Comments on: as long as you’re straight

By: Kevin's Perspective

Kevin's Perspective — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:02:07 +0000

WTF? If your gay! you can join!

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:30:07 +0000

as long as you’re straight and white.

By: vivian

vivian — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:58:25 +0000

I didn’t mean to rant quite so vehemently. Guess I’m angrier than I thought.

By: vivian

vivian — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:52:49 +0000

This is NOT a democracy. It is, I believe, a constitutional republic. Pure democracy = mob rule. I am “married” to my partner. We are raising children together. We pay taxes together. We own a house together. If I die, she is destitute except for a small life insurance because she does not currently work and home schools our children and cannot get my social security benefits. If she dies, I have NO legal right to even see our children except by the charity of her living “legal” relatives. Why the F*&^*& should the opinion of religious bigots and fools keep me from having the same protections for my family that they have for theirs? I live in the great Commonwealth of VA. I HAVE lost a job because I’m gay and have no legal recourse. Even in state where we can marry, we still have no Federal recognition of the life we have built together. Pardon me if I have no tolerance for people who legislate me into second class citizenship because the ooky gayness might rub off on children. In spite of statistics that show that children of gays are no more likely to be gay than the children of heteros. No matter that pedophiles are usually straight white guys. Pardon the heck outta me if I’m angry at being blamed for the world’s ills by right-wing wacko nut-jobs. Pardon me if I want my wife to get the social security benefits that we’ve both worked for because I couldn’t have been as successful or comfortable if it hadn’t been for her. What we have is a marriage no matter what anyone else wants to call it. What we have has been beneficial to society no matter what anyone else chooses to believe. We ARE discriminated against on both a state AND a federal level no matter what the ignorant say. I live it every bloody day so don’t tell ME that I have every right that heterosexual couples do.

By: legalboxerbriefs

legalboxerbriefs — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:35:49 +0000

Yeah, hey, remember that part of the Constitution called the Full Faith and Credit clause which requires states to recognize contracts (example: a marriage) made in other states? I do.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:31:49 +0000

But you’re right about using the Bible itself as evidence of Jesus’ divinity. You have to go outside the actual book to make your arguments, because otherwise you’re falling into a trap. People see what they want to see, and it’s colored by their own life experiences.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:29:34 +0000

I have to dispute the timeline you indicate for the original texts to be written down. Most of them were written down less than 50 years after the death of Christ, considering that the authors were dead less than 50 years after the death of Christ. Luke was the only Gospel written by someone who hadn’t actually met Jesus personally, but he was (and still is) known as a historian of almost the same repute as Josephus. And you know as well as I do that for the ‘mythical’ label to be applied to the story of a real person you have to have at least several hundred years between telling and writing as you have in the case of Alexander the Great and other great figures in history who became almost god-like in their legends.
-
I do agree with you that in the later tellings it may have gotten added to by church officials, but the Dead Sea Scrolls are viewed as being the most acurate, and they were written VERY soon after Christ walked the earth.
-
Even Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, did it less than 50 years after the death of Christ. That can hardly be viewed as ‘not contemporary’.

By: minerva146

minerva146 — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:23:56 +0000

Um, that only looks like “evidence” to people who are looking for that sort of meaning in it. Not everyone sees it the same way. Not to mention, Most of the writings weren’t even contemporary. They were written in the century following. A lot of fictionalization can happen in the interim. Not to mention the numerous editings by church officials, mis-transcriptions or mis-translations, etc. It’s very subjective. Far from absolute.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:23:38 +0000

@ Fester: P.S. Matthew was not written by Paul, just so you know.

By: minerva146

minerva146 — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:20:36 +0000

As it’s coming from DWN, my vote is “deliberately misleading.” A la carte christians are so silly.

By: bfordc

bfordc — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:13:11 +0000

Yes, as I may “have” guessed, you are a person of tremendous faith. I mean, to disregard all the evidence that Christ was who he said……kudos!

