|
|
| Re: Gay protest in LA (380579) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 7 |
||
|
| (383961) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:18:36 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by AlM on Sun Nov 9 19:12:43 2008. That's the point I am trying to make too. I agree with that. |
|
|
| (383962) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Nov 13 10:20:37 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:17:28 2008. But the issue here is that the state uses the term Marriage. If you think that regardless of who it is for, legal protections should be given a term which is not so tied to religious institutions, then we are entirely in agreement. I just see making marriage open to gays as an easier path to equality than the ideal situation of removing marriage from the state. |
|
|
| (383964) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Nov 13 10:24:25 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:14:32 2008. I agree, there is a difference, but only one of degree. The principle is the same, which is that democracy should not disregard the rights of the minority even with the support of the majority. |
|
|
| (383965) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:26:01 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Sun Nov 9 19:20:51 2008. That's where I think they are overstepping. If they allow a "civil union", then that is great, and they get it, and they can share in health insurance, etc (or I feel they should be able to if they have such a union).But if they want to get involved in a "marriage", then that is more for them to find a religious institution that will "marry" them. |
|
|
| (383966) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Nov 13 10:27:33 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:14:32 2008. the term "marriage" I think is best left for religious institutions, and they can make their own decisions on that.Well, right now Congress is not leaving marriage to religious institutions - it is getting VERY involved. Do you think Congress should allow those in civil unions to file joint tax returns? Except for the word "marriage", that's what the whole issue really comes down to. |
|
|
| (383967) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:47:25 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Nov 9 19:19:16 2008. And for all the going back and forth, that is where the issue lies. It IS different, and there is no way to change that. I do understand that people are "born" that way. People do NOT have a choice in who they are attracted to sexulally or arroused by. I do not know why that happens, but it does. Gays have no more control over getting arroused over seeing another guy than heterosexual guys have control over getting aroused over seeing women.But that all being said, NORMAL IS heterosexual. People can argue that any way they want, but nature provides that "NORMAL" is heterosexual. But that being said, I TOTALLY understand that a certain percent of the population does not fall into that category, as they ARE born the way they are. There is no "cure" for homosexuality any more than there is a "cure" for heterosexuality, as it's biological. However, gays have to remember, that even though they are born that way, they are STILL the minority of the population, and that is STILL nature's design that they are not any more than a small percentage of the population that for whatever reason were born like that. "Marriage" is still a word that I think is best left for religious institutions. And yes, a heterosexual couple is "married", even in the eyes of the state. Perhaps the best way to handle the whole thing is to leave that word "marriage" in the terms of religion, and have a state version of that in civil union recognizing that for both hetero or homosexual couples. I don't know what more they want, if CA allows civil union, I don't get this "marriage" stuff. |
|
|
| (383968) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:49:32 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by AlM on Sun Nov 9 19:27:14 2008. So perhaps they should fix that, and that would go for a "civil union" of heterosexual couples as well that aren't "married". I think the term "marriage" perhaps should only apply to religious institutions. |
|
|
| (383969) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Nov 13 10:52:37 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:49:32 2008. I agree with you here; make them all civil unions and then if someone wants the sanctity of marriage, they can opt to be married in a religious venue.For all non-religious reasons the civil union would be equal to a marriage in the eyes of the law. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (383971) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:59:55 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by WillD on Wed Nov 12 20:15:32 2008. Why should a slim majority be allowed to dictate the personal lives of a minority group?Slim majority? Let's not get crazy here. While I understand that "being gay" is biological, and they have no choice, it is NOT a "slim majority" of people. People can say all you want, but NORMAL in nature's design IS men and women. Without that being "normal", that would be the end of the human race. And I don't know why a small percentage of the population "is" gay, and I know that is not by choice. Perhaps it's nature's own way of "birth control", as obviously sex in that manner is not going to result in a pregnancy. |
