Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/15/08 07:00 PM, altmeister wrote: There is no way we're giving these deviants the right to practice their filth in God's kingdom.

Good thing God's Kingdom is not of this world, huh? Which means they can practice it on Earth, but not in Heaven. Sex doesn't even happen in Heaven anyway, so your post fails either way.

I just replied to a troll. A CHRISTIAN troll on top of that. I deserve to be banned.

At 11/14/08 06:31 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: You're using an unrealistic and unlikely scenario that is probably going to be seen rarely, at BEST, and using it as an example of people "losing out".

If diahrea only rarely kills people, does it not still kill people?

Because to deny gays the right to marry is essentially unconstitutional and federally illegal.

1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

14th amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Given that the constitution or bill of rights do not ban gay marriage, and that a ban on it by individual states would abridge the privileges of gays, and that the main opposition towards gay marriage is religiously based, I'd say that gays are well within their rights to choose marriage. Gays are people. Given that they are U.S. citizens, they should be able to enter into a two person marriage.

Much better, I would have been happy with something much shorter, but I am impressed with the detail of the response. Thank you.

You're just being difficult here and arguing about self-interest of people in general. You know damn well that what you're talking about is not the concern of the voters.

From an individualist perspective, no it's not.
However, most of these voters are thinking in more collectivist terms.
They percieve same-sex marriage as something that will undermine and diminish marriage.
Without going too far into their reasoning, they believe [rightly or wrongly] that it will have a negative impact on the whole of society. They see it as the preservation of a way of life that stands to be harmed if activist judges are allowed their way.

I have an idea of how to settle this whole thing. Everybody for Prop. 8 quotes religious reasons for supporting it, while everybody against it quotes constitutional reasons for not supporting it. Just for the record, I am wholeheartedly against Prop. 8, but I have a compromise for both sides. Everybody who passed 8th grade history knows what happened when England established an official religion of the state, so it is safe to say that those who have opinions worth hearing believe that Church and State should be kept separate, but how do we do that if people will vote on a law for religious reasons? I say that if there is sufficient evidence that a law, not an election but a law, will be voted on for religious reasons the decision should be left to the Supreme Court of the state or if it is a national law, Federal Supreme Court.

I'm for neither for nor against prop 8. However, this is gonna turn into 1 HELL of a battle between "the people" of California and the Left wing judges who keep trumping the "will of the people" and destroying democracy's 1st rule, "Majority rule". Fun times. I bet the founding fathers didn't see THIS ONE coming.

Okay guys, now that we finally got gay marriage banned, the next frontier is waiting!

The next ban we need is on gay funerals. I mean, funerals mostly happens (just like marriage) in churches. And being gay goes against what the church teaches. So, homosexuals shouldn't get funerals, by neither the church or the government, since funerals are religious in origin anyway. They can still choose to get cremation of course.

One third of all males are gay or bisexual.

Really.

Its true.

Why is this relevant? People so often say "the gay life" "the gay community". All these phrases piss me off. Yes, I am bisexual and lead a completely regular lifestyle with the regular crowd, but is that really the issue? The thing that gets me is these people voting for prop 8 are complete hypocrites to say to be outwardly gay is a bad thing. We aren't any different to you're brothers, you're fathers, you're sons. Sure a few say things like "fabulous darling" and make sex jokes once every two seconds, but they have hetero sexual counterparts! The point is, to claim that its a case of us and them is so deranged it would be hilarious if it wasn't a tragedy that we can still look at each other and find a stranger, not a brother.

Love and peace.

At 11/16/08 11:18 PM, Korriken wrote: I'm for neither for nor against prop 8. However, this is gonna turn into 1 HELL of a battle between "the people" of California and the Left wing judges who keep trumping the "will of the people" and destroying democracy's 1st rule, "Majority rule". Fun times. I bet the founding fathers didn't see THIS ONE coming.

America is not a straight democracy. It is a republic. The founding fathers vision acually had the poor and uneducated being led by smarter people and most of the time these smarter people were not even elected (you could not vote for a president or a senator in the beginning).
So this idea of the judges doing things they know are right against the people's will acually fits into what the founding father's idea is.

