Another Ugly Republican

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LAKE:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jigsaw:

This board has really started to show some of its true colors lately and its a complete fucking shame.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wait till you have kids of your own. The world looks completely different, or at least it should.

<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ October 08, 2004 10:59 AM: Message edited by: LAKE ]</font></font></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have a number of gay friends who have children of their own (my two dearest friends raise/raised children). I'd like to sit your narrow-minded, ignorant, unChristian, mind-numbingly stupid ass down in front of them in a locked room to tell you a little about life and how to raise a child. They could teach you a lot.

Your children need to be protected from you.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 08, 2004 01:00 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

Quote:

---

This is a civil discussion.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, it isn't civil. When lake tells me gay people shouldn't teach children, it sounds civil, but it isn't.

It contains a whole host of really ugly shit that's passed off as "protecting the children" and "being a good parent." The implications of what lake says for millions of truly good people are enormous.

Lake is a dangerous person. And she is anything but civil.

Quote:

---

Lake and Mr. Lake are raising their children as they see fit.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have no problem with that.

But if she thinks she's going to "politely" tell me I'm unfit to teach a child and that her child needs to be "protected" from me, well, that pea brain has another thing coming. Trust me, I'm being nice to her.

I'm being less rude to her than she is to me. The difference here is that I'm not being a hypocrite about it.

I hate hypocrites. I really do.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 08, 2004 12:58 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

What I meant by "civil" is that it hasn't devolved into what other threads became when what'shisname was posting.

The whole gay thing is a really tricky issue, Reason. I had a gay great-uncle. Of course, back in the day, he was just called a "bachelor". You know about my married, fathered-three-children-pillar-of-the-community grandfather.

I think that part of the problem might be that too many straight people have never know anyone openly gay. Ergo, "gay" people are only the militants who get face time on TV. And I think that's a shame.

Getting back to the idea that gay people should be quiet about who they are, and that doing so makes everything all right:

Saturday night I'm at a party listening to a (gay) man who works as a police officer for an affluent suburb. A sister of an officer in the department works for Hamburger Mary's downtown, and sees the gay police officer there. The sister tells her brother, who then makes it public news to the police department.

See, you straights want it both ways.

You want us to be quiet, keep it to ourselves. But when you find out, oh, it's all the juicier, and it's a great story.

Now the gay officer will probably have to spend an enormous amount of time defending himself, explaining himself instead of focusing on his job. And who knows, despite having a good record, for kicks and giggles he could even be fired! Let's hope a Lake isn't a supervisor there! Good times.

This kind of shit is pretty much par for the course. While making phone calls for the Yes on 3 campaign this weekend, I heard one elderly black woman tell me that everyone knows shes black, but you can't tell who is gay.

I had to restrain myself.

And on a side note, the opposition to the YES on three campaign is putting up some very interesting yard signs that go something like this:

Save Civil Rights. Save Marriage. Vote No on Issue 3.

Well, there you go. Issue 3 has nothing to do with marriage. As matter of fact, Issue 1 is the marriage issue, not Issue 3.

And for those who are against gay marriage and plan on voting for Issue 1, the warnings about Phil Burress wanting to get into your bedroom have come true. Issue 1 bans civil unions for everyone, gay or straight. So now he's come after you.

Congratulations.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 11, 2004 10:12 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

1) I have NEVER liked Phil Burress. I think he is repressing too many feelings in order for him to be as big of an asshole as he is.

2) Banning Civil Unions is just nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunslinger:
1) I have NEVER liked Phil Burress. I think he is repressing too many feelings in order for him to be as big of an asshole as he is.

2) Banning Civil Unions is just nonsense.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Based on latest polls, this measure will pass.

It's a common tactic for Burress to attached a less popular idea along with a very popular idea in order to get his agenda passed.

So when people go to vote, they will see the code words "gay marriage" and vote against it. Along with that they will ban civil unions for everyone.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind the measure if it merely stated "gay marriage." But when he tacks that other stuff on, it shows him for what he really is.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 11, 2004 11:21 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

nothing at all, its to do with kids an how I want mine to percieve relationships. I feel (rightly or wrongly) a gay man just poses to many questions in a developing mind.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Pa:
nothing at all, its to do with kids an how I want mine to percieve relationships. I feel (rightly or wrongly) a gay man just poses to many questions in a developing mind.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How do you want them to perceive relationships?

SeanPa, I'm not throwing stones here at all, but I find your attitude about children perceiving relationships a bit odd, considering that we all saw pictures of your son at your wedding.

Can you clarify your position, please?

It's sounding to me that you want everything "traditional". Your life hasn't been, so why try to protect your children from a life you led?

Just asking.