you have focused on gay males and did not address my question concerning lesbian relationships that preclude anal sex. No one is opposing a diverse view, only questioning and countering. It is called a debate. :DI suppose I just happen to know and encounter gay males and it is one side of the coin to be sure. I am not really sure about lesbians. My gut tells me they are more monogomous than men in their relationships. They have a far, far less history of dealing with AIDS than men do. Which was an illustration of sexual behavior that can and does bring on a dread disease. Men, even heterosexuals tend to be wired for sex. Women seem to be wired for a more emotional impact that pervades both gay and straight lifestyles. I cannot speak on behalf of why each person chose to vote the way they did. My reasons stem from my own personal observations of how I view the life cycle and try to gage it with the science i know. Some may have religious views regarding it. But for most I am guessing that they simply do not view gay marriage in light of traditional marriage. traditional marriage is the ground zero of the family, so I would logically Infere that others see this as being deleterious to the family institution. Mating men and women equal the human race and its continuance. Mating men and men, women and women do not, it is a very simple concept that I think people negotiate within themselves without any religious guidance.

Probably the clearest retort I have read concerning your thoughts on the matter. It is a very touchy subject and full of gray area like no other. But, back to the original concept of this thread. Obama has to pick someone for the invocation. Even if it was Mickey Mouse, someone for PETA would be complaining. So goes the nature of the human mind that everyone has an agenda and is out to get them. As we both agreed, California has spoken on question 8, America has spoken as a whole on the subject. Thus the gay community will have to battle on.

[Frame57]

I heard one statement yesterday that we can expect Obama to be more to the right than McCain would be...No matter what, I hope he does a stellar job because that is good for everyone.

[Enigma]

The funny part of this whole debate is that issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion effect such a miniscule percentage of the population, but drives such a high percentage of the votes.

Well, this s the mistake that continues to be made. You don't have to be gay to be effected by a gay persons right to equal rights, and the same goes for abortion. If you beleive, as I do, in equal rights for all Americans, and a woman's right to choose, it effects you. The erosion of our rights effects you. I take it personally. I don't understand why we don't all take it personally.

[Frame57]

I guess it is the right to choose what people view as being right or wrong. Social issues have been debated as recorded history has shown. The unborn fetus has no say so in the matter. It is not a tumor, but a human being in developmental stages, so why should a woman who avails herself to sexual intercourse be allowed to treat a developing baby as though it were somthing less than human?

[Enigma]

I guess it is the right to choose what people view as being right or wrong. Social issues have been debated as recorded history has shown. The unborn fetus has no say so in the matter. It is not a tumor, but a human being in developmental stages, so why should a woman who avails herself to sexual intercourse be allowed to treat a developing baby as though it were somthing less than human?

An entirely different debate, and one that, if we are going to have it (again) we should do so in another thread....

My point was simply that these debates don't just effect gay people, and women. When it comes to matters of choice and rights, I feel we should all feel effected by the outcome of the debate, whatever the outcome may be.

[Digital_Trucker]

I think the word "rights" is overused in this country. And I have every right to think that way:D

[Frame57]

I guess it is the right to choose what people view as being right or wrong. Social issues have been debated as recorded history has shown. The unborn fetus has no say so in the matter. It is not a tumor, but a human being in developmental stages, so why should a woman who avails herself to sexual intercourse be allowed to treat a developing baby as though it were somthing less than human?

An entirely different debate, and one that, if we are going to have it (again) we should do so in another thread....

My point was simply that these debates don't just effect gay people, and women. When it comes to matters of choice and rights, I feel we should all feel effected by the outcome of the debate, whatever the outcome may be.Agreed, I have had my share of this at least till the new year...Have an enjoyable holiday...:up:

[Frame57]

I think the word "rights" is overused in this country. And I have every right to think that way:DReminds me when my son started driving and got a nice big fat ticket for doing donuts in a parking lot. I took his keys and removed the distributor until he completed community service and another drivers ed course. He tried laying this trip on me that he has a "right" to drive. Yeah, I was all broken up over his rights. Crazy kid...:D