Quote from: IndyStar.comOpponents of a specialty license plate for a gay youth support group are now trying to void the group's contract with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.
Lawmakers had attempted to eliminate the Indiana Youth Group plate while also reining in the proliferation of specialty plates. Republicans had tried Wednesday to revive legislation to do that which earlier had died in the House.
But some lawmakers were reluctant to cram through in the final day of this session legislation that hadn't passed either the House or Senate. While legislative leaders did not officially declare the effort to pass a bill dead, Senate President Pro Tempore David Long said another "solution" had been found: Voiding the Indiana Youth Group plate.
Long said he believed the Indiana Youth Group had violated its state contract and that it should be cancelled.
"There's a contract clause apparently which I just saw today which apparently says you cannot remarket those for value and they're doing that clearly on their internet site," Long said. "And if they are it says you 'shall' terminate the contract."
Mary Byrne, executive director of the Indiana Youth Group, said the group gave out 11 low-numbered plates as thank-you gifts: Five to new donors, four to existing donors and two to staff members.
Read the whole article
Here.
Why are you posting such insignificant news.
Not every news post has to be OMG THIS GUY DIED EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS ABOUT IT!!!!!
I like reading small, interesting articles that I wouldn't have known about otherwise.
I didn't say he shouldn't have posted it. I asked why.
Perhaps it is possible
and I know this is pretty out there, but bear with me man. Shit's gonna get real.
Perhaps it is possible that he too likes "reading small, interesting articles"?
I know man
I know
blows my fuckin' mind
Arrow why do you
double space
your posts.
I, for one, am I huge supporter for gay rights and shit like this pisses me off...
I'm glad you posted this. I mean what about freedom of speech? What the hell ever happened to that?!
Especially when things like this wouldn't actually hurt anyone... I mean it's stupid to think that something like this would even happen. who cares if the group wants a specialty plate?! Let them!!!!
That is my rant for the day.
Thank you.
The thing of it is, in my state the caucus is predominantly conservative Republican. That's fine for all the counties except for Lake and Porter, where I live- but the real problem is that these pukebags have openly admitted that these are the decisions THEY feel are the right ones based on THEIR values, failing to take into account the steadily growing number of gays in the south counties.
Also something they openly said which ENRAGES me is that the youth group in question "encourages unsupervised gay sex between minors." There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know what to say.
Well, we wouldn't want any gay sex between minors to be unsupervised.
I should think not! We need to keep an eye on everyone.
As much as this is totally wrong, I don't see the value in becoming angry, nor does it shock me.
In our society, there are very prejudiced people with more power than they can reasonably wield. They will invariably do despicable things, and they will invariably make decisions based on their worldview.
All we can do is hope that public opinion will shift them out of office, and vote/act to that end.
Of course, you're right. Becoming angry is counter-productive. I just see how life could be better without those predjudiced people in power, and I feel helpless to vote them out. But I do recognise that this kind of thing (changing public opinion, that is) takes time, and may in fact be inevitable. It's already happened in a lot of other countries and even in some states.
To add to that, if we really want change so bad, what needs to be done is for more people who want that change to try to get into office. People need to start voting and not saying "oh wah my vote doesn't count."
I do have a question though...why does there need to be a "gay youth support group?" Why can't there just be a "youth support group" that supports gay, straight and transgender?
Prejudice begins within yourself. If you are willing to segregate yourself based on sexuality or race, there will continue to be prejudice.
Very true, but how many straight kids need support for their sexual orientation? I don't think it causes that much strife for them. It isn't so much a matter of categorical separation, that needs to exist for those with similar needs. I think it's a question of exclusion.
I vote at every opportunity I get. I am, however, often discouraged at the way my voice is drowned out by those who espouse exclusion of those different.
Quote from: EvilM00s on April 03, 2012, 12:48:11 AM
Of course, you're right. Becoming angry is counter-productive. I just see how life could be better without those predjudiced people in power, and I feel helpless to vote them out. But I do recognise that this kind of thing (changing public opinion, that is) takes time, and may in fact be inevitable. It's already happened in a lot of other countries and even in some states.