By: phisherspooner

phisherspooner — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:58:41 +0000

clearly propaganda to distract the American people from the real issue:

Gay Abortion

By: Lerris

Lerris — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:43:30 +0000

The People have not spoken, a 52% to a 47% win on a voter turn out of 68% of the state with 13% of the votes actually uncounted is not what I would call a ringing endorsement.

It sure as hell isn’t the will of The People.

While I admit that statically speaking its unlikely that the uncounted votes would change the outcome, (Previous outcomes don’t change probability, the remaining 13% of the votes would be expected to break down the same way the counted ones did.) the gap isn’t exactly huge now is it? A half a million votes isn’t exactly a huge margin in a state as large as California.

Of course the real tricky problem in this is the whole separation of church and state issue here, its no secret this is a largely religiously motived issue. In fact Christian groups are all but bragging about the outcome.

Where is the line between laws religions like and laws motived by religious interests? One is a happy convenience (for them) the other is unacceptable.

By: ???

??? — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:22:44 +0000

meanie

By: ???

??? — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:21:49 +0000

love is love, and wether this is California or Ohio or any state. <3 leave these people alone and stop trying to control what they do. Worry about yourselves. If two men – or women love each other thry should allowed to be married.

By: Ennauriel

Ennauriel — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:51:10 +0000

“Your gay?”

Whose gay?

It’s “you’re.” You fail.

By: !kca

!kca — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:19:00 +0000

ad hominem much?
.
Woot! Fallacy number 4!
.
If you can’t refute my logic, don’t get pissed off you lost. Buhbye

By: P7

P7 — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:35:30 +0000

To gay people: is too bad so many don’t favor the gayness liek yours. Oh, well.

By: aylagriffin

aylagriffin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:16:52 +0000

Well… WHat was it like for you folks before you made this huge choice?

By: charro

charro — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:51:14 +0000

Dress it up in all the logic arguments you want, it doesn’t hide the fact that you are completely (and probably intentionally) misinterpeting what I said.
I would try to continue to debate logic with you ad nauseum, however it is difficult to try to continue a debate with someone who does not comprehend the actual words that I am using.
I also would address the “homosexuality is not a choice” argument with the studies I learned in my academic work in the Human Sexuality and Psychology fields, but knowing that you seem to enjoy misinterpreting what people say so you may continue an argument you would probably say they are not sound evidencial proofs.
Perhaps you should consult a debate coach on the subject of misinterpreting your opponent as a means to “winning”. As much as you say I am begging the question, I have been trying to get you to understand the meaning of the words I used and not your intepretation. If you will not understand the words that I am using, then it is a certainty that you would view my explanations as circular. Someone trained in logic and debate would tell you that if you do not understand someone’s argument then you cannot justly refute it.

By: Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:34:37 +0000

You’ve been sniffing popper again, haven’t you?

By: DeathWyrmNexus

DeathWyrmNexus — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:28:11 +0000

Belt sander logic, I has it.

By: !kca

!kca — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:20:45 +0000

But seriously, though, go ask a debate coach why the “Do you really think someone would WANT to be gay, when people hate them so much?” argument fails based on the fact that it is an argumentum ad baculum.

By: !kca

!kca — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:17:41 +0000

All of those definitions descend from the original definition of rational, which means logical.
.
“I was not saying “Homosexuality is a bad choice”, nor am I saying “Don’t be gay or christians will kill you”. ”
-Yes, you are. You present that by using the argument, “Who would choose to be gay?”
This argument is FAIL because it is a fallacy based on the points I have stated above. Therefore, your arguments are not rational. A rational person might decide to turn gay, despite your irrational arguments.
.
“what I was saying is “Homosexuality is NOT a choice”. ‘
I am not addressing that topic, but if I were I would ask you to present some evidence, rather than repeating a fail opinion ad nauseum.
.
” Because of the undesirable results that can come from this decision, I do not believe a rational person would make a choice to *be something they are not* ”
-I have shown many times that the undesirable results do NOT come from this decision, therefore your idea is fail.
-I’d also like to introduce you to a new fallacy “circular arguments.” (three & counting )
.
“Kudos for having a curious mind.”
-Why, thank you

By: !kca

!kca — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:07:33 +0000

lol, Uncle Fester
.
I made the decision when I started studying psychology & sociology. I figured I had the books, might as well read them & try applying their teachings to a practical experiment.

