Senator pleaded guilty, reportedly after bathroom stall incident

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

Republican Larry Craig was arrested at Minneapolis airport in June
Arrest document reportedly alleges Craig signaled desire for "lewd conduct"
Craig denied any inappropriate conduct in a written statement
Craig said he regrets pleading guilty to the misdemeanor

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html

Wow, i this jerk really did this then he got off light. He should be removed from the Senate if this is accurate. These people are supposed to set an example not try to have sex in an airport bathroom.

[retiredman]

trolling for anonymous queer sex in an airport restroom.....good old republican family values!

;)

[diuretic]

Story Highlights

Republican Larry Craig was arrested at Minneapolis airport in June
Arrest document reportedly alleges Craig signaled desire for "lewd conduct"
Craig denied any inappropriate conduct in a written statement
Craig said he regrets pleading guilty to the misdemeanor

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html

Wow, i this jerk really did this then he got off light. He should be removed from the Senate if this is accurate. These people are supposed to set an example not try to have sex in an airport bathroom.

Yep, they should keep it in private.

[nevadamedic]

trolling for anonymous queer sex in an airport restroom.....good old republican family values!

;)

Yup it's just Republicans isnt it? I guess you don't remember the Democratic Governor of New Jersey who was sneaking off with male members of his staff to seedy motel rooms when he was supposed to be working. He even left his wife for another man the he was sleeping with in his office.

Although I must admit I did expect an immature partisan smart ass response from you on this issue.

[retiredman]

Yup it's just Republicans isnt it? I guess you don't remember the Democratic Governor of New Jersey who was sneaking off with male members of his staff to seedy motel rooms when he was supposed to be working. He even left his wife for another man the he was sleeping with in his office.

Although I must admit I did expect an immature partisan smart ass response from you on this issue.

no.... I am not suggesting that democrats do not have their sinners. I just think that democrats do not make a big deal about how much holier than thou they are than republicans...I don't think they run campaigns that promise to bring morality back into government... after the republicans did after they failed to convict Clinton after impeaching him for a blowjob.

I am suggesting that when someone in a glass house has thrown a lot of morality stones, and then, through the glass, they are seen trolling for gay sex in a restroom, they ought to expect to have a few windows broken.

[nevadamedic]

no.... I am not suggesting that democrats do not have their sinners. I just think that democrats do not make a big deal about how much holier than thou they are than republicans...I don't think they run campaigns that promise to bring morality back into government... after the republicans did after they failed to convict Clinton after impeaching him for a blowjob.

I am suggesting that when someone in a glass house has thrown a lot of morality stones, and then, through the glass, they are seen trolling for gay sex in a restroom, they ought to expect to have a few windows broken.

I think your just upset that you haven't been picked up on by another guy in a restroom.

[retiredman]

what were you saying about immature smart ass responses?

[truthmatters]

Democrats for the most part dont see anything wrong with gayness, they dont need to go to bathrooms and seek strangers.

[nevadamedic]

Democrats for the most part dont see anything wrong with gayness, they dont need to go to bathrooms and seek strangers.

Oh ok, so your defending this guy, what he did was ok?

[truthmatters]

How do you get Im defendig him?

[retiredman]

Oh ok, so your defending this guy, what he did was ok?

no we are saying that being gay is nothing that democrats frown upon.... having senators trolling for anonymous sex in airport bathrooms is.

[retiredman]

what were you saying about immature smart ass responses?


I guess I could edit the "smart" out of that, eh?

[nevadamedic]

no we are saying that being gay is nothing that democrats frown upon.... having senators trolling for anonymous sex in airport bathrooms is.

The Democrats just look within their office. Oh and they assult women that work for them.

[truthmatters]

The Democrats just look within their office. Oh and they assult women that work for them.


and who is that you are talking about?

[retiredman]

The Democrats just look within their office. Oh and they assult women that work for them.

nice dodge... if you want to start a thread about Bill getting head from monica, please do...it's not like we haven't beaten that dead horse enough...

this thread is about a senator from the family values party trolling for anonymous gay sex in an airport restroom.

do try to stay on point.

[nevadamedic]

nice dodge... if you want to start a thread about Bill getting head from monica, please do...it's not like we haven't beaten that dead horse enough...

this thread is about a senator from the family values party trolling for anonymous gay sex in an airport restroom.

do try to stay on point.

I was actually talking about Paula Jones, Monica was willing...............

[truthmatters]

paula also left the room telling the officer guarding the door she wanted to be his girlfriend.

She als had a pretty salty reputation before the incident happened.

[Yurt]

no.... I am not suggesting that democrats do not have their sinners. I just think that democrats do not make a big deal about how much holier than thou they are than republicans...I don't think they run campaigns that promise to bring morality back into government... after the republicans did after they failed to convict Clinton after impeaching him for a blowjob.

I am suggesting that when someone in a glass house has thrown a lot of morality stones, and then, through the glass, they are seen trolling for gay sex in a restroom, they ought to expect to have a few windows broken.

So morality is a none issue for you?

[nevadamedic]

paula also left the room telling the officer guarding the door she wanted to be his girlfriend.

She als had a pretty salty reputation before the incident happened.

Like Clinton wasn't?

[GW in Ohio]

Like Clinton wasn't?

So the boys who take responsibility for defending Republican family values can only come up with:

"Clinton did it, too!"

Actually, Clinton never tried to solicit gay sex in an airport men's room.


Why don't you take your lumps like a man, instead of trying to deflect and change the subject? Your "family values" party has embarrassed themselves and their supporters.
As someone has mentioned, there is nothing wrong with gay sex. If Repubs weren't so goddamned hypocritical, they might come out of the closet instead of sneaking around in airport restrooms.
New Jersey Governor McGreevey also sneaked around with his gay sex, it is true, but that was mainly so as not to alienate his homophobic (mainly Republican) constituents.

[Guernicaa]

I note that none of our prominent "Christian" board memebers have come to this thread to discuss the incident. Maybe its because they know that this guy is just one of many on a new list of right-wing sexual hypocrites:

-Ted Haggard
-Jeff Gannon
-Matt Sanchez (aka Rod Majors)
-Tyler Whitney
-This guy

[truthmatters]

You forgot Foley and a few others.

[truthmatters]

Like Clinton wasn't?

Never said he did not but the fact is she never proved he did anything to her and she wanted to be his girlfriend one second after leaving the room then he never called her back, He either did not like her looks or she was no good at what he wanted.

To me as long as its consentual and discreet its none of my business unless you do it and try to hold others to a different standard then you are fair game.

[truthmatters]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/craig-arrest-doc/?resultpage=2&

Here is the police officers report on the arrest.

Its a pretty interesting read and reveals quite a bit I think.

[glockmail]

trolling for anonymous queer sex in an airport restroom.....good old republican family values!

;)

The GOP will be the first to get rid of this sick bastard. Of course if he were a Democrat you would be the first to make excuses for him.

[truthmatters]

Again you dont see this in the Dem party not because there are no gay people in the Dem party but because Gay Dems dont have to hide their gay identities in the Dem party.

I Feel sorry for this guy for having to act like this instead of living life like he really wants to but he is an adult and choses to act against his own kind instead of being honest in his life.

I think you are ignoring the rash of in the closet R who we have seen in the last couple of years.

[glockmail]

Again you dont see this in the Dem party not because there are no gay people in the Dem party but because Gay Dems dont have to hide their gay identities in the Dem party.

I Feel sorry for this guy for having to act like this instead of living life like he really wants to but he is an adult and choses to act against his own kind instead of being honest in his life.

I think you are ignoring the rash of in the closet R who we have seen in the last couple of years. We'll continue to rid ourselves from "rash" like this and send them over to your side so you can make excuses for them.

[truthmatters]

Where did I make excuses for him?

I merely felt sorry for him to some extent.

Do you think being gay is a crime?

[glockmail]

Where did I make excuses for him?

I merely felt sorry for him to some extent.

Do you think being gay is a crime?

Libs always make excuses for their queer politicians. If he was one of yours, you would be.

I think soliciting queer sex in a public rest room should be a crime. Do you think otherwise?

[truthmatters]

No we let them be open and elect them if we think they are up to the job.

We dont hate them in public and then pretend its only OK if they are our daughter and not yours.

Do you hate gay people?

Do you think they choose to be gay?

[hjmick]

I couldn't care less about Craig's orientation, sexual or otherwise. I am less concerned with what transpired in the restroom than I am with what appears to be an attempt to bury the story. Why did it take almost two months for this story to come out?

[retiredman]

The GOP will be the first to get rid of this sick bastard. Of course if he were a Democrat you would be the first to make excuses for him.

get rid of him? really? I'll believe that when I see it, not when a confirmed liar like you predicts it.

[retiredman]

So morality is a none issue for you?

do I want avowed publicly immoral public servants? no. are people human? yes. Does the democratic party ever market itself as the moral alternative to the sinners in the republican party? have democrats ever suggested that the public vote for them to restore morality to washington?

who are the hypocrites here?

[JohnDoe]

Libs always make excuses for their queer politicians. If he was one of yours, you would be.

I think soliciting queer sex in a public rest room should be a crime. Do you think otherwise?I think soliciting queer sex and hetero sex in a public rest room IS a CRIME.....

And it is a lie that we would defend a Democrat doing the same thing and there is NO EXAMPLE that I can think of that you can give where we defended SUCH A THING!!!!

The New Jersey Mayor case was not defended by Democrats for his actions of cheating on his wife with his gay lover....

It seems that you are trying to justify this guys actions AGAIN by saying dems would do yahdeedah...dems would defend him CRAP, glock?

This guy is the head of Romney's campaign in his state of idaho....he's a FAMILY VALUES MAN......yeah, right, a fricking adulteror and a closet homosexual....these guys make me sick....disgusting human beings...liars and cheaters and phoneys and hypocrites.....

What in the world is going on with your Party....it has been one hypocritical closet homosexual after another being exposed.....? you have to love the Lord for allowing their hypocrisies to be exposed....expecially to the Christians on the Republican side that THINK or THOUGHT that the repubs were the righteous party....and made me, a good Christian, feel like I was part of the Devil's party....while they were part of "God's" party....

Well, hells bells, they sure as Hell are NOT!!!!

JD

[glockmail]

get rid of him? really? I'll believe that when I see it, not when a confirmed liar like you predicts it. Confirmed by who? I challenged you about that and you cowardly ran off to listen to psuedo-blue grass.

Yet another liberal lie. I'm shocked. :pee:

[glockmail]

No we let them be open and elect them if we think they are up to the job.

We dont hate them in public and then pretend its only OK if they are our daughter and not yours.

Do you hate gay people?

Do you think they choose to be gay?

So you hate them in private. How nice.

I hate the sin not the sinner. In this case, they choose to sin.

[glockmail]

I think soliciting queer sex and hetero sex in a public rest room IS a CRIME.....

And it is a lie that we would defend a Democrat doing the same thing and there is NO EXAMPLE that I can think of that you can give where we defended SUCH A THING!!!!.....

Examples of Democrats supporting or defending queer sex criminals:

Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

Examples of Democrats supporting or defending heterosexual rapists:

Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

Examples of Democrats supporting or defending heterosexual criminals:

Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

[Abbey Marie]

no.... I am not suggesting that democrats do not have their sinners. I just think that democrats do not make a big deal about how much holier than thou they are than republicans...I don't think they run campaigns that promise to bring morality back into government... after the republicans did after they failed to convict Clinton after impeaching him for a blowjob.

I am suggesting that when someone in a glass house has thrown a lot of morality stones, and then, through the glass, they are seen trolling for gay sex in a restroom, they ought to expect to have a few windows broken.

We are all sinners. Striving to live better is a good thing; faltering while doing so is expected. Libs seem to accept bad behavior as the norm and throw up their hands. I'll side with those who at least try.

[avatar4321]

get rid of him? really? I'll believe that when I see it, not when a confirmed liar like you predicts it.

you're joking right? Republicans get rid of politicians all the time for bad behavior.

Its the Democrats who circle the wagons.

We will however, defend our own when there is no actual bad behavior occuring or when the Democrats are trying to pretend as though its worse than it actually is.

[truthmatters]

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals

Here is a list of some of the R sex scandals I would post it but its too long.

[retiredman]

you're joking right? Republicans get rid of politicians all the time for bad behavior.

Its the Democrats who circle the wagons.

We will however, defend our own when there is no actual bad behavior occuring or when the Democrats are trying to pretend as though its worse than it actually is.

republicans do get rid of politicians... sometimes. I only said that I would believe it when I saw it. why would you think such skepticism would be a "joke"? And really..... are you suggesting that the kindly senator did not actually behave badly, and entered a plea of guilty because he wasn't?

Duke Cunningham had to be tried and convicted and sentenced before he was booted out of congress.

If this perv goes too.... like I said...I'll believe it when I see it.

[glockmail]

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals

Here is a list of some of the R sex scandals I would post it but its too long.
Perhaps you can list something that remotely contradicts my assertion of post 27, instead of this strawman. :slap:

[GW in Ohio]

So you hate them in private. How nice.

I hate the sin not the sinner. In this case, they choose to sin.

Glockie: How does it feel to know that everybody in the country is laughing at your "family values" party?

[retiredman]

Libs always make excuses for their queer politicians. If he was one of yours, you would be.

I think soliciting queer sex in a public rest room should be a crime. Do you think otherwise?

It is a crime. He pled guilty to it. Do you expect that he will be expelled from the senate anytime soon?

[hjmick]

It is a crime. He pled guilty to it. Do you expect that he will be expelled from the senate anytime soon?

Personally I'm not sure he will be forced out. He pled guilty to disorderly conduct, all other charges were dismissed. Except for the original police report (and assorted rumors over the years) there is no mention of any lewd conduct.

Of course Mark Foley was convicted of nothing, faces no charges for anything, and he was forced to resign, so I guess you just never know.

