I can't add much to a thorough and well-thought article.

This is to let you know that I have read it, and appreciated it.  :)

Thanks Apollo, your approval means a lot :)

The point that kept reappearing in your article was that of hurting gay and lesbian people.

That is quite accurate.  When there exists an organized threat to use the law to hurt people, it is very understandable for the people who are threatened with harm to become very angry and defensive.  (I'm not saying you are; it is a general observation.)

It has taken many years of practice and self-discipline, but I consider it an ethical obligation to make an excruciating effort to see the world through another's eyes before I dare to regard him or her a bad person.  Bad people do exist, but they are, fortunately, not as common as we might think.

I do not believe that all or even most supporters of Prop 8 have conscious intent to hurt people.  However, it is the presence of calm and personal voices like yours that, one by one, can help people realize that voting for such a thing does hurt people for little good reason.

One of the most unforgettable personal words that I have read on the issue were written by Whitney, Wlwedd.  The word that she used was "degrading."

That is quite what it is to have one's deepest and dearest parts of their personal lives thrown out to the mercy of mob rule: degrading.

I could do no such thing to deeply personal aspects of Marylee Shrider's life.  The sooner that more people realize what votes like these do to lives like yours, the better.

At the end of the very long post above, the writer opines that many gays are driven to suicide.  Is the defeat of Proposition 8 going to lessen the pressure to commit suicide ? 

I have lost too many gay friends to suicide, because of the views religion instills upon them, driving them to the conclusion that even god has turned his back on them.

Gays commit suicide because of internal demons, not external ones. They are no more a victim than anyone else who decides to take themselves out.

Extremely well said SpartanofAuburn. Truly worthy of publication. You have echoed my thoughts exactly, but have managed to express them in a manner and form far better than I could ever do. Bravo.

This is yet another example of how those who oppose gay marriage are being portrayed as people who are closed-minded, bigoted and hateful. 

Once again, the myth that loving people who are different than ourselves means you must accept and condone everything that comes along is being fed to people and a few are eating it up. 

Love gay people, but don't be shamed into abandoning your true beliefs about gay marriage if you happen to be against it. 

When you vote, if you vote, don't be swayed by those who portray advocates of traditionally-defined marriage as haters and bigots.

Some may be haters and bigots.  Others may sincerely love gay people, but may simply have beliefs, principles and ideals that are inconsistent with the idea of gay marriage. 

To the wonderful humane responses of acta and teebo... 

They may kill themselves of their own accord and choice, but those demons are not theirs to fault. Churches and politicians and our "leaders" often scream to us about how immoral we are. Telling a person they are "full of the devil" or that "god wants them to die" on a daily basis has a PROFOUND impact on a person. If gay people were told they were fine the way they were , then yes, I am sure it would have a dramatic impact on how they viewed themselves. Then again, that is just common sense, it shouldn't need explaining. If and when you have children, god forbid they ever have to endure an entire group of people condemned them to hell, publicly. Maybe its easier to hand them a knife and tell them to get over it.

As for Blognroll, I am sorry that this seems to be so difficult for you to understand. This is not a policy debate or a matter of opinion about economic interests. You are an American FIRST and a religious/private citizen second. I enjoy that you have convinced yourself that this is a matter of "opinion', but sadly you are  incorrect.

As an America it is your job to uphold the values and laws of the constitution and the law of the land. Your personal views on sexuality do not matter in the eyes of another persons equality. So while I am sure this seems to be a simple matter of "I just dont care for gays, but I am not a bad guy."... I am sorry, it is not that simple. You do not have to agree or approve of my lifestyle, but by choosing to deny me a civil right, you are in fact being anything but an American. This proposal is not about whether or not someone approves of gay people, but merely that people MUST respect the constitution and a persons personal civil liberties. That is close minded and the process one reaches to come to such a conclusion is an act of bigotry.