|
|
| (383972) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Nov 13 10:59:56 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:49:32 2008. So perhaps they should fix that, and that would go for a "civil union" of heterosexual couples as well that aren't "married". I think the term "marriage" perhaps should only apply to religious institutions.Interestingly, my parents, who got married in Germany, got married twice in totally separate places and at separate times, as required by the law at the time. Once in City Hall and once in church. Don't tell Olog, since if that's what Germany did or does, I'm sure he would consider it bad for the US. |
|
|
| (383973) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 11:02:13 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Nov 13 06:24:14 2008. I think it would have to be left as two, legally. I also think you also start coming up into the aspect of people trying to scam....oh, I have better health insurance than you (my friend), let's add you to our "marriage", and then you will get to benefit from my health insurance too. |
|
|
| (383982) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Thu Nov 13 11:50:25 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by AlM on Thu Nov 13 10:59:56 2008. LOL, he'll call your parents evil and claim "right wing leanings".your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (383983) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 11:54:21 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by AlM on Thu Nov 13 10:27:33 2008. Do you think Congress should allow those in civil unions to file joint tax returns? Except for the word "marriage", that's what the whole issue really comes down to.I don't really know. Sometimes I say "yes", and other times I say "no". Personally, it would never effect me, so I really can't say that I "care". But I can see it can lead to abuse, and that is the same for heterosexual couples that aren't married either. Two guys, heterosexual, both good jobs. Not gay, no sexual relationship, just no plans to marry a woman at this time. However, think of the taxes they could save if they filed jointly? |
|
|
| (383985) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Nov 13 12:02:05 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:49:32 2008. Well said. And I think anyone who has a "civil union" should get the same health and pension benefits as those who are married. They should also have their own applications. None of this partner A/partner B shit. |
|
|
| (383991) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Nov 13 12:36:19 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 11:54:21 2008. Two guys, heterosexual, both good jobs. Not gay, no sexual relationship, just no plans to marry a woman at this time. However, think of the taxes they could save if they filed jointly?A man and a woman, heterosexual, both good jobs. Not gay, no sexual relationship, just no plans to spend the rest of their lives with another person at this time. However, think of the taxes they could save if they filed jointly? Nothing stopping them from getting married to save on taxes. It doesn't have to be religious - you can get married in City Hall. But do you know of many (any?) people who do it? |
|
|
| (383994) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Nov 13 12:45:23 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:59:55 2008. I think will is referring to a slim majority who take issue with gay marriage. |
|
|
| (384000) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 13 13:21:52 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by R30A on Thu Nov 13 09:38:33 2008. that went down from 1555 on !!the struggle continues |
|
|
| (384001) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 13 13:23:22 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by AlM on Thu Nov 13 12:36:19 2008. how about a good civil union between themwith all the legal stuff a marrage has |
|
|
| (384005) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA - why prop 8 won |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 13 13:45:32 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Fred G on Thu Nov 13 11:50:25 2008. Amid the honks and cheers of joy in the Castro and West Hollywood, there are quiet signs of anxiety and, as state election results come in, a growing sense of anguish. Something is not right in the Golden State. Even as Californians gave 61 percent of their vote to Barack Obama, a majority of them, 52 percent, voted to discriminate against another kind of minority--gays and lesbians. For a brief window that began in the bridal month of June, California queers had the right to marry, thanks to a state Supreme Court ruling, and some 18,000 same-sex couples said "I do." Proposition 8--a ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman--now says "You can't!"As I write, the results for the second most expensive campaign in the country after the presidency are not official. According to the No on 8 campaign, as many as 3 million to 4 million absentee and provisional ballots have yet to be counted, and gay activists are rightly refusing to concede until they are. But there is little