[glockmail]

Glockie: How does it feel to know that everybody in the country is laughing at your "family values" party? Everybody? Or just irrelevant Liberals like you?:slap:

[glockmail]

It is a crime. He pled guilty to it. Do you expect that he will be expelled from the senate anytime soon? I expect Conservatives to hold his feet to the fire, and Liberals to bash him for being a queer-boy (while making excuses their own queer boys, rapists and sex-criminals). :D

[retiredman]

"hold his feet to the fire"


is that the same thing as "get rid of this sick bastard"?

when someone has their feet held to the fire, are they stripped of their membership in elected legislative bodies?

what is the practical result of having one's feet held to the fire, really?

[retiredman]

holding his feet to the fire.....

like slapping his wrist, perhaps?

like paddling his chubby little, well travelled fanny, perhaps?

[OCA]

Democrats for the most part dont see anything wrong with gayness, they dont need to go to bathrooms and seek strangers.


And that is why you can't get elected en masse.

[OCA]

no we are saying that being gay is nothing that democrats frown upon.... having senators trolling for anonymous sex in airport bathrooms is.

Wow, should I post all the unargueable stats about how the queer lifestyle choice significantly reduces span of life?

Is that something you guys really want to support?

You guys want to support crack smoking too? Its the same thing.

[OCA]

nice dodge... if you want to start a thread about Bill getting head from monica, please do...it's not like we haven't beaten that dead horse enough...

this thread is about a senator from the family values party trolling for anonymous gay sex in an airport restroom.

do try to stay on point.

The motherfucker should be ostracized just like anybody else who decides to engage in such a reckless activity and lifestyle regardless of political affiliation.

[OCA]

paula also left the room telling the officer guarding the door she wanted to be his girlfriend.

She als had a pretty salty reputation before the incident happened.

Yet Bubba paid her 300,000+ to keep her mouth shut, wonder why?

If you were innocent would you pay that kind of cash?

[glockmail]

"hold his feet to the fire"


is that the same thing as "get rid of this sick bastard"?

when someone has their feet held to the fire, are they stripped of their membership in elected legislative bodies?

what is the practical result of having one's feet held to the fire, really?
If history is an indication then he's history. And Liberals will bash him for being a queer-boy (while making excuses their own queer boys, rapists and sex-criminals).:slap:

[OCA]

Do you think being gay is a crime?

A crime as in against the law? No.

A crime against nature and health? Absolutely.

[glockmail]

Wow, should I post all the unargueable stats about how the queer lifestyle choice significantly reduces span of life?

Is that something you guys really want to support?

You guys want to support crack smoking too? Its the same thing. LOL They do support crack smoking, in a political sense, by supporting welfare and other metods of shunning personal responsibility, as well as in a cultural sense by glorification of drug culture.

[OCA]

Do you think they choose to be gay?


All scientific evidence points towards the fact that homosexuality is indeed a choice.

Or do you have evidence of the queer gene that modern medical science has never found?

[Abbey Marie]

All scientific evidence points towards the fact that homosexuality is indedd a choice.

Or do you have evidence of the queer gene that modern medical science has never found?

:insert popcorn smiley here:

[glockmail]

You can have some of mine: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Abbey Marie]

You can have some of mine: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Thank you! We're gonna need it. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

:beer: while were at it here's something to wash it down with.

[Abbey Marie]

:beer: while were at it here's something to wash it down with.

Good point. Popcorn eating/thread watching is thirsty work. :cheers2:

[glockmail]

Don't overdue it now. Moderation....

:laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Don't overdue it now. Moderation....

:laugh2:

I'm all about "moderation". :laugh2:

[glockmail]

I'm all about "moderation". :laugh2:


http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/allhail.gif

[truthmatters]

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayscience.html

Science does have a few things to say about it and there are some physical differances between hetro males and homo males.

Biological Origins


Neuroscience


Hypothalamus
INAH 3 (LeVay„ Simon "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991): 1034-37.)

Suprachiasmatic Nucleus
(Swaab DF. Hofman MA. An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men. Brain Research. 537(1-2):141-8, 1990 Dec 24.)

Anterior Commisure
(Allen, L.S., Gorski, R.A. "Sexual Orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Vol. 89, pp. 7199-7202, 1992)

The Prenatal Androgen Theory: AnatomicaUNeuroendocrine effects and Fetal Neuroendocrine Effects


Fingerprints
(Hall JA. Kimura D. Dermatoglyphic asymmetry and sexual orientation in men. Behavioral Neuroscience. 108(6):1203-6, 1994 Dec.)

Finger length
(Williams TJ. Pepitone ME. Christensen SE. Cooke BM. Huberman AD. Breedlove NJ. Breedlove TJ. Jordan CL. Breedlove SM. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature. 404(6777):455-6, 2000 Mar 30.; For background science only --Manning JT. Scutt D. Wilson J. Lewis-Jones DI. The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length: a predictor of sperm numbers and concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen. Human Reproduction. 13(11):3000-4, 1998 Nov.)

Auditory System
CEOAE (McFadden, Dennis and E.G. Pasanen, "Comparisons of the auditory systems of heterosexuals and homosexuals: Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95 (March 1998): 2709-13.)

Penis size
(Bogaert AF. Hershberger S. The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sexual Behavior.28(3):213-21, 19'9'9 Jun.) _

Birth Order
(Blanchard R. Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females. [Review] [110 refs] Annual Review of Sex Research. 8:27-67, 1997.)

Neuroendocrine response-
-positive estrogen feedback luteinizing hormone secretion in homosexual men, not in heterosexual men (Dorner G. Neuroendocrine predisposition for homosexuality [letter]. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 12(6):577-82, 1983 Dec.)

Cognitive Tasks-
(Naeve. "Sex Differences in Cognition: The Role of Testosterone and Sexual Orientation." Brain and Cognition 41(3): 245-262, 1999.) HtM scored significantly higher on "mental rotation test" than HmM, HtF and HmF. HtM scored significantly lower on "verbal association" than HmM, HtF and HmF.

Genetics


Xq28
-indicates a potential genetic marker that predisposes the individual to homosexuality (Hu S. Pattatucci AM. Patterson C. Li L. Fulker DW. Cherny SS. Kruglyak L. Hamer DH. Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics. 11(3):248-56, 1995 Nov.; Hamer, D.H.. S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu and A.M.L. Pattatucci, "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation." Science 261(1993): 321-27.)

Twin studies
-- indicate that if one maternal twin is homosexual then the other is more likely to also be a homosexual, more so than fraternal twins, who, in turn, experience a greater liklikhood of having similar sexual orientations than non-twin siblings. (Bailey JM. Pillard RC. A genetic study of male sexual orientation [see comments]. Archives of General Psychiatry. 48(12):1089-96, 1991 Dec.; Bailey JM. Pillard RC. Neale MC. Agyei Y. Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 50(3):217-23, 1993 Mar. ;Bailey JM. Pillard RC. Dawood K. Miller MB. Farrer LA. Trivedi S. Murphy RL. A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples. ehavior Genetics. 29(2):79-86, 1999 Mar.)

Experimental: Drosophilia
.--switched sexual orientation of fruit flies by changing a single gene (w). (Zhang SD. Odenwald WF. Misexpression of the white (w) gene triggers male-male courtship in Drosophila. roceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92(12):5525-9, 1995 Jun 6

[glockmail]

.....
Science does have a few things to say about it and there are some physical differances between hetro males and homo males.
.....Penis size.....

Well THAT one is pretty damn obvious. :lol:

[OCA]

Truth!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Theory and supposition honey, you do know the difference right?

I only deal in irrefuteable facts and the fact is the queer lobby has spent millions of dollars and many decades researching the queer gene and to date............nothing, not even aything remotely close.

It is a choice, an example of an irrefuteable fact is is that at birth we are all born with an innate attraction to the opposite sex, that cannot be argued.

[glockmail]

No shit. Liberals tend to whiny, ugly, zit-faced and vegan. Does that mean that biology is involved?

[truthmatters]

Well THAT one is pretty damn obvious. :lol:


There documented differances in the brains of homosexual and hetrosexual males.

[jimnyc]

There documented differances in the brains of homosexual and hetrosexual males.


Yes, in the heterosexuals the brain actually works. :)

[OCA]

There documented differances in the brains of homosexual and hetrosexual males.

Yes there is, the heterosexual one is not perverted and actually thinks logically.

[glockmail]

There documented differances in the brains of homosexual and hetrosexual males.
Sure. It comes from getting your bung-hole stuffed.

[GW in Ohio]

Everybody? Or just irrelevant Liberals like you?:slap:

Glockie: Tune in to Letterman, or Leno tonight and catch their monologue (if your mom lets you stay up that late). You will see why I say the whole country is laughing at your "family values" party.

[OCA]

Glockie: Tune in to Letterman, or Leno tonight and catch their monologue (if your mom lets you stay up that late). You will see why I say the whole country is laughing at your "family values" party.


LMFAO! So now to you Letterman and Leno have the pulse of the country?

You've got to be shitting me! How much more of a douchebag can one get?

[glockmail]

LMFAO! So now to you Letterman and Leno have the pulse of the country?

You've got to be shitting me! How much more of a douchebag can one get?
No shit. What a douche-bag.
I loved the part about "my mom letting me stay up". :lmao:

[avatar4321]

the Senator just had a press conference. He denies that he is gay or any wrong doing. He says he plead guilty to avoid a bigger drawn out charge. that he did so without counsel. which is stupid even if you want to avoid it.

Personally, i have a hard time believing he is purely innocent here.

[hjmick]

Glockie: Tune in to Letterman, or Leno tonight and catch their monologue (if your mom lets you stay up that late). You will see why I say the whole country is laughing at your "family values" party.

If John Stewart mentions it tonight I will believe that "the whole country" is laughing.

[gabosaurus]

How many more of them are there (both parties) that either haven't admitted it or haven't been caught?

[truthmatters]

Yes there is, the heterosexual one is not perverted and actually thinks logically.


What part of homosexuality is wrong?

[OCA]

What part of homosexuality is wrong?

LMFAO!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Uhhhh, what part is right?

[truthmatters]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality.

So I was wondering from your view what is the thing that makes it wrong or bad?

[OCA]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality.

So I was wondering from your view what is the thing that makes it wrong or bad?


What do you see right?

[truthmatters]

I see it no differently than heterosexuality, I see it as not effecting me in the least if people love ,date , boink or whatever.

I just have never understood what it is the people see wrong with it?

Can you tell me?

[OCA]

I see it no differently than heterosexuality, I see it as not effecting me in the least if people love ,date , boink or whatever.

I just have never understood what it is the people see wrong with it?

Can you tell me?

No, tell me what is right about the specifics of the queer lifestyle choice.

If you can explain to me what is right about it, without the general talking points above, i'll spend about 3 hours composing a post....with links.........about what is indesputeably wrong with it.

[glockmail]

What part of homosexuality is wrong? Every damn bit of it.

[truthmatters]

No, tell me what is right about the specifics of the queer lifestyle choice.

If you can explain to me what is right about it, without the general talking points above, i'll spend about 3 hours composing a post....with links.........about what is indesputeably wrong with it.

I already told you.

It holds the same good and bad hetrosexuality does.

Is it that you cant answer the question?

[truthmatters]

Every damn bit of it.

You mean the part where two people love each other is bad?

[OCA]

I already told you.

It holds the same good and bad hetrosexuality does.

Is it that you cant answer the question?

What part of a man sticking his cock into another man's shit pit is good?

What part of a couple of bulldykes licking each others mullet bushes is good?

Be careful, i'm about to start posting links from the CDC that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what a dangerous lifestyle choice it is and how it affects not only queers but normal people too.

The links also prove that your apathy to queers is in reality you not giving two shits about the fact that they will die young from their vile lifestyle, it will prove in fact that you don't really care, that you are in fact the bigot.

[OCA]

You mean the part where two people love each other is bad?


What is generally mistaken to be homosexual love is in fact degenerate lust.

[glockmail]

You mean the part where two people love each other is bad?
Typical Liberal argument based soley on emotion.

I love my dog put I don't have sex with it. That would be totally wrong just like queer sex is totally wrong.:pee:

[diuretic]

Is lust wrong?

[truthmatters]

Funny you shoudl mention dogs because all other animals in the world display homosexual tendencies also.

You see there is nothing wrong with sex which doesn not involve procreation no matter who is performing it.

Why do you think we need to police peoples sex habits?

[OCA]

no matter who is performing it.

Why do you think we need to police peoples sex habits?

Again, you fall into the typical lib crap.

Conservatives don't give a rip about two guys plowing each others brown eyes IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN BEDROOM, but once you bring it into the political arena and insist that we create special laws in order to accomodate your PERVERSION OF CHOICE then the backlash happens and happens in a big way, witness the twenty or so states that have had vots on and banned queer marriage since the ill fated and long ago delegitimized marriages in San Francisco, hell lib states such as New York and Oregon have banned queer marriage.

Your side is losing this battle and losing badly.

[OCA]

Funny you shoudl mention dogs because all other animals in the world display homosexual tendencies also.




Funny, you care to document this? I mean document EVERY FUCKING SPECIE OF ANIMAL on earth showing queer tendencies. I mean we know about the gorillas(they do it for dominance kind of like felons in prison) but you must know that here you cannot just spout out lies like this and expect us to buy it.

[glockmail]

Funny you shoudl mention dogs because all other animals in the world display homosexual tendencies also.

You see there is nothing wrong with sex which doesn not involve procreation no matter who is performing it.

Why do you think we need to police peoples sex habits? BULLSHIT. PROVE ALL.

I have no desire to police what queers or any other consenting adult does. Just don't call it normal, natural, heathly or desireable if it ain't.

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Please read this about 1500 species and homosexuality observed displaying it.

[GW in Ohio]

What is generally mistaken to be homosexual love is in fact degenerate lust.

Whoa! Hang on, folks.

It appears that God is dead and there is a new God, who is able to look into the hearts of men and women and determine what is sin and what is not.

How does it feel to be God, OCA?

Or do you just prefer the title of King Shit?

