| KEVPAR 09.01.2007 07:12 |
link have you seen this shite?! |
| KEVPAR 10.01.2007 03:55 |
WHY is no one commenting on this?! The story is absurd! |
| Sweetie 10.01.2007 04:27 |
I'm Christian, and my Gran has sort of made me follow the religion a bit more than what my parents may have done, and I do actually follow Christianity to a point, but I disagree with some parts of the Bible because I find it makes no sense to me, because the Lord says he wants his people to be free, make their own choices and be happy, but it also states that homosexuals are not permitted in the world, which to me contradicts itself. I know that my father and two brothers are Homophobic, and one of my brothers is in the liberals and everything, but it is unfair to "outlaw" them so to speak, they deserve the same rights as us, and I support that. And having said that, I'm going to go and read that article "properly" meaning, I'm going to go and read all of it. |
| The Mir@cle 10.01.2007 05:00 |
Well... I'd say… You're welcome in Holland. Here you can marry if you want. And that makes me proud to be a Dutchman. Not that I'll ever marry a man, but just the fact that we're quite liberal with a lot of things. Though I'm afraid the a new government with wipe out our right of gay marriage. It's likely that our country will be ruled by Christians the coming four years, and they already told us that they want to take away the right of abortion for example. |
| YourValentine 10.01.2007 07:09 |
I do not understand this law - does it force a church to provide for rooms for civil wedding receptions? Or just for gay weddings? And a hotel owner - does he have to give rooms to all unmarried couples or just gay unmarried couples? Does a Muslim printer have to print flyers for all night clubs or just gay night clubs? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 10.01.2007 10:20 |
Incredible. I think this quote from the article sums it up nicely - "It seems to me, in my simplistic way, that what they (the opponents of the regulations) are arguing for is quite simply the right to discriminate and the right to harass. And those arguments are being made in the name of Christianity." This is plain stupid - "They require religious organizations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state." Obedience to god? Does printing a flyer for a gay rally mean they plan to attend? Will they, by extension, BECOME gay because they've done this? It's like the pharmacists here who have the right to refuse the filling of birth control prescriptions because it contradicts their so-called faith. We're not asking them to participate, only to do their job. If you're in a profession that serves the public, then, by god, serve the public, damn it. All of it. Also from the article: "The regulations threaten to override the conscience and free speech of Christians and others who object to homosexual practice." But, apparently, it's okay to override the conscience and free speech of non-christians and others who have no objection to homosexual practices. It's all so disgusting. |
| sparrow 21754 10.01.2007 11:00 |
i dont even wanna read it, we all know how overpassionate i get XD |
| kimmithee 10.01.2007 11:09 |
i think thats dumb!!!!why would someone do that to people!? |
| john bodega 10.01.2007 11:09 |
If she ever kisses you, I'll turn you into a Prince. ... Prince of the land of STENCH! Muahaha (walks off) |
| Jjeroen 10.01.2007 11:12 |
This is very disturbing. |
| kimmithee 10.01.2007 11:13 |
how is it disturbing??!?!?!?!? |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 10.01.2007 11:14 |
Zebonka12 wrote: If she ever kisses you, I'll turn you into a Prince. ... Prince of the land of STENCH! Muahaha (walks off)Hahahaha, I love that film. (Probably too much) |
| Mr.Jingles 10.01.2007 12:07 |
I am completely against those public gay parades with dudes in speedos rubbing their cock and balls against each other. It's fuckin' disgusting, and it's not a double standard because I would also be against a public parade where you see men groping women just for the sake of celebrating heterosexuality. Now, when it comes to doing that in private areas, then I say go ahead and do whatever you want as long as it's not public. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 10.01.2007 12:12 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Now, when it comes to doing that in private areas, then I say go ahead and do whatever you want as long as it's not public.Hey, what are you doing here? Aren't you supposed to be in Florida fooling around with Goofy? |
| Mr.Jingles 10.01.2007 12:13 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:My flight leaves tonight.Mr.Jingles wrote: Now, when it comes to doing that in private areas, then I say go ahead and do whatever you want as long as it's not public.Hey, what are you doing here? Aren't you supposed to be in Florida fooling around with Goofy? |
| Sonia Doris 10.01.2007 12:40 |
utter crap... |
| John S Stuart 10.01.2007 14:34 |