reason to expect that those votes will tip the scales. Other numbers paint an even grimmer picture. If exit polls are to be believed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted Yes on 8, as did 52 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Asians; each of these demographics went heavily for Obama, blacks by a 94-to-6 margin. Los Angeles County, heavily minority, went 50-50 on Prop 8. These results have shocked gay activists, who knew from earlier polls that black voters favored Prop 8, but they were seeing much smaller margins, closer to 50 percent. The easy, dangerous explanation for this gap, and one already tossed around by some white gay liberals in the bitter aftermath, is that people of color are not so secretly homophobic. But a more complicated reckoning--one that takes into account both the organizing successes of the Christian right and the failures of the gay movement--will have to take place if activists want a different result next time. First, there's the matter of the Yes on 8 coalition's staggering disinformation campaign. Ad after ad told voters that without Prop 8, their churches would be forced to perform same-sex unions and be stripped of their tax-exempt status; that schools would teach their children to practice homosexuality; and, perhaps most effective, that a smiling Barack Obama had said, "I'm not in favor of gay marriage." This last bit went out in a flier by the Yes on 8 campaign, targeting black households. Obama indeed does not favor gay marriage, as he said during the primary, but he also came out emphatically against Prop 8, as a late TV ad by the No on 8 campaign emphasized. Mainstream outlets like the Los Angeles Times meticulously countered the other lies as well, but too little, too late. They had taken root in many communities of color, and once lodged, proved difficult to dislodge. This was always the intent of the Yes on 8 campaign. For years, the California Christian-right apparatus, long hampered by nativism and racism, had been unable to make inroads into the state's brown, yellow and black populations--a demographic gold mine in a state that is more than 50 percent minority and growing. Prop 8 may prove to be their gold rush. From the beginning they bought up ad space in Chinese, black, Spanish and Korean media; they hosted massive rallies for ethnic Christians. The Sunday before election day, I went to Los Angeles City Hall for the most celebratory, most diverse rally I have ever attended; it was organized by Yes on 8 Chinese advocates. But it's only in an organizing vacuum that bald lies and racial pandering find room to thrive. Gay activists, by most accounts, were simply outmaneuvered. Andrea Shorter, a black lesbian volunteer for the No on 8 campaign, told me that the outreach to the African-American community began in earnest a week ago. "What's happened is that there's been an outcry from communities of color, including African-American communities, who say, 'Include us!' Now there's a GOTV strategy, but for some it seems last minute," she said in an interview before the election. Another No on 8 activist, Karin Wang, told me at the City Hall rally that when Asian Pacific Islander groups went to buy ads in Chinese and Korean newspapers, they were informed that Yes on 8 had been renting space for weeks. Many gay leaders, especially those less central to the No on 8 efforts, told me that such disorder was endemic to gay efforts. "The campaign doesn't seem to have got its act together until a few weeks ago. It wasn't clicking. It wasn't raising money. It didn't have good ads on the air," says Rafael Mandelman of the San Francisco Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club. He laments, in particular, the absence of gay couples in No on 8 materials, which mainly depicted straight celebrities and elected officials. That's a choice that was strangely mirrored by the Yes on 8 campaign, which put not antigay hate but heterosexual love--its sanctity and the threat to it--at the center of its message. At the City Hall rally on Sunday, the loudest cheers were for a young, straight Chinese couple who had exchanged their vows in front of the crowd. Their marriage, they hoped, would be made "safe" by Prop 8. It certainly was celebrated. By Richard Kim - the nation About Richard Kim Richard Kim is an associate editor at The Nation. He writes frequently about race, sexuality and popular culture. Kim is a co-editor of the forthcoming anthology A New Queer Agenda |
|
|
| (384009) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 14:00:47 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by R30A on Thu Nov 13 12:45:23 2008. Oh, if that is the case, I apologize, I misread that then. |
|
|
| (384011) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 13 14:01:54 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by WillD on Wed Nov 12 20:15:32 2008. Why should a slim majority be allowed to dictate the personal lives of a minority group?I suppose you don't believe in democracy. |
|
|
| (384013) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Nov 13 14:08:05 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 11:02:13 2008. If legislatures legalize same sex marriage, then they can certainly create whatever limitations they want.If courts legalize gay marriage, what's to stop a future court from using that as precedent to legalize polygamy? I'm sure some argument could be developed. |
