posted
My invisible, anthropomorphic scapegoat tells me that SSM is right, so we're at an impasse in that regard. I guess we'll have to come up with other arguments.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the things I was thinking earlier today is that one of the reasons that people letting their bishops, shaman, spouses, parents, etc. significantly impact their decision-making makes me nervous is that I just don't like the idea of any one person or group to have that much power over another.
There's no influence in my life that, if that group instructed me to 'do X!', I'd do it without question*.
*One possible exception would be professional advice about a subject that I'm not an expert in and which I asked for the advice. Like my doctor advising me to get a medical procedure. Even that, though, I'd research myself and only do if I agreed with my doctor's opinion.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, honey, I am not suggesting that we take away rights based on my religious beliefs. I am pointing out that, not only do opponents lack convincing secular arguments for their position, they, for me, lack convincing religious arguments as well.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: then there's no reason to support any position, since no matter what argument you accept and believe the premises of, someone else will have a different set of premises that leads to the contradictory conclusion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: Lay off her. She's one of the good ones.
For purposes of gay marriage, perhaps. I do not care all that strongly about this issue. She is one of the bad guys when it comes to something much more important to me, namely, that publicly accessible evidence is required to form beliefs. The key phrase here is 'choose to believe'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Proposition 8 was a democratic measure, it represents the voice of the people.
If you don't like what proposition 8 does, get the support needed to have it democratically repealed. Don't rely on the executive or judicial branch to solve this problem. I think it's ridiculous how impotent our legislatures are becoming.
Honestly, as a minority, I find the idea of voting on minority rights pretty distasteful as is the idea that minorities should rightly have to beg a majority to allow us to have rights. I'm glad that Canada doesn't really have this tradition.
It may indeed be the voice of the people to take away minority rights, but thats why our systems have things like the Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect minority rights. In general, the judicial branch is a perfectly valid and good way of approaching this problem and I don't see any reason why minorities should go out of their way to avoid it.
I can't really respond to anybody else right now it just feels far too venomous an environment.
I don't think minorities should have to sit around, and wait for the majority to decide to do the right thing. But when a majority votes one way, and the judiciary strikes it down, and then the majority votes the same way again, and the judiciary strikes it down, one needs to examine seriously if this feedback loop is really the way our country works. (were the California Supreme court to strike down Proposition 8 the cycle I described would be complete.)
It's impossible for every minority to get everything they want in a country. Christian Scientists have to go to the hospital if their child is seriously ill, the law doesn't give them leeway because it's their belief that God is in charge of everyone's health.
I guess what disappoints me is that I am truly torn on this issue. I'm not trying to be the voice of the oppressor. It is in my nature to desperately try to find any merit to an argument. I've been wrong so many times in my life, there is precious little I am absolutely certain about. To be told that the world will be better off without people like me hurts. It's not the kind of hurt that make me believe I'm wrong, it's the kind that comes from my opposition having already dehumanized me. I already know what it's like to believe something that is not popular, and to have people standing around snickering and waiting for me to state some defense which they can then rip apart.
I'm part of the problem, for I myself am unsure what to make of this issue. I thought I could perhaps talk through it with people here but that has only infuriated people and made me lose their respect. I just need to think, pray, and look for research.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the kind that comes from my opposition having already dehumanized me
Perhaps wounds would heal if you would stop dehumanizing other people first? Give us the same human rights as everyone else. You can't pass a law against millions of people then whine about being oppressed.
The christian scientist issue is not applicable. Gay people don't kill sick children. Christian Scientists do.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:the kind that comes from my opposition having already dehumanized me
Perhaps wounds would heal if you would stop dehumanizing other people first? Give us the same human rights as everyone else. You can't pass a law against millions of people then whine about being oppressed.
The christian scientist issue is not applicable. Gay people don't kill sick children. Christian Scientists do.
I didn't pass any such law Pixiest, The people of California did. At best you can say an organization I belong to was part of a coalition supporting that motion. How about you dispose of your anger before continuing to talk to me about this issue, it isn't helping me change my mind at all. Maybe you don't care to, but if you do, stop please.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about you dispose of your anger before continuing to talk to me about this issue, it isn't helping me change my mind at all.
If one believes their rights are being suppressed, I think it's unrealistic to expect them to dispose of their anger.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade- I would vote against prop8, but I agree strongly with you. I hate that the only response to voting yes is, well, you are a bigot.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:To be told that the world will be better off without people like me hurts. It's not the kind of hurt that make me believe I'm wrong, it's the kind that comes from my opposition having already dehumanized me. I already know what it's like to believe something that is not popular, and to have people standing around snickering
You're explaining exactly the perspective of the gay couples who are being told that their desire to marry their long time partner is wrong and that they're not worthy of the same rights as straight couples.