I agree with you 100%, but in a democratic society, the masses win, and all I can do is legitimately have my voice heard, and hope the rest agree.
That being said, the tides seem to be shifting in our favor, so one day maybe we'll see the end of this nonsense.
Quote from: Lethrface on April 03, 2012, 12:49:34 AM
I do have a question though...why does there need to be a "gay youth support group?" Why can't there just be a "youth support group" that supports gay, straight and transgender?
Prejudice begins within yourself. If you are willing to segregate yourself based on sexuality or race, there will continue to be prejudice.
I can't think of any incidents where straight people were mentally or physically abused due to their sexual orientation, nor can I imagine that someone would have to 'come out' as straight, or feel oppressed by society.
That being said, I also have never seen a GBLT oriented community turn away straight people either. I've been in a few, and there were straight people who were either curious about themselves and asking questions to that extent, were supporting their friends, or just wanted to understand people.
But that's anecdotal evidence at best.
Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 03, 2012, 01:26:03 AM
Quote from: EvilM00s on April 03, 2012, 12:48:11 AM
Of course, you're right. Becoming angry is counter-productive. I just see how life could be better without those predjudiced people in power, and I feel helpless to vote them out. But I do recognise that this kind of thing (changing public opinion, that is) takes time, and may in fact be inevitable. It's already happened in a lot of other countries and even in some states.
I agree with you 100%, but in a democratic society, the masses win, and all I can do is legitimately have my voice heard, and hope the rest agree.
That being said, the tides seem to be shifting in our favor, so one day maybe we'll see the end of this nonsense.
Quote from: Lethrface on April 03, 2012, 12:49:34 AM
I do have a question though...why does there need to be a "gay youth support group?" Why can't there just be a "youth support group" that supports gay, straight and transgender?
Prejudice begins within yourself. If you are willing to segregate yourself based on sexuality or race, there will continue to be prejudice.
I can't think of any incidents where straight people were mentally or physically abused due to their sexual orientation, nor can I imagine that someone would have to 'come out' as straight, or feel oppressed by society.
That being said, I also have never seen a GBLT oriented community turn away straight people either. I've been in a few, and there were straight people who were either curious about themselves and asking questions to that extent, were supporting their friends, or just wanted to understand people.
But that's anecdotal evidence at best.
It is still hardly a reason to specifically create a youth group as a gay youth group. It is still a form of segregation, regardless of how you look at it. they may be willing to invite straight people into their group but the fact of the matter is WHY does it have to be a group geared toward gay youth? Why can't it be a group geared toward ALL youth and possibly even throwing in their mission statement for pamphlets or their website "we accept youth of all races or sexuality and promote individuality" or something along those lines to let people know "hey...you don't have to be afraid to come out of the closet here."
...and if someone is joining a gay youth group, I don't think coming out of the closet is an issue frankly because even if they are straight, people's view of that person would be "that dude is gay."
Quote from: NAMKCOR on April 03, 2012, 01:26:03 AM
I can't think of any incidents where straight people were mentally or physically abused due to their sexual orientation, nor can I imagine that someone would have to 'come out' as straight, or feel oppressed by society.
You obviously haven't read enough fanfiction. :V
I guess I'm just mostly confused and live in a fantasy world because all of my life living in Austin, I was around so many gay people that I just can't understand why people need to separate themselves from the rest of the population...then again, I'm also the same person who doesn't believe in "democrat" or "republican" or any of those government parties...I just see "idiot" and "lesser idiot."
I know I may be late to the party but I would like to say that I don't think they are trying to separate themselves. I think that by making it geared towards gays they were trying to make that their focal point. Not separation but acknowledging what they stand for. I've heard people say these things before and I think they miss the main point. (I hope that doesn't sound bitchy... I don't mean it to) It is about having people understand what it is that they want and what they stand for. If they were not specifically stating that it would be just be another youth group and they would go unnoticed.
I don't know if I'm making any sense. I get flustered and start to ramble until I think I got my point across sometimes... Sorry about that...
A homo community sounds like the gayest thing ever. WOULD NOT JOIN.
I was under the impression that you were a homosexual, chewey.