|
|
| (384024) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Nov 13 15:18:09 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by R30A on Thu Nov 13 09:36:11 2008. Please. They aint us, they're primates. Close but no frickin cigar. And they don't wear clothing, invent medicine, volunteer, study, or any other human activity. No doubt they throw feces at each other. Even if there is some evidence of male-male sexual activity amongst these apes or monkeys or whatever...so what? Bonobo sexual activity has nothing to do with human sexual activity. From what I was reading it sounded like they were, pardon the expression, grinding each other...sometimes. None of the males actually take males as partners for more than some jerk-off equivalent fun. If fact, apparently, the females are dominant in that "society" so it's more like strong females get to choosd their mates, not the other way around. And the males wait to get chosen as the female's mate.How does all this have ANYTHING to do with men who engage in sexual relations with other men? |
|
|
| (384027) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Nov 13 15:35:33 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by ntrainride on Thu Nov 13 15:18:09 2008. Yes, much like us, they are primates. Also, much like us, some of them exhibit homosexual behavior.Homosexual behavior is not a derived trait of mankind. |
|
|
| (384043) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Nov 13 16:10:03 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Nov 13 06:24:14 2008. Let's ask the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who bankrolled much of the "Yes On Prop 8" advertizing. |
|
|
| (384046) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Nov 13 16:22:52 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by R30A on Thu Nov 13 15:35:33 2008. You seem to be ignoring the main point of all this. No one has denied that human males engage in sexual activity with other human males. But tell me, do you see any non-human primates taking "mates" of the same sex? At most, they play with each other, sometimes. When it comes time for mating though...Anyway, figuring out what a "derived trait of mankind" is by looking at non-humans seems to be a foolhardy excercise. Point is, most people would be disenheartened to find out that a male family member derives sexual satisfaction by having another male fuck them, or the reverse. Sure, they might say they "understand" or something, but deep down they're thinking "awww man, my brother/nephew/cousin, w/e, takes it up the ass...and likes it! Where the fuck did I go wrong?? Oh man, this really sucks!" THAT'S what these protesters are forgetting. They ONLY care about getting their twisted rocks off, fuck their families, friends, etc. |
|
|
| (384052) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Thu Nov 13 16:51:51 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri Nov 7 12:06:18 2008. Remember there is a thing is this country called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and in the end marriage is nothing more in this country then a slip of paper you get at city hall saying "welcome to marriage your happiness is overwith, you share benefits etc etc dont get divorced too quickly" thats marriage in this country! you dont need the ceremony! You're thinking of the ceremony as the actual marriage, well it isnt!This is a violation of the separation of church and state letting one religion dominate the right for all individuals to get marriage license. You being islamic, how would you feel if they wouldnt let islamic people marry because the ceremony did not meet the criteria to jews and catholics? Would you be upset would you see it as unfair that a religion, a BELIEF not a fact BELIEF has put a limitation on your BELIEF and your RIGHTS? |
|
|
| (384054) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 13 16:55:29 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by ClearAspect on Thu Nov 13 16:51:51 2008. Remember there is a thing is this country called SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATEThere's nothing like that mentioned in the Constitution, funny enough. Maybe you're mixing things up with France, who has "laïcité"? |
|
|
| (384074) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Nov 13 18:34:11 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Nov 13 12:02:05 2008. No, they should have the same application.There is no need to specify which spouse (I hate the word partner when used in this context) is A or B. |
|
|
| (384106) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Nov 13 19:38:42 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 13 16:55:29 2008. It is in the Constitution of this country. Except it doesn't use those exact words; the effect is the same. |
|
|