This is what happens when political correctness meets politcal correctness. Although not personally religious, I do think religious groups should have a right to practice their religion (within reason) free from fear of persecution. Likewise, gays should have the same rights. But what happens when the rights of one group conflicts with the rights of another? I do not smoke, so I do not sit in any smoking rooms. That is my choice. Nor am I gay - so I do not drink in gay bars. That is also my choice, but I do respect the choices of others. Personally, I would not stay in a Muslim Hotel, but if I did, I would respect THEIR rules while I lived there, nor would I expect to eat pork pies at a Jewish festival. I guess what I am saying is that problems only occur when people are both selfish and blinkered and do not care about the rights of others, and I feel that ALL militant groups, whether straight, gay or religious are basically selfish bastards who, while quite happy to complain about their lack of freedoms, are quite happy to trample all over the rights of others. |
| user name 10.01.2007 14:59 |
To be honest, and I know this is going to seem kind of silly to some of you, but I believe that the law should not prohibit private entities from practicing discrimination if they so desire. As long as this discrimination is not actively harmful to a particular group, it should be allowed. Every private institution should be allowed to discriminate in this manner, except in particular instances such as employment, where discrimination can actively harm a group in the aggregate. Don't get me wrong, I am completely against discrimination. But to me this is rather an issue of what the law should and should not do, and how much regulatory power the government is entitled. Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 10.01.2007 15:46 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.It does make sense, but I disagree. I understand it on some level, however, a printer refusing to print something going against his/her religion should then, IMO, be classified as a Christian Press, or some such thing. Maybe there isn't a clearcut answer for every profession but if people have specific religious rules they live by and cannot interact with the public at large - as is - then perhaps they should not be in that chosen field. Just like the pharmacists I mentioned in an earlier post. If they object to dispensing certain medications then perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists OR they should work in a Christian hospital. It's not about limiting their choice, but about them working in a field where they can abide by their religious morals and not offend/affect the rest of the community. |
| John S Stuart 10.01.2007 17:29 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Amen!Music Man wrote: Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.It does make sense, but I disagree. I understand it on some level, however, a printer refusing to print something going against his/her religion should then, IMO, be classified as a Christian Press, or some such thing. Maybe there isn't a clearcut answer for every profession but if people have specific religious rules they live by and cannot interact with the public at large - as is - then perhaps they should not be in that chosen field. Just like the pharmacists I mentioned in an earlier post. If they object to dispensing certain medications then perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists OR they should work in a Christian hospital. It's not about limiting their choice, but about them working in a field where they can abide by their religious morals and not offend/affect the rest of the community. |
| john bodega 10.01.2007 22:20 |
<b><font color=009966>←Freya→ wrote:Loving Labrynth too much simply isn't possible!Zebonka12 wrote: If she ever kisses you, I'll turn you into a Prince. ... Prince of the land of STENCH! Muahaha (walks off)Hahahaha, I love that film. (Probably too much) |
| user name 10.01.2007 22:27 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:They wouldn't necessarily affect the rest of the community. Not to the degree of infringing upon anyone's rights. Therefore, what you propose limits the rights of business owners, whereas the alternative infringes upon no one's rights.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Does this make sense? I may not have gotten my ideas perfect in this quick post. Discuss.It does make sense, but I disagree. I understand it on some level, however, a printer refusing to print something going against his/her religion should then, IMO, be classified as a Christian Press, or some such thing. Maybe there isn't a clearcut answer for every profession but if people have specific religious rules they live by and cannot interact with the public at large - as is - then perhaps they should not be in that chosen field. Just like the pharmacists I mentioned in an earlier post. If they object to dispensing certain medications then perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists OR they should work in a Christian hospital. It's not about limiting their choice, but about them working in a field where they can abide by their religious morals and not offend/affect the rest of the community. I can fully understand where you're coming from, but isn't what you suggest just an example of molding a community to your specific morals? It doesn't seem very different from the solutions of religious states. "You can be in the community as long as you don't discriminate," sounds a lot like "you can be in the community as long as you don't have gay sex." Neither gay sex nor discrimination actively infringes upon anyone's rights; it's just a matter of morality, which is entirely subjective. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 10.01.2007 22:44 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: They wouldn't necessarily affect the rest of the community. Not to the degree of infringing upon anyone's rights. Therefore, what you propose limits the rights of business owners, whereas the alternative infringes upon no one's rights. I can fully understand where you're coming from, but isn't what you suggest just an example of molding a community to your specific morals? It doesn't seem very different from the solutions of religious states. "You can be in the community as long as you don't discriminate," sounds a lot like "you can be in the community as long as you don't have gay sex." Neither gay sex nor discrimination actively infringes upon anyone's rights; it's just a matter of morality, which is entirely subjective.I find we disagree a lot, Music Man. My example is a matter of live and let live. It does not infringe upon the rights of business owners in any way if they have chosen a business that serves the people. In the examples given in the article - hotel owners and printers - my point is clear. They are in the customer service business - not the christian customer service business. THEY, the business owners, have chosen what amounts to be a challenging career since they have decided to pit their moral compass against the vile world around them. It is their choice and it is their right. However, if their personal beliefs prevent a potential customer from purchasing their wares, or staying at their inn, then they are indeed infringing on the rights of that customer. What you propose would allow the proprietor to determine who s/he deems worthy of her/his services. And that is unacceptable to much of the civilized world... ...or should be. |
| user name 10.01.2007 22:49 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: However, if their personal beliefs prevent a potential customer from purchasing their wares, or staying at their inn, then they are indeed infringing on the rights of that customer. What you propose would allow the proprietor to determine who s/he deems worthy of her/his services. And that is unacceptable to much of the civilized world... ...or should be.The only person's rights who are being infringed when a business owner prevents a potential customer from utilizing their services or products is the business owner himself... A private proprietor most certainly should be able to determine to whom he offers his services to... |
| AspiringPhilosophe 10.01.2007 23:55 |
Why in the world can't people just leave other people alone? I don't get why in the world people are so obsessed about what other people are doing behind closed doors....this goes for celebrities and their "marriages", gay couples, unmarried hetero couples.... If people just learned to mind their own business none of this would be an issue. Let's face reality here, people are against homosexual marriage because they against homosexual sex. It all boils down to the fact that they are disgusted by the act itself. It has nothing to do with the people or the relationship, it's the fact that the first thing they think of when they meet a gay couple is gay sex. I may be disgusted by a lot of things that people do, but that doesn't mean that I hate or discriminate against people that do what I think is disgusting. Just let them do whatever they want...it's no skin off my nose, and not anyone else's business. Interestingly enough, this issue of Where does human loyalty lie, to god or to government, is something has been going on since the Middle Ages at least (and I'm currently taking an independant readings class on the very issue). It will never be resolved, as long as people still have such an idea that they need to be attatched to some kind of religious being that is somehow better than them. |
| user name 11.01.2007 00:09 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Interestingly enough, this issue of Where does human loyalty lie, to god or to government, is something has been going on since the Middle Ages at least (and I'm currently taking an independant readings class on the very issue). It will never be resolved, as long as people still have such an idea that they need to be attatched to some kind of religious being that is somehow better than them.I would actually rephrase that to "Where does human loyalty lie, to individual morality or to public morality?" While this issue may have religious undertones, there are exceptions, and there are several similar issues that would all fall under this description. It's easy to simplify it into religious wackos trying to enforce their religion, but that's not necessarily the case. |
| The Real Wizard 11.01.2007 03:11 |
Sparrow wrote: i dont even wanna read it, we all know how overpassionate i get XDYou and me both. I'm staying the hell out of this. |
| YourValentine 11.01.2007 04:48 |
Anti-discrimination laws are necessary as long as there is discrimination. However, John Stuart pointed out the problem of this law: there are two rights conflicting - how can that be solved with a law. I cannot believe a church can be forced by law to provide rooms for a gay wedding reception on their own property when they do not even tolerate gay relationships. I do not see any discrimination here because the church would not allow any other non-church wedding reception on their property, either. The church has the right to practice their faith and maintain their own rules on their private property, the government has no right to meddle into their business. I am not in a church myself and although I have strong opinions about some of them I would never consider to call for the law to make them accept my lifestyle - tolerance and