At 11/17/08 05:02 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 11/16/08 11:18 PM, Korriken wrote: I'm for neither for nor against prop 8. However, this is gonna turn into 1 HELL of a battle between "the people" of California and the Left wing judges who keep trumping the "will of the people" and destroying democracy's 1st rule, "Majority rule". Fun times. I bet the founding fathers didn't see THIS ONE coming.

America is not a straight democracy. It is a republic. The founding fathers vision acually had the poor and uneducated being led by smarter people and most of the time these smarter people were not even elected (you could not vote for a president or a senator in the beginning).
So this idea of the judges doing things they know are right against the people's will acually fits into what the founding father's idea is.

Other things against founding father's ideas:
1.) free Black people. (I'm not "free" in the sense they're not enslaved, not "free" like "Buy 2, get 1 free.)
2.) Black people voting...
3.) Interracial marriage
4.) Minorities, including Native Americans, participating in the Democratic process.
5.) People voting at 18...
6.) WOMEN voting, serving, being part of the government...

things like that are against their ideals, but guess what?
Times change. People change.

The only thing we could do is hold to GOOD principals, and revising a constitution to suite a religious group is NOT a good principal.

At 11/17/08 05:02 PM, aninjaman wrote: So this idea of the judges doing things they know are right against the people's will acually fits into what the founding father's idea is.

Let's also forget that the founding fathers could be tremendously hypocritical and wrong on things too.

"All men are created equal", oh sure, except for blacks. Also, when we said men, goddamn do we mean MEN!!! STAY IN THAT KITCHEN AND POP OUT THEM BABIES WOMEN FOLK!!!

"Freedom! Liberty! Voting!" just make sure you have property, and we decide your smart enough to do that stuff. Honestly, if we didn't have a lot of this stuff conveniently buried in the mythology any halfway smart would be dictator would probably have a great case for saying "I'm just moving ahead with the logically implied wishes of the founding fathers".

At 11/18/08 03:24 AM, fli wrote: waaaa I didn't get my way. I'm sad.

Life sure is tough when you don't get your way huh.

HEY! I should apply for some sort of benefits when Obama becomes President...since I won't like it and all....

At 11/18/08 07:44 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/18/08 03:24 AM, fli wrote: waaaa I didn't get my way. I'm sad.

Life sure is tough when you don't get your way huh.

HEY! I should apply for some sort of benefits when Obama becomes President...since I won't like it and all....

What sort of benefits?
I'm unaware there are benefits with Obama...

But, back to what you've said...
Yes. Tough--
Tough for all minorities when a majority can simply vote to remove rights.

Sure, Blacks and Latinos were especially influential to it's passage, but they've shot themselves in the foot by setting up a precedent where people are willing to vote to eliminate their own rights.

This is a Civil Rights issue where we failed to protect a minorities' rights because the majority willed it.
And we got to fix it up soon...

At 11/18/08 03:27 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Let's also forget that the founding fathers could be tremendously hypocritical and wrong on things too.

"All men are created equal", oh sure, except for blacks. Also, when we said men, goddamn do we mean MEN!!! STAY IN THAT KITCHEN AND POP OUT THEM BABIES WOMEN FOLK!!!

"Freedom! Liberty! Voting!" just make sure you have property, and we decide your smart enough to do that stuff. Honestly, if we didn't have a lot of this stuff conveniently buried in the mythology any halfway smart would be dictator would probably have a great case for saying "I'm just moving ahead with the logically implied wishes of the founding fathers".

Did I ever say the founding fathers were 100% right? I didn't.
I just said you cannot say this goes against our country's principles and what we were founded on.

At 11/18/08 07:04 PM, aninjaman wrote: I just said you cannot say this goes against our country's principles and what we were founded on.

Sure I can! This country was supposed to be founded on equal rights for all. Gays have been denied the same right to marry that straights have been afforded.