By: Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:54:28 +0000

I remember the day I was turned straight…1968 – Goldie Hawn in an orange bikini on the Rowen and Martin’s Laugh-in show…

It was nailed home by Valerie Leon in ‘Blood From the Mummy’s Tomb’ (1971)

By: aylagriffin

aylagriffin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:49:31 +0000

Really? Either you have a really good memory or you’re making things up. At what point in your life did you make this choice, anyway?

By: charro

charro — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:21:30 +0000

Rational:
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one’s reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
It is aggreeable to reason that a person who is sane and lucid would not make a choice that could have a disagreeable outcome, unless the outcome is outweighed by principle or faith. Whether the outcome be hate, violence, or being miserable because they chose to be someone they are not.
You are completely missing the point. I was not saying “Homosexuality is a bad choice”, nor am I saying “Don’t be gay or christians will kill you”. what I was saying is “Homosexuality is NOT a choice”. Because of the undesirable results that can come from this decision, I do not believe a rational person would make a choice to *be something they are not* ESPECIALLY because of the negativity. And that is just using logic. Logically, living beings do not make choices that have negative outcomes, unless the gain is greater than the risk. To risk a negative outcome by choosing to be something you are not is not logical, nor is it human nature. Choosing to embrace who you are and express it is completely different than choosing to be something that you are not.
Perhaps you have an English coach and a dictionary that can help you comprehend the actual meaning of the words being used?

Curiosity in wondering if you can “turn yourself gay” seems to me to be a purely scientific approach to a question that puzzles someone. But for you, clearly when you made the choice, the reward greatly outweighed the risk. Kudos for having a curious mind.

By: !kca

!kca — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:26:19 +0000

As a total aside, which has nothing to do with the conversation (see above for the conclusion)….
.
“Rational, sane people tend to not make choices that have so much stigma attached to them, can get them imprisoned, or killed (unless they believe that their death/imprisonment serves a purpose). ”
.
-therefore “Homosexuality is a bad choice because the Christians will kill you” is an argumentum ad baculum
I’m speaking entirely from a logic-based stand point here. Sure, people might be influenced by this sort of “reasoning,” but that still means that the violence originates from the bashers, NOT from homosexuality.
Speaking as a rational (read: logical), sane person, this was not a valid argument.
.
lol, that’s another one you can add to your list of things to look up, the definition of “rational.” Do you have access to a debate coach? Maybe you can go ask him/her about this.

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:23:27 +0000

@ herb: I gained a total of 7 pounds during my pregnancy. I’m a naturally curvy girl, but I’m not by any means fat or skinny. I fall right smack in the middle. I lost about 20 pounds before I knew I was knocked up, and only gained 7 pounds over my regular weight. Now, not as an excuse, because I believe that HOllywood pregnancies are really unhealthy, but it is possible to be 7 months preggers and not look it. I know I won’t get that lucky on my second one, so I’m enjoying it while I can, LOL.

By: !kca

!kca — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:18:37 +0000

This phenomena that I’m talking about is extremely uncommon. I want to make it clear that I was not talking about people in general, but a minority of a minority.
.
There is very little clear examples of this in scientific circles. For one thing, you never hear about the happily converted people. It’s always the despair-filled tragedies that make news. Even worse, the hateful stigma associated with the homosexuality+choice topic influences the scientific community away from studying this sort of thing. Yes. Sceintists are politicians, too.
.
Even if something is rare or difficult to do, it can still happen. I’m living proof.
.
But! That’s all besides the point, because if sexuality is a physiological trait (as it seems to be with most people) then homosexuals deserve the same rights that any other sexuality deseves, AND if homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (as it seems to be with some people) then homosexuals deserve the same rights that any other liefstyle choices (such as Christianity) deserves.
We actually agree on quite alot of important things.