The fact that we are even having to discuss something, so ingrained into the American legal system, is a telling sign of the problems this country has. So whatever your opinion on this subject may be Blog, you do not have the right to deny someone a civil right. Even more so to try and simplify this as "just a difference of opinion."

We need people to read the constitution and the bill of rights. Head over to the U.N. and look at the statements of human equality that the USA authored and signed 50 years ago. We took an oath to treat ALL people fairly, including gays and lesbians. People need to educate themselves and be aware of their actions. I refuse to coddle people who are creating intolerance by quietly saying "well i guess we disagree that all people are equal, most people are, just not fags."

Intelligence and reason must rise above personal feelings, when the rights of others are at stake.

Apollo, thank you very much for your kind words. I would have to say I agree that such things can make people angry, myself included. I am very angry about having to deal with this notion of equality and even more so angry and saddened that daily I have to coax gay men and women from the verge of suicide because of the feelings these religions instill in them.

I do not think most of these people wish to hurt gays or lesbians, but you are right that they need to understand that they are.

H8Cloz, I am glad my words can be of help and have landed on understanding ears.

If you give those who disagree with you a chance, you might find that most of them, too, have "understanding ears," and are capable of expressing kindness---kindness towards all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Fellow Americans can accept and love one another without agreeing on every single issue. 

We disagree on the interpretation of the constitution, and we disagree on what marriage is, and should be.  But, as the big 70's hit by Dave Mason goes, "There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy.  There's only you and me and we just disagree."  

There is no place to be disagreeing on the constitution unless you have not read it my friend. The article clearly states that ALL people deserve EQUAL protection under the law. I am more than willing to hear your words on the subject of homosexuality, but when it comes to citizen rights, there is no room for discussion. You are either in favor of the united states and her constitution or you are not.

We are not arguing the exact color of a hue here,  the article CLEARLY states what it expects of the government. The same with the U.N article on human treatment and equality. The California constitution ALSO clearly states that no special class of citizen may be denied a right that is granted to other people. The judges, who were mostly republican conservatives came to the same decision.

They didn't reach this choice because they were "activists" or "liberals". They came to this decisions because they read the constitution and saw that it clearly stated other than what was being held in law.

I never stated that people on the other side were not capable of compassion, but how compassionate is it for someone to use their religious faith to step where it does not belong and deny me a right? I mean you no offense, but it boggles my mind that this is where we are as a nation. There is no ambiguity in the constitution.... its more solid and factual than any religious doctrine or book. If people spent half the time they spend trying to clarify the Constitution on their own religious beliefs, its hard to assume there would be any religions left in the world.

I would ask you to do an indepth study of marriage throughout human history and you will find a vast difference to what is being preached as "fact" by those in favor of prop 8. In the middle ages homosexuals were allowed to be married, polygamy was rampant. The royal familes of the world consorted in incest and the church had no hand in marriage until 1200 a.d.

Marriage in the US is not a bond between man and woman, it is a bond between two consenting adults who are entering into a legal contract. If religion had any control in marriage could atheists marry? Why does the church not give out marriage licences? They dont, because it is a civil institute and the constitution clearly states its stance on such things.

Logic must always win against any attempt to circumvent the law, to create two Americas. Your drinking fountain is equally as available to me and I would like a bit of water.

Thank you very much for input on this subject, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Liberals only believe in free speech it they're the ones making the speech.  They don't believe others have the right to disagree or to disapprove of things that are against their belief system.  They'll tell you that we're cramming things down their throats that have been in place in this country for hundreds of years and deny that by taking those things away, they're denying others of THEIR rights.

They want everyone to change to fit their belief system (if any) and throw away ideals that some of us have lived with all our lives.  I do NOT have to accept gay marriage and I'm called a bigot because of my belief.  I say all liberals are bigots because they want to deny me the right to feel the way I feel without harassment or denigrating me.

I accept that gays are who they are and it's not a choice for them.  Their lifestyle is but not their orientation.  We all have choices in how we live, I'm not separating any of us on that basis.  My views are much more tolerant of gays than liberals are of people with my belief system.