Irrelevant
Quote from: Lethrface on April 03, 2012, 02:16:41 AM
I guess I'm just mostly confused and live in a fantasy world because all of my life living in Austin, I was around so many gay people that I just can't understand why people need to separate themselves from the rest of the population...then again, I'm also the same person who doesn't believe in "democrat" or "republican" or any of those government parties...I just see "idiot" and "lesser idiot."
As someone who grew up in a community where homosexuality was very, very heavily frowned upon I would have welcomed a LGBT support group. What you say about segregation doesn't make much sense; you're not supposed to join AA because you have a food addiction. It's specialized towards helping and supporting one type of people who've gone through a certain type of problem in their life.
I don't think Lethrface is against a LGBT support group. If I am understanding him right, this is what I think he is saying:
By calling it a "Gay Youth Group" they further separate themselves from everyone else. Say you simply call it a youth group, yet stated that your mission is to support the youth LGBT community. Then the support is there, no one can be in the group unless they're willing to accept the other members as they are. But the distinction is that they aren't.. hmm.. I don't' know the right words. They aren't separating themselves from everyone else. Instead of saying, "Hey, we're different look at us" you're more saying "Hey, we're just like you. We live, we love, we never give up".
At least I think that is what he means. Again, it WOULD be a support group.
Quote from: Lethrface on April 03, 2012, 01:38:39 AM
It is still hardly a reason to specifically create a youth group as a gay youth group. It is still a form of segregation, regardless of how you look at it. they may be willing to invite straight people into their group but the fact of the matter is WHY does it have to be a group geared toward gay youth? Why can't it be a group geared toward ALL youth and possibly even throwing in their mission statement for pamphlets or their website "we accept youth of all races or sexuality and promote individuality" or something along those lines to let people know "hey...you don't have to be afraid to come out of the closet here."
Because the point of these groups is to aid gay youths. They are labeling themselves after their function. It's like using a Screwdriver instead of a Multitool, it's more specifically designed for a single purpose.
You're basically arguing that it's not acceptable for them to have a specialized purpose because they're segregating. All segregation means is organizing and separating things based on common factors. For some outlets, such as support groups, this can be extremely beneficial, as you'll meet and talk with people you KNOW will be like-minded.
Not all segregation is racism.
Think about Alcoholics Anonymous, would you join their group if you weren't an alcoholic? Is it wrong for them to segregate alcoholics from other types of addicts?
Quote from: Lethrface on April 03, 2012, 01:38:39 AM
...and if someone is joining a gay youth group, I don't think coming out of the closet is an issue frankly because even if they are straight, people's view of that person would be "that dude is gay."
This is just silly to say, just because you joined a support group doesn't mean you've come out to anyone you know.
True. For example, I am a member of GLAD. I am not homosexual, but my membership was neither denied nor limited because of that.
Thank you Skanker and NAMKOR! I was like FUCK YES! when I read your posts. You said it better than I could and I totally agree with you guys here.
And either way, we are arguing about "should they even be called a gay youth group"? The real problem is that if they even support homosexuality they were still going to be rejected for having the plates made, merely because they support gay rights. This is the real problem and I'm just so sick of it... It just seems like we aren't getting anywhere as a society...
It really depresses me sometimes to think people refuse to accept some beliefs and are okay with others... I know this is a little off topic but Deanna and I were talking the other day and I came to the realization about how stupid refusing gay marriage is. Most are apposed to the idea because it is supposed to be a holy marriage between man and woman, right? They bring God into the equation all the time and yet Atheist get married all the time. They are fine with this. It makes no sense to me at all. Everyone should be able to get married, not just a select few. (I now it's more of a majority but you get my point...)
I hope I'm not out of line for saying that...
Hardly out of line. RMRK is surprisingly gay-populated.
I just feel that people should focus more on HUMAN rights than select rights. Not everyone is going to agree with everything but to label a group off of a single objective seems narrow minded to me, no matter who they allow in their group to support the cause.
Quote from: threeofspades on April 04, 2012, 05:33:19 PM
I hope I'm not out of line for saying that...
Hard to be out of line when a lot of people are going to agree with you. You'll find that RMRK is very open and accepting to many kinds of people, especially when it comes to supporting gay rights.
