this is silly... its funny seeing all these n00bs trying to recreate our threads

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

I'm done with this thread. I've made my point multiple times. There is no need to continue.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/prim...s_1_031216.html

DIANE SAWYER: Massachusetts Supreme Court said that they were not, they did not feel the law was in a position to block gay marriage. When you talk about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, are you saying you will absolutely support a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage and against gay civil unions?

PRESIDENT BUSH: If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will — the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or [?] start at the state level. Let me tell you, the court I thought overreached its bounds as a court. It did the job of the legislature. It was a very activist court in making the decision it made. As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch.

WTF? once again he contradicts himself from what he said while he was running for the white house in 2000.

I officially declare the monkey in the pic below smarter than bush

okay maybe not, but at least he doesnt lie and spin

also I <3 my ipod

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade You want to deny a person 1500 rights simply because they are gay? That's pretty biased and discriminatory.

Yes, I want to deny them rights for subsidies intended for families with children since they don't have children. How horrible of me.

quote:

From what are you basing your facts? Have you actually seen a kid raised by gay parents to have psychological problems? Why should it be a last resort? What are you basing your reasoning on?

I haven't seen kids raised by gay parents. That's why I'm reluctant to let them do so. It's not wise to suddenly allow thousands of gay couples to raise their children without knowing whether those children will have problems because of that later on. I agree both with Vesa and Diginut here. Infact, I will elaborate a bit more on what Diginut posted. Societies which endorsed homosexual activity as a normal or even a good one had a huge amount of gays in population (Rome, especially Sparta). Therefore most people do have a choice on that matter, as most people are neither 100% straight or 100% gay. People are usually born somewhere in between and a society has impact on which side they'll sway to. Sure, if a person is a total gay, it is almost impossible to convey him/her into a heterosexual way of life and vice-versa, but for the most people that is simply not the case. That is why I don't think gay preference should be regarded as equally valuable as heterosexual one. It's ok if you're gay, but it must be noted that it would be better if you're heterosexual. It's like saying blind people are equal to those with normal eyesight. They're not, and you can't say they are. They can't get a job as a pilot, nor can they get a driver's license. They're constrained from many rights normal people have. Nature sometimes sucks, too bad. It's even worse with gays because the society and they themselves infact do have some impact on their preference. The simple reason I'm for this philosophy is that gays can't reproduce and are therefore unable to bring a new generation of people to life. That is especially important in the western world nowadays, as it's demographic picture is terrible.

quote:

Just because you're gay doesn't mean that you're a bad person.

I didn't say that. You're mixing up things, and are confronting the issues I mentioned by putting words in my mouth.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I haven't seen kids raised by gay parents. That's why I'm reluctant to let them do so. It's not wise to suddenly allow thousands of gay couples to raise their children without knowing whether those children will have problems because of that later on. I agree both with Vesa and Diginut here. Infact, I will elaborate a bit more on what Diginut posted. Societies which endorsed homosexual activity as a normal or even a good one had a huge amount of gays in population (Rome, especially Sparta). Therefore most people do have a choice on that matter, as most people are neither 100% straight or 100% gay. People are usually born somewhere in between and a society has impact on which side they'll sway to. Sure, if a person is a total gay, it is almost impossible to convey him/her into a heterosexual way of life and vice-versa, but for the most people that is simply not the case. That is why I don't think gay preference should be regarded as equally valuable as heterosexual one. It's ok if you're gay, but it must be noted that it would be better if you're heterosexual. It's like saying blind people are equal to those with normal eyesight. They're not, and you can't say they are. They can't get a job as a pilot, nor can they get a driver's license. They're constrained from many rights normal people have. Nature sometimes sucks, too bad. It's even worse with gays because the society and they themselves infact do have some impact on their preference. The simple reason I'm for this philosophy is that gays can't reproduce and are therefore unable to bring a new generation of people to life. That is especially important in the western world nowadays, as it's demographic picture is terrible.

Yes, I guess this is part of what I've been trying to say too.

Homosexuality isn't a disability at work, at public events, or in most other areas of life, and therefore homosexuals shouldn't be bashed or discriminated against there. It doesn't bother me much to be around gay people (although I'd prefer not to converse about sex with them), but let's look at this from a purely naturistic/scientific point of view:

Homosexuality, if we assume it to be a genetic trait, is also a dead-end trait. Their genes end there. Sure, they can adopt, but they haven't produced that offspring. There is absolutely no way for them to pass on their genes. Which makes one wonder how the trait could have survived this long if it was truly genetic, but I won't even get into that here... the point is, in a primitive society, gays would just die out because they can't reproduce that way.

So obviously they are disadvantaged people. You can talk about adoption all you want, but if our entire race were completely homosexual, there would be no kids to adopt. Some heterosexual couple had to make that kid - whether or not that couple can take care of the kid is another question, and I'm not totally against the thought of gays giving their love where the kid's natural parents could not - but I'm not totally for it either, as we don't have evidence that the kid would not end up being homosexual as a result as well.

Adoption is a legal procedure, not a biological one. Many of those 1500 marital laws are very closely relating to children and childbirth, and if they have a "genetic" issue that prevents them from having children (namely that neither one has a uterus - or neither has sperm), then they don't have the "right" to those benefits. As Tito said, it does occur in society that some people simply cannot do certain things, either because of their genes or something that happened later in life. Nature threw them a curve ball. Tough luck.