Having rambled on, I further realize that this is an exercise in futility.  Libs don't want to talk, they want to protest, insult, scream and throw stones.  I'm used to it on here.  In fact, I'm so used to it now that half the time I don't even read responses to my posts.   I'm quite sure one of you will have a smart ass comment about that too.

Adam mentioned the situation with the blog is causing them to lose bloggers.  Don't kid yourself.  Look around at the ones who are no longer vocal and ask yourself is it the blogs fault or are they sick of the hatefullness spewed on here every time a conservative posts?

Nancy, please do not lump ALL liberals into your definition.  I do not cram my lifestyle down anyone's throat, I respect other's opinions (most of the time), and firmly believe in everyone's freedom of speech. 

You're right Apollo.  I apopogize for including all liberals in my comment.  Just most of them.  You've read the comments on here and this site isn't exclusive.

You make some very good points, Nancy.  We're not going to change their minds, but we don't have to sit here and swallow all of the labels and all of the other BS they try to throw at us.

Not all liberals are the same, it's true.  We have to avoid labeling them too if we don't want them assuming we're all a bunch of constitution-murdering, hate-mongering bigots. Not all are as forceful in expressing their views, or as condescending, or as manipulative as Spartan seems to be. 

Blog, thank you for your opinions, I think we are finished here. I thank you for your time, but I was never manipulative in the things I said to you. I am sorry that you find the massive amounts of evidence to be manipulative, but I can not hold a conversation with someone who is more worried about labels than about the topic at hand.

If you had no logical argument to my response then you should have said so, its the adult thing to do.

Terms like liberal and conservative are for people who like to lump people in a category so they can more easily digest them. I am sorry that my entire logical and heartfelt response to Mrs shrider's letter was seen as simply "liberal" and "cramming my views down your throat." when it was obviously a response to a letter that was in contradiction to the constitution.

Nancy I have spent less than a week on this blog and every post you have written has been condescending, negative and constantly complaining about being a victim. No one is asking you to accept homosexuality, I could care less of what you think of me as a person or my "lifestyle". What people are discussing is that you do not have the right to remove rights from another person, because you have a misinformed view of marriage or American history. I understand that you come from an older generation and things were done differently then, but this is 2008 and in your day there was rampant homophobia, racism and sexism. People are trying to remove that from the system and their acts are not liberal or conservative, they are just trying to make sure all people are treated equally.

Both you and Blog need to stop playing the victims and make your points. If we don't agree, grab you chins and move on. I grew up in conservative Bakersfield and if I can handle that on a daily basis, I am sure you can handle this blog. We disagree, there is no harm in accepting that. However, its obvious you didn't read my response to her letter, otherwise you would have no reason to pull the "liberal" crap out of the hat right away. I think we are all adults enough to discuss facts and logic, without resorting to this childish nonsense.

For the record, I am not liberal or conservative, I am myself and my views are many. Only in America could a civil rights issue be considered "liberal" and only in America could someone standing in the way of that right complain that their right to be intolerant was being trumped.

If you want to discuss ISSUES, LOGIC and actual Fact, then please continue the conversation. If, however, we are going to complain that there are more "liberals" on this blog than you care for, I suggest you simply find a new blog to read or accept that we are allowed to dissent with your opinion. Afterall, our dissent with your views does nothing to strip your rights, so what is the real issue here?

It is clear that Marylee Schrider has no understanding, whatsoever, of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which has been the law in California for many years.  The operative language with respect to businesses is:

 "All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishment of every kind whatsoever."

The courts have held, for many years, that the operative words are "free and

That is a very logical and well thought addition.

Nancy, the comment that you attributed to me was written by Nine18kk.  :)

In my case, this is not likely to affect me with respect to marriage, as I am mostly heterosexual, with a bisexual factor that only surfaces under the right circumstances.