[glockmail]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Please read this about 1500 species and homosexuality observed displaying it.
Funny I thought that there were more than 1500 species on earth. :lol:

Sorry sis, but 1500 is not "all".

Interesting article though. From your source:
non-domesticated animals have been observed to attempt sexual activity with other species, or indeed inanimate objects. It appears that some animals are just as sick and perverted as humns, and will exhibit odd and queer chosen behavior as well.

[truthmatters]

I keep asking them to explain why it is wrong and no one has been able to yet.

[diuretic]

I keep asking them to explain why it is wrong and no one has been able to yet.

You need to get some agreement on the meaning of "wrong". No, I'm not kidding, the word is loaded, if you're using a different definition from the others discussing this with you then it's going to go all over the place.

[truthmatters]

Gee I guess you got me they have only found it in all the animals studied so far which is 15000.

I stand corrected

[diuretic]

Funny I thought that there were more than 1500 species on earth. :lol:

Sorry sis, but 1500 is not "all".

Interesting article though. From your source: It appears that some animals are just as sick and perverted as humns, and will exhibit odd and queer chosen behavior as well.

I've seen cows in a stockyards trying to hump each other. That could be construed as homosexual behaviour but it's not.

[diuretic]

Gee I guess you got me they have only found it in all the animals studied so far which is 15000.

I stand corrected

1500 or 15,000? Anyway if they study every single species on Earth and find it a rare occurence then that will lead me to conclude that many animal species are as sexually repressed as us humans :laugh2:

[OCA]

I keep asking them to explain why it is wrong and no one has been able to yet.

And we keep asking you to explain what is right and as of yet you've been unable. I'm just baiting you into a trap that all homosexual apologists fall into eventually.

[OCA]

Whoa! Hang on, folks.

It appears that God is dead and there is a new God, who is able to look into the hearts of men and women and determine what is sin and what is not.

How does it feel to be God, OCA?

Or do you just prefer the title of King Shit?

Feels pretty damn good.

I prefer the title of "Mr. Omnipotent".

[OCA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Please read this about 1500 species and homosexuality observed displaying it.


Lol, you said all! 1500 is all you can come up with?

Ok, since you seem to be hanging your hat on animals which is like bullshit lib argument#3 and are too stupid to figure it out on your own i'll explain the difference between us and animals.............the ability to think critically, the ability to reason between right and wrong. If you want to equate queer choicers to animals you are doing their cause a great disservice.

[OCA]

Gee I guess you got me they have only found it in all the animals studied so far which is 15000.

I stand corrected

Hey liar, is it 1500 or 15000? It goes up 13,500 everytime you post.

[glockmail]

I keep asking them to explain why it is wrong and no one has been able to yet.

Its wrong cuz it ain't right. Simple, actually.

[glockmail]

Feels pretty damn good.

I prefer the title of "Mr. Omnipotent". What's wrong with your current title, "Greek Bastard". :poke:

[truthmatters]

Its wrong cuz it ain't right. Simple, actually.

That is not a good enough answer to be able to refuse people the rights others have.

[OCA]

That is not a good enough answer to be able to refuse people the rights others have.

Queer choicers are born with every inalienable right that you and I have. Special rights will not be created for people based upon lifestyle choice.

Next point of yours that I can deflate?

[diuretic]

Queer choicers are born with every inalienable right that you and I have. Special rights will not be created for people based upon lifestyle choice.

Next point of yours that I can deflate?

Is marriage a special right? Yes it is if it's a sacrament conferred by a church, using the Christian church example here of course, a church is privileged to decide how to confers that sacrament and I don't have a problem with that. But is a civil marriage a special right?

[JohnDoe]

Examples of Democrats supporting or defending queer sex criminals:

Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.
17 YEARS ago

Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.
24 YEARS ago

Examples of Democrats supporting or defending heterosexual rapists:

Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.
19 YEARS ago

Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.
25 YEARS ago

Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.
please supply some proof of this, the 12 convictions of sexual assault with a 16 year old and the 12 pardons for those convictions by Clinton.

I find this very hard to believe that a situation like this would meet the judicial department's protocol for pardons glock!!!

BUT! But, if this did truely happen, then you are correct, that is pretty disgusting and indefensible imo!!!!!!

Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.
it's his nephew?

Examples of Democrats supporting or defending heterosexual criminals:

Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

Come on glock, i didn't expect a cut and paste list of incidents from nearly or even more than TWO DECADES AGO from YOU!!??

I honestly expected better or at least would have thought that you would have at least humored me or enticed me in to a more in depth discussion on this, than a cut and paste that honestly is SO OLD that it doesn't even matter....at least not to me.

I thought we were discussing the here and now.....NOT a couple of decades ago?

OR at least recent times, since you said (paraphrased)that Dems would support and defend any democratic representative that was married and solicited sex in an airport bathroom!?

Anyway, this representative or senator Larry Craig, was involved in the 1982 Paige SEX Scandal in some way TOO, but not charged as far as i can tell, and accused of being gay 25 years ago....he was single at the time.... IF you really WANT to go back 2 decades!!!??? :D

Really glock, there could be some SICK people that would find a way to defend something like this with Craig if true, from both sides of the aisle.

But to portray that someone defending this type of action as the TYPICAL Liberal is simply untrue and unfair and unjust and any other ''un'' out there that fits!!! Damnit!!! :slap:

jd

[stephanie]

I think it's funny..how the the libs will say their for homosexuals, there's nothing wrong with it...
Yet, they don't have any qualms using and bashing someone of their homosexual lifestyle, when they think it will score some kind of Political points...It makes one wonder, just how tolerant they REALLY ARE OF HOMOSEXUALS....
:laugh2:

:cuckoo:

[diuretic]

I think it's funny..how the the libs will say their for homosexuals, there's nothing wrong with it...
Yet, they don't have any qualms using and bashing someone of their homosexual lifestyle, when they think it will score some kind of Political points...It makes one wonder, just how tolerant they REALLY ARE OF HOMOSEXUALS....
:laugh2:

:cuckoo:

That might be true if the libs concentrated on the sexuality of the man, but they don't. What they do is to point out that here is a gay man who is in denial but who haunts public toilets for sex and urges laws which seek to repress gays or limit their rights. The point is that this is a legislator with a sense of self-loathing because of his refusal to admit his true sexuality. Now there could be another discussion about why he refuses to admit his true sexuality except there's no need. The absolute hatred demonstrated here towards gays tells you exactly why he kept it quiet.

[stephanie]

That might be true if the libs concentrated on the sexuality of the man, but they don't. What they do is to point out that here is a gay man who is in denial but who haunts public toilets for sex and urges laws which seek to repress gays or limit their rights. The point is that this is a legislator with a sense of self-loathing because of his refusal to admit his true sexuality. Now there could be another discussion about why he refuses to admit his true sexuality except there's no need. The absolute hatred demonstrated here towards gays tells you exactly why he kept it quiet.

There are no limits here put on homosexuals, except for a legal marriage..
Do you have legal marriage for homosexuals in your country..???
They have all the same rights as anyone else...
And just maybe, there are some people who don't wish to have their sexual lifestyle exposed...
I don't go around and tell everyone about my sex life...
Whatever you feel about the so called HATRED here for homosexuals, don't try and tell me, there is none of that in your country...

[JohnDoe]

I think it's funny..how the the libs will say their for homosexuals, there's nothing wrong with it...
Yet, they don't have any qualms using and bashing someone of their homosexual lifestyle, when they think it will score some kind of Political points...It makes one wonder, just how tolerant they REALLY ARE OF HOMOSEXUALS....
:laugh2:

:cuckoo:

actually stephanie, many exposures of republican CLOSET gays are from gays, THEMSELVES.

Why do you think this is....? From what these homosexuals are saying...

HOW can these men, vote AGAINST the wishes of the very MEN THEY ARE having SEX with themselves? Or condemn them, or pander to the religious or to those that think homosexuality is not normal and wrong, when they are not ONLY homosexuals themselves, but they are leading a very DECEIVING LIFE by being married and cheating (Adulterers) on their wives with men?

Sooooo, they are exposing them.

But this is not what happened with Larry Craig, no one exposed him from the democratic side nor did these groups of homosexuals who are hell bent on exposing the hypocrisy among the right wing senators or representatives that are closet gays expose him or MAKE THIS THING UP, Craig did what he did and this is the topic of this thread, no?

This is NOT to say that there are not Democrats that do not support the gay lifestyle, because there are many factions in the party, not all Democrats are ''lock step'' with eachother, as you seem to always TRY to portray them as ''one'', imho?

jd

[diuretic]

There are no limits here put on homosexuals, except for a legal marriage..
Do you have legal marriage for homosexuals in your country..???
They have all the same rights as anyone else...
And maybe their are a lot of people who don't wish to have their sexual lifestyle exposed...
I don't go around and tell everyone about my sex life...
Whatever you feel about the so called HATRED here for homosexuals, don't try and tell me, there is none of that in your country...

Marriage is controlled by the federal law here. We have a conservative government. That government won't legalise gay marriage but most of us want them to be able to marry

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21942737-1702,00.html

Gays don't have the same rights as everyone else in this country

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20617470-2,00.html

The hatred for homosexuals is apparent here on the forums. You've probably read it with your own eyes. I'm not condemning those who hate homosexuals. That's their business, I'm not into thoughtcrime.

As for my country, you need to calm down a bit stephanie. I didn't say my country was superior in that regard (in any regard actually). I merely pointed out an observation. For your information we have plenty of gay bashing and gay murders - hate crimes - here. I'll not sugarcoat the truth.

[diuretic]

actually stephanie, many exposures of republican CLOSET gays are from gays, THEMSELVES.

Why do you think this is....? From what these homosexuals are saying...

HOW can these men, vote AGAINST the wishes of the very MEN THEY ARE having SEX with themselves? Or condemn them, or pander to the religious or to those that think homosexuality is not normal and wrong, when they are not ONLY homosexuals themselves, but they are leading a very DECEIVING LIFE by being married and cheating (Adulterers) on their wives with men?

Sooooo, they are exposing them.

But this is not what happened with Larry Craig, no one exposed him from the democratic side nor did these groups of homosexuals who are hell bent on exposing the hypocrisy among the right wing senators or representatives that are closet gays expose him or MAKE THIS THING UP, Craig did what he did and this is the topic of this thread, no?

This is NOT to say that there are not Democrats that do not support the gay lifestyle, because there are many factions in the party, not all Democrats are ''lock step'' with eachother, as you seem to always TRY to portray them as ''one'', imho?

jd

I'm not that keen on "outing". I think it's vicious. What if someone is "outed" and then commits suicide because of it? I do agree about the hypocrisy of some legislators though. But perhaps instead of a public "outing" the gay lobby should quietly let it be known that they will agitate against the hypocrites?

[stephanie]

Marriage is controlled by the federal law here. We have a conservative government. That government won't legalise gay marriage but most of us want them to be able to marry

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21942737-1702,00.html

Gays don't have the same rights as everyone else in this country

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20617470-2,00.html

The hatred for homosexuals is apparent here on the forums. You've probably read it with your own eyes. I'm not condemning those who hate homosexuals. That's their business, I'm not into thoughtcrime.

As for my country, you need to calm down a bit stephanie. I didn't say my country was superior in that regard (in any regard actually). I merely pointed out an observation. For your information we have plenty of gay bashing and gay murders - hate crimes - here. I'll not sugarcoat the truth.

I didn't mean to say you all were superior, just that hate is always going to be with us, and you will never be able to legislate it away....
Sure, we can wish that there was no hate, but that won't happen...
We are all humans with a lot of differernt feelings and emotions....
We are flawed, I guess...:laugh2::cheers2:

[stephanie]

actually stephanie, many exposures of republican CLOSET gays are from gays, THEMSELVES.

Why do you think this is....? From what these homosexuals are saying...

HOW can these men, vote AGAINST the wishes of the very MEN THEY ARE having SEX with themselves? Or condemn them, or pander to the religious or to those that think homosexuality is not normal and wrong, when they are not ONLY homosexuals themselves, but they are leading a very DECEIVING LIFE by being married and cheating (Adulterers) on their wives with men?

Sooooo, they are exposing them.



jd

Hey...I guess if that's what makes you feel better as a person, and that blows your skirt up, then have it...

I find your game sick myself...But, anything for Politicts, right???

[diuretic]

I didn't mean to say you all were superior, just that hate is always going to be with us, and you will never be able to legislate it away....
Sure, we can wish that there was no hate, but that won't happen...
We are all humans with a lot of differernt feelings and emotions....
We are flawed, I guess...:laugh2::cheers2:

Ooops I need to check my comprehension skills. Must book in for a workshop :laugh2:

Yes, there will be hate because we're just human, imperfect. I have to say that it's taken me a while to admit to and recognise my own prejudices, they're still there, I just need to make sure I don't let them run me. One thing I don't like is a two-faced approach though, the pc thing - I prefer people who are up front with their views, this suppressing true feelings because of pc is bullshit.

[glockmail]

Come on glock, i didn't expect a cut and paste list of incidents from nearly or even more than TWO DECADES AGO from YOU!!?? ... History doesn't go away simply because it conflicts with the Liberal agenda.

[theHawk]

Story Highlights

Republican Larry Craig was arrested at Minneapolis airport in June
Arrest document reportedly alleges Craig signaled desire for "lewd conduct"
Craig denied any inappropriate conduct in a written statement
Craig said he regrets pleading guilty to the misdemeanor

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html

Wow, i this jerk really did this then he got off light. He should be removed from the Senate if this is accurate. These people are supposed to set an example not try to have sex in an airport bathroom.

Another homo exposed. Cut 'em loose! :fu:

[GW in Ohio]

Another homo exposed. Cut 'em loose! :fu:

While there's grim satisfaction for liberals in seeing another Republican "family values" hypocrite exposed, I also feel sorry for Larry Craig.

And I'm embarrassed for him. He should have accepted the fact that he's been busted, and exposed. And he should accept the fact that his political career is over. The news conference he called yesterday to deny everything was an embarrassing farce, and it's just going to make it worse for him.