This country is also founded on a separation of church and state, yet the church campaigned pretty damn hard to get this passed, and a lot of the people who have publicly come out in support of it continue to use religious arguments as part of their attack of it.

Just because the majority voted on it, and some can call that "democracy in action" doesn't mean this wasn't a slap in the face to what this country was built on. It's just a nice and convenient bit of propaganda for people to use to feel like they didn't just deny a minority the same rights as everybody else.

At 11/16/08 05:30 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 11/14/08 06:31 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: You're using an unrealistic and unlikely scenario that is probably going to be seen rarely, at BEST, and using it as an example of people "losing out".

If diahrea only rarely kills people, does it not still kill people?

Guns are used as offensive weapons at times. Should all guns be illegal?
Cars can kill people and can be used to aid illegal activities. Should cars be illegal?
Alcohol is unhealthy, leads to addiction, tears families apart, leds to dangerous activities, impairs judgment, etc. Should alcohol be illegal?

Just because a right can be abused doesn't mean authoritarian measures that restrict rights to such a degree to be taken, especially if such measures affect only a certain demographic of society.

Because to deny gays the right to marry is essentially unconstitutional and federally illegal.

1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

14th amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Given that the constitution or bill of rights do not ban gay marriage, and that a ban on it by individual states would abridge the privileges of gays, and that the main opposition towards gay marriage is religiously based, I'd say that gays are well within their rights to choose marriage. Gays are people. Given that they are U.S. citizens, they should be able to enter into a two person marriage.

Much better, I would have been happy with something much shorter, but I am impressed with the detail of the response. Thank you.

Glad you liked it.

You're just being difficult here and arguing about self-interest of people in general. You know damn well that what you're talking about is not the concern of the voters.

From an individualist perspective, no it's not.
However, most of these voters are thinking in more collectivist terms.
They percieve same-sex marriage as something that will undermine and diminish marriage.
Without going too far into their reasoning, they believe [rightly or wrongly] that it will have a negative impact on the whole of society. They see it as the preservation of a way of life that stands to be harmed if activist judges are allowed their way.

I just don't understand how someone would think that gay marriage would noticeably change their way of life.

Homosexuality is a theme that is already prominent in culture, beginning in life as soon as children can speak and enter social institutions such as school. I learned what the term "gay" meant in 2nd or third grade. Years later, I learned that I have two relatives who are gay, an aunt on one side, and an uncle on the other side. Upon learning this, I responded with a shrug, and basically dismissed it. There was nothing I could do about it, and I didn't care either way. All it meant to me was that I would have fewer cousins. I also have acquaintances and friends who are gay/bisexual, so I am in contact with the gay demographic to an extent, as small as it may be.

My point is that it doesn't matter whether gays can be married or not, the affects will be felt by society as long as homosexuality exists in the first place. Anti-gay marriage proponents say that by allowing gays to marry, parents will have to explain it to their children. Yet, at the same time, if gay marriage is not legal, it won't prevent them from having to explain why a friend or relative is not married at the age of 40, and lives with someone of the same gender. That's still pretty awkward, is it not?

Children learn much about homosexuality on the schoolyard, usually by means of insults. Kids are going to be introduced to the concept of homosexuality no matter what the legal status of marriage is at the time. Hell, I knew what gay people were before I even knew how the mechanics of heterosexual sexual activity worked, and I turned out okay. I'm straight. I like women. I want to put things in vaginas. Having gay relatives and being introduced to the concept of gayness didn't hurt me at all. Honestly, If my gay relatives had married people of the same gender, it wouldn't have fucking mattered to me at all. All that would matter would be if they were happy.

As for judicial activism, I am tired of hearing that term. Judges may indeed sometimes go for activism, but that term is thrown around whenever a judge rules against the status quo or even against certain agendas.

At 11/18/08 07:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Sure I can! This country was supposed to be founded on equal rights for all. Gays have been denied the same right to marry that straights have been afforded.

I was talking about the courts giving equal rights while the people denied it just in cae you thought I was against gay marriage.