respect have to go both ways. The hotel owner and the printer - I cannot imagine there are many who reject gay customers, it's the 21st century. But if a Muslim printer for example refuses to print flyers for night clubs because he thinks they are places of sin, he cannot be forced to print them, it's not the business of the government to tell him otherwise. Hospitals, schools, pharmacists are a very different story. They have to obey the law which already regulates that they cannot refuse patients, refuse medication or teach discrimination. It's obvious that all citizens have to be protected against discrimination in all vital areas like public services and work place. This law is very similar to the "religious hatred" law from last year which was stopped by the British parliament in its original form. Basically, the parliament said that the freedom of speech should cover abuse and insults of ideas including religious ideas. If a law forbids religious jokes the freedom of speech is limited to an extent that is no longer acceptable. I think it was a good decision. Discrimination cannot be stopped by limiting the rights of the not discriminated part of the society, it can only be stopped by laws defining the rights of the discriminated minority (like allowing gay marriages, for example). In fact, the best way to stop discrimination is by good example. The acceptance of gay couples in Germany has rocketed after we have had three openly gay politicians who are relaxed and self confident and show people that a gay relationship is just as normal as a straight one. |
| eenaweena 11.01.2007 05:01 |
i am a catholic, not a christian (there is a difference, you know! :D) and i think that forcing churches to hold gatherings for gay people isn't right. it's not that i'm against gay people or something. if i was, i wouldn't even be on this site. but anyway, back to the topic. i think it isn't right for the gov't to oblige the chruch to host receptions for gay couples because the church is a sacred place and it is the house of God. it's not the gays aren't welcome to enter it or something. it's just that you have to respect the church's decision if it doesn't want to allow the use of its venue for a gay wedding reception.. note: this is somehow related to a threadmade previously by CMUHistoryGirl, and my answer here is somewhat related. :D |
| magicalfreddiemercury 11.01.2007 08:22 |
This isn't a matter of a church hosting gay wedding receptions or a mosque welcoming bikini-clad women. It's about public businesses discriminating against a certain part of the public because the owners of those businesses disapprove of the customer's lifestyle. As I've said before, if a person has chosen to go into a field of business that caters to all different people of all different moral and religious beliefs, then that business owner is obligated to cater to them or go into a field that is more in line with their moral comfort level. I worked in a small neighborhood photography studio for 15 years. We photographed about 200 weddings per year - all hetero. If a gay couple came in, we would all have been uncomfortable because it would have been a new experience for us but would we have had the right to refuse the job solely because it was homosexual? What justification can a business owner have for that behavior? I don't know why there's an argument. You choose to serve the people with a specific business and then feel you have the right to choose which of those people you will serve and which you will not? Music Man - in one of your replies you said this is not necessarily religious in nature. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it's simple prejudice. However, they're hiding that behind the label of religion. Why? IMO, because they know that is the only way to be heard. A bigot would be called on the carpet for this, a moral religious person, however, is simply abiding by god's supposed law. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 11.01.2007 10:43 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:You've made a good point here. However, when speaking of human society in general, there are two forms of morality; public and private, which you pointed out. Now, there are two ways to force people into morality, and both of them involve threats....threats on their personal life, liberties or benefits (you can't do this or you'll break the law and we'll make you pay a fine/throw you in jail, etc.) or threats on the afterlife (don't do this or you are going to go to hell). Even before Christianity, is was the roll of the secular government to enforce the lawas or morality, which were sometimes established by themselves (treason, etc.) But even in pre-Christian societies, the religious authorities were the primary creators and distributors of morals. This wasn't always done in the directly being told not to do this type way, as is the example in pagan Greece and Rome, where the gods and goddesses were given personal characteristics and getting into messy situations that they resolved generally with warfare amongst themselves...in this case it was a "don't do what they do when they are acting stupid" kind of message. In pre-Christian socities, where the blending of religion and state was common, each used the other to further the morals that had been established. This continued with the rise of Catholic Christianity forming an outside authority to the secular governments.