[retiredman]

If history is an indication then he's history. And Liberals will bash him for being a queer-boy (while making excuses their own queer boys, rapists and sex-criminals).:slap:

bullshit. I have NEVER "bashed him for being a queer boy".

I have bashed him for being an incredible hypocrite...for condeming gays on the floor of the senate and villifying them in his home state while stumping for votes and then turning around and trolling for gay buttsex in an airport restroom. If he wants to be gay, that's his business. If he wants to build a political career bashing gays and trying to limit their rights in society that is despicable, but pretty much par for the course from the conservative side of the political spectrum. It is when he does BOTH that he shows himself to be a hypocrite. That is ALL I am bashing him for. period.

[JohnDoe]

Hey...I guess if that's what makes you feel better as a person, and that blows your skirt up, then have it...

I find your game sick myself...But, anything for Politicts, right???

YOu don't get it Steph....you are still generalizing.

It's not MY GAME steph, :slap: it is what SOME of these gay people have expressed and feel.

jd

[stephanie]

YOu don't get it Steph....you are still generalizing.

It's not MY GAME steph, :slap: it is what SOME of these gay people have expressed and feel.

jd

Ok...then I find THEIR game sick...
Better?:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

bullshit. I have NEVER "bashed him for being a queer boy".

I have bashed him for being an incredible hypocrite...for condeming gays on the floor of the senate and villifying them in his home state while stumping for votes and then turning around and trolling for gay buttsex in an airport restroom. If he wants to be gay, that's his business. If he wants to build a political career bashing gays and trying to limit their rights in society that is despicable, but pretty much par for the course from the conservative side of the political spectrum. It is when he does BOTH that he shows himself to be a hypocrite. That is ALL I am bashing him for. period.

Not ONLY that, he bashed Clinton's morality....


MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?

SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don't know where the Senate's going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it's a slap on the wrist. It's a, "Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy." The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.

I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy. The question issue now is simply this: Did he lie under oath? Did he perjure himself and did he obstruct justice? And that's where we're trying to go now in this truth-seeking process.



I'd say Senator Craig has been a nasty, naughty, bad boy too!

[JohnDoe]

Ok...then I find THEIR game sick...
Better?:laugh2:I do too, and it is painful to watch.

However, THIS IS NOT what happened with Larry Craig. With the Senator, he ALONE tried to solicit sex in a mens bathroom from an undercover officer....HE ALONE is RESPONSIBLE for his own actions.

This is a sign of a man that is absolutely OUT OF CONTROL of his own sexual urges for gay sex.

This is a person that is narcissistic, similar to Bill and others that are in Power.

Will it hurt the republicans when it comes time to vote? Probably will keep a few more of the religious right, at home imo.

[truthmatters]

And we keep asking you to explain what is right and as of yet you've been unable. I'm just baiting you into a trap that all homosexual apologists fall into eventually.

Did it over and over again you just refused to accept it.

There same things are right with homosexuality as there are with hetrosexuality.

Sex has always been about more than just procreation so I see nothing wrong with any type of sex beteween two consenting adults.

So that means that the same things that are right about hetro sex are right about homo sex.

Now please what is wrong I asked the question before you people asked your question why do you refuse to answer it?

What is it about homosexual behavior that is wrong in your mind?

[OCA]

Did it over and over again you just refused to accept it.

There same things are right with homosexuality as there are with hetrosexuality.

Sex has always been about more than just procreation so I see nothing wrong with any type of sex beteween two consenting adults.

So that means that the same things that are right about hetro sex are right about homo sex.

Now please what is wrong I asked the question before you people asked your question why do you refuse to answer it?

What is it about homosexual behavior that is wrong in your mind?

Two guys fucking each other up the ass or two chicks fucking each other with strapons, what do you find right about that?

What is it about the penis is supposed to go only in the vagina do you not understand?

What is it about the push for "special rights" based upon, what all evidence points to, a lifestyle choice, what do you find right about that? Should we have special rights now for all heroin users? I mean thats a lifestyle choice too.

What is it about a lifestyle choice that greatly reduces life span, astronomically increases the risk of infectious disease, results in higher instances of "partner" abuse and drug abuse, what do you find right about this?

[GW in Ohio]

Two guys fucking each other up the ass or two chicks fucking each other with strapons, what do you find right about that?

What is it about the penis is supposed to go only in the vagina do you not understand?

What is it about the push for "special rights" based upon, what all evidence points to, a lifestyle choice, what do you find right about that? Should we have special rights now for all heroin users? I mean thats a lifestyle choice too.

What is it about a lifestyle choice that greatly reduces life span, astronomically increases the risk of infectious disease, results in higher instances of "partner" abuse and drug abuse, what do you find right about this?

It's not up to you to judge what is "right" sex and what is "wrong" sex. (Leaving aside sex with children, which we all agree is wrong.)

Furthermore, it's none of your frickin' business who has sex with whom (assuming they're consenting adults).

Mind your own business, dittohead.

As for Larry Craig, I (and my fellow lefties) don't condemn him for being gay, or even for soliciting sex in a public restroom. (If he wants to assume the risks involved in that, he should be free to do so.)

My censure of Larry Craig is for being a frickin' hypocrite....for supporting the Defense of Marriage Act.....and for being a pimp for the Bible-toting, smarmy religious right.

[truthmatters]

Two guys fucking each other up the ass or two chicks fucking each other with strapons, what do you find right about that?


I dont find it wrong( Im hetrosexual so I dont find it tittilating) it is just personal choices on what people do to enjoy sex.
I know gay people who say they never do any of those actions juat as I bet their are married hetrosexual couples who engauge in sex beyond procreation.





What is it about the penis is supposed to go only in the vagina do you not understand?

Should we then take away the rights of married couples if they beform sex outside of these norms?

What is it about the push for "special rights" based upon, what all evidence points to, a lifestyle choice, what do you find right about that? Should we have special rights now for all heroin users? I mean thats a lifestyle choice too.
Hetro people have a right to marry who they want to why should gay people only be allowed to marry people they DONT want to marry?


What is it about a lifestyle choice that greatly reduces life span, astronomically increases the risk of infectious disease, results in higher instances of "partner" abuse and drug abuse, what do you find right about this?

I have already submitted proof that homosexuality is a physical differance by brain studies




Please realise I understand you find it untasteful but it is ohter people buisness what they like.

I think mangos taste like burnt rubber but some people love their taste.

I would never sugest people could not eat mangos because I dont like them.

[avatar4321]

It's not up to you to judge what is "right" sex and what is "wrong" sex. (Leaving aside sex with children, which we all agree is wrong.)

Furthermore, it's none of your frickin' business who has sex with whom (assuming they're consenting adults).

Mind your own business, dittohead.

As for Larry Craig, I (and my fellow lefties) don't condemn him for being gay, or even for soliciting sex in a public restroom. (If he wants to assume the risks involved in that, he should be free to do so.)

My censure of Larry Craig is for being a frickin' hypocrite....for supporting the Defense of Marriage Act.....and for being a pimp for the Bible-toting, smarmy religious right.

Actually, yes it is up to us to judge right and wrong sex. All of us have been given brains. We have minds. we have a knowledge of Good and evil. And we have not only the right but the obligation to us them to judge good from evil.

It seems to me that the only people who dont want people to use their brains and judge good from evil are the ones who know that if people use that inherent judgment, they would stand condemned before God and the world.

Premarital and homosexual activities cost the tax payers billions of dollars each year. That alone gives us all the right to argue, persuade, and yes even legislate behavior when needed. We are the ones paying for it after all.

As for Senator Craig, he is clearly not very bright. However, I would like to know why you assume that because someone may engage in homosexual behavior that they would be forced to accept gay marriage, or that they can't believe gay sex is wrong. People engage in behavior they know is wrong all the time. Did you ever consider that he wasnt a hypocrite for supporting such actions because *Gasp* he actually believes them?

The only real hypocrisy I see is on the left. you want to condemn anyone on the right of bad behavior, but youll circle the wagons every time one of your own does much worse.

[truthmatters]

Actually, yes it is up to us to judge right and wrong sex. All of us have been given brains. We have minds. we have a knowledge of Good and evil. And we have not only the right but the obligation to us them to judge good from evil.

It seems to me that the only people who dont want people to use their brains and judge good from evil are the ones who know that if people use that inherent judgment, they would stand condemned before God and the world.This is a religious belief and should not be legislated

Premarital and homosexual activities cost the tax payers billions of dollars each year. That alone gives us all the right to argue, persuade, and yes even legislate behavior when needed. We are the ones paying for it after all.How does it cost money any more than hetro sex?

As for Senator Craig, he is clearly not very bright. However, I would like to know why you assume that because someone may engage in homosexual behavior that they would be forced to accept gay marriage( no one is going to force you into gay marriage and no one will force you to like it), or that they can't believe gay sex is wrong. People engage in behavior they know is wrong all the time. Did you ever consider that he wasnt a hypocrite for supporting such actions because *Gasp* he actually believes them?

The only real hypocrisy I see is on the left. you want to condemn anyone on the right of bad behavior, but youll circle the wagons every time one of your own does much worse.

Please give an example of circling the wagons on illegal behavior?

[avatar4321]

Please give an example of circling the wagons on illegal behavior?

Let's see:

Ted Kennedy killed a woman.

Bill Clinton perjured and obstructed justice (Not to mention rape, murder and treasonous activities)

Gary Studds raped an boy.

Senator Torricelli engaged in tons of illegal activity. it wasnt until he was at risk to lose his Senate seat that the Democrats turned on him.

Rep. Murtha accepted bribes on tape.

Harry Reid is engaging in illegal land deals.

I could go on.

[-Cp]

A news crew did a reinactment:

http://cbs13.com/video/?id=24308@kovr.dayport.com

[OCA]

Please realise I understand you find it untasteful but it is ohter people buisness what they like.

I think mangos taste like burnt rubber but some people love their taste.

I would never sugest people could not eat mangos because I dont like them.

Yes married couples should be allowed to perform sexual acts outside of vaginal intercourse because its...........TADA! a man and a woman.

If a person does not engage in queer sex or even queer kissing then they are not by definition queer.

If queer choicers do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex then they don't get married. I want to grow shitloads of weed and opium and sell it and make loads of money, should a special law be created so I can do that?(yes drugs and homosexuality are both proven harms to society)

LMFAO! Another lie by Truthmatters!

You provided supposition and theory, i'm looking for irrefuteable truth. You can't bullshit us here.

Homosexuality is a choice by default.

[JohnDoe]

Let's see:

Ted Kennedy killed a woman. True, in a car accident. One of my own employees killed another one of my employees in a drunken car accident, and he did not spend 1 day in jail... either.

Bill Clinton perjured and obstructed justice (Not to mention rape, murder and treasonous activities) bill clinton was acquitted by the senate for those charges, even though he did lie!!!

as far as your other gossip, just that, gossip.... or supplythe non partisan links supporting those right wing fabrications....and i will reconsider.

Gary Studds raped an boy. gary studds slept with a page that was 17 years old. However disgusting this is, and even with the senate's censuring of him, as he stood with his back towards them in contempt of the censure, the citizens on the cape, voted him in, time and time again. Studds continued to have a monogomous relationship with this paige for years....and this paige also stood up with studds before an audience and the press when he was 27 years old, still defending his lover, saying the relationship was mutual.

To me, Studds abused his power and should not have preyed on this young, 17 year old paige... and his constituancy should not have voted him back in....BUT NOTE he was most certainly repremanded/censured, by his counterparts in the Senate.

Senator Torricelli engaged in tons of illegal activity. it wasnt until he was at risk to lose his Senate seat that the Democrats turned on him. link please, for confirmation of what you implied....that dems KNEW he was engaged in illegal activities and covered for him.

Rep. Murtha accepted bribes on tape.on tape, he did NOT accept the bribe, he turned it down, but he did imply that he might later take one.

Harry Reid is engaging in illegal land deals. this i don't know about, link please, to support your allegation.

I could go on.

please do go on....but links would help!

[nevadamedic]

please do go on....but links would help!

You need a link to the page describing how Ted Kennedy murdered that girl?!?!?

[truthmatters]

Yes married couples should be allowed to perform sexual acts outside of vaginal intercourse because its...........TADA! a man and a woman.

If a person does not engage in queer sex or even queer kissing then they are not by definition queer.

If queer choicers do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex then they don't get married. I want to grow shitloads of weed and opium and sell it and make loads of money, should a special law be created so I can do that?(yes drugs and homosexuality are both proven harms to society)

LMFAO! Another lie by Truthmatters!

You provided supposition and theory, i'm looking for irrefuteable truth. You can't bullshit us here.

Homosexuality is a choice by default.




Heres your problem beig gay is not illegal and you cant reserve marriage to some and refuse it to others.

There is NO harm done by legalizing gay marriage.

Please state how a gay marriage would harm society and saying just cuase is not an answer.

[JohnDoe]

You need a link to the page describing how Ted Kennedy murdered that girl?!?!?

nevada?

it was a car ACCIDENT, before the era of MADD.

and you can't possibly have bought in to the crap that he intentionally murdered her because she was pregnant or something?

i can assure you, that ted kennedy had enough money and connections to have maryjo killed, or vannished in some manner.... it would be total foolishness for him to get rid of her in a drunken car accident with him driving imo!!! :slap:

[diuretic]

You need a link to the page describing how Ted Kennedy murdered that girl?!?!?

That's probably libellous.

[JohnDoe]

Heres your problem beig gay is not illegal and you cant reserve marriage to some and refuse it to others.

There is NO harm done by legalizing gay marriage.

Please state how a gay marriage would harm society and saying just cuase is not an answer.

