the last part yes
but south africa has a horrific reputation around the world
and seeing as your from cape town i apologise for any offence caused
everyone of the so reformed African nations are just as bad they ever where
the western world is also to blame for doing sweet f*** all do prevent this
Im leaving this horrible county when im 20 cause i cant get a job due to the black empowerment program
i wouldent recomend the UK
we give jobs to the foreigners that settle for whats bascially baordering on the pooverty line
Lone Sanin, wowzabunny and Graham Aker, please stop hijacking the thread.
To answer someone's question, I'm a lesbian. I know several other people here who are also gay.
I think it's about time another state legalizes gay marriage. Come on Cali! =O
San Francisco is really the only strong gay area in California. I've lived all over California and the lower you go, the less accepting of gays we are.Quote:
And i definitely say give Cali some time, it has to happen.
I really thought that this thread would go in Eris" list of epic threads but I was wrong. Wow, 300 posts! Kishiro? Marudashi? Kaitou??
Who will close it? It feels like Clue.
Shhhhhhhhh Di0! xD
Actually, the areas that opposed Prop 8 were mostly the coastal areas (with the exception of one area), and the farther inland you go the more and more that changes.
The progression of the nation as a whole legalizing it won't happen instantly. It probably won't be until the next round of state elections that another group of states legalizes it.
Really? Is that possible? So the people from CA can just go over to Iowa and married, then return back to CA?Quote:
now all them gays that wanted to get married can go away from Cal. and go live in IOWA!
LOL GAY FARMERS! raising gay animals and same sex Plants..
PS: IOWA sucks!
Is it my speech patterns? If so, I can try to change them up a bit.
I missed that somehow, though I can't see how I did it. Sorry.Quote:
Well, you said "By the way, I really liked the OP's insinuation that the Midwest is...", which I assume is directed at me because, well, I am the OPer.
I realize Jar Jar is an annoying idiot, so my statement may have been unclear given my lack of explanation. The JJBS does not mean I'm calling you an idiot on par with the Gungan in question, but that rather you believe socially acceptable stereotypes. It comes from the fact that to believe JarJar was a racist caricature, one would already have to hold to racist sterotypes, since JarJar looks more like a big newt than anything else. The people that got all worried saw a lazy fool and immediately associated those traits with a black man. Racism was involved, by necessity.Quote:
And thank you for the information, I'll be sure not to have Jar Jar Binks Syndrome in the future.
Similarly, in order to be surprised that a Midwestern state legalized gay marriage one would already have to believe, for whatever reason, that they weren't likely to do so in the first place. Most reasons to believe that that I've heard out and about away from my monitor have been ignorant.
I'm sorry if my meaning was unclear before. I do that a lot.
(Do you have an issue with the term "doodoo?" Why is it in quotes? Just wondering...)Quote:
I wasn't taking a big "doodoo" on the midwest. I congratulated them and called shame on Cali. So I pretty much did the opposite of this.
Ah, but you must have already thought little of their decency and fairness to be surprised they passed it before noble California, so, from certain perspectives, you did take a dump on it, even if you meant well. It's analogous, though much more socially acceptable, to congratulating a black student who's good at math by saying you can't believe he got a higher score on the test than the Asian kid up at the front.
If, instead, you had merely commented that it's a good step, and it is, then I would not be able to say what I have said.
I never said everyone (at least I don't think I did) had JJBS, but rather said I'd make fewer assumptions next time 'round, since some seem to have it. What's more is people typically don't realize they have it, given their often decent intentions. In fact, though, there are several posters who have demonstrated before that they were not afflicted with JJBS, though I don't know off the top of my head which are in this thread.Quote:
Aren't you now stereotyping everyone on this forum as infected with said Jar Jar Binks Syndrome?
Touche- I shall concede you that point. You seemed pretty hostile, though, even if it wasn't intended. I can get too involved, too, and that doesn't help.Quote:
When did I say I didn't want dissenters or elaboration? And didn't my last post ASK you for more information? Did I not make a post that merely said "Elaborate" to someone else (I forgot who)? Stop being a jerk.
Well, I challenged a stereotype I feel is evidently held, even if unwittingly, and was called condescending, and "arse," and a big bully or something. Either it was jumpy or I was far less intelligible than I thought, which is a distinct possibility. Sorry it's been so difficult communicating with me, either way.Quote:
It would be a large stretch to consider my last post "jumpy".
If true, the federal constitution has been violated. Documents handed out in one state are valid in all the others. Full faith and credit. If the law is followed, their marriage will still stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gjallarhorn
well as piper , i apologize to all for referring gays as homos , i did not do that on purpose i just did that sub consiously ,and about my spelling i know i suck at it i will try to improve .
AND that article on national geographic wasnt on net actually it was documentory i saw on tv by national geographic
You know what sounds really good?
March on Washington D.C. to demand an Amendment that would protect and guarantee the right to marriage as a concept and ceremony of two people who love each other regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation nationwide.
This way, we wouldn't have to worry about passing this in to law 50 times over, as it should be a guaranteed right anyway.
ICHIGO STAMP OF DISPROVAL HAS SPOKEN!
by the way its not that bad here in SA . But its beter in the uk and america though
I say, who cares, to me, love is two people who care for eachother, not by what gender they are, even if it's creepy to others, it still shouldn't matter.
1) Couples engaged in domestic partnerships are not eligible to file taxes together, so may not get the same tax breaks as a married couple could enjoy.
2) A lot of companies do not offer the same benefits in respect to domestic partnerships as they do in respect to married couples. For instance, often health insurance covers both the employee and his/her spouse, but this is not always (and often is not) the case with the domestic partner of an employee.
3) There is a definite difference in the social perception of the two legalities. Couples in a domestic partnership are often not taken as seriously as married couples (which I suppose could be due to discrimination or the relative ease of dissolving a domestic partnership with respect to marriage). This social distinction is obvious when someone supports domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.