It instead affects my religious liberty.  I am not currently in the position to legally solemnize marriages, but if I chose to do so in the future (and this is possible), it is degrading to me to be expected to subordinate my Wiccan concept of marriage to someone else's vote. 

If marriage is a sacred rite, as it is to me, and if religious freedom is legally protected, and it is, then no vote can rightfully and lawfully tell me what my rites must represent and discriminate against my solemnizations if they do not comport with some majority's idea of sanctity.

You insist on using that condescending tone with us, Spartan, dismissing our views as illogical, and acting like only your opinion is worthy of consideration, and that you alone represent the voice of logic.  That's a form of arrogance and it blinds you from being able to look at things from the point of view of others. 

That's unfortunate because it only weakens your argument and makes it so that real debate with you, is not possible.  This is not about rights, it is about a definition of an established institution, the institution of marriage.  Just call it something else.  The term "marriage" is already taken by heterosexual couples. 

If you invented a new car, would you want to call it a Ford, or would you want to call it something else, something more original, and something capturing the uniqueness of your own design as separate from other designs? 

I would suggest something like "garriage."  The "arriage" part would suggest that the ceremony and the rights that go with it share elements in common with traditional marriage, and the "g" would indicate that it is not a heterosexual union, but a gay union, and, as such, a unique one. 

"A woman from the audience illustrated the point when she stood at the microphone and angrily recounted the discrimination she’d recently suffered in a local emergency room when hospital staff wouldn’t allow her child's “other mother” to join her at his bedside.

“It was because we’re gay,” she shouted, near tears.

Odd. My husband and I have taken our injury-prone son to the emergency room no fewer than 10 times in the past 20 years. Each time, without exception, one of us was asked to remain in the waiting area, while the other stayed with our son."

Odd~ thank the stars I have had this happen only twice~ both times my husband and I were allowed to sit,quietly watching(and crying with the nurses and doctors) as my son came firmly into this world and passed out of it. Both times several professionals commended me and my husband for "being there", in these, life's most important moments.They all said they would do the same.I read this and just had to add my own personal experience~ diametrically opposed to Ms. Shriders,as it so often is.

Spartan~ what can I say? Beautifully written,thoughtful and you have managed to do something very few have~ changed my mind!

"This is not a policy debate or a matter of opinion about economic interests. You are an American FIRST and a religious/private citizen second. I enjoy that you have convinced yourself that this is a matter of "opinion', but sadly you are  incorrect."

I stand corrected,for in this you are exactly right.We are nation of laws,it is way beyond time we behave as such.

Sage, what about your mind has changed?

I thought you were always against Prop 8.

Why are thoughtful, articulate and intelligent people so often considered arrogant or condescending?

Either I'm doing something wrong, or I'm neither articulate nor intelligent.  ;)

Apollo~ I am. What has changed is that I thought this a question of "opinion"~ but we are a nation of laws~...all men created equal" . Spartan said it best~an American first,a private citizen second.Sorry for the confusion.

I also wonder why intelligence and articulate thought is seen as arrogance? I just get called "think your better than everybody else!" LOL

drilinliftcrude~ You are clearly very interested in the gay community~ such a fountain of knowledge. Perhaps it is time for some soul searching?

LOL~ soul searching as a "attack" and a compliment on your amount of knowledge??? Okay. Now your link might been seen as such,but i tried to think better of you~ that won't happen again.

"A nation of laws".  Yes sage, we are. If it does not threaten the life, liberty or property of another, there should not be a law against it, whatever it is. But, in this case, it's a proposition. So it's up to the people, as it should be. We'll see what they decide, then watch the courts "change" their minds.

That's the funny thing about "propositions"~ they can often be directly opposed to the Constitution and still voted for or approved by the majority~ see slavery,Jim Crow laws,etc. That is what we ask judges to do in these case's~ adjudicate.

Again I apologize, got the names mixed up for some unknown reason.  Sorry ladies.

Just a quick comment on the arrogance issue.  The arrogance comes from the "tone" and how the "thought" is presented not always the content.  I know many intelligent peope with whom I disagree but they are able to "intelligently" get their point across without sounding arrogant. 