BUT it is being done right now TM? Marriage is restricted right now!

for example, even if adults, biological father and daughter are not permitted to marry.

nor mother and biological son.

brother and sister are not permitted either, even if adults.

nor sister to sister or brother to brother can marry.

each state also has it's own restrictions of age....how young can you marry with parent's permission too....

and some states require you to live in the state for a certain amoubt of time but some don't.

some states require an aids test and if positive, they restrict you from a marriage licence.

there are restrictions put on marriage just as restrictions with a driver's licence..., or a liquor license?

and certainly restrictions between two adults, besides 2 males and 2 females, are present under the law right now too, with parent/child marriages and brother/sister marriages, so it is NOT just homosexuals restricted?

jd

[nevadamedic]

nevada?

it was a car ACCIDENT, before the era of MADD.

and you can't possibly have bought in to the crap that he intentionally murdered her because she was pregnant or something?

i can assure you, that ted kennedy had enough money and connections to have maryjo killed, or vannished in some manner.... it would be total foolishness for him to get rid of her in a drunken car accident with him driving imo!!! :slap:

He murdered her and staged it as a car accident.

[truthmatters]

Let's see:

Ted Kennedy killed a woman.
Heres your problem Kenedy was not chargede with murder let alone convicted of it
Bill Clinton perjured and obstructed justice (Not to mention rape, murder and treasonous activities)Again Rumors are not fact and Clinton was never charged or convicted of anything

Gary Studds raped an boy.Whos he?

Senator Torricelli engaged in tons of illegal activity. it wasnt until he was at risk to lose his Senate seat that the Democrats turned on him.again I dot even recall anything of this story

Rep. Murtha accepted bribes on tape.I dont recall any charges

Harry Reid is engaging in illegal land deals.Again where is the facts is all you have rumor?

You have to use facts and not rumors and propaganda


I could go on.

what with rumors and lies ?

[truthmatters]

BUT it is being done right now TM? Marriage is restricted right now!

for example, even if adults, biological father and daughter are not permitted to marry.

nor mother and biological son.

brother and sister are not permitted either, even if adults.

nor sister to sister or brother to brother can marry.

each state also has it's own restrictions of age....how young can you marry with parent's permission too....

and some states require you to live in the state for a certain amoubt of time but some don't.

some states require an aids test and if positive, they restrict you from a marriage licence.

there are restrictions put on marriage just as restrictions with a driver's licence..., or a liquor license?

and certainly restrictions between two adults, besides 2 males and 2 females, are present under the law right now too, with parent/child marriages and brother/sister marriages, so it is NOT just homosexuals restricted?

jd

Those are for puplic health reasons and there is no need to do the same for people who will not be procreating together.

[OCA]

Heres your problem beig gay is not illegal and you cant reserve marriage to some and refuse it to others.



Oh but we can and have!









Wednesday, November 03, 2004
50-state rundown on gay marriage laws
By Kavan Peterson, Staff Writer



(Updated Nov. 3, 2004)

Six months after gay and lesbian couples began legally marring in Massachusetts, opponents of same-sex marriage swept Election Day, with voters in 11 states approving constitutional amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.

The amendments won in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and even Oregon the one state where gay rights activists had hoped to prevail.

The amendments passed with a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio and 6-to-1 in Mississippi. Bans passed by narrower margins in Oregon, about 57 percent, and Michigan, about 59 percent.

"Yesterday's vote reveals once again the broad support for protecting marriage among the American people," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council.

Gay-rights activists have filed challenges to the new amendments in Georgia and Oklahoma.

In Louisiana, a judge recently struck down a constitutional same-sex marriage ban approved in September on grounds that it improperly dealt with more than one issue by banning not only same-sex marriage but also any legal recognition of domestic partnerships or civil unions. Louisiana's constitution requires that amendments be limited to a single-subject.

Three other states that also have single-subject requirements - Georgia, Ohio and Oklahoma may face legal challenges similar to the one in Louisiana, said Kristina Wilfore, executive direct of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center , a Washington, D.C.-based organization that supports progressive ballot measures.

Since Massachusetts began allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed last May, 13 states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. This number includes Missouri, which approved such a measure in August.

The amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marrriage, specifying that it should be limited to unions of one man and one woman. The measures in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah call for a ban on civil unions or other partnership benefits as well.

None of these states allowed gay marriage before, but the stakes were highest in Oregon, where city officials in Portland married nearly 3,000 same-sex couples last spring before a judge halted the practice. The state's highest court will hear arguments Dec. 15 on the validity of those marriages.

National and local gay-rights groups campaigned vigorously in Oregon, raising and spending millions of dollars, but they failed to defeat the amendment, which is expected to lead to the nullification of the 3,000 same-sex marriages.

"It is always wrong to put basic rights up to a popular vote," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide on marriage equality and it will base its decision on the U.S. Constitution, not anything in any of the state constitutions."

Currently, more than 20 lawsuits seeking same-sex marriage rights are being pursued in 11 states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington. Most of the suits are modeled after a Massachusetts case filed by seven same-sex couples who successfully argued that the Bay State Constitution guarantees them the right to marry.

Washington state's Supreme Court is expected soon to hear appeals of two lower court rulings that struck down the state's six-year-old statute banning same-sex couples from marrying.

Lawsuits pending in California and New Jersey also have been appealed to their state's highest courts and could be decided in the next year.

Courts that already have looked at the issue in Massachusetts, Vermont, Alaska and Hawaii have ruled in favor of gay unions. In both Alaska and Hawaii, however, the court rulings later were overridden by state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

Vermont's high court allowed the Legislature to ban same-sex marriage as long as it provided an alternative for gays and lesbians called civil unions, while the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered its Legislature to provide nothing less than marriage.

Since the Massachusetts ruling, more than 35 states have introduced legislation aimed at preserving the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The legislative activity takes three basic forms:

State constitutional amendments -- The toughest involves enshrining a ban on marriage of same-sex couples in the state constitution and were adopted by 13 states in 2004. In seven states - Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah - Legislators approved putting constitutional amendments on ballots, while in the six other states - Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon the measures were advanced by conservative, church-backed citizens groups that collected signatures on petitions. All required a statewide vote to pass.

Missouri voters approved a same-sex marriage-ban amendment August 2. On Oct. 5, a Louisiana judge struck down the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that voters had overwhelmingly approved Sept. 18. Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah approved their amendments on Election Day. Similar measures were approved by legislatures in Massachusetts, Tennessee and Wisconsin, but must be approved again in 2005 before going to a statewide vote that year in Wisconsin and in 2006 in Massachusetts and Tennessee.

Three states Alaska, Nebraska and Nevada already had bans against same-sex marriage written into their constitutions. A fifth state, Hawaii, passed an amendment reserving the right to define marriage for the state Legislature, which bans gay marriage.


Marriage statutes -- Sixteen states debated and five of those adopted -- statutory legislation this year that either prohibit same-sex marriage, strengthen pre-existing gay marriage bans and/or prohibit granting marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples in lieu of marriage such as those provided under Vermont's civil unions law. Those that toughened their marriage laws were New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia.


Non-binding resolutions -- At least 20 states considered non-binding resolutions urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and two Alabama and Virginia adopted them. A federal constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress but the Senate in July failed to rally enough support to bring it to a vote. Republican leaders vow to bring it up again this fall.


Thirty-nine states already prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed by Congress in 1996, the federal DOMA bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere. Four states (Maryland, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming) have laws or court rulings prohibiting same-sex marriage that predate the federal DOMA.

Following is a 50-state roundup of current law and proposals to change state marriage laws.

Based on information compiled from Stateline.org news reports, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

ALABAMA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation:Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has been adopted. (HJR 129). State constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage introduced but failed.
ALASKA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: None
ARIZONA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment was introduced but failed (SCR 1015). A resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed the state House but failed in the Senate (SCM 1004).
ARKANSAS
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: A state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage placed on the November ballot through the citizen initiative process was approved by voters.
CALIFORNIA
Current law: State law, passed by public referendum, bans same-sex marriage (In defiance of that law, San Francisco issued more than 3,200 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state high court is expected to rule on the validity of those marriages). The state will extend certain state-level marriage benefits to those on a domestic partners' registry starting Jan. 1, 2005.
Legislation: Assembly Judiciary committee on April 20 became the first legislative body in America to approve a measure that would allow same-sex couples to wed, but the legislation has not been considered by full Assembly (AB 1967). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (AJR 67). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (AJR 67).
Court action:State Supreme Court on August 12 nullified nearly 4,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in San Francisco in violation of state law. The high court is expected to hear a separate case that will decide on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage at a later date.
COLORADO
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was introduced, but died (HJR04-1013).
CONNECTICUT
Current law: State adoption statute refers to marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Legislation: Bill introduced to allow same-sex couples to marry (HBO 3069).
Court action:Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the legal group that won marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit in state court Aug. 25 on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking the right to marry.
DELAWARE
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriages and civil unions introduced March 31, but Senate President Thurman G. Adams (D) has blocked the measure from coming to a vote (SB 246).
FLORIDA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: None
Court action: Miami lawyer Ellis Rubin has filed 8 lawsuits 3 federal cases and 5 state cases in 2004 on behalf of about 40 same-sex couples. Two of the federal cases seek recognition of marriages performed in Canada and Florida and challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The other cases were filed on behalf of unwed same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. None have gone to trial yet. The National Center for Lesbian Rights has filed a lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples challenging Florida's same-sex marriage ban.

GEORGIA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman was approved by the Legislature and by 85 percent of voters on Nov. 2.
Court action:A trial court judge dismissed a lawsuit Sept. 29 seeking to remove the same-sex marriage ban from the ballot. Gay-rights advocates say they will re-file the lawsuit now that the amendment has been approved by voters.
HAWAII
Current law: Constitutional amendment giving the legislature the right to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. DOMA passed by the legislature and adopted as state law by public referendum. But Hawaii law provides limited state benefits to same-sex partners.
Legislation: None.
IDAHO
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed the state House Feb. 11, but was not voted on in the Senate before the legislature adjourned in March (HJR 009).
ILLINOIS
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage introduced but failed to pass (HJRCA 24, SJRCA 56, HJRCA 25, HJRCA 31). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage .
INDIANA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: The Legislature adjourned March 4, effectively killing a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The measure passed the state Senate but stalled in the House when Democrats refused to bring it to a vote. Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to force a vote by stalling all legislative activity for one week by refusing to enter the House chambers. (HJR 3, SJR 7).
Court action: The Indiana Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of three same-sex couples challenging Indiana's same-sex marriage ban. The case was dismissed by a trial court judge in 2003 and is currently pending in the state Court of Appeals.

IOWA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Senate voted down a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (SJR 2002). Proposed state law that would prohibit recognition of same-sex marriage or any legal union that provides marriage-like benefits failed (SF 216). Resolutions urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage also have been introduced and approved by committees in both chambers (HJR 2002, SJR 2005).
KANSAS
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and benefits that associate marriage to other relationships was approved by the state Senate May 1 but narrowly defeated in the state House May 4 (HCR 5005). A similar measure had narrowly passed the House in March but was voted down by the Senate.
KENTUCKY
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman was approved by the Legislature April 19 and by nearly 75 percent of voters Nov. 2.
LOUISIANA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: Constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples and prohibiting state officials and courts from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions performed elsewhere was passed by a 4-to-1 margin Sept. 18.
Court action: A district judge struck down the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage Oct. 5, ruling that the measure was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because the provision had more than one purpose banning not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions. Opponents plan to appeal the ruling.
MAINE
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was proposed but failed in both legislative chambers.
MARYLAND
Current law: The first state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman was adopted by Maryland in 1973.
Legislation: State constitutional amendment and proposed state law banning same-sex marriage were introduced and defeated (HB 16, HB 728, SB 746).
Court action: The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit July 7, 2004 challenging the state's same-sex marriage ban on behalf of nine same-sex couples and a man whose partner recently died.

MASSACHUSETTS
Current law: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry by May 17, 2004.
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages but establishing civil unions gained preliminary approval March 29 during the state Constitutional Convention. The measure must be approved in identical form during the next legislative session in 2005 before going to a statewide vote in 2006. Three bills introduced to permit same-sex couples to marry but are not likely to come to a vote (HB 3556, HB 3677, SB 935). A citizen initiated petition drive is under way to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but 2008 is the soonest it could come to a statewide vote.
Court action: Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed a lawsuit July 2004 challenging a 1913 law that prohibits out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. On August 17, a trial court upheld the 1913 law but GLAD said it will appeal the ruling.

MICHIGAN
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by 59 percent of voters.
Court action: The state Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 3 that the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage should appear on the Nov. 2 ballot even though the state canvassing board could not overcome a partisan deadlock to certify the measure.
MINNESOTA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was introduced but died when the legislature adjourned May 14 without voting on the measure.
MISSISSIPPI
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman was approved by the Legislature and passed by voters on Nov. 2.
MISSOURI
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law and written into constitution Aug. 3
Legislation: None

MONTANA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by voters.
NEBRASKA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution
Legislation: None
Court action: The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in 2003 in federal court in Nebraska challenging the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

NEVADA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution
Legislation: None
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Current law: State law bans same-sex marriage and pre-dates DOMA laws.
Legislation: The state House and Senate have approved a bill that would reinforce a state law banning same-sex marriages and prohibit recognition of gay marriages performed elsewhere (SB 427). Republican Gov. Craig Benson has said he would sign it.
NEW JERSEY
Current law: State law provides for a domestic partners' registry with marriage-like benefits for same-sex couples.
Legislation: Bill introduced proposing adoption of DOMA to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying (AB 460). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage .
Court action: Lambda Legal filed a case on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. A trial court judge dismissed the case in November 2003. Lambda is seeking an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

NEW MEXICO
Current law: No public policy
Legislation: None
NEW YORK
Current law: No public policy
Legislation: State law proposed that would prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions performed elsewhere (A 2998). Bill that would recognize same-sex marriage has been proposed in the state Senate (SB 3816) and in the Assembly (AB 7392); three bills to extend some marriage benefits to same-sex couples have been introduced in the state Assembly (AB 2998, AB 3129, AB 8844).
Court action: Lambda filed a case March 5, 2004 on behalf of a same-sex couple seeking the right to marry. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a case July 1, 2004 on behalf of 13 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. Neither case has gone to trial yet.

