Define Cynical Fan Forums

It's things like <a href='http://georgiaequality.org/cms/content/view/58/34/' target='_blank'>this</a> that make the world hate America. Among other things of course.

Ugh.

It's people like that that give others with similar beliefs a bad name. Honestly, even if a woman disagrees with her daughter on such a basic level, that's no excuse for cutting off all communication between her and her family.

The US is the only place in the world where there are people who think homosexuality is evil.<br><br>Actually, one should think the mother's actions would score us points with out jihadist friends back east.

All I have to say is that if they're gonna make it a new amendment to the constitution, they might as well take amendments 5 and 14 out of the Constitution, which protect us from discrimination from the state and federal governments. Because this is utter and total bullcrap.<br><br>Here in Ohio, Issue 1 dealt with gay marriage. But being the un-ignorant person that I am, i read about the whole thing on both sides of the issue.<br><br>And the no side should have won. (The Issue was pushed through with a yes for banning gay marriage). Because after reading the no side, there is a whole butt-load of stuff added on to the amendment that NEGATIVELY affects GAY AND STRAIGHT marriages.<br>I'll post the whole thing if anyone wants me to.<br><br>[rant]<br>People are so damn ignorant. They WANT equality, but when it comes down to homosexuals, they are just plain prejudice. I think it all comes down to beliefs. People are forced to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong by their churches and the government and their friends. It's lame.

Yes please Supersmoke, thought it was solely about gay marriage myself.

<a href='http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/oh/state/issue/1/' target='_blank'>Ohio Issue 1</a><br><br><a href='http://www.opcpac.com/Home/' target='_blank'>The no side</a><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> State Issue One goes far beyond simply defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Ohio already has a law that defines marriage in exactly those terms. State Issue One would prohibit state and local governments from recognizing any legal status for unmarried couples of the same or opposite sex.<br><br>State Issue One would deny rights of property ownership, inheritance, pensions, power of attorney and other matters of vital interest to the health and well being of unmarried older couples. "<br><br>Taking away rights that unmarried older couples need in order to support and care for one another is punitive and unacceptable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Unfortunately, my mom threw out the article that had the stuff on it. I'll try to see if my Gov't teacher still has one copy left.<br><br>But the above quote has pretty much the same info as the article.

so i'm talking with an older guy friend of mine. (rl details removed) <br>i say: <blah>. <br>he says: oh yeah, i know what you mean, my boyfreind <blah><br>my first mental reaction: i know you two have been with eachother for a long time, why aren't you married? <br>second mental reaction: oh yeah, that's not legal.<br><br>grrrrrrrr.....

<!--QuoteBegin-Supersmoke+Nov 3 2004, 08:36 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Supersmoke @ Nov 3 2004, 08:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> All I have to say is that if they're gonna make it a new amendment to the constitution, they might as well take amendments 5 and 14 out of the Constitution, which protect us from discrimination from the state and federal governments. Because this is utter and total bullcrap.<br><br>Here in Ohio, Issue 1 dealt with gay marriage. But being the un-ignorant person that I am, i read about the whole thing on both sides of the issue.<br><br>And the no side should have won. (The Issue was pushed through with a yes for banning gay marriage). Because after reading the no side, there is a whole butt-load of stuff added on to the amendment that NEGATIVELY affects GAY AND STRAIGHT marriages.<br>I'll post the whole thing if anyone wants me to.<br><br>[rant]<br>People are so damn ignorant. They WANT equality, but when it comes down to homosexuals, they are just plain prejudice. I think it all comes down to beliefs. People are forced to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong by their churches and the government and their friends. It's lame. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> ...Just... Ugh...<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-"Pros"+--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> ("Pros")</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The definition would ensure that marriage is a fixedrather than evolvinginstitution, keeping same-sex couples from attaining the benefits and obligations of civil marriage and            preventing the state from recognizing or condoning any marriage or marriage benefits afforded to same-sex couples.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Interesting definiton of 'pro' there. Considering, to fix something in an unevolvable state seems to be a pretty large 'con' rather than a 'pro' to me. Social and economic systems change constantly, and to lock things down in an unchangable state is a very bad thing, in my view.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-"Cons"+--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> ("Cons")</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The amendment would invalidate locally approved decisions (for example, in Cleveland Heights and at The Ohio State University) to extend recognition and benefits to same-sex        couples; moreover, the amendment would likely jeopardize adoptions, custody orders, wills, powers of attorney, and other legal arrangements that approximate the effect of          marriage for either same-sex or unmarried opposite-sex couples.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Since when has who you can leave things to had any relation to marrage? Afterall, you can freaking leave a political party to you cat if you want to. (Seriously. It has happened over here. Granted I think the cat only gained joint ownership of it). So, I'm not exactly sure of how legal status of marrage would affect leaving things to people.

I believe the estate tax is kinder to widows and widowers than to other relations and/or acquaintances. I could be wrong.<br><br><br>Personally, I plan top leave all my worldly possessions to someone chosen at random from the phone book.

Damn, I'm ex-directory.<br><br>I can't say I'm disgusted, just appaled and saddened.<br><br>1)No matter should come between family ties; I know this because my father's family had a large disagreement with him about <stuff> when I was about 5, but finally, about 8 years later, everyone decided that it was best that they put that behind them and start again. Two years later, both his parents are dead.<br><br>"Just in the nick of time" comes to mind<br><br>2) If it don't affect me, I don't care. Sure, go get drunk - just don't drive. Sure, be a crach-head - just don't come mug me to feed the habit. Sure be gay - you must just understand that I'm not. Which, I think, all gay people do. I can't say I've met a single one who hasn't respected my sexuality. And I, in turn, have respected theirs.<br><br>So despite all the freedoms you Americans have, the government seems all too willing to take them away.

The problem is that Americans as a group have a hard time understanding the difference between crime and sin. Crime is something that steps on the rights of another person. Sin is an activity that brings you away from God. Obviously, sin is a very nebulous concept, and not something that should be part of public law. However, Americans think, "The bible says, 'do not murder people,' and murder is illegal. The bible says 'do not have sex with other men,' so that, as well, ought to be illegal."<br><br>It does not seem that Europe really has that problem anymore. The Middle east, on the other hand, is what happens when enough people agree with that mindset. Enough of the people with guns, at least.

The bible says a lot of things, like when to stone your children and what to do about mildew on cloth, as opposed to mildew on wool. (I can find the verses if anyone really wants). It doesn't mean that you take every word as writ. And I think that it's racially wrong to take a law from the bible, and ignore all other teachings on the matter; Buddhists, for instace, do not mind homosexuality.

btu ozy teh buddhists r just god-less pagans!<br><br>WHat I find interesting is the double-standard christian fundamentalists have about the laws of Moses. Eating pork is ok, because the messiah has come and we're in God's spiritual kingdom now, so that is no longer a sin. (I think that's what the reasoning is there.) However, other laws that don't personally affect them, such as male homosexuality, are still in effect. Go figure.

I think its Buffet Religion at its best.