When people politely steam roller over others comments or objections, it may be polite but it's still steam rollering.   (my word)

Marylee's latest is even more than usual a steaming crock.

She's upset that she won't be able to act on her bigotry if Prop 8 doesn't pass.  The KKK similarly didn't like the Civil Rights Act.  Boo freaking hoo.

The bigoted photographers in Arizona belong to a sect which worships George Eastman, perhaps?  Or were they trying to discriminate in their public business solely because they were biased against "that type" of customer? A business that, no doubt, relies on a city business license.

The bigoted doctors at the fertility clinic were operating under a license from their church?  Or were they trying to discriminate in their business even though they rely on state licensure which is supposed to assure equal treatment for all?

And remember, in neither case was same-sex marriage an issue.  They were discrimination cases, pure and simple.

In doubt over whether you're a bigot, MaryLee?  Here's a handy rule of thumb:  Substitute the word "Christians" for the word "gays" and see if you still support the policy.

"I respect the right of Christians to exist--but they shouldn't be allowed to marry."

"I respect the right of Christians to exist--but I reserve the right to deny them service at my lunch counter. "

In 1996 I voted for the first time. Fresh out of highschool government and raised in a Republican and pretty Conservative Christian household, I voted for Dole. I believed in the ideal of the Republican party that I learned in my government class. Perhaps I only paid attention to the libertarian side of things and didn't take not of the rest. Unfortunately, my idealistic view of the Republican party didn't match up to what the party was and is today. For a long time, I thought I was Republican... I thought I agreed with their views. Then, I started reading and become educated. I started spending time in situations with diverse people. I realized that the Republican worldview is a scared and paranoid one. I realized that I was neither of those things. It's interesting how an education and having exposure to diverse ideas can impact one's attitudes.

Recently, I read a study from the 1970s about sex education in college classes. This was a controversial issue back then, because conservatives were concerned that this knowledge would change behaviors, and the kids would become more sexually active, etc. Didn't happen, however, it did change their attitudes concerning sex. They weren't scared of it and they tolerated others more. Interesting, education impacts attitudes and beliefs, but not really behaviors. People are going to do what they are going to do regardless of learning new things. Although sexual behavior didn't change, voting behavior might... that's what the Republican's must be so concerned about. Don't educate people, because the more educated they become the less conservative they become. Becoming less conservative seems also to be correlated with increased tolerance. It certainly happened in my case, but I am only an n of 1.

In my own research, I have found that people holding strong beliefs are actually unable to comprehend (take-in and reason through) information that conflicts with those strongly-held beliefs. This is a major issue when we talk about a two party government with each side working for themselves. The parties need to work together and see how their ideas fuse.

Another study I read indicated that conservatives view past liberal policies as good things (Things that should've been done), while conservatives at the time were strongly against those policies. Interestingly, liberals seemed to be always against conservative polices. So, over time conservatives become more educated about the policy (because it is in effect - like the new deal and intergration) and more exposed to its ramifications. They become more accepting of it.

Right now these conservatives have very strong beliefs, They are huddled in their fear and paranoia. They should be trying to educate themselves as to why these citizens feel they need to have equal rights as them and talking with and getting to know these people. One can be tolerant of others (tolerant meaning a lack of discrimination, which is a behavior influenced by one's attitudes or prejudice) and still be prejudiced or hold beliefs that do not condone someone else's behaviors. It is not necessary to be accepting of homosexuals to realize that 8 is wrong, to realize that discrimination is wrong. When the conservatives can break out of that fear and paranoia, they will see that american homosexuals are US citizens first and ALL US Citizens are equal under the law. By saying that people are equal, you are not accepting their lifestyle, you are just not acting on your beliefs. Remember, What would Jesus do?