| (384120) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Nov 13 22:09:37 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:47:25 2008. There's gonna have to be a lot of honest soul searching going on in the minds of those who do profess to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex before they are ever ready to acknowledge what you posted here. They will have to admit that there are some things that can't be easily quantified but are true nontheless.Us carbon-based warm blooded hairless upright bipedal animals reproduce by a complex process of mental, physical and chemical interaction. That shit is like, core programming. It's organic machine language. Of course, this is going to influence the higher level thought. Even if you don't reproduce. The fix is in. In that vain, for those who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex to claim that it's "equivalent" to opposite sex pairings is like saying a monitor is the computer. I'm not trying to be mr. buzzkill here...on your own time, long as it doesn't harm anybody, do whatever the fuck you want. You're just not gonna be able to change the code built into teh logic. Nope. |
|
|
| (384121) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA - why prop 8 won |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Nov 13 22:20:12 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA - why prop 8 won, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 13 13:45:32 2008. This is why the internet is such a great thing. Not only these guys; all the people out there who plan and scheme and think they're gonna be able to mold peoples opinions to their own agendas...fuck `em all. The internet blows the dust off of the dirt. We finally get to hear everybody. |
|
|
| (384130) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Thu Nov 13 22:51:22 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 13 16:55:29 2008. Read the entire Constitution and ALL the Amendments to it again. It's in there."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." |
|
|
| (384132) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA - why prop 8 won |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 13 23:02:54 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA - why prop 8 won, posted by ntrainride on Thu Nov 13 22:20:12 2008. and you get to hear the yes on 8 side of this story too |
|
|
| (384473) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Fri Nov 14 21:09:27 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 13 13:23:22 2008. That's exactly what should happen. Let the 50 states decide a civil ceremony is OK for both "staight" couples (they all do that now, BTW) and gay couples.Let the various religions do what they want and leave the civil side alone, which means they cannot use their positions to influence the states to allow or ban gay marriages. |
|
|
| (387411) | |
Sowell op-ed (was Gay protest in LA) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 23 16:16:39 2008, in response to Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 02:07:30 2008. Printed in the Chicago Sun-Times. (Hmm, Sowell is black and conservative. Must be a perfect target for intolerance, eh?)
|
|
|
| (387448) | |
Re: Sowell op-ed (was Gay protest in LA) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sun Nov 23 18:53:11 2008, in response to Sowell op-ed (was Gay protest in LA), posted by Olog-hai on Sun Nov 23 16:16:39 2008. George Sowell is black and Republican...so what? Mr. Sowell is still right...those protesting the passage of Proposition 8 are SORE losers. It's not the Mormon Church that helped win its passage...it would not have passed if not for the vote of AFRICAN AMERICANS.As for other groups who didn't win...they also need to get over it. (The same thing will eventually be said of Al Franken, who I believe will lose by less than 200 votes. Don't blame the independent candidate...BLAME YOURSELF.) Speaking of, this is advice I need to take. |
|
|
| (694037) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SubwaySURF on Sat Nov 13 08:51:58 2010, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Nov 8 11:30:00 2008. Give me a break |
|
|
| (694038) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SubwaySURF on Sat Nov 13 08:58:59 2010, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by ntrainride on Wed Nov 12 01:06:43 2008. Yuo, I agreed to years o persecutin by choice. >>>>>Men who engage in sexual relations with other men are doing it by choice. <<<< Just how far is your head up your ass? |
|
|
| (694039) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SubwaySURF on Sat Nov 13 09:02:36 2010, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Wed Nov 12 01:12:15 2008. yawn.....you're anotjer one. WALK A MILE IN MY SHOES> |
|
|
| (694040) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SubwaySURF on Sat Nov 13 09:06:55 2010, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by ntrainride on Wed Nov 12 01:06:43 2008. You're being asked for TOLERATION. Nothing more/less |
|
|
| (694041) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SubwaySURF on Sat Nov 13 09:07:05 2010, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by ntrainride on Wed Nov 12 01:06:43 2008. You're being asked for TOLERATION. Nothing more/less |
|
|
| (694066) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Sat Nov 13 11:58:23 2010, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by SubwaySURF on Sat Nov 13 08:51:58 2010. ok, what time you wanna take your lunch? |
|
|
| (694171) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SubwaySURF on Sat Nov 13 15:22:15 2010, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by monorail on Sat Nov 13 11:58:23 2010. ANY TIME YOU WANT TO TAKE YOUR HEAD FROM YOUR ass? |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 7 |
||