Should I go and whine to the court that I should be allowed to play on the national olympic hockey team, and that it's unfair to exclude me just because I'm a skinny little gimp with no talent?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Ultimately I believe that gays should possess the right to civil unions however, they should not possess the religious right to marry (if it is in violation of religions practice). After all, are we going to force the KKK to stop its discriminatory practices and make them accept black members? That being said, I also think that the legal benefits granted to the institution of marriage should be abolished. There is simply no point. It is discrimination to single out married people for monetary gains as a reward for their supposed increase in "values" over single people. If the desire is to promote monogomous values (for whatever reason) then apply the same benefits to civil unions as well. Instead of providing legal benefits to marriage, legal benefits should be provided to those who actually bear the cost of having children. Therefore we are providing incentive and rewards to where incentives and rewards are actually due. That being my take on marriages, I now move on to the ability forr homosexuals to adopt children (the real issue at stake it seems).

With respect to the issue of gays raising children, I see no reason at all why homosexuals should be discriminated against without similarly holding many others in society in the same regard on the basis of what we "know" and what we don't "know".

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut quote: 2.Has there been any physical evidence backing the claims that a homosexual couple adopting a child resulted in psychological problems? No, but there isn't any evidence to the contrary either. That's why I said that there should be studies done, rather than assuming without any evidence that everything will be hunky dory. Does nobody believe in the process of study and observation anymore?

If we are talking about the dangers of passing on psychological issues (alone) to children why do we not perform studies on other segments of society to determine whether they will fester psychological problems in a child? How about multi-racial families? There have been no studies performed on black children adopted by white families, or Asian children adopted by white families, or vice-versa therefore should we enact raced based restrictions on adoption? Well what if you're in a mixed raced marriage? There have been no studies performed on such families to see if those children could grow up to have psychological problems associated with the societal stigmatisms against such families so why allow them the ability to adopt? Furthermore, perhaps we could set up a sliding scale system of sorts … those who have a successful history of raising children without any apparent psychological problems could be given priority over those parents who are perhaps sterile and therefore have had NO experience raising children, correct? We could look at this issue at all angles and edit out entire segments of society (along with the homosexuals) until we have “observed” all possible scenarios I suppose.

quote:

Homosexuality, if we assume it to be a genetic trait, is also a dead-end trait. Their genes end there. Sure, they can adopt, but they haven't produced that offspring. There is absolutely no way for them to pass on their genes. Which makes one wonder how the trait could have survived this long if it was truly genetic, but I won't even get into that here... the point is, in a primitive society, gays would just die out because they can't reproduce that way. So obviously they are disadvantaged people. You can talk about adoption all you want, but if our entire race were completely homosexual, there would be no kids to adopt. Some heterosexual couple had to make that kid - whether or not that couple can take care of the kid is another question, and I'm not totally against the thought of gays giving their love where the kid's natural parents could not - but I'm not totally for it either, as we don't have evidence that the kid would not end up being homosexual as a result as well.

So what if the kid ends up homosexual? Does that mean all the heterosexual bearing portions of the population are going to die out? Is homosexuality going to be spread like some kind of virus? But wait, if homosexuality is about genetics then this shouldn’t be a problem? At either rate, can you show studies proving that homosexuals raise homosexuals thereby providing some kind basis for removing their right to raise children (note: not the right to adopt, the right to raise children)? If we’re going to base our arguments on determining the eligibility of parenting based upon lifestyles the children may adopt, once again I can see large proportions of the population that we can deem ineligible as well.

quote:

Adoption is a legal procedure, not a biological one. Many of those 1500 marital laws are very closely relating to children and childbirth, and if they have a "genetic" issue that prevents them from having children (namely that neither one has a uterus - or neither has sperm), then they don't have the "right" to those benefits. As Tito said, it does occur in society that some people simply cannot do certain things, either because of their genes or something that happened later in life. Nature threw them a curve ball. Tough luck.

Then by similar standards sterile heterosexual couples do not have the “right” to these benefits as well. But you are correct that adoption is a legal procedure not a biological one. And the institution of adoption is not set up to mold individuals to select lifestyles or as a method of encouraging procreation … is it? It’s about finding loving homes for unwanted children. I would be surprised to find text in their charters that their desire is to help these children by finding homes that encourage procreation. If you want to set up adoption as a means to encourage making babies then once again we can have plenty of fun finding out what segments of society best suit these needs. Eg: Mormonism encourages large families and greater procreation therefore they would be given adoptive priority over say …. Aetheists

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ultimately I believe that gays should possess the right to civil unions however, they should not possess the religious right to marry (if it is in violation of religions practice). After all, are we going to force the KKK to stop its discriminatory practices and make them accept black members? That being said, I also think that the legal benefits granted to the institution of marriage should be abolished. There is simply no point. It is discrimination to single out married people for monetary gains as a reward for their supposed increase in "values" over single people. If the desire is to promote monogomous values (for whatever reason) then apply the same benefits to civil unions as well. Instead of providing legal benefits to marriage, legal benefits should be provided to those who actually bear the cost of having children. Therefore we are providing incentive and rewards to where incentives and rewards are actually due. That being my take on marriages, I now move on to the ability forr homosexuals to adopt children (the real issue at stake it seems).

I pretty much agree with you here. Not much more to say...

quote:

With respect to the issue of gays raising children, I see no reason at all why homosexuals should be discriminated against without similarly holding many others in society in the same regard on the basis of what we "know" and what we don't "know".

Agree here too. I wasn't really saying that homosexuals shouldn't have the legal right to adopt - I'm kind of in the "innocent until proven guilty" realm for that (i.e. let's let it happen and see how their kids turn out - but when I say see, I mean actually pay attention to what results from this).

quote:

If we are talking about the dangers of passing on psychological issues (alone) to children why do we not perform studies on other segments of society to determine whether they will fester psychological problems in a child? How about multi-racial families? There have been no studies performed on black children adopted by white families, or Asian children adopted by white families, or vice-versa therefore should we enact raced based restrictions on