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Interestingly enough, this issue of Where does human loyalty lie, to god or to government, is something has been going on since the Middle Ages at least (and I'm currently taking an independant readings class on the very issue). It will never be resolved, as long as people still have such an idea that they need to be attatched to some kind of religious being that is somehow better than them.I would actually rephrase that to "Where does human loyalty lie, to individual morality or to public morality?" While this issue may have religious undertones, there are exceptions, and there are several similar issues that would all fall under this description. It's easy to simplify it into religious wackos trying to enforce their religion, but that's not necessarily the case. Now, I'll grant you the issue of whether or not printers should be allowed to not print flyers for gay bars if they don't want to doesn't have much to do with religion...that's more about freedom of practice of your business than anything else. But if you ask those business owners why they don't do it, they'll invariably reply that it's their perogative not to do so because it's against their morals...morals which are established by religion in this case. The secular establishment of certain morals has established that it is wrong to discriminate against anyone on any basis. The sacred has said it is wrong to be a certain way, and therefore if they refuse to be saved they are lost and you can treat them as you want (although there is this theory of "still treat them well). This is merely a modern day interpretation of the same question...where should the invidual place his loyalty? Which moral code should he follow when both are at a conflict with eachother? Church or State? Public or Private? Should the printer be able to refuse to print the offending flyers to please his religious sensibilities and risk jail/fines, or should be print the offending flyers and be in line with what the state is telling him to do, even if it violates his sense of religious wellbeing? |
| The Real Wizard 11.01.2007 11:37 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: i think it isn't right for the gov't to oblige the chruch to host receptions for gay couples because the church is a sacred place and it is the house of God.So, because it's the "house of God", you're implying that God wants to exclude homosexuals? Nobody can speak for God, contrary to what they might like you to think. It's the church officials in the vatican who set the rules... not some invisible man in the sky... which brings me to my next point. "God" isn't a tangible and proven thing, so don't use that word as if it is. The idea of God is a philosophy, which means it's something people think about or experience... not something that tangibly exists. Do you have any idea how many different definitions and ideas of God there have been throughout history? Thousands. Not one or two... thousands. For your information, it's your beloved catholic church that suppressed a large chunk of them in the fourth and fifth centuries. But this subject is still pretty taboo, so most people of faith haven't really thought about it quite yet. Back to the topic at hand... If the church and its members want to be intolerant of a group of people, then that's their prerogative. Anyone who agrees with their bigotry, judgement, and age-old "moral" systems is happy to do so. There are plenty of places one can go where all people are understood and accepted. Personally, I think the ideas of religious freedom and religious tolerance are a load of crap. It's just an excuse to uphold horribly outdated religious dogma, as if we should blindly accept that it should have an impact on today's world without logical consideration. These people are basically asking to have the right to condemn others on the basis of "morality". As George Carlin once said, the missing commandment should be: Keep thy religion to thyself. I'm not going to be tolerant of someone if they're intolerant of me in the first place. My personal philosophies don't exclude anyone in the first place. They initially choose to be intolerant of others, which leads people to react to their intolerance... certainly not the other way around. So don't attack me for being "intolerant" of someone else's intolerance. I've heard plenty of that before from people who say I should respect people's religious beliefs that attack hard-working law-abiding citizens, who just happen to have a different sexual orientation or private religious practice than they do. Furthermore... before anyone comes down on me for being intolerant of all religious people... the term "religious tolerance" implies that there is some intolerance in the first place. Therefore, people who go to church once a week and practice their beliefs in their own private way as a way to enrich their lives are fine by me. magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Music Man - in one of your replies you said this is not necessarily religious in nature. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it's simple prejudice. However, they're hiding that behind the label of religion. Why? IMO, because they know that is the only way to be heard. A bigot would be called on the carpet for this, a moral religious person, however, is simply abiding by god's supposed law.Right on. Labelling it as "religion" is the primary way these belief systems can still exist. I do, however, acknowledge that there is plenty of secular homophobia out there... although I will argue that secular homophobia is dying faster than religious homophobia. Generally speaking, in western society (outside of the church and places highly affected by it), tolerance and understanding of homosexuals is becoming more and more prevalent, as society is evolving... unlike the majority of christian/catholic churches, which are not. Secular society is slowly making |
