The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Prop. 8 is dead.

Good riddance.

So... /thread?

Clockers gonna clock.

Not sure if this is the right place, but one of the WWE's current superstars just came out.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/p...

No, this can't be right because absolutely no one on the entire face of the planet can even think this because it is completely lacking in anything involving basic thought.

And yet...

"Marriage should only be considered as those relationships in which the members have sex facing each other, which does not occur between homosexual couples."

So said Ana Maria Ortiz of Mexico's right wing National Action Party.

I guess Rubb Ed and I are the greatest contortionists the world has ever known.

Does it have to be missionary every time? Sometimes I had a hard work out and my arms are kind of rubbery.

And does oral sex count as "facing eachother"? I like to think of that as the maximum level of facing someone. You cannot possible get more face than that.

I am just plumbing the depths of the Mexican standard as I am hoping to vacation there with my wife in the next few years, and I am concerned that I might be stoned or burned as a homosexual should it come out that there may have been some downward facing dog or reverse cowgirl going on. Because unfortunately, they will likely suspect my wife as a man due to her knowledge of mathematics and science, and lack of ability to crochet.

KingGorilla wrote:

plumbing the depths

IMAGE(http://forum-img.pinside.com/pinball/forum/?bb_attachments=435109&bbat=46513&inline)

I pity the people of San Antonio:

“So disgusting!”

That exclamation escaped the lips of District 9 Councilwoman Elisa Chan on May 21 in her City Hall office, where she was meeting with members of her staff to discuss the city's proposal to update its nondiscrimination ordinance, adding protections for sexual orientation and gender identity.

In the course of the conversation, Chan expressed her unvarnished views on homosexuality, which range from befuddled to intolerant.

She revealed that she believes being gay is a choice and that gay people should not be allowed to adopt children, and she voiced revulsion toward the LGBT community.

Oh, but it gets so much better:

An aide suggests that homosexuality could be linked to biology: “Americans can, with almost a 90 percent success rate, identify gay people by their face alone,” he says.

“No, that's because they shave,” Chan said. “And I also think they could take hormone shots.”

I am really struggling to understand how anyone can be this much of an ignorant human being. It really must take a lot of work.

So does this:

In the recording, which Stevens gave to me, the councilwoman and her aides strategize how to oppose the ordinance publicly without revealing her feelings.

Ah, so the fine people of San Antonio have a homophobe, an idiot, and a gutless coward all wrapped up in a neat little package and casting votes on the city council.

I pity the people of San Antonio.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
An aide suggests that homosexuality could be linked to biology: “Americans can, with almost a 90 percent success rate, identify gay people by their face alone,” he says.

“No, that's because they shave,” Chan said. “And I also think they could take hormone shots.”

I am really struggling to understand how anyone can be this much of an ignorant human being. It really must take a lot of work.

The inherent and staggering idiocy in the councilwoman aside, is there a citation anywhere for the factoid the aid threw out? My google-fu is weak, but I wasn't able to find anything anywhere. (It lines up with personal experience and anecdotal evidence, but I was curious if this was in a paper anywhere. It'd be fun to smack idiots with.)

I idemtify most gay people because they are laughing or smiling. Oh wait, do we mean homosexual? Never mind... that is how I identify happy people.

Kannon wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
An aide suggests that homosexuality could be linked to biology: “Americans can, with almost a 90 percent success rate, identify gay people by their face alone,” he says.

“No, that's because they shave,” Chan said. “And I also think they could take hormone shots.”

I am really struggling to understand how anyone can be this much of an ignorant human being. It really must take a lot of work.

The inherent and staggering idiocy in the councilwoman aside, is there a citation anywhere for the factoid the aid threw out? My google-fu is weak, but I wasn't able to find anything anywhere. (It lines up with personal experience and anecdotal evidence, but I was curious if this was in a paper anywhere. It'd be fun to smack idiots with.)

I can't find anything under "gaydar" in any medical journal. I think he pulled it out of his ass.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

I can't find anything under "gaydar" in any medical journal. I think he pulled it out of his ass.

Disgusting!

Kannon wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
An aide suggests that homosexuality could be linked to biology: “Americans can, with almost a 90 percent success rate, identify gay people by their face alone,” he says.

“No, that's because they shave,” Chan said. “And I also think they could take hormone shots.”

I am really struggling to understand how anyone can be this much of an ignorant human being. It really must take a lot of work.

The inherent and staggering idiocy in the councilwoman aside, is there a citation anywhere for the factoid the aid threw out? My google-fu is weak, but I wasn't able to find anything anywhere. (It lines up with personal experience and anecdotal evidence, but I was curious if this was in a paper anywhere. It'd be fun to smack idiots with.)

It's nowhere near the 90% the aid through out, but this is probably what was being referenced: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...

Gov. Christie to sign ban on Conversion therapy

I'm confused... is Christie trying to make himself unable to get through the primaries... or hoping to position himself for a good 3rd party/independent run?

Either way, good on him for working to get this crap banned in his area.

EDIT: And for the love of all that is holy with your sanity, don't read the comments... though I love that the guy arguing that conversion therapy is totally good and wonderful has picked the name Village Idiot.

Demosthenes wrote:

Gov. Christie to sign ban on Conversion therapy

I'm confused... is Christie trying to make himself unable to get through the primaries... or hoping to position himself for a good 3rd party/independent run?

Either way, good on him for working to get this crap banned in his area.