You're so close to realizing how wrong it is to deny gay couples equal treatment under the law.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Wikipedia, gay couples had equivalent rights BEFORE the state court ruled that prop 22 was unconstitutional.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia is wrong. The court ruled that prop 22 was unconstitutional because gays and lesbians did NOT have equivalent rights. IIRC they enumerated 9 points, but I don't remember what they were.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP: I respectfully disagree. The Mormons certainly disposed of their anger when they chose to move West in the face of abject violence against them. If we remained angry that the Edmunds Tucker act is still on the books we'd spend all our time angry. Of course I understand that when your opposition appears to be actively harming you it's hard to dispose of your anger. But I also think anger and resentment only cloud an issue and prevent real progress from being made. It is up to the individual if they are willing to make that trade off.
Mighty Cow: Leaving the perceived crowd of screaming fanatics, to join the laughing sniggerers is not an improvement IMHO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is a personal issue to me. My Step Sister is gay. She's been with her partner for 12 years. They have a 10 year old. They own a home.
Do you even begin to realize the bigotry, abuse and BS they've had to put up with from the ignorant and the judgemental? People feel that they have a right to judge them and then let them know if they don't approve of their judgement.
Explain to me why two people who've been together for over 10 years, have built a life, a home and a family don't deserve the same property rights, or rights of visitation in the hospital.
When the LDS Church "Fights Gays" they reinforce the "these are bad people. these are inferior people. these people are sinners worse than us."
I may look silly to you, but let me remind you, in modern times the LDS Church has been no beacon of light on the civil rights issue. Not allowing Blacks to serve in the Church until 1978 isn't exactly showing tolerance and God's Wisdom on Civil Rights issues, so when they donate 50% of the money in a state they have 2% representation it raises more flags than the UN.
When the one state they do have a majority in (60% LDS) the state is 95% white, I am not comfortable with them using tons of money to turn back the clock in a state that like a foreign culture to them racially and culturally.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Aside from it being, you know, marriage.
Well, that's the thing-- historically and culturally speaking, from a certain point of view, it's not.
I think we've covered this.
Pixiest, I've looked but I can't find the 9 points you mentioned. I'm willing to learn-- if you can show me what rights prop 22 takes away, I'd appreciate it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Aside from it being, you know, marriage.
Well, that's the thing-- historically and culturally speaking, from a certain point of view, it's not.
I think we've covered this.
Pixiest, I've looked but I can't find the 9 points you mentioned. I'm willing to learn-- if you can show me what rights prop 22 takes away, I'd appreciate it.
I'd also like to read such a link if it can be found.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can find the ruling here. Search "S147999" to bring up the Court opinion. It's quite the informative read.
Edit: here's the nine points, taken directly from the case I linked above. Sorry, it's really long - but you asked for it.
Although the governing statutes provide that registered domestic partners have the same substantive legal rights and are subject to the same obligations as married spouses, in response to a request for supplemental briefing by this court the parties have identified various differences (nine in number) that exist in the corresponding provisions of the domestic partnership and marriage statutes and in a few other statutory and constitutional provisions.