At 11/18/08 03:00 PM, fli wrote: This is a Civil Rights issue where we failed to protect a minorities' rights because the majority willed it.
And we got to fix it up soon...

Or not.

You don't have a civil right to other people's acceptance.

As long as we can tell straight people no, we can tell gays no. It's really that simple.

What "right" was removed? Civil unions existed in CA before, and they exist now.

OH RIGHT. Civil union is "you deserve all the benefits of marriage, but we don't really approve" whereas marriage is societal acceptance.

You. Do. Not. Have. A. Right. to . Acceptance. Sorry.

At 11/18/08 07:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Sure I can! This country was supposed to be founded on equal rights for all. Gays have been denied the same right to marry that straights have been afforded.

Really? Gays can't marry someone who is of the opposite sex? I missed that part?

This country is also founded on a separation of church and state, yet the church campaigned pretty damn hard to get this passed, and a lot of the people who have publicly come out in support of it continue to use religious arguments as part of their attack of it.

So religious people no longer have a say? That's bs.

Just because the majority voted on it, and some can call that "democracy in action" doesn't mean this wasn't a slap in the face to what this country was built on. It's just a nice and convenient bit of propaganda for people to use to feel like they didn't just deny a minority the same rights as everybody else.

Gays have the same rights as everyone else. Grow up.

At 11/21/08 04:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So religious people no longer have a say? That's bs.

The religious campaingers weren't just supporting prop 8, they were loudly asserting that because of religion prop 8 should pass.

Gays have the same rights as everyone else. Grow up.

Oh rght they can get married.

Or not.

At 11/21/08 04:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Gays have the same rights as everyone else. Grow up.

Yes, of course. Except gays have to hide being gay to join the military, and they can't join the boy scouts, who gets tax benefits by the government, and they can't donate blood, etc.

At 11/21/08 04:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/18/08 03:00 PM, fli wrote: This is a Civil Rights issue where we failed to protect a minorities' rights because the majority willed it.
And we got to fix it up soon...

Or not.

You don't have a civil right to other people's acceptance.

Acceptance isn't what's on the table. It's access to rights and options. Allowing gays to marry isn't making a law saying that gays have to be accepted.

As long as we can tell straight people no, we can tell gays no. It's really that simple.

But we're saying yes to straights and no to gays. It's not no to both. One group is being treated differently. It's that simple.

What "right" was removed? Civil unions existed in CA before, and they exist now.

OH RIGHT. Civil union is "you deserve all the benefits of marriage, but we don't really approve" whereas marriage is societal acceptance.

Marriage =/= equal acceptance. I don't understand why you're hung up on this. By denying gays the option to marry, you are restricting their religious freedom. You can be religious and gay at the same time. By preventing gays from marrying, you are using government to restrict the religious beliefs of others.

You. Do. Not. Have. A. Right. to . Acceptance. Sorry.

Acceptance. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. It.

At 11/18/08 07:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Sure I can! This country was supposed to be founded on equal rights for all. Gays have been denied the same right to marry that straights have been afforded.

Really? Gays can't marry someone who is of the opposite sex? I missed that part?

Now you're being a fucking smartass. Gays CAN marry the other gender, but they don't WANT to. BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING GAY, ASSHOLE.

This country is also founded on a separation of church and state, yet the church campaigned pretty damn hard to get this passed, and a lot of the people who have publicly come out in support of it continue to use religious arguments as part of their attack of it.

So religious people no longer have a say? That's bs.

They have a say. They can vote and participate in government like everyone else, but government can't rule for or against any religious beliefs.

Just because the majority voted on it, and some can call that "democracy in action" doesn't mean this wasn't a slap in the face to what this country was built on. It's just a nice and convenient bit of propaganda for people to use to feel like they didn't just deny a minority the same rights as everybody else.

Gays have the same rights as everyone else. Grow up.

Except for marriage.

At 11/21/08 04:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Really? Gays can't marry someone who is of the opposite sex? I missed that part?