By: !kca

!kca — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:05:03 +0000

I clearly remember doing the research, making the choice, & laying out my plans to make the change.
.
Sure, it was difficult, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

By: charro

charro — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:41:57 +0000

*sigh* I did not compare gay people to terrorists. I was illustrating a point. The point being gay is not a choice (I concede the rebuttal above that one can make themselves gay if they so choose, it is an argument I have not heard before). Terrorism is. It was the first thing I thought of. Nor did I say terrorists are irrational crazies, I said a rational, sane person wouldn’t wake up and say “I want to be a terrorist”. Rational, sane people tend to not make choices that have so much stigma attached to them, can get them imprisoned, or killed (unless they believe that their death/imprisonment serves a purpose). Rational sane people do not wake up and choose to cause random chaos. Case in point, the people terrorizing our country don’t think they are terrorists. They think they are doing right by their god, or religion, or culture, or whatever. So when they woke up and made the choice to bomb a building, or fly a plane into a building, they did it because their faith tells them it is the right thing to do, not because they want to be a terrorist. Because *we* call them terrorists doesn’t mean that they do. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

By: Matthew Fitzhenry

Matthew Fitzhenry — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:02:56 +0000

My point is this, spelled out as clear as can be:
I DO NOT oppose gay marriage. However, this ban can be justified by laws regarding polygamy, pedophilia, beastiality etc.
I AM NOT equating gays with pedophiles, polygamists etc. But if a pedophile were to claim “Me and this 15 year old are in love, why is this wrong, why can we not get married” someone would say “well that’s just wrong” If a polygamist says “I love many women, why can’t I marry all of them?” they too would be shot down
It’s a double standard really.

By: charro

charro — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:01:58 +0000

I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
To me, gay people are just people. They are my friends and I love all my friends equally. I have been to many pride picnics and marches and festivals and I don’t see anything wrong with being gay. What pisses me off is not religious people, or otherwise bigoted people, saying “It’s a choice”, but them saying “That choice is wrong”. I find in appalling that so many people think all the gay people in the world just chose to be that way for whatever reason, and that they have the right to judge them and tell them the way they live their lives are wrong. I firmly believe it is something inborn and innate. I’ve never heard of someone who “made themselves gay” as you say you have done. Bravo to you.
Gey people don’t hurt people by being gay, and they don’t hurt people by marrying eachother.
But the big point there is not that they are gay people, that they are people. I am horrified that because so many people find homosexuality repulsive that they would pass laws saying that a group of people can’t do something the majority can do. It disgusts me.
As a gay friend of mine once said “We have every right to get married. We have every right to be just as miserable as straight people”.

By: !kca

!kca — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:57:29 +0000

See my post above.
.
Although I really think you have some issues towards gay people. Comparing them to terrorists? They’re IRrational crazies?

By: !kca

!kca — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:32:34 +0000

“What about “I am not gay, and I am not going to choose to be gay because then I will be targeted for hate (and because I’m not gay)”? That’s not an appeal to force, it’s an appeal to sensibility. ”
–That is the exact definition of an appeal to force fallacy.
.
“Or “I am gay so I will be gay and damn what other people think of me”? That’s not an appeal to force either, it’s how life should be.”
–You’re changing the topic of the conversation. (By the way, I agree with this statement.)
.
“when was it in your life that you made this big huge monumental choice? Or did it just happen that you came out attracted to whoever you ended up attracted to? If you can’t remember MAKING that choice, then there’s a distinct possibility that it wasn’t actually a CHOICE.”
–Actually, I very clearly remember the moment I made the choice to be gay. I didn’t understand what the big problem was, so I started doing research. First I went to the university library to find any sort of physical or psychological dangers that might’ve been inherent in homosexuality. Guess what? There were none.
Then I started talking to my friends, both straight & gay, & no one could come up with any reason not to be gay.
I started wondering if you could take a straight person & make him gay. The only person I could use in such an experiment was myself. It literally took years of effort, but the end result: a 100% homosexual individual.
.
Point is, sexuality isn’t black & white. It’s not a switch between gay & straight. Sexuality is a range & (some) people can move along those degrees.
.
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN IMMUTABLE INBORN TRAIT OR A LIFESTYLE CHOICE, HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS THAT EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING ENJOYS, BECAUSE INBORN TRAITS (PRECIDENTED BY RACE) & LIFESTYLE CHOICES (PRECIDENTED BY RELIGION) ARE REASONS TO PROTECT A MINORITY GROUP.