First, although the domestic partnership provisions require that both partners have a common residence at the time a domestic partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b)(1)), there is no similar requirement for marriage. Second, although the domestic partnership legislation requires that both persons be at least 18 years of age when the partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b)(4)), the marriage statutes permit a person under the age of 18 to marry with the consent of a parent or guardian or a court order (§§ 302, 303). Third, to establish a domestic partnership, the two persons desiring to become domestic partners must complete and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State, who registers the declaration in a statewide registry for such partnerships (§ 298.5, subds. (a), (b)); to marry, a couple must obtain a marriage license and certificate of registry of marriage from the county clerk, have the marriage solemnized by an authorized individual, and return the marriage license and certificate of registry to the county recorder of the county in which the license was issued, who keeps a copy of the certificate of registry of marriage and transmits the original certificate to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics (§§ 306, 359; Health & Saf. Code, §§ 102285, 102330, 102355). Fourth, although the marriage statutes establish a procedure under which an unmarried man and unmarried woman who have been residing together as husband and wife may enter into a “confidential marriage” in which the marriage certificate and date of the marriage are not made available to the public (§ 500 et seq.), the domestic partnership law contains no similar provisions for “confidential domestic partnership.” Fifth, although both the domestic partnership and marriage statutes provide a procedure for summary dissolution of the domestic partnership or marriage under the same limited circumstances, a summary dissolution of a domestic partnership is initiated by the partners' joint filing of a Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State and may become effective without any court action, whereas a summary dissolution of a marriage is initiated by the spouses' joint filing of a petition in superior court and becomes effective only upon entry of a court judgment; in both instances, the dissolution does not take effect for at least six months from the date dissolution is sought, and during that period either party may terminate the summary dissolution. (§§ 299, subds. (a)–(c), 2400 et seq.) Sixth, although a proceeding to dissolve a domestic partnership may be filed in superior court “even if neither domestic partner is a resident of, or maintains a domicile in, the state at the time the proceedings are filed” (§ 299, subd. (d)), a judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be obtained unless one of the parties has been a resident of California for six months and a resident of the county in which the proceeding is filed for three months prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution (§ 2320). Seventh, in order to protect the federal tax-qualified status of the CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System) long-term care insurance program (see Sen. Com. on Appropriations, fiscal summary of Assem. Bill No. 205 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 21, 2003; 26 U.S.C. § 7702B(f)(2)(C)), the domestic partnership statute provides that “nothing in this section applies to modify eligibility for [such] long-term care plans …” (§ 297.5, subd. (g)), which means that although such a plan may provide coverage for a state employee's spouse, it may not provide coverage for an employee's domestic partner; this same disparity, however, would exist even if same-sex couples were permitted to marry under California law, because for federal law purposes the nonemployee partner would not be considered a spouse. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Eighth, an additional difference stems from the provisions of California Constitution, article XIII, section 3, subdivisions (o) and (p), granting a $ 1,000 property tax exemption to an “unmarried spouse of a deceased veteran” who owns property valued at less than $ 10,000; however, as the Legislative Analyst explained when this constitutional provision last was amended in 1988 (see Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 1988) analysis of Prop. 93 by Legis. Analyst, p. 60), few persons claim this exemption, because a homeowner may not claim both this exemption and the more generous homeowner's exemption on the same property (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 205.5, subd. (f)), and the homeowner's exemption is available to both married persons and domestic partners. (See § 297.5, subd. (a).) Ninth, one appellate decision has held that the putative spouse doctrine (codified in § 2251) does not apply to an asserted putative domestic partner. (Velez v. Smith (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1172–1174 [48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642].)
Plaintiffs also have brought to the court's attention a statement of decision in a recent superior court ruling that declares, in part, that “[a] Registered Domestic Partnership is not the equivalent of a marriage. It is the functional equivalent of cohabitation.” (Garber v. Garber (Super. Ct. Orange County, 2007, No. 04D006519.) That trial court ruling is currently on appeal and has no precedential effect.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Aside from it being, you know, marriage.
Well, that's the thing-- historically and culturally speaking, from a certain point of view, it's not.
I think we've covered this.
We have.
And historically and culturally speaking, until you pay a man for ownership of his daughter, whatever you have (or may one day have) isn't marriage either.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think minorities should have to sit around, and wait for the majority to decide to do the right thing. But when a majority votes one way, and the judiciary strikes it down, and then the majority votes the same way again, and the judiciary strikes it down, one needs to examine seriously if this feedback loop is really the way our country works. (were the California Supreme court to strike down Proposition 8 the cycle I described would be complete.)
In regards to the feedback loop, I'm not sure. Without being glib, maybe it really is how the system is supposed to work. The judiciary interprets the Constitution. If the people keep on passing unconstitutional laws, is it not their job to strike it down after a challenge? Checks and balances and all that.
But like I said, we don't have a tradition of direct referendums and propositions, I can remember only a handful and none were on minority rights.
Our former Prime Minister noted this in his characteristically accented and blunt way when it came to our same-sex debate and some suggested a referendum:
quote: "To have a referendum to decide on the fate of the minority, it's a problem. It's why we have constitutions – to protect the rights of the minority. It's why we have the Charter of Rights. So if it is always the majority vote by referendum, who will defend the minorities?"
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mighty Cow: Leaving the perceived crowd of screaming fanatics, to join the laughing sniggerers is not an improvement IMHO.
Weren't you the one telling me that it's ALWAYS wrong to paint a whole group with the same brush?
You're being really inconsistent in your beliefs my friend. I'm just trying to help you get straightened out.