NORTH CAROLINA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage were introduced but no action was taken before the legislature adjourned July 18 (H1606, S1057).
NORTH DAKOTA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by voters.
OHIO
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by voters.
OKLAHOMA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: The legislature approved putting a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman to a statewide vote in November (SJR 46). Legislation strengthening the state's existing DOMA law was approved. Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (HR 1028).
OREGON
Current Law: DOMA written into state constitution (Multnomah County officials in Portland issued marriage licenses to 3,000 same-sex couples before being ordered to stop by a circuit court judge April 20. The case is likely to go to the state Supreme Court).
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by 55 percent of voters.
Court action: The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking recognition of nearly 3,000 marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples by Multnomah County officials. A trial court judge ruled in April 2004 that the marriages were valid and banning same-sex marriage violates the state's constitution. The state Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in July but has stayed the decision until the state Supreme Court considers the matter. A hearing is scheduled before the high court on Nov. 17.

PENNSYLVANIA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment is expected to be introduced.
RHODE ISLAND
Current law: No public policy
Legislation: Two bills to adopt state DOMA laws were introduced but failed (HB 7395, HB 7571). Bill that would recognize same-sex marriage has been proposed
SOUTH CAROLINA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Bill that would strengthen the state's existing DOMA by forbidding the state to recognize same-sex marriages or to grant marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples pased the House but failed in the Senate (HB 4657). Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage died in a House committee (H 4736).
SOUTH DAKOTA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Bill that would strengthen the state's existing DOMA by forbidding the state to recognize same-sex marriage or to grant marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples was introduced but failed (HB 1289).
TENNESSEE
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages gained preliminary approval by both houses of the legislature (HJR 990). The measure must be approved in identical form during the next legislative session in 2005 before going to a statewide vote in 2006.Senate passed a bill March 31 that would strengthen the state's existing DOMA by forbidding the state from recognizing a "civil union or domestic partnership between individuals of the same sex" (SB 2661). Was voted down by a House committee but may be reintroduced. Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed by the Senate and a House committee (SJR 27).
TEXAS
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
UTAH
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: A state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman and barring state recognition of any "domestic partnership" was approved by the Legislature and by voters Nov. 2. A bill changing state law to do essentially the same thing was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor (SB 24).
VERMONT
Current law: State law defines marriage as union between man and woman, but civil unions created in 2000 to provide same-sex couples access to state-level marriage benefits.
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage introduced but failed (PR0005). Bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry was introduced but failed (HB 676). Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was introduced but failed.
VIRGINIA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Both chambers of the Legislature have approved a bill reaffirming that Virginia has no constitutional or legal obligation to recognize marriages, civil unions or domestic partnership contracts between same-sex couples (HB 751). Gov. Mark Warner (D) has not indicated whether he will sign the bill, but it passed by a veto-proof majority. Resolutions urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed both houses of the Legislature (HJR 187, SJR 91).
WASHINGTON
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment and state law banning same-sex marriage were introduced but died in committee when the legislature adjourned (HJR 4220).
Court action: A second Superior Court judge ruled Sep. 7 that banning same-sex couples from marrying violates the state's constitution. If the case, argued by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 11 same-sex couples, is taken up by the state Supreme Court, it likely will be joined with a similar lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal that resulted in the state's first Superior Court ruling to strike down the state's ban against same-sex marriage on Aug. 2. Both judges delayed implementing their ruling to let the high court take up the case.

WEST VIRGINIA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage
WISCONSIN
Current law:No DOMA, but state supreme court ruling and Attorney's General opinion held that only heterosexual marriages are legal.
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions has been approved by the both chambers of the Legislature. The legislation must clear both houses again in the 2005 session before going before voters in a statewide referendum. Proposed statute to establish a state DOMA was approved by the Legislature but vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle in 2003. (SJR, 63, AJR 66).
WYOMING
Current law: State law bans same-sex marriage and pre-dates DOMA laws.
Legislation: Legislation to enact a state law modeled after DOMA was introduced but failed.

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

[OCA]

Vote results from states that voted on queer marriage in the last general election:

Arkansas:746,382 for ban 75%
248,827 against ban 25%

Georgia:2,317,981 for ban 76.1%
729,705 against ban 23.9%

Kentucky:1,217,857 for ban 74.6%
415,233 against ban 25.4%

Michigan:2,690,819 for ban 58.6%
1,900,578 against ban 41.4%

Mississippi:924,653 for ban 86.1%
149,854 against ban 13.9%

Montana:256,658 for ban 58.0%
185,695 against ban 42.0%

North Dakota:222,899 for ban 73.3%
81,396 against ban 26.7%

Ohio:3,249,157 for ban 61.8%
2,011,168 against ban 38.2%

Oklahoma:1,075,079 for ban 75.6%
347,246 against ban 24.4%

Oregon:979,049 for ban 56.9%
742,442 against ban 43.1%

Utah:562,619 for ban 66.2%
286,697 against ban 33.8%

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/initiative.htm

[MtnBiker]

Those are for puplic health reasons and there is no need to do the same for people who will not be procreating together.

You believe it is acceptable for family members to marry one another as long as they do not procreate?

[truthmatters]

You believe it is acceptable for family members to marry one another as long as they do not procreate?


I would not care.

You see there are certain protections provided people who legally marry.

If I had it my way we would not have any marriage in the law and would leave mariage to the churchs.
Then I would have civil unions which any Two people could enter for what ever reason.

That way people who needed to could join their finances together and take care of the health decisions a marriage now supplies.

Two elderly sisters could sign up for a civil union and would pay a small fee ad not have to go to a lawyer to set it all up.

Two single fathers could do the same.

You see I dont care what consenting adults do or dont do behind the closed doors of their home as long as its harms no one.

[OCA]

Those are for puplic health reasons and there is no need to do the same for people who will not be procreating together.

Homosexuality is also a public health issue.

[OCA]

I would not care.

You see there are certain protections provided people who legally marry.

If I had it my way we would not have any marriage in the law and would leave mariage to the churchs.
The I would have civil unions which any Two people could enter for what ever reason.

That way people who needed to could join their finances together and take care of the health decisions a marriage now supplies.

Two elderly sisters could sign up for a civil union and would pay a small fee ad not have to go to a lawyer to set it all up.

Two single fathers could do the same.

You see I dont care what consenting adults do or dot do behind the closed doors of their home as long as its harms no one.

I'm beginning to understand, you have no standards or moral parameters, you are an anything goes type of gal. Boy you'd be a prize to bring home to momma.

[truthmatters]

Homosexuality is also a public health issue.


In what way?

[glockmail]

In what way? Anal Intercourse Disease Syndrome.

[truthmatters]

Anal Intercourse Disease Syndrome.


Never heard of that puplic danger pray tell what is it and please provide some documentation of its exsistance?

[nevadamedic]

Anal Intercourse Disease Syndrome.

Hmmmmmmmm

[OCA]

In what way?

You've got to be the dumbest chick i've ever run across.

AIDS/HIV

Check these stats out and check the male to male category considering that queers are at best estimate 2% of the population.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

[truthmatters]

You've got to be the dumbest chick i've ever run across.

AIDS/HIV

Check these stats out and check the male to male category considering that queers are at best estimate 2% of the population.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure


How would this be effected by civil unions?

I bet the transmissions would go down between homosexuals due to the sense of commitment they would derive from a union.

This transmission rate will not go up that is sure.

[Abbey Marie]

A news crew did a reinactment:

http://cbs13.com/video/?id=24308@kovr.dayport.com

That's it? That's all he did?

[Abbey Marie]

Glock, can you help us out? We need more popcorn & beer in here.

[truthmatters]

That's it? That's all he did?


Nope you shoud read the officers report.

[MtnBiker]

I would not care.


Ok, I just want to be clear that you accept the idea of a father and daughter or mother and son or brother and sister to be married to one another, provided no procreation is envolved. Now I know your position.

Wow :eek:

[glockmail]

Never heard of that puplic danger pray tell what is it and please provide some documentation of its exsistance? A I D S Try G o o g l e.
:slap:

[glockmail]

How would this be effected by civil unions?

I bet the transmissions would go down between homosexuals due to the sense of commitment they would derive from a union.

This transmission rate will not go up that is sure. It would be affected more by an outright ban on shit-stabbing.:laugh2:

[glockmail]

Glock, can you help us out? We need more popcorn & beer in here. Sorry statuesque doll. At this time of night only scotch and cigars will do.

[JohnDoe]

I suppose, that if the government only sanctioned civil unions between 2 adults which had nothing to do with sex, but only to do with Civil Laws on who you want to share your income with, and who to trust to share your estate with or who you want to be responsible for your health decisions if something were to happen catastrophic to you and other similar things, like tax deduction for you and the person you chose to be your Civil Partner, but had NOTHING to do with the sexual orientation of the partners, or even whether it was 2 spinster sisters, or an adult daughter and her elderly father that decided to civily join financial union with one another, then I could live with this....IF ALSO that Marriage between a man and a woman was left up to the religious institute or religious entity out there.

Then and only then would it be truely FAIR to all adults.

For example, my sister is Divorced and never remarried, primarily because of her Faith.....so she is alone, with no children.

And my husband and I have not been blessed with Children no matter how hard we tried.... :(

But if something were to happen to my Husband in old age, and he were to die....because I have no children....

I have plans to move in with my sister and share all expenses with her, and I also would want her to be the legal designated person making financial or medical decisions about me if something were to happen to me where I could not make the decision myself.

And if she and I were to financially partner up, then any tax benefit to a partner should be given to us also.

Can you guys see where I am coming from....?

Though, I would say that I would rather things stay just the way they are now and have always been in our history....

I was just thinking through the situation if the gvt got out of sanctioning marriage and went to only civil unions in the supposed name of fairness...jd

[glockmail]

Filing the legal paperwork for a financial-health decision-visitation partnership between two (or more) people is fairly simple, and less expensive than a wedding. This will address all of your concerns while keeping marriage sacrosanct which is my concern and the concern of the vast majority of Americans. :D

[retiredman]

Sorry statuesque doll. At this time of night only scotch and cigars will do.

it is frightening to me that I would find myself agreeing with you, even if only on 50% of your choices!

the famous grouse

[glockmail]

it is frightening to me that I would find myself agreeing with you, even if only on 50% of your choices!

the famous grouse Libs are always scared and frightened. They're pussies.

Too bad you don't agree that Abbey is a statuesque doll. You must be a faggot as well.

[JohnDoe]

Filing the legal paperwork for a financial-health decision-visitation partnership between two (or more) people is fairly simple, and less expensive than a wedding. This will address all of your concerns while keeping marriage sacrosanct which is my concern and the concern of the vast majority of Americans. :D

but what about the tax deduction for me choosing her to be my financial and domestic partner over remarrying again, which i know i would never do because my heart will always be with my husband and my sister will never remarry because of her faith?

why should a couple that is married, get a tax break, over my sister and me?

PLEASE NOTE!

I am only playing Devil's advocate here....to bring all out in the open, to further the discussion on this....



jd

[glockmail]

but what about the tax deduction for me choosing her to be my financial and domestic partner over remarrying again, which i know i would never do because my heart will always be with my husband and my sister will never remarry because of her faith?

why should a couple that is married, get a tax break, over my sister and me?

PLEASE NOTE!

I am only playing Devil's advocate here....to bring all out in the open, to further the discussion on this....



jd

Head of Household would probably give ya'll the same benefit. Although having two separate SS checks instead of a combined (smaller) one as a married couple probably outweighs any "penalty". This is what my neighbors accross the street do. They live together, retired, unmarried. No hanky-panky ;)

Oh you're such a devil, jd. :dev3:

[truthmatters]

I suppose, that if the government only sanctioned civil unions between 2 adults which had nothing to do with sex, but only to do with Civil Laws on who you want to share your income with, and who to trust to share your estate with or who you want to be responsible for your health decisions if something were to happen catastrophic to you and other similar things, like tax deduction for you and the person you chose to be your Civil Partner, but had NOTHING to do with the sexual orientation of the partners, or even whether it was 2 spinster sisters, or an adult daughter and her elderly father that decided to civily join financial union with one another, then I could live with this....IF ALSO that Marriage between a man and a woman was left up to the religious institute or religious entity out there.

Then and only then would it be truely FAIR to all adults.

For example, my sister is Divorced and never remarried, primarily because of her Faith.....so she is alone, with no children.

And my husband and I have not been blessed with Children no matter how hard we tried.... :(

But if something were to happen to my Husband in old age, and he were to die....because I have no children....

I have plans to move in with my sister and share all expenses with her, and I also would want her to be the legal designated person making financial or medical decisions about me if something were to happen to me where I could not make the decision myself.

And if she and I were to financially partner up, then any tax benefit to a partner should be given to us also.

Can you guys see where I am coming from....?

Though, I would say that I would rather things stay just the way they are now and have always been in our history....

I was just thinking through the situation if the gvt got out of sanctioning marriage and went to only civil unions in the supposed name of fairness...jd

This I think is the right path for our future.

If you what Gods blessings and you want to have the kind of union which involves all the religious implications you go to a church and get married in the eyes of the church. Then you go to the court house (or before) and you get your civil union.

This way all people have th right to tie their lives financially together as they need and Marriage can stay safe for those with religious views.

It pleases everyone!

[JohnDoe]

Oh you're such a devil, jd. :dev3:

:D

oh, and that's good to know on the head of household, unless we are both working you said...?

[truthmatters]

Head of Household would probably give ya'll the same benefit. Although having two separate SS checks instead of a combined (smaller) one as a married couple probably outweighs any "penalty". This is what my neighbors accross the street do. They live together, retired, unmarried. No hanky-panky ;)

Oh you're such a devil, jd. :dev3:


It will not give you the automatic next of kin to make medical decisions.

These types of things are why civil unions are so nessesary for the people who are not now allowed them.

[glockmail]

:D

oh, and that's good to know on the head of household, unless we are both working you said...? I dunno. Best to work with a financial advisor on that.