By: Confoozled

Confoozled — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:59:44 +0000

Angie is near the top of both mine and my partner’s “lists.” (Actually, Lara Croft more so than Angie. We’ll break all the rules for Lara.)

By: charro

charro — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:49:47 +0000

Perhaps you would restate it that way, but you are completely misconstruing this.
What about “I am not gay, and I am not going to choose to be gay because then I will be targeted for hate (and because I’m not gay)”? That’s not an appeal to force, it’s an appeal to sensibility. I am not going to choose to be something I’m not, followed by, choosing to be someone I am not will lead people to hate me.
Or “I am gay so I will be gay and damn what other people think of me”? That’s not an appeal to force either, it’s how life should be. I am who I am and if the world doesn’t like it they can shove it up their ass.
There’s a difference between saying being gay is a choice and believing people say “I choose to be gay”; and understanding that gay is who someone is and they say “I choose to accept I am who I am (gay) and if others don’t that’s their loss”. Any person who is not gay, rational and in their right mind, would not say “I want to be gay” because ANY rational sane person would not say “I want to be something I’m not” ESPECIALLY when there are such stupid people out there doing stupid things. Why would someone pretend to be someone they are not knowing that people would hate them for it? It’s not in the human psychological makeup.
It’s not like Christmas “Dear Santa, Please make me gay this year”, it’s just who someone is.
*And I’m not talking about things like “I am not a doctor but would like to be one”. But those are too many fine points to argue.

By: charro

charro — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:36:47 +0000

Clearly, you did not read what I wrote. At all. Gay is not the same as being a terrorist. Not at all. Choosing to be gay is not an option. Choosing to be a terrorist is. Now, choosing to act on being gay, that’s where the choice comes in (unfortunately.. it shouldn’t have to be that because there shouldn’t have to be a choice to reveal to the world what your true identity is). let me put it in a way you don’t seem to understand…. GAY IS NOT A CHOICE. My point, which clearly was lost on you, was that (rational) people do not wake up one day and say “I want to be gay”, much in the same way (rational) people don’t wake up and say “I want to be a terrorist”. PEOPLE ARE GAY. IT IS NOT A CHOICE. AND IT IS NOT LIKE BEING A TERRORIST. Perhaps you should make sure you fully comprehend something before you twist it around.
Also, explain the “Jewish Race” to all the Polish Jews. Even someone in the “Jewish Race” can decide to be christian, or muslim or any other of the hundreds of religions on the planet. Ancestry does not dictate one’s path.
I never implied violence at all, I said “hate”. Hate does not always beget violence, that’s something you inferred based on your own experiences. The part where I mentioned violence was a direct quote I have heard, many times, from gay people that I know. If you don’t agree with THEIR quote, that’s great, but I never implied, explicitly or not, that gays beget violence. There is no presupposition there at all. They are however, the target of violence. Matthew Shephard comes to mind. The origin of the violence is a REACTION to people being gay. Violence also comes as a reaction to many many other things. The reaction of bigoted morons who think their morals and values need to be imposed on the entire world, violently and murderously if necessary.
Though, I do agree there are places in the world where they are accepted and not the subject of violence and hate. California and Arizona happen to be some of those places, just not the majority of the voters. Gay is becoming much more accepted and hopefully one day it won’t be the target of such bigotry and ignorance.
Religion, race, I see gay more as a culture. That’s just my personal viewpoint. But whatever it’s viewed as they have the same rights everyone else does. If a straight person has the right to get married, so should a gay person. There should be no distinction. A person is a person.
Also, I don’t think even in a loving environment, someone would “choose” to be gay. Open much more to experimentation for sure, even to the point of having sexual relations with someone of the same sex. But if you are not attracted to, and do not get turned on by the same sex, you just simply can’t be gay. It’s the same as gay people “choosing” to be straight. They live a lie and tend to be miserable. I don’t think there is anything at all wrong with being gay, and being open about it. You’re right, there is no reason not to be gay, even if you are targeted for hate. Plenty of other groups are as well. I’m talking about choice. You cannot choose to be something you are not, that just makes you a phony and a liar, and tends to destroy you.