And you're right, there's an unfortunate lack of "separation of church and state" in regards to gay marriage. One group's religious beliefs should not dictate what another group can or cannot do. I always imagine some guy sitting at home just so fucking mad that gay people exist, like "THERE ARE MEN FUCKING EACH OTHER AND I MUST STOP IT". Unless gay people are trying to force themselves on straight people, I'm not sure how it's anyone's business but their own.
Cautionary note: don't let this become a religious debate/hate fest
Disclaimer: I am on medicine that is making it hard to formulate coherent sentences.
I dig the med situation.
Perhaps the road to human rights has to be paved with these special interest groups untill more of us get that we're all a family of humankind. I cling to the hope that one day everyone will see that.
I mean, I was in Florida once, hanging out with some friends of friends, some of whom were Mexican, Dominican, Brazilian, you get it. Small language barrier and we were from places that are several hundred miles apart. But we were all on the patio, listening to metal, sharing smokes, cokes and talking about sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. How different can we possibly be? We all eat, breathe, love, live, work and then die. All of us are simply fellow travelers on the way to the grave. Everything else is just details.
Quote from: threeofspades on April 04, 2012, 05:33:19 PM
It really depresses me sometimes to think people refuse to accept some beliefs and are okay with others... I know this is a little off topic but Deanna and I were talking the other day and I came to the realization about how stupid refusing gay marriage is. Most are apposed to the idea because it is supposed to be a holy marriage between man and woman, right? They bring God into the equation all the time and yet Atheist get married all the time. They are fine with this. It makes no sense to me at all. Everyone should be able to get married, not just a select few.
I don't believe that's a fair characterization of the argument. For instance, the opposition of the Catholic Church to same-sex marriage is based on the premise that sex is meaningful only when it is both unitive and procreative. The purpose of marriage is to instutionalize the norms that govern the creation of human life. Marriage is not recognized for its own sake or for the sake of the two partners, but for the life-generating capacity of the union. Indeed, there are many loving relationships of equal or greater value to society than a bare sexual or mutually supportive relationship (like siblings or friends); the reason that committed heterosexual sexual relationships are given special legal recognition is because it is a symbol which conveys respect for the natural transmission of human life. To the extent that the Roman Catholic position is based on a belief in God, it is primarily as authority for the proposition that a committed and loving relationship is the ideal environment for the creation of life.
Marriages between heterosexual atheists do not jeopardize that basic premise; marriages between homosexuals do since, once permitted, it is impossible to say that marriage is about recognizing the importance of the procreative capacity of sexual relationships. By recognizing same-sex unions as capable of marriage, marriage becomes a simple status symbol of unity and love between two individuals - it is no longer related to the norms and environment in which the society wishes its citizens to be created. Absent that function, there is indeed no institution in society which conveys any particular respect for natural procreation and sexual relationships are valued only for their unitive purposes.
That said, that argument has more consistency within the Catholic Church than in the broader society since that is the same reason that artificial contraception is banned, masturbation is intrinsically disordered, and infertility is a ground for annulment. In the broader society, there is nothing preventing infertile couples from marrying or married couples from choosing not to have sex which is open to procreation. Same-sex marriage still jeopardizes marriage as a symbol of procreation, but whether that symbol has any remaining normative force is uncertain.
That said, there are opponents of same-sex marriage whose views are less consistent and perhaps based primarily out of prejuice, including some Catholics and other Christians. However, I don't think the
official position of the Catholic Church or of those who espouse it are among those.
Obviously, that is just one example of one sect of one religion, but my point is that I disagree with your characterization of the religious interest in opposing same-sex marriage. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a matter of justice where all opponents to it are irrational or immoral or out-dated; I think it is simply a dispute between competing values and visions for the role of marriage within society.
Quote from: modern algebra on April 04, 2012, 10:06:03 PM
Quote from: threeofspades on April 04, 2012, 05:33:19 PM
It really depresses me sometimes to think people refuse to accept some beliefs and are okay with others... I know this is a little off topic but Deanna and I were talking the other day and I came to the realization about how stupid refusing gay marriage is. Most are apposed to the idea because it is supposed to be a holy marriage between man and woman, right? They bring God into the equation all the time and yet Atheist get married all the time. They are fine with this. It makes no sense to me at all. Everyone should be able to get married, not just a select few.