[remie]

It will not give you the automatic next of kin to make medical decisions.

These types of things are why civil unions are so nessesary for the people who are not now allowed them.

Nope, I believe power of attorney and a living will works very well for medical issues.

[glockmail]

It will not give you the automatic next of kin to make medical decisions.

These types of things are why civil unions are so nessesary for the people who are not now allowed them.

Automatic, no. But a simple power of attorney will do the right thing.

[truthmatters]

I dunno. Best to work with a financial advisor on that.


See certain people are forced to get legal help to effect the same things others can do for a few bucks at the court house and that is not very American.

[glockmail]

See certain people are forced to get legal help to effect the same things others can do for a few bucks at the court house and that is not very American.
as I pointed out previously, the cost to prpare the appropriate documents is much less expensive that the typical wedding.

You could probably do a little actual brain-work yourself and figger out what to file, when and where. Or better yet why not some queer advocate create a web page? That would take considerably less effort thatn attempting to change the entire culture, where 80% or more have vowed to resist you.

One can only conclude that your motives are not as stated. :poke:

[JohnDoe]

Anyway, getting back to the TOPIC of Senator Craig....

I have reached the point of having to change the 24/7 channel, every time they bring him up, repeating the same things with no new findings....to me, and maybe because i am a softy, a real softy....i just can't stand a public circus for longer than a day or two, without feeling sorry for those that ''sinned'' and sorry for those that loved the sinner, like his wife.... :(

jd

[nevadamedic]

I suppose, that if the government only sanctioned civil unions between 2 adults which had nothing to do with sex, but only to do with Civil Laws on who you want to share your income with, and who to trust to share your estate with or who you want to be responsible for your health decisions if something were to happen catastrophic to you and other similar things, like tax deduction for you and the person you chose to be your Civil Partner, but had NOTHING to do with the sexual orientation of the partners, or even whether it was 2 spinster sisters, or an adult daughter and her elderly father that decided to civily join financial union with one another, then I could live with this....IF ALSO that Marriage between a man and a woman was left up to the religious institute or religious entity out there.

Then and only then would it be truely FAIR to all adults.

For example, my sister is Divorced and never remarried, primarily because of her Faith.....so she is alone, with no children.

And my husband and I have not been blessed with Children no matter how hard we tried.... :(

But if something were to happen to my Husband in old age, and he were to die....because I have no children....

I have plans to move in with my sister and share all expenses with her, and I also would want her to be the legal designated person making financial or medical decisions about me if something were to happen to me where I could not make the decision myself.

And if she and I were to financially partner up, then any tax benefit to a partner should be given to us also.

Can you guys see where I am coming from....?

Though, I would say that I would rather things stay just the way they are now and have always been in our history....

I was just thinking through the situation if the gvt got out of sanctioning marriage and went to only civil unions in the supposed name of fairness...jd

:laugh2: Two old ladies growing old with their cats. :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

Many do and if hte law allowed them to tie their finances and medical care together it would be much fairer to all.

[glockmail]

:laugh2: Two old ladies growing old with their cats. :laugh2: I dunno how old they are but if real old then get rid of the damn cats before someone strkes out and can't defend themselves aginst those flesh-eating opportunists..... :poke:

[glockmail]

Many do and if hte law allowed them to tie their finances and medical care together it would be much fairer to all.
It does, as pointed out and you ignore.

Your actions point to some other agenda. :coffee:

[JohnDoe]

:laugh2: Two old ladies growing old with their cats. :laugh2:

hahaha! we are not old by any means, but we do have kitty cats! lol :D

crows feet and grey hair around the sideburns is most certainly there in the last picture, but hidden by the picture's blurryness, THANK GOD! :) pics of me and the hubby over 10-15 years
http://www.geocities.com/care4all2/pictures4.JPG

[glockmail]

hahaha! we are not old by any means, but we do have kitty cats! lol :D

crows feet and grey hair around the sideburns is most certainly there in the last picture, but hidden by the picture's blurryness, THANK GOD! :) pics of me and the hubby over 10-15 years...


Cute little package there. My guess is you're about 5-2. :thumb:

[nevadamedic]

hahaha! we are not old by any means, but we do have kitty cats! lol :D

crows feet and grey hair around the sideburns is most certainly there in the last picture, but hidden by the picture's blurryness, THANK GOD! :) pics of me and the hubby over 10-15 years
http://www.geocities.com/care4all2/pictures4.JPG

Yikes! Where do I get an application to be one of your lovers? :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Cute little package there. My guess is you're about 5-2. :thumb:
hahaha!

5ft 3", thank you very much! And I need every inch, on my tiptoes to reach matt's mouth! lol

[JohnDoe]

Yikes! Where do I get an application to be one of your lovers? :laugh2:


:slap:

Although I am aging fairly well, (cuz I come from a very long line of centurian long livers) I can assure you that I most certainly am starting to see more grey than brown around my ear areas, and lines that should not be there around my eyes! Darnit!!!!

[nevadamedic]

:slap:

Although I am aging fairly well, (cuz I come from a very long line of centurian long livers) I can assure you that I most certainly am starting to see more grey than brown around my ear areas, and lines that should not be there around my eyes! Darnit!!!!

That's ok, ill just turn off the lights. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

:slap:

Although I am aging fairly well, (cuz I come from a very long line of centurian long livers) I can assure you that I most certainly am starting to see more grey than brown around my ear areas, and lines that should not be there around my eyes! Darnit!!!! A woman isn't truly sexy until she looks good at 50, and salt-n-pepper usually adds to the package.

[nevadamedic]

:slap:

Although I am aging fairly well, (cuz I come from a very long line of centurian long livers) I can assure you that I most certainly am starting to see more grey than brown around my ear areas, and lines that should not be there around my eyes! Darnit!!!!

And well the lines are no big deal either as it's not the face your looking at when their bent over the bed. :laugh2::coffee:

[truthmatters]

It does, as pointed out and you ignore.

Your actions point to some other agenda. :coffee:


I guess some see equal protection under the law as an agenda and yes I love that agenda.

[JohnDoe]

A woman isn't truly sexy until she looks good at 50, and salt-n-pepper usually adds to the package.

Well, I am forty something :), in the bottom picture so not too long of a time for me to find out what 50 might be like...ugh!

ok, enough already, I am getting depressed....especially the way time has been flying!

[nevadamedic]

Well, I am forty something :), in the bottom picture so not too long of a time for me to find out what 50 might be like...ugh!

ok, enough already, I am getting depressed....especially the way time has been flying!

Your in your 40's? I was going to say 55 :laugh2:

Seriously I was thinking 30's tops.

[glockmail]

I guess some see equal protection under the law as an agenda and yes I love that agenda. As any "equal protection" can be had with readily available resources, your actual agenda must be different than stated. The Gay agenda, perhaps?

[truthmatters]

As any "equal protection" can be had with readily available resources, your actual agenda must be different than stated. The Gay agenda, perhaps?


No you see forceing some to pay more for the ability to obtain the same protection is not equal protection.

That is unconstitutional.

[glockmail]

No you see forceing some to pay more for the ability to obtain the same protection is not equal protection.

That is unconstitutional. No its not. Someone born with a birth defect and can't walk doesn't get a wheelchair and a custom mini-van free from the guv'mint. All the guv'mint is obligated to do is provide reasonable access to public facilities.

And besides, queer is a choice.

Who ever told you life would be fair?

[truthmatters]

That is not legal protection now is it?

You see a marriage has legal protections involved.

When you have a law that gives legal protections that only some can have and other can not that is an inequality of protection under the law.

[glockmail]

That is not legal protection now is it?

You see a marriage has legal protections involved.

When you have a law that gives legal protections that only some can have and other can not that is an inequality of protection under the law.

If you want the same protections then you can get them through a less expensive process than the average cost of a wedding. I've said this about ten times now and you can't seem to get it through your thick skull.

[OCA]

That is not legal protection now is it?

You see a marriage has legal protections involved.

When you have a law that gives legal protections that only some can have and other can not that is an inequality of protection under the law.

But queer choicers do have it, they just can't break the law and have it. If they were to be lawabiding, the laws of man and nature, then it would be no problem.

[truthmatters]

If you want the same protections then you can get them through a less expensive process than the average cost of a wedding. I've said this about ten times now and you can't seem to get it through your thick skull.


A marriage under the law is very cheap you can go to a justice of the peace with your ID and pay a small fee and get what you can not get legally with going and hiring a lawyer to draw up.

The law automatically recognises the spousal rights to medical desicions that would be very costly and less binding to draw up through a lawyer and file with the court.

That means people do not have the same rights to tie their lives to who they choose to and they have a disadvantage to gaining any such protections financially.

That is not equal protections under the law.

[glockmail]

A marriage under the law is very cheap you can go to a justice of the peace with your ID and pay a small fee and get what you can not get legally with going and hiring a lawyer to draw up.

The law automatically recognises the spousal rights to medical desicions that would be very costly and less binding to draw up through a lawyer and file with the court.

That means people do not have the same rights to tie their lives to who they choose to and they have a disadvantage to gaining any such protections financially.

That is not equal protections under the law. Power-of-attorney forms are available at Kinkos for about 5 bucks. But again the cost has nothing to do with it, as posted previously and you chose to ignore.

[-Cp]

Here's the audio tape of his arrest - unbelievable:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=63b5e068-2cb0-427f-a0dd-14b27890336d&p=Source_No_Ad_NBC&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/&fg=

Love this response by the cop:

"You are sitting here lying to a police officer," Karsnia responded. "People vote for you. Unbelievable."

[truthmatters]

Power-of-attorney forms are available at Kinkos for about 5 bucks. But again the cost has nothing to do with it, as posted previously and you chose to ignore.

That form means nothing in a court of law.

[truthmatters]

Here's the audio tape of his arrest - unbelievable:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=63b5e068-2cb0-427f-a0dd-14b27890336d&p=Source_No_Ad_NBC&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/&fg=

Love this response by the cop:

"You are sitting here lying to a police officer," Karsnia responded. "People vote for you. Unbelievable."


Yes I listened to it and its sad to hear him try to convince a guy who just saw him do it he that he did not see what he saw.

I feel sorry for the senator ,he must hate himself so much to act like this and then feel his life is destroyed if he tells the truth.
I know he did a bad and illegal thing but it is still sad and I really feel for his family ,they must be going through hell.

[avatar4321]

That form means nothing in a court of law.

Every contract, except those that void public policy, mean something in a court of law. The power of attorney can through written contract. So i dont know where you get the idea that it means nothing.

[glockmail]

That form means nothing in a court of law.
Bullshit.

[glockmail]

Every contract, except those that void public policy, mean something in a court of law. The power of attorney can through written contract. So i dont know where you get the idea that it means nothing.TruthDoesn'tMatter.

[jimnyc]

No you see forceing some to pay more for the ability to obtain the same protection is not equal protection.

That is unconstitutional.

Wrong! People pay more everyday for sorts of protection; car insurance... The ability to have said protection is all that matters.


That is not legal protection now is it?

You see a marriage has legal protections involved.

When you have a law that gives legal protections that only some can have and other can not that is an inequality of protection under the law.

There is not a single protection that comes with marriage that a queer couple cannot attain without marriage.


A marriage under the law is very cheap you can go to a justice of the peace with your ID and pay a small fee and get what you can not get legally with going and hiring a lawyer to draw up.

The law automatically recognises the spousal rights to medical desicions that would be very costly and less binding to draw up through a lawyer and file with the court.

That means people do not have the same rights to tie their lives to who they choose to and they have a disadvantage to gaining any such protections financially.

That is not equal protections under the law.

I suggest you learn what "equal protection" means before looking any dumber.


That form means nothing in a court of law.

Are you insane? I can go to Kinko's and draw up divorce papers for less than $1. Are you telling me that if I submit it with the court that it wouldn't have any legal bearing?

Queers can very easily get the same "protection" as married couples by submitting appropriate documentation with the courts. Whether they pay more for this service or not has nothing to do with "equal protection".

[truthmatters]

Wrong! People pay more everyday for sorts of protection; car insurance... The ability to have said protection is all that matters.
Car insurance is not a right, there is a right to marry though.



There is not a single protection that comes with marriage that a queer couple cannot attain without marriage.
Any thing done by a lawyer can be challenged, a legal marriage can not be challenged by say your mother after you are dead


I suggest you learn what "equal protection" means before looking any dumber.
Same sugestion to you


Are you insane? I can go to Kinko's and draw up divorce papers for less than $1. Are you telling me that if I submit it with the court that it wouldn't have any legal bearing? Bad choice of ecxample since it has to do with the marriage laws huh? you see it is yet another thing a person would have to contend with to dissolve a ducument drawn by lawyer instead of a regular marriage contract huh?

Queers can very easily get the same "protection" as married couples by submitting appropriate documentation with the courts. Whether they pay more for this service or not has nothing to do with "equal protection".No they cant and you just helped proove my point with your last statement

You see the law is keeping people from obtaining these easy to procure and disolve legal contracts it allows hetrosexuals.
That is not equal protection.

[jimnyc]

Car insurance is not a right, there is a right to marry though

There is no "right" to marry, dumbass.


Any thing done by a lawyer can be challenged, a legal marriage can not be challenged by say your mother after you are dead

Any and all rights to a spouse CAN be challenged after death, dumbass.


Bad choice of ecxample since it has to do with the marriage laws huh? you see it is yet another thing a person would have to contend with to dissolve a ducument drawn by lawyer instead of a regular marriage contract huh?

Please speak English next time, dumbass.


No they cant and you just helped proove my point with your last statement

Name ONE thing queers cannot attain through the courts that a married couple can get, dumbass.


You see the law is keeping people from obtaining these easy to procure and disolve legal contracts it allows hetrosexuals.
That is not equal protection.

I seriously have a hard time reading your drivel, dumbass.

Please, take a deep breath before you write again. I'm being honest when I state I am having a hard time reading what you write. You are coming off as an illiterate.