EDIT: And for the love of all that is holy with your sanity, don't read the comments... though I love that the guy arguing that conversion therapy is totally good and wonderful has picked the name Village Idiot. :P

Now if only he'd sign the marriage equality bill for his state...

Demosthenes wrote:

Gov. Christie to sign ban on Conversion therapy

I'm confused... is Christie trying to make himself unable to get through the primaries... or hoping to position himself for a good 3rd party/independent run?

To be fair, he might be looking to his more immediate future at this point, since he's already filed his papers to run for re-election in 2013 for the Governorship of one of the most liberal states in the country. His presidential campaign might get some of the air sucked out of it if he gets beat in this one.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

Now if only he'd sign the marriage equality bill for his state...

At least his current public stance on that one was "I want the voters to decide this instead of the legislature" and not "gays are icky", which is a step up from a lot of his peers (although privately it's probably still the latter).

Keldar wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:

Now if only he'd sign the marriage equality bill for his state...

At least his current public stance on that one was "I want the voters to decide this instead of the legislature" and not "gays are icky", which is a step up from a lot of his peers (although privately it's probably still the latter).

That just means he's a better politician. I'm not going to applaud the guy for suggesting a majority rule for minority rights. He's a coward that needs to win his reelection for governor so he has a shot at the presidency in 2016. Fortunately for us, he has to win that governor's race in a very blue state so he has to toss us a bone or two.

Sweet, can't wait for them to be picked up by a publisher who isn't a bigoted ass, and make a boatload of money!

Note to self: never buy anything published by Sweetwater Books/Cedar Fort Publishing.

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

Right? Omniscient, my conveniently-shaped-arse.

EDIT - dammit - I missed a gag there. Because He gave us free willy.

Spoiler:

"willy" is a colloquialism for penis in Englandland

In America, too.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

In America, too.

Huh. Didn't know that. Consider me schooled

Yeah, when this movie came out, and Michael Jackson did the song, there was much joking had.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/Free_willy.jpg/220px-Free_willy.jpg)

krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

obirano wrote:
krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

I dunno man. Can't help but feel that my current vagina-shaped one might be of more utility, albeit less capable of breaking the ice at parties with.

Jonman wrote:
obirano wrote:
krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

I dunno man. Can't help but feel that my current vagina-shaped one might be of more utility, albeit less capable of breaking the ice at parties with.

"I HAVE A STAR-SHAPED PENIS, WANT TO SEE IT?"

::crickets::

McIrishJihad wrote:
Jonman wrote:
obirano wrote:
krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

I dunno man. Can't help but feel that my current vagina-shaped one might be of more utility, albeit less capable of breaking the ice at parties with.

"I HAVE A STAR-SHAPED PENIS, WANT TO SEE IT?"

::crickets::

If crickets like seeing oddly-shaped wangs, who am I to judge?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
McIrishJihad wrote:
Jonman wrote:
obirano wrote:
krev82 wrote:

If god is so concerned about how the penis is used why is putting it in any other hole even physically possible? It doesn't seem like it would take a great feat of design/engineering to have made it fit solely into a human vagina and nothing else.

Spoiler:

I do not think one is supposed to think about it enough to ask these sorts of questions.

I couldn't help but think of one of those block toys for kids that is supposed to teach shapes. I want a star shaped penis.

I dunno man. Can't help but feel that my current vagina-shaped one might be of more utility, albeit less capable of breaking the ice at parties with.

"I HAVE A STAR-SHAPED PENIS, WANT TO SEE IT?"

::crickets::

If crickets like seeing oddly-shaped wangs, who am I to judge?

Are you calling me a cricket? I think you're calling me a cricket.

Think of all the star-nosed mole jokes you could make.

I don't even know where to start with the update...

I guess here is the best place:

As we all know, the polling on gay marriage has radically shifted over the past five years. No one in 2008 would have even guessed that 13 states and DC would have marriage equality, but the polls have indicated that the American public is moving rapidly to embracing marriage equality.

Oh, but someone has penned a column for the National Review Online to say that the polls are problematic and the research is questionable at best. Here's the link, BUT BEFORE YOU CLICK IT, think about who could author such a column and, therefore, push the irony meter into the red zone so hard that the meter exploded.

Spoiler:

The author is... Mark Regnerus.

Congratulations, man. You broke the irony meter.

----------

Dean Young, a congressional candidate in Alabama, is demanding that his fellow GOP candidates sign the following pledge:

1. I believe that the only marriage is between one man and one woman.

2. I believe the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality and thereby gay marriage.

3. The tenants of my church oppose gay marriage.

4. I oppose gay marriage.

5. As a member of Congress, I shall take active steps to oppose gay marriage.

6. I support the by-law change to expel any member of the Republican Executive Committee who opposes the party position by supporting gay marriage."

Forgetting the fact that both the Alabama and the U.S. Constitution forbid any religious litmus test in order to run for or be elected to office, I am supporting Young's call. I want to see all of the GOP candidates sign that pledge so that we know how hateful and homophobic they truly are. Then, we don't have to worry about them saying that they were taken out of context or the like.

----------

In a unanimous opinion, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that a photography company violated New Mexico law by refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. The Court rejected the claim that the photography company owner's religious rights were being violated.

I am sick of these businesses and the notion that they can reap the benefits of capital but shun a portion of the public because they don't like them.

Here's a thought: if you don't like working with the public - all of the public - get the hell out of operating a business that caters to the public.