I don't believe that's a fair characterization of the argument. For instance, the opposition of the Catholic Church to same-sex marriage is based on the premise that sex is meaningful only when it is both unitive and procreative. The purpose of marriage is to instutionalize the norms that govern the creation of human life. Marriage is not recognized for its own sake or for the sake of the two partners, but for the life-generating capacity of the union. Indeed, there are many loving relationships of equal or greater value to society than a bare sexual or mutually supportive relationship (like siblings or friends); the reason that committed heterosexual sexual relationships are given special legal recognition is because it is a symbol which conveys respect for the natural transmission of human life. To the extent that Roman Catholic opposition is based on a belief in God, it is primarily as authority for the proposition that a committed and loving relationship is the ideal environment for the creation of life.
Marriages between heterosexual atheists do not jeopardize that basic premise; marriages between homosexuals do since, once permitted, it is impossible to say that marriage is about recognizing the importance of the procreative capacity of sexual relationships. By recognizing same-sex unions as capable of marriage, marriage becomes a simple status symbol of unity and love between two individuals - it is no longer related to the norms and environment in which the society wishes its citizens to be created. Absent that function, there is indeed no institution in society which conveys any particular respect for natural procreation and sexual relationships are valued only for their unitive purposes.
That said, that argument has more consistency within the Catholic Church than in the broader society since that is the same reason that artificial contraception is banned, masturbation is intrinsically disordered, and infertility is a ground for annulment. In the broader society, there is nothing preventing infertile couples from marrying or married couples from choosing not to have sex which is open to procreation. Same-sex marriage still jeopardizes marriage as a symbol of procreation, but whether that symbol has any remaining normative force is uncertain.
That said, there are opponents of same-sex marriage whose views are less consistent and perhaps based primarily out of prejuice, including some Catholics and other Christians. However, I don't think the official position of the Catholic Church or of those who espouse it are among those.
Obviously, that is just one example of one sect of one religion, but my point is that I disagree with your characterization of the religious interest in opposing same-sex marriage. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a matter of justice where all opponents to it are irrational or immoral or out-dated; I think it is simply a dispute between competing values and visions for the role of marriage within society.
I have to agree but wow. That was a very well thought out post and it's refreshing to see someone pointing out the logical points rather than the illogical argument that you would hear from most people who just don't know why they feel that gay marriage is wrong but they just know it is because the bible says so etc.
Yes, agreed. It also illustrates in living color the problem with politicians putting their own beliefs in front of their policies- and that is that it doesn't apply to everyone, and there are people who they have sworn to protect that they are excluding. I understand, it's going to happen; I'd do it if I were in office. I think I differ from the vast majority of current office-holders though, because I don't think these guys really beleive; I think they're betting on the votes of people who do.
I think it's past time we reevaluate our norms outside of any politician's personal values. Either that or move to Sweden.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on April 04, 2012, 06:39:00 PMI always imagine some guy sitting at home just so fucking mad that gay people exist, like "THERE ARE MEN FUCKING EACH OTHER AND I MUST STOP IT".
I disagree with this example man. Regardless of orientation, I think everyone's sex life is equally disgusting. :mad:
As for a specific perspective on this argument, I have none. I'm afraid I don't know enough about this topic anymore, and all these perspectives have left me neutral. :o
Quote from: modern algebra on April 04, 2012, 10:06:03 PM
Quote from: threeofspades on April 04, 2012, 05:33:19 PM
It really depresses me sometimes to think people refuse to accept some beliefs and are okay with others... I know this is a little off topic but Deanna and I were talking the other day and I came to the realization about how stupid refusing gay marriage is. Most are apposed to the idea because it is supposed to be a holy marriage between man and woman, right? They bring God into the equation all the time and yet Atheist get married all the time. They are fine with this. It makes no sense to me at all. Everyone should be able to get married, not just a select few.