[truthmatters]

There is no "right" to marry, dumbass.

http://tinyurl.com/2t8utc
This is the decision in a Scotus case on interracial marriage, in it they determine marriage a civil right.


Any and all rights to a spouse CAN be challenged after death, dumbass.
No they will not have a chance in hell of getting anything if the marriage is legal


Please speak English next time, dumbass.



Name ONE thing queers cannot attain through the courts that a married couple can get, dumbass.a marriage





I seriously have a hard time reading your drivel, dumbass.

Please, take a deep breath before you write again. I'm being honest when I state I am having a hard time reading what you write. You are coming off as an illiterate.


I can not correct your comprehension problem

[nevadamedic]

I can not correct your comprehension problem

Nice rebuttal............... :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

Nice rebuttal............... :laugh2:


thanks

[avatar4321]

No they cant and you just helped proove my point with your last statement

You see the law is keeping people from obtaining these easy to procure and disolve legal contracts it allows hetrosexuals.
That is not equal protection.

actually a legal marriage can be challenged by anyone if there are reasons to challenge it.

No one is preventing homosexuals to get married. They just prefer same sex partnerships to a marriage.

[truthmatters]

actually a legal marriage can be challenged by anyone if there are reasons to challenge it.

No one is preventing homosexuals to get married. They just prefer same sex partnerships to a marriage.


Then it inst a legal marriage right

[nevadamedic]

Then it inst a legal marriage right

Umm haven't you heard them ask during a wedding "does anyone object? or have a reason these two should not be married?" What do you think that is? :slap:

[truthmatters]

Umm haven't you heard them ask during a wedding "does anyone object? or have a reason these two should not be married?" What do you think that is? :slap:


yeah and that is Before the wedding for a REASON.

[nevadamedic]

yeah and that is Before the wedding for a REASON.

It's at the end of the wedding ceremony you moron.

Let me ask you, do you take a stupid pill in the morning when you wake up?

[truthmatters]

Before you are pronounced man and wife by the official they ask it and if there is no answer then you are pronounced man and wife.



Until Pronouncement is made you are not man and wife.

[nevadamedic]

Before you are pronounced man and wife by the official they ask it and if there is no answer then you are pronounced man and wife.

But its at the end of the Wedding not before it. :slap: You backpeddle more the Dirty Harry (Reid)......................

[OCA]

Vote results from states that voted on queer marriage in the last general election:

Arkansas:746,382 for ban 75%
248,827 against ban 25%

Georgia:2,317,981 for ban 76.1%
729,705 against ban 23.9%

Kentucky:1,217,857 for ban 74.6%
415,233 against ban 25.4%

Michigan:2,690,819 for ban 58.6%
1,900,578 against ban 41.4%

Mississippi:924,653 for ban 86.1%
149,854 against ban 13.9%

Montana:256,658 for ban 58.0%
185,695 against ban 42.0%

North Dakota:222,899 for ban 73.3%
81,396 against ban 26.7%

Ohio:3,249,157 for ban 61.8%
2,011,168 against ban 38.2%

Oklahoma:1,075,079 for ban 75.6%
347,246 against ban 24.4%

Oregon:979,049 for ban 56.9%
742,442 against ban 43.1%

Utah:562,619 for ban 66.2%
286,697 against ban 33.8%

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/initiative.htm

Hey Truth! Noticed you conveniently skipped this post of mine a few pages back.

Seems as though on average 3 out of 4 Americans disagree with you.

BTW all these laws were upheld by the States Supreme Courts.

And as a bonus in the iuntervening years even liberal New York has banned queer marriage. Congrats to New York on standing up for what is right!

[truthmatters]

Hey Truth! Noticed you conveniently skipped this post of mine a few pages back.

Seems as though on average 3 out of 4 Americans disagree with you.

BTW all these laws were upheld by the States Supreme Courts.

And as a bonus in the iuntervening years even liberal New York has banned queer marriage. Congrats to New York on standing up for what is right!


I cant find that information in your link ,where did you get this list from?

[jimnyc]

I cant find that information in your link ,where did you get this list from?

It's been all over the news for the past several years. Just about every vote in every state has been covered and made national news. Do you somehow miss news when it's something you don't agree with?

[nevadamedic]

It's been all over the news for the past several years. Just about every vote in every state has been covered and made national news. Do you somehow miss news when it's something you don't agree with?

It took you this long to figure that out?

[jimnyc]

I can not correct your comprehension problem

"I" have comprehension problems? LOL

I'd point out all of your constant misspellings and grammatical errors but there's not enough time in a day.

I have a built in spell checker on my machine and if a word is misspelled it comes up underlined red. When I read your posts it's as if I'm at a laser light show!

[Abbey Marie]

"I" have comprehension problems? LOL

I'd point out all of your constant misspellings and grammatical errors but there's not enough time in a day.

I have a built in spell checker on my machine and if a word is misspelled it comes up underlined red. When I read your posts it's as if I'm at a laser light show!

Ooh, I remember those! At least, I think I do, lol. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Ooh, I remember those! At least, I think I do, lol. :laugh2:

Copy and paste any of the dolt's posts into MS Word and watch the colors fly!

Are you trying to say you were 'mildly' fucked up when you went to see the light show too? :)

[truthmatters]

I think you will survive them.

Would you like to get back to the subject at hand or not?

Can I see where these numbers came from and how the question was worded?

[jimnyc]

I think you will survive them.

Would you like to get back to the subject at hand or not?

Can I see where these numbers came from and how the question was worded?

It wasn't a question, those were voting results! If you took the time to COMPREHEND his post you would have saw the link at the bottom.

[avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_go_co/craig_arrest

Senator Craig to resign.

[Abbey Marie]

Copy and paste any of the dolt's posts into MS Word and watch the colors fly!

Are you trying to say you were 'mildly' fucked up when you went to see the light show too? :)

Was there any other reason to go? :laugh2:

[OCA]

I cant find that information in your link ,where did you get this list from?


For chrissakes I can't believe you are so ignorant that I have to explain this to you!

Hit the link, in the middle of the page it says "ballot initiatives", click on a state and away you go.

[OCA]

I think you will survive them.

Would you like to get back to the subject at hand or not?

Can I see where these numbers came from and how the question was worded?

Grammar and spelling are a direct link to one's intelligence or lack thereof. What do you think your grammar and spelling says about you?

[OCA]

I think you will survive them.

Would you like to get back to the subject at hand or not?

Can I see where these numbers came from and how the question was worded?

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!

You think this was a poll? These were initiatives on the ballot in Nov.2004, these were voted on by the people.

I cannot believe you are this ignorant.

[Samantha]

Wow, it's not a pretty site to see all the mods and admins gang up on a new poster this way. I've been away so long I forgot how mean and nasty this place is, with the authorities leading the way! :clap:

[stephanie]

:lol:

You call a person who has posted 900 posts in one month, a "New" poster..:laugh2:

Geeeze, We are just so all the worst of the worst...That must be why some can't seem to stay away...:cow:

[jimnyc]

I've been away so long

Not long enough, I see you're still as stupid as ever.

[jimnyc]

Wow, it's not a pretty site to see all the mods and admins gang up on a new poster this way.

Just a little clarification for those who haven't read this entire thread:

Abbey made a few posts in this thread but has not even addressed said poster, and her posts were about the popcorn smiley with glockmail. She certainly didn't gang up on anyone.

MtnBiker made 2 posts and they were good questions, he certainly didn't gang up on anyone.

dmp has not participated in this thread.

5StringJeff has not participated in this thread.

I guess I ganged up on said poster all by my lonesome. Someone spank me!

So not only is Samantha still stupid, she's still a liar as well.

[JohnDoe]

Wow, it's not a pretty site to see all the mods and admins gang up on a new poster this way. I've been away so long I forgot how mean and nasty this place is, with the authorities leading the way! :clap:

couldn't agree more! but TM can take the nastiness that these republicans spew, because she believes overall that she has truth on her side....she's made of steel....tougher than anyone i've ever known!!!! It's amazing to me!!! jd

[jimnyc]

couldn't agree more! but TM can take the nastiness that these republicans spew, because she believes overall that she has truth on her side....she's made of steel....tougher than anyone i've ever known!!!! It's amazing to me!!! jd

Couldn't agree more? With what, the lies she wrote? Would YOU like to point out where "all the mods and admins" ganged up on TM?

[JohnDoe]

Couldn't agree more? With what, the lies she wrote? Would YOU like to point out where "all the mods and admins" ganged up on TM?
No, not the mods part, I don't even know who the mods are on this site, and I'd rather not pay attention to that.....rather post and debate posters without knowing they are mods, so to just be myself! I don't have any fear of offending someone in a nasty way or anything like that because in general, this is not my motis operandi!!!

And good morning Jim.

I just think overall, that the republicans on this board could be a little nicer, have less attacks on people, and more solid debate, till the end....and this actually could become one of the best sites I've participated in over the last 4 years....

As you can see, I prefer to be with those that I differ with. To learn more about their opinions, and for hopefully them to learn more about the views of those that differ!!!

OTHERWISE, I certainly would not have decided to stay on your board Jim!!!

A circle jerk of pats on the back by those that agree with me IS NOT MY GAME.....and it is not TM's either, as we all can see, it is her...against all of you, constantly!!!! I don't know how she does it, honestly? But it is a good thing for you Jim, she will get your post count up, to the high heavens!!!!

jd

[jimnyc]

If I were concerned about post counts I probably wouldn't be in threads getting down and dirty myself, only to have users later complain when they don't like my attitude.

You think the republicans here can be nicer... And I think the liberals can be nicer. Funny how I don't see you jumping into any of the MANY threads where they make personal attacks, unprovoked... Why jump into agreement with a poster who clearly came here to start trouble, but look the other way when it's a liberal mouthing off? Samantha has a track record for being banned on many occasions and has now taken to continue her trash talking on another board. She's absolutely worthless.

Staff here is as follows:

Myself
dmp
MtnBiker
Abbey
5StringJeff

You'd be hard pressed to find any "flaming" done by the last 3 listed. dmp and myself like to "tell it like it is" when we get involved in debates. We are "members" as well as staff.

Unlike other sites, we are REAL here. I am open and honest to a fault with the entire community here, even if that means sometimes getting my hands dirty as well. You'll always know where you stand with me. And contrary to the beliefs of a few who tend to break the rules, I'm about as fair as they come.

Both republicans and democrats alike can be "nicer" at times than they are here. You'll find a similar situation at almost every political board out there. It may seem nastier at times here, but that's to be expected at a board that allows more "freedom of speech" than others. Based on feedback from the entire community here, users asked to see less moderator interaction in certain aspects and more of an ability for members to speak their minds freely. While I try to reign in the truly "nasty" stuff on the board, I would really rather not police members based on sarcasm and petty insults.

[PostmodernProphet]

okay, I have seen all the news reports and heard all the denials, I have heard the tape between him and the police officer....I would have been a lot more certain if he had been recorded saying "Hey, sailor, want a good time?" instead of arguing about whether it was his left hand or right hand.......but there is one thing the news doesn't mention that would make a big difference in helping me decide who to believe in this matter.....

this guy is an Idaho senator....logically there is reason for him to be in Idaho and Washington.....but he was in Minnesota....

was he in Minnesota because he was in between flights home.....in which case it is plausible that 1) he was in a restroom in a Minnesota airport and 2) might not know what 'signals' the gays there use to solicit sex....

or was he staying in Minnesota for some reason......if he was checked into a hotel somewhere it would make a big difference.....people just don't go to an airport if they aren't getting on a plane.....apparently unless they want sex.......

[JohnDoe]

If I were concerned about post counts I probably wouldn't be in threads getting down and dirty myself, only to have users later complain when they don't like my attitude.

You think the republicans here can be nicer... And I think the liberals can be nicer. Funny how I don't see you jumping into any of the MANY threads where they make personal attacks, unprovoked... Why jump into agreement with a poster who clearly came here to start trouble, but look the other way when it's a liberal mouthing off? Samantha has a track record for being banned on many occasions and has now taken to continue her trash talking on another board. She's absolutely worthless.

Staff here is as follows:

Myself
dmp
MtnBiker
Abbey
5StringJeff

You'd be hard pressed to find any "flaming" done by the last 3 listed. dmp and myself like to "tell it like it is" when we get involved in debates. We are "members" as well as staff.

Unlike other sites, we are REAL here. I am open and honest to a fault with the entire community here, even if that means sometimes getting my hands dirty as well. You'll always know where you stand with me. And contrary to the beliefs of a few who tend to break the rules, I'm about as fair as they come.

Both republicans and democrats alike can be "nicer" at times than they are here. You'll find a similar situation at almost every political board out there. It may seem nastier at times here, but that's to be expected at a board that allows more "freedom of speech" than others. Based on feedback from the entire community here, users asked to see less moderator interaction in certain aspects and more of an ability for members to speak their minds freely. While I try to reign in the truly "nasty" stuff on the board, I would really rather not police members based on sarcasm and petty insults.

i have never participated on a board WITH moderators until i checked out you and usmb....and personally don't think they are useful....but it could be just what i am used to.....

on the others, without moderators, we policed ourselves and usually managed to remove the trolls on our own, by ignoring them....we became a community.

if there was a post that was completely over the deep end with scarey threats, we emailed the owner and he removed it.

Others have told me they have never participated in a board without moderators, so i guess i was fortunate to have experienced it!!

this is why i kept pm'ing you when you banned a poster from that thread...i was trying to figure out what was bannable? I'm a rule follower, the rule of law, rules of edicate....give me the rule, and i will be the best at abiding by it!!! hahaha!!! I think this comes from being a Military brat, we followed my dad's orders or we saw the GI belt!!!

jd

[jimnyc]

Trust me when I tell you, JD, you DON'T want to see this board with no moderation at all! You think people can be nicer now? LOL

Moderation might be a double edged sword, but it is needed in a community that encourages debate. Hell, I even need to moderate myself every other day! Kudos to you, TM and a bunch of others that have the ability to be attacked and still respond in a civil manner, but you are in the minority.