Years ago, when I was a Christian, I was bigoted against gay people because I felt the church told me to be. I was prejudiced, although at the time I certainly didn't admit to myself that I was.
Thankfully, I saw how wrong that thinking was, even before I gave up on organized religion. There's no sniggering or screaming on my part, although I'm sad that you see it that way.
I honestly and sincerely want everyone who is against gay marriage to open their eyes and see how prejudiced they are being, no matter what their justifications.
It doesn't matter whether people are trying to "defend marriage" or "follow God's law" or whatever other reason they have - if they are denying equal rights to gay people, they're acting in a prejudiced and bigoted manner. If they don't like falling into that category, they should realize that they need to alter their behavior and beliefs to something which allows equality and respect for another group of people who simply want to have the same rights others already enjoy.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It took divine intervention for them to realize Blacks were equal people. Give them time. They're a little behind the curve on civil rights.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
MC- if you honestly believed that giving gay marriage rights would 100% lead to a worse society, would you still advocate it?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: It took divine intervention for them to realize Blacks were equal people. Give them time. They're a little behind the curve on civil rights.
Actually, under our founding principals, blacks had the priesthood. And from what I can tell, an actual prophetic declaration declaring they couldn't never happened- it was more, this is the way things are done, not this is the way God wants them done. Still not a great thing for our church, but God comes out looking better.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: MC- if you honestly believed that giving gay marriage rights would 100% lead to a worse society, would you still advocate it?
I wouldn't still advocate it, but it would make me a bigot. You can't have it both ways. Denying people equal rights is denying people equal rights, regardless of what justification one uses.
Besides, same sex marriages have been going on for some time in several states, and it didn't have any negative effect on society that I've seen. I think we have proven conclusively that there is no merit to that argument.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always viewed bigotry as based on your motivations, not necessarily the results of your actions.
While you are convinced and evidence shows that ssm doesn't hurt anyone, for some reason, people believe it will. So, how can people be convinced of that? Of course, the problem is very few people actually listen to logic, including educated liberals (I spent the day arguing with my boss that just because something wasn't there today does not mean tell you anything about what was true 4 months ago- esp if the chemical degrades within 1-2 months.)
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least we know, now, that 47% of Californians at the very least, do not want to ban gay marriage outright. Next year, it will be 48%. The year after that 49%. After that, 50%.
This should not happen, as I said earlier but somebody else has mentioned the democratic process. This was a democratic election- a heavily fought one, yes, but what issue ever has been left up solely to each person's conscience?
It is a long wait but heck, in the past thirty, forty years more has changed in the cause of gays than in, arguably, the history of the human race. Things have changed faster for gays in certain parts of the world than they ever did for black people or women. This is not an excuse, but it is an explanation.
quote:Besides, same sex marriages have been going on for some time in several states
quote:I honestly and sincerely want everyone who is against gay marriage to open their eyes and see how prejudiced they are being, no matter what their justifications.
The problem with this is that not everyone who is against gay marriage is doing so out of prejudice.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mighty Cow: Leaving the perceived crowd of screaming fanatics, to join the laughing sniggerers is not an improvement IMHO.
Weren't you the one telling me that it's ALWAYS wrong to paint a whole group with the same brush?
You're being really inconsistent in your beliefs my friend. I'm just trying to help you get straightened out.
Years ago, when I was a Christian, I was bigoted against gay people because I felt the church told me to be. I was prejudiced, although at the time I certainly didn't admit to myself that I was.
Thankfully, I saw how wrong that thinking was, even before I gave up on organized religion. There's no sniggering or screaming on my part, although I'm sad that you see it that way.
I honestly and sincerely want everyone who is against gay marriage to open their eyes and see how prejudiced they are being, no matter what their justifications.
It doesn't matter whether people are trying to "defend marriage" or "follow God's law" or whatever other reason they have - if they are denying equal rights to gay people, they're acting in a prejudiced and bigoted manner. If they don't like falling into that category, they should realize that they need to alter their behavior and beliefs to something which allows equality and respect for another group of people who simply want to have the same rights others already enjoy.
I was not very clear. I meant if I'm going to be lumped with the screaming fanatics, I wouldn't go over to the other side when those telling me to are acting so smug. I was not trying to suggest that your position necessitates such an attitude, I hope you can grant my side similar courtesy. Some of the statements in previous pages have been ill-considered to put it politely.