I don't believe that's a fair characterization of the argument. For instance, the opposition of the Catholic Church to same-sex marriage is based on the premise that sex is meaningful only when it is both unitive and procreative. The purpose of marriage is to instutionalize the norms that govern the creation of human life. Marriage is not recognized for its own sake or for the sake of the two partners, but for the life-generating capacity of the union. Indeed, there are many loving relationships of equal or greater value to society than a bare sexual or mutually supportive relationship (like siblings or friends); the reason that committed heterosexual sexual relationships are given special legal recognition is because it is a symbol which conveys respect for the natural transmission of human life. To the extent that Roman Catholic opposition is based on a belief in God, it is primarily as authority for the proposition that a committed and loving relationship is the ideal environment for the creation of life.
Marriages between heterosexual atheists do not jeopardize that basic premise; marriages between homosexuals do since, once permitted, it is impossible to say that marriage is about recognizing the importance of the procreative capacity of sexual relationships. By recognizing same-sex unions as capable of marriage, marriage becomes a simple status symbol of unity and love between two individuals - it is no longer related to the norms and environment in which the society wishes its citizens to be created. Absent that function, there is indeed no institution in society which conveys any particular respect for natural procreation and sexual relationships are valued only for their unitive purposes.
That said, that argument has more consistency within the Catholic Church than in the broader society since that is the same reason that artificial contraception is banned, masturbation is intrinsically disordered, and infertility is a ground for annulment. In the broader society, there is nothing preventing infertile couples from marrying or married couples from choosing not to have sex which is open to procreation. Same-sex marriage still jeopardizes marriage as a symbol of procreation, but whether that symbol has any remaining normative force is uncertain.
That said, there are opponents of same-sex marriage whose views are less consistent and perhaps based primarily out of prejuice, including some Catholics and other Christians. However, I don't think the official position of the Catholic Church or of those who espouse it are among those.
Obviously, that is just one example of one sect of one religion, but my point is that I disagree with your characterization of the religious interest in opposing same-sex marriage. I don't believe same-sex marriage is a matter of justice where all opponents to it are irrational or immoral or out-dated; I think it is simply a dispute between competing values and visions for the role of marriage within society.
To be fair, most of the opponents of same-sex marriage that I've
personally seen or met actually WERE more the irrational / immoral / outdated type rather than just simply disputing values, stubbornly believing in their own superiority and usually citing God or the bible as their excuse whether they even know the reasoning why or not. An obvious exaggeration of an example, Fred Phelps, though thank god there's next to no one near as bad as he. That said, I'm well aware that there are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to be against gay marriage, even if I don't agree with them; it's just that it seems to me that there are far more cases and news stories of prejudiced Christian fundies getting pissy about something that doesn't fit their way of life than people who could actually sit down and explain why they are against it.
I'm glad though that most of the people I know, like everyone on RMRK, are a lot more open-minded so that even if they don't exactly approve of homosexuality in itself, they can understand that being different doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong either. It means I can feel free to be who I really am without worrying too much of people looking down on me.
Quote from: Zylos on April 05, 2012, 01:03:53 AMI can feel free to be who I really am without worrying too much of people looking down on me.
Unless you're a bronie :P
Quote from: yuyubabe on April 05, 2012, 12:44:29 AM
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on April 04, 2012, 06:39:00 PMI always imagine some guy sitting at home just so fucking mad that gay people exist, like "THERE ARE MEN FUCKING EACH OTHER AND I MUST STOP IT".
I disagree with this non-existent, example man. Regardless of orientation, I think everyone's sex life is equally disgusting. :mad:
As for a specific perspective on this argument, I have none. I'm afraid I don't know enough about this topic anymore, and all these perspectives have left me neutral. :o
This is not a nonexistent example. there are people like this out there. It is weird that you think this statement is wrong when there are people out there at home stating the opposite. I'm just saying that there are people that do feel this way. They go to the funerals of our soldiers saying that it is divine justice that our soldiers are being killed because of America's tolerance of homosexuals.
Sorry, I wasn't clear on what I meant.
He didn't mention a guy who specifically existed, rather referred to an imaginative guy, based on real people. The example is not non-existent, the man mentioned is.