That makes no sense at all. If they're gay, they'd have no interest in marrying the opposite sex, that's the whole point of being gay. What are you even hoping to prove with this statement? Seriously?

So religious people no longer have a say? That's bs.

Sure, I think religious people have a right to say all they want "I don't like the idea of gay couples" they even have a right to deny them to have a church ceremoney. I've said that in many many places. But religious beliefs should not effect matters of government. Nobody should have to be treated as second class citizens or put into the "you are this, instead of this, but relax it's still equal!" category just because somebody thinks they're deity has a problem with it.

Gays have the same rights as everyone else. Grow up.

No they don't, they have no right to the legal definition of marriage, which everybody who isn't gay does have, they have an equivalent. How is what I'm saying being immature? Other then you just don't agree with it.

I like how Wolven made one post and like 5 different people crapped on it.

Either it's an elaborate bait or it was just that easy to take apart......

At 11/21/08 07:13 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 11/21/08 04:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Gays have the same rights as everyone else. Grow up.

Yes, of course. Except gays have to hide being gay to join the military, and they can't join the boy scouts, who gets tax benefits by the government, and they can't donate blood, etc.

My short, scary time in the boy scouts disagrees.

At 11/21/08 04:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You don't have a civil right to other people's acceptance.

this isn't about acceptence.
Heck, this isn't even about being equal-- though,it's an important aspect.

But the gay family's need to protect their own interests in needs that's regular in everyday life. Of course it becomes a civil rights issue when a law won't protect a class of people who needs those laws.

Acceptance is something that comes with time.

Like I said. Gays in the past has been denied hospital visitation rights, had their wills contested, face complicated custody issues, and don't have a body governing on seperation.

Sounds like a civil rights issue to me...

As long as we can tell straight people no, we can tell gays no. It's really that simple.

What "right" was removed? Civil unions existed in CA before, and they exist now.

And gays STILL had problems with civil unions for the same exact issues. It may had fixed some of the insurance issues, but the fact that civil union laws change from state to state is another important issue that gays face but not heterosexual marriages.

OH RIGHT. Civil union is "you deserve all the benefits of marriage, but we don't really approve" whereas marriage is societal acceptance.

You. Do. Not. Have. A. Right. to . Acceptance. Sorry.

I have a right... by law.

At 11/18/08 07:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

So religious people no longer have a say? That's bs.

Of course they have a say... within their churches.
They'll still have a right to have their choice of religion protected, and to preside their places of worship free from the government.

But they do not have a right to impose their beleifs on other people.
Churches can still deny gay people to marry... IN THEIR CHURCHES. That's fine...
What's not fine is that they force the government to deny gays marrying in a government that's suppose to show some neutrality in these issues.

At 11/21/08 06:35 PM, fli wrote: I have a right... by law.

You have a right to equal protections under the law. Nowhere, though, does it say that others are obligated to accept your lifestyle, just as no one is obliged to simply agree with what someone else says under the 1st Amendment.

At 11/21/08 07:37 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 11/21/08 06:35 PM, fli wrote: I have a right... by law.

You have a right to equal protections under the law. Nowhere, though, does it say that others are obligated to accept your lifestyle, just as no one is obliged to simply agree with what someone else says under the 1st Amendment.

This is about equal protection of the law, not about obligating anyone to "life style."
Like I said, it's a civil rights issue because the law is failing to protect gay families. Their wills are being contested, they've lost inheritance and property, and there's issues about custody, guardianship, and visitation, etc.

and why?
It's because gays have a sexual preference to their own gender.

It seems to me that regardless what kind of position you have in society, these things should be happening where the law treats you different because you have a certain attribute that others don't.

And even if it was a choice, it would be a protected choice... just like all religious person's choice of religion, since that isn't something you're born with...

At 11/21/08 07:49 PM, fli wrote:

And even if it was a choice, it would be a protected choice... just like all religious person's choice of religion, since that isn't something you're born with...

In all fairness faith is something people are often born into. Being raised by a family that has a faith and as such growing up in a community of said faith makes that just as natural to someone as their native language.