Because I was raised in a Conservative Christian environment, I will tell you exactly what I believe Jesus would do! In church I was told that Jesus brought forth a new covenant to the Christians. This convenant surplanted the previous convenant with the Jews. Jesus said two things that are the most important things, and basically the biggest change from Judaism to Christianity. Instead of many laws, Christians must believe in one god and treat their neighbors as themselves. Remember, Jesus was ridiculed for preaching to prostitutes, people who were concerned lowly. Jesus' message is not one of condemnation, but of tolerance. He didn't say make others like you, he said treat them like you want to be treated. If you want Marriage taken away from you, then take it away from people who want Marriage for themselves. For a Christian, volating Jesus' commandment is a sin, so all those voting on 8 are sinners! For non-christians, this probably doesn't matter, but Jesus would vote no on 8!

 You have got to be kidding. The study you read was from the 70's, try reading something from the 50's & early 60's and comparing how many unwanted pregnancies there were in the 70's and beyond up to and including today. In the the 50's & early  '60's we were not "afraid" of sex, it was respected. Very few girls got pregnant outside of marriage when I was in HS, compared to today where the HS's now have DAY CARE for the new unwed mommies. Your tax dollars at work. If a girl got pregnant in HS she was "sent away" to "Aunt Susie's". Maybe you all think that is wrong, but a least the girl in question did not flaunt her indiscretions, now it seems to be  badge of honor.

When the educational system opened the flood gates of everybody needs to know everything - all hell broke loose.  It did change behaviors, kids did become more sexually active. How do you explain all the teens that are pregnant and on welfare?

Recently, I read a study from the 1970s about sex education in college classes. This was a controversial issue back then, because conservatives were concerned that this knowledge would change behaviors, and the kids would become more sexually active, etc. Didn't happen, however, it did change their attitudes concerning sex. They weren't scared of it and they tolerated others more. Interesting, education impacts attitudes and beliefs, but not really behaviors.

I am glad that I have seen so many intelligent responses. I deleted two people's comments because they strayed from the topic and I will continue to do so. If you don't have any logical argument to back up your claim beside "Well.... yeah... you may be smarter than me and... well I cant think of anything to respond with because you proved me wrong... um.. your arrogant and condescending!"...I will delete the comment. Alos anything that goes into nonsesne about butt sex or your personal obsession with how I screw, will also be removed. The moment I started posting pictures of me naked, we can talk about my sex life, until then, lets leave it to the constitution.

So many of you have some great responses, thank you Sage for understand my point of view. I am glad my words were met with understanding. I personally never take anyone seriously when they tell me I have a "tone" either, I do the same thing you do and just think to myself, "Ahh I guess I am too smart". Apollo, the more and more I read your responses, the more respect I have for you.

As for the "flood gate" theory. I never learned about sex in school more than how to put a condom on. I think we need to place some blame on the fact that the media is constantly cramming sexuality down the throat of younger children and placing it on every television show. Children don't go out and have sex because they "learned gay people were just as normal as the rest of us." People have sex because they want to and because they see everyone else doing it. These are just a FEW reasons why this happens. We all respond and act differently to things in different ways. The majority of teenagers who do end up pregnant are ones that usually know very little about contraception and think "pulling out" is an effective tool against pregnancy. It has been easily argued that the LACK of sexual education taught to children is what has caused this problem, not because they saw a boob.

Ignorance is the problem here, not an over abundance of education. Seriously, when was the last time you spoke to an average high school student? Most are dumb as a brick and couldn't pick out Spain on a map if you paid them.

SPARTAN:  Well, I didn't even know what a condom was until I was 18!!!!! All I knew was a guy could get you preggers and/or give you diseases and I was sure as hell not up for either one!! That is what I learned in HS!  Despite the lack of knowledge or because of it, I did not allow any guy to put his hands where I felt they did not belong!!! I think it also has to do with self respect.

People have sex because they want to and because they see everyone else doing it.  BINGO! I also feel, as you do, that the media and TV have had a lot to do with the current situation and blames the parents for not teaching their children self respect and respect for others.