By: Judas's Carry Out

Judas's Carry Out — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:08:16 +0000

THis is balls.

A bigot is intolerant of other people’s existence. Noone is entitled to an opinion. Any view can be freely expressed without fear of violent retribution, but it is completely open to counter-argument. you must be willing to defend it with logical argument, if it doesn’t hold true then your “opinion” was worthless to begin with, if it holds true then you are entitled to call it a theory or something or more worth. “opinion” is the absolute bottom rung of the ladder of ideas. Grow a pair and stop looking for the UN to deploy on your behalf anytime your ideas are challenged.

By: minerva146

minerva146 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:19:33 +0000

They gave us the choice to opt out by writing a note of decline to the priest or something I think. We had to write whatever our intent was about going through with it? I only got confirmed because I was afraid I’d upset my parents if I didn’t.

By: Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:15:28 +0000

They did… they get off on it… that’s what mobs are like…

By: Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:14:30 +0000

Holding that a group is less eligible for equal rights based on arbitrary classification is ‘bigotry’… I was just pointing it out… you’re completely entitled to evince it, and I’m equally entitled to point out that I think you’re a bigot… which I still do.

I treat every one as an equal until they prove me wrong.

I think you’ve proved me wrong… feel free to take that in any direction you like, but we both know what I mean…

By: Kit

Kit — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:35:18 +0000

What a joke. You are arguing that somehow nature is always right over a computer. Want nature? Go live in a cave.

By: Yeee

Yeee — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:50:55 +0000

And good lord, does it ever feel FANTASTIC when that g-spot is… ya know..

By: aylagriffin

aylagriffin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:41:17 +0000

The easy way to explain all of this to the “it’s a choice” people is as such. If picking your sexual orientation is a choice, then choosing to like people of the opposite sex must have been a pretty big choice in your life. I mean… It really seems to dictate the way the rest of your life is going to go. Option 1. Heterosexual: Accepted by governments and religions everywhere. Option 2. Homosexual: Not as widely accepted by governments or religions. Or just plain people for that matter…. So when was it in your life that you made this big huge monumental choice? Or did it just happen that you came out attracted to whoever you ended up attracted to? If you can’t remember MAKING that choice, then there’s a distinct possibility that it wasn’t actually a CHOICE.

Also… My favorite and the most childish argument: If being gay is a choice, then go be gay. I mean really. Go try it and try to enjoy it. OH wait… you can’t bring yourself to enjoy it? You’re probably not ABLE to CHOOSE to be gay. Lame!

By: bluejade

bluejade — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:40:32 +0000

To gay people: I apologize. I am ashamed Prop 8 passed. Someday things will be equal. Please forgive the ones who voted for this amendment, they know not what they do.

By: herb

herb — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:47:04 +0000

Michael Jackson?

By: froofrou

froofrou — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:45:11 +0000

Am I wrong that Jewish is a race as well as a religion? You can’t convert from being a particular race. I’d like to see a black man convert to being white