I can get that you ultimately did not find reason enough to oppose same sex marriage and that you broke with your church for reasons belonging to you. While my faith allows some leeway in the church leadership being mistaken, when they issue a letter stating the church's support of a ballot initiative, a rare occasion to be sure, it is generally accepted in the church than that that is also the mind of the Lord on the matter.
I pray everyday for answers to this question, but I haven't found them yet.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I understand a bit what you are going for. I am not in California, but in the hypothetical I could not support the amendment. I discused the issue with a member of my stake presidency. I was very strongly reassured that I could vote whichever way I wanted and it would not be a sin or going against the church or God. That meeting really helped me resolve a lot of my concerns.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Society must be governed and legislated for the best benefits of society. When a Church pushes leglislation onto a society, they are not doing it with what is best for all people. They do what is best for THIER people. There is no evidence that suggests giving unions the same rights as married people is harmful to society. There is no evidence that allowing gays rights destroys someone else's marriage. When the American divorce rate is 70% the issue needs to be thought out a little clearer and with more empathy than what is happening now.
To continue to treat people who cause no one any proveable harm to anyone else as second class citizens is a big, big mistake.
Why do we allow 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th marriages?
Why are those legal?
Why is there no great and public $100 million dollar shaming of divorcees?
I was raised in a house that had a divorce, and then a super cool lesbian sister. So I think I deserve to have a little weight to my words.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... While my faith allows some leeway in the church leadership being mistaken, when they issue a letter stating the church's support of a ballot initiative, a rare occasion to be sure, it is generally accepted in the church than that that is also the mind of the Lord on the matter.
I pray everyday for answers to this question, but I haven't found them yet.
I'd like to add that previously, I only addressed the issue of minorities.
When it comes to your problem, while on an intellectual level, I understand your dilemma on this issue, I don't really emotionally relate or *grok* it if that makes any sense and I suspect I never fully will. Thus I can't really comment on that.
However, I do appreciate your moderation and tone, even if we disagree as to the larger issues.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I honestly and sincerely want everyone who is against gay marriage to open their eyes and see how prejudiced they are being, no matter what their justifications.
The problem with this is that not everyone who is against gay marriage is doing so out of prejudice.
They're BEING prejudiced, which is the bottom line. They may justify it one way or another, but in the end, they're prejudiced against gay people. There are no two ways about it.
When you actively work to deny a whole group of people equal rights, and you believe that they do not deserve the same treatment as your group, you are prejudiced against that group, period.
I'm sorry if people don't like it, but that's really too damn bad. Do you think the gay people like being treated with inequality?
I think one of the best ways to fight this problem is just lay it out there. If you oppose same sex marriage - You. Are. Prejudiced.
If you don't like being called prejudiced, take a big step back and look at your thoughts and actions, and realize what you are part of!
I think any of us here would be ashamed and sickened and dismayed and pissed the hell off if we could go back in time and see what was happening during segregation. There's no reason to stand for the same BS now. It's time to wake up and see that it's the same story with a different minority group.
If you're against SSM, you need to ask yourself if you really want to look back at this in 10 or 20 years and know that you were one of the people fighting AGAINST equality and working to deny people their rights.
That's the bottom line, and I think the only reason so many good people are willing to take that stand is because they're finding ways to justify it to themselves.
I don't think most people think of themselves as a bigot. Most people don't want to be a bigot. And as long as they can tell themselves that they have a good reason to deny same sex couples their rights - and again I'm going to be blunt - by lying to themselves in many cases, with BS about defending marriage or protecting family or some other nonsense strawman, they can keep on being prejudiced and go about their lives happy with their sense of self.
Sorry, but the party's over. I'm holding up the mirror right in your face, and I'm telling you you're prejudiced. If you don't like it, don't complain to me. Change.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Second, although the domestic partnership legislation requires that both persons be at least 18 years of age when the partnership is established (§ 297, subd. (b)(4)), the marriage statutes permit a person under the age of 18 to marry with the consent of a parent or guardian or a court order.
I have to say, I actually like this better and would rather see the marriage laws ammended. There's just something creepy to me about saying, "You're too young to enter into a binding contract, but your parents can give you away under one." Maybe 16 year olds are just old enough to sign their own contracts?
I also think legally allowing people to have sex with minors potentially much younger than themselves is bizarre. If mom and dad can decide their 16 year old can sleep with a 25 year old, shouldn't she be able to decide to sleep with an 18 year old boyfriend?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Why should I change? Simply because you're holding a mirror up to me and telling me I'm ugly?
No.
You should change because you want your fellow human beings and American citizens to have the same rights, privileges and benefits that you do.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