Many times, less is more :-)

"Apollo, the more and more I read your responses, the more respect I have for you."

Spartan, you gained my respect in a very short time.  It is not only the rationality and calmness of your arguments and restraint from excessive anger; it's the way that you readily respond to the human sides of others.

If there is any one criterion, any one test, that decides whether or not I want to have anything to do with a person, it is how they respond to kindnesses that are offered to them.

A human being with a soul responds to kindness.  An empty skeleton wouldn't know kindness if it pulled him out of a fire.

In the 60's anyone who was not heterosexual was frowned upon at best and had the sh** beat out of them at worst. Most, of course, would not let on what their preference was. There were the few who are now called "flamers" who found it difficult to control their speech and/or actions. I was in theater arts with 4 and we were best friends.  We actually served each others' purposes! I hated dating guys who wanted only to "conquer" the maiden lady and my friends wanted to appear "normal"! Soooo, I would "date" my flamer friends and didn't get bothered with "Russian hands and Roman fingers" and everybody thought my "guys" were straight!

I also do not care who marries whom. It doesn't interfere with my lifestyle, it does not degrade the marriage of man/woman. I also fee that doctors, ministers, etc., are not "public servants" they are in business like the plumber, electrician, etc. Therefore, they do have the right to refuse service. Restaurants can refuse service to people not wearing shoes or shirts, how is that any different? All that said, I do not feel anyone who is turned away by said doctors or ministers has the right to sue them. If you want to be married then the same rules apply to all. If a doctor tells me he doesn't want me as a patient because I believe as Apollo Dawn does, then that is his/her prerogative, and that is business. One doesn't have to sue to "get even" if that is what you want. Word of mouth is more deadly then a newspaper ad!!! You simply tell your friends, do not go to that doctor!!

AD:  Well said!!!!!  I love the skeleton reference!! If I offer a helping hand and the help is taken then my hand is slapped................that is the end of that.  I give everybody equal opportunity to stab me................once.

SPAM CODE:  U OVED

Agreed witters. I am a very openly sexual person in that I am not ashamed or uncomfortable about sex, but even I think that sometimes its just way too much on billboards and TV. That being said, I also feel that America as a whole are very sexually repressed, case in point is the entire Janet Jackson nipple thing. Parents complained that their children were damaged because they saw a nipple, but had no objection to their children watching scantily clad woman bouncing around and screaming cheers, while being objectified as objects. I think the message is that it is all in the intention.

I think we all need to learn to respect and love one another and we all need to understand how our bodies work. I would however, argue that intolerant people should not be tolerated and that their fallacy in logic be countered with facts and wisdom. We all need to learn to respect the right of people to have a different opinion about a myriad of things, but if those opinions hurt other people, they need to be educated so that they understand their consequences.

I love that line about roman hands ha ha, it made me laugh. You have a very fun way of wording your thoughts witter :)
 

Apollo, once again, thank you. It really gives me even more reason to believe that people are, by nature, good. While I tend to get overly emotional and sarcastic with my responses (which is just my nature) I try never to attack people, but their argument's instead. Then again, sometimes "Your just an uneducated twit" seems to work out just fine.

I will be at the Pride festival today and if any of you are there and see me, please feel free to say hi. I was unaware Bakersfield had pride until Whitney told me about it, so woo hoo!

I know why they were deleted and you do to .I believe coward is a personal attack.

Not only that, but there was no arguemnt, beside talking about butt sex. If you want to see me naked good sir, all you need to do is ask. There is no need to use romantic words like coward, I am pretty easy. (Wink) Maverick!

Spam Code: Naked

I also found this earlier today and its a pretty interesting video.

For the people out there that assume all gay parents will make bad parents...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/...

People make bad parents, it doesn't matter your sexuality. Your intelligence, compassion and understanding are the quality factors when becoming a good parent.

Buffoo, I think dril's talking to *YOU* there...

He's following in the footsteps of the buffonish one.

You telling more lies RF?