So, I called him a non-existent-example-man, because the man himself is non-existent and he's an example-man, as well. Not saying that those people do not exist. Sorry about that, lo, my words came off differently then I wanted them to. :o I'm going to edit my post to sound less "OH THESE PEOPLE DON'T EXIST", because that's totally not what I meant by it lo ;9
I call him Steve, if that helps.
That does help! >_>
I disagree with people like Cory Lumbermechovertyesper Smithjonesmenger. Regardless of orientation, I think everyone's sex life is equally disgusting. :mad:
Fixed! :P
Quote from: yuyubabe on April 05, 2012, 02:21:02 AM
Regardless of orientation, I think everyone's sex life is equally disgusting. :mad:
That's one of the funniest things I've seen you say.
Can we call him something else like Bob? My name is Steve :(
"Bob" is close to Halo's name lol
Let's try...
Smithjonesmenger
Yeah, no one will have that name...
No, because my name is Bobby. We can call him Cory.
EDIT: Oh, Smithjonesmenger works too.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttt lol
foad: cory's easier to type, though
Maybe Smithjonesmenger can just be his last name. I'm flexible on this issue.
Okay, fine. That'll be his last name lol
Cory Lumbermechovertyesper Smithjonesmenger. It is settled.
Okay, sir. Consider it done.
Cory Lumbermechovertyesper Smithjonesmenger sure is a douche...
:bigmad:
'nuff said.
Quote from: Lethrface on April 05, 2012, 03:43:42 AM
Cory Lumbermechovertyesper Smithjonesmenger sure is a douche...
You can tell by his name. Who names someone Cory? That kid is sure to turn out to be a dushbag.
I have an ex named Cory .-.
..........
lol It's strange but this topic made me miss my gay friend from highschool...Everyone knew he was gay in school but everyone loved him and he seriously tried to act straight and ended up coming out of the closet when he was 18. The whole school was just kind of like "okay?" Maybe it's situations like that that just kind of leaves me blind to all of the bullshit lol. I have never met anyone face to face that are totally against homosexuals in everything that they do.
Cory is obviously a d-bag.
Quote from: yuyubabe on April 05, 2012, 03:55:00 AM
I have an ex named Cory .-.
..........
And now you know why he was a douche.
On that note, a good friend of mine got drunk on the weekend and managed to confess to me that he was bisexual.
Apparently he thought that I wouldn't want to be his friend anymore because of that. :-\
Actually, that particular ex ended up being bisexual, I think.
But I knew several guys from my youth that came out of the closet.
I also had one friend who everyone claimed would be gay, but never actually was.
I like how my sentences keep getting bigger and making a half pyramid. It's really cool.
Pryamids are one of my favorite geometric shapes.
Quote from: HaloOfTheSun on April 05, 2012, 04:04:22 AM
Pryamids are one of my favorite geometric shapes.
I agree. Though, the circle is awesome, too, because it does not end.
Make new friends but keep the old.
One is silver and the other's gold.
A circle is round, it has no end.
That's how long I want to be your friend.
:tpg:
Quote from: Lethrface on April 04, 2012, 06:16:32 PM
I just feel that people should focus more on HUMAN rights than select rights. Not everyone is going to agree with everything but to label a group off of a single objective seems narrow minded to me, no matter who they allow in their group to support the cause.
While that's noble, -because- not everyone is going to agree, is why there are specific groups. They're not intended for "let's all get along even though we're different" time, it's for help with specific issues that -everyone- is guaranteed to agree on based on the focus of the group.
You're not going to be able to get specific help in a general group, because you're going to run into people who disagree and will spend their time mocking you, or try to convince you that your view or problem is wrong.
Humans are like that.
Having a general group rather than specific ones would be like any other normal society. There'd still be segregation and separation simply because there are differences. That's why there's focused support groups; it ensures that the people are able to address the problems specific to them.
When it comes to things like your preferred sexual orientation, it's hardly a breeze for the self to accept it and/or to tell those closest to you. If you place them in a group where everyone is different, like in normal life, they are only going to keep to themselves still due to the pressure, other people's opinions and hatred; you just end up with the same situation and make no progress.
Like NAM says, humans are like that. They fear things they don't understand, and putting a person in the same situation they are already in but with a different background isn't going to change things.