At 11/21/08 06:35 PM, fli wrote: bunch of stuff I agree with.

Be careful how you use the post it button man! You kind of made it look like I posted what Wolven said. I've been agreeing with you dude :)

At 11/21/08 07:53 PM, stafffighter wrote: In all fairness faith is something people are often born into. Being raised by a family that has a faith and as such growing up in a community of said faith makes that just as natural to someone as their native language.

It's still a choice to accept it. I was born into a Roman Catholic family, but that didn't mean I'm a Roman Catholic when I grew up. And then there are people who convert.

Although, we do have gay people who "always known" or "always felt."

I, for starters...

Either way.... if it's nature...
it's a protected...
If it's nurture...
It's protected.

At 11/22/08 02:32 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/21/08 06:35 PM, fli wrote: bunch of stuff I agree with.

Be careful how you use the post it button man! You kind of made it look like I posted what Wolven said. I've been agreeing with you dude :)

Sorry-- I was trying to attribute the message to him, but-- innocent mistake... trying to save on space, just didn't do it right...

my bad...

At 11/21/08 07:37 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 11/21/08 06:35 PM, fli wrote: I have a right... by law.

You have a right to equal protections under the law. Nowhere, though, does it say that others are obligated to accept your lifestyle, just as no one is obliged to simply agree with what someone else says under the 1st Amendment.

You are absolutely, 100%, inexplicably, undeniably, right. He has equal protections under the law. His rights are protected under the law. His ability to get married to whoever he wants is protected under the law.

Others do not have to accept his lifestyle, nor do they have to agree with it. They are obligated to give him rights that they assume everyone who is not gay has.

No one is obligated to agree with what somebody says under the first amendment, but they are obligated to give him rights that they have. I have news for you, gay marriage is just as sacred and needed as straight marriage.

1. For those of you who think that gay marriage should not be allowed because of their inability to have children of their own, what about the children born out of wedlock every year? What about when a woman has to have a hysterectomy (uterus is taken out, so even artificial insemination wouldn't work)?

2. For those of you who think that it should be outlawed because it is an abomination under this "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22
What about this "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12?

If you quote Leviticus as a reason for the outlawing of gay marriage you are quoting the Old Testament. I have no problem with this, but the people who do are almost always Christians, who ignore the New Testament laws, who you believe were spoken by Jesus Christ himself, your lord and savior.

You pick and choose what to believe, ignoring your Savior and quoting a Bible passage which, under your own Christian views, you give less authority than the New Testament.

3. If you are simply uncomfortable with two men or two women getting married, don't hang out with them. Nobody says you have to be their friend, just that you have treat them as humans.

4. If you deny them rights based on the belief that homosexuality is a disease, or that it is a learned behavior I have an answer for both.

Lets start with the first one. Here is something you should be interested in. For those of you who do not want to read it, it is a national geographic study that provides a vast amount of evidence for homosexuality in nature, including two male primates which have developed a gay relationship.

As for it being a learned behavior, what about the people who are brought up in homes which have been extremely anti-gay and then came out of the closet all by themselves with no encouragement, and even extreme discouragement?

5. For those of you who say that you don't want it taught in your schools, my only answer is that you are not even worth a second thought and that either you are stupid enough to believe that it will be taught in your schools, or that you have run out of ideas and are simply grasping at straws trying to find a suitable argument and failing.

I personally know a gay teacher, my Algebra 2 teacher. I just transferred to a new Catholic school, and my teacher there is a 60 or so year old lesbian. I did not know this until another student told me. She does not act like it, nor does she try to spread her lifestyle in any way.

That is all I can think up off the top of my head, if you have any other reasons, post them or p.m. me and I will be glad to prove you wrong in 6 ways.

At 11/18/08 07:44 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/18/08 03:24 AM, fli wrote: waaaa I didn't get my way. I'm sad.

Life sure is tough when you don't get your way huh.

HEY! I should apply for some sort of benefits when Obama becomes President...since I won't like it and all....

Crap, where's IdiotFinder when you need him?