| eenaweena 13.01.2007 05:17 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:uhm... tell me if i'm getting this wrong... but... are you calling me intolerant?<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: i think it isn't right for the gov't to oblige the chruch to host receptions for gay couples because the church is a sacred place and it is the house of God.So, because it's the "house of God", you're implying that God wants to exclude homosexuals? Nobody can speak for God, contrary to what they might like you to think. It's the church officials in the vatican who set the rules... not some invisible man in the sky... which brings me to my next point. "God" isn't a tangible and proven thing, so don't use that word as if it is. The idea of God is a philosophy, which means it's something people think about or experience... not something that tangibly exists. Do you have any idea how many different definitions and ideas of God there have been throughout history? Thousands. Not one or two... thousands. For your information, it's your beloved catholic church that suppressed a large chunk of them in the fourth and fifth centuries. But this subject is still pretty taboo, so most people of faith haven't really thought about it quite yet. Back to the topic at hand... If the church and its members want to be intolerant of a group of people, then that's their prerogative. Anyone who agrees with their bigotry, judgement, and age-old "moral" systems is happy to do so. There are plenty of places one can go where all people are understood and accepted. Personally, I think the ideas of religious freedom and religious tolerance are a load of crap. It's just an excuse to uphold horribly outdated religious dogma, as if we should blindly accept that it should have an impact on today's world without logical consideration. These people are basically asking to have the right to condemn others on the basis of "morality". As George Carlin once said, the missing commandment should be: Keep thy religion to thyself. I'm not going to be tolerant of someone if they're intolerant of me in the first place. My personal philosophies don't exclude anyone in the first place. They initially choose to be intolerant of others, which leads people to react to their intolerance... certainly not the other way around. So don't attack me for being "intolerant" of someone else's intolerance. I've heard plenty of that before from people who say I should respect people's religious beliefs that attack hard-working law-abiding citizens, who just happen to have a different sexual orientation or private religious practice than they do. Furthermore... before anyone comes down on me for being intolerant of all religious people... the term "religious tolerance" implies that there is some intolerance in the first place. Therefore, people who go to church once a week and practice their beliefs in their own private way as a way to enrich their lives are fine by me. oh. then again, i asked my teacher about this and she said it's okay for them to go in there to hold recpetions and stuff. maybe it just hasn't happened over here yet, you see. same sex marriage is banned o'er here. my bad. |
| The Real Wizard 13.01.2007 18:53 |
<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: uhm... tell me if i'm getting this wrong... but... are you calling me intolerant?I don't know... are you? |
| eenaweena 13.01.2007 21:25 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:i'm not intolerant. i love all peoples. :D<font color="indigo"><b>friedchicken \m/ wrote: uhm... tell me if i'm getting this wrong... but... are you calling me intolerant?I don't know... are you? i just don't get why everything is so... blah in this world. |
| KEVPAR 19.01.2007 04:58 |
phew :) its ok it didn't go through :-D x |
| KEVPAR 19.01.2007 04:59 |
or rather, the original act DID go through so its ok....am i making sense? :-/ x |
| magicalfreddiemercury 19.01.2007 07:07 |
KEVPAR wrote: or rather, the original act DID go through so its ok....am i making sense? :-/ xMeaning the challenge failed, yes? The Gay Rights law stands, correct? If so, that's very good news. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 19.01.2007 11:14 |
The Gay Rights Law stands? Phew!! There may be a small hope for humanity and decency yet. |
| ~im a fool~ 20.01.2007 18:11 |
well oh well. everyone knows that in some point in time, a cetain group of people who happen to be homophobes, are gonna flip out because people are different than them. recently, at a church nearly my house, the pastor dude, is protesting lesbians and gays that go to church. which is really dumb, because in the US they already cant marry so he shouldnt be worried about anything. except this one lady pastor, who weds lesbians and gays, even though shes not sopposed to. shes a pretty cool lady. i met her one time. but anyway, the only thing we can do to get the point across that gay people are normal, is to protest and streak. protest and streak, everyone.... |
| KEVPAR 22.01.2007 09:12 |
yes the challenge by the homophobes failed and the gay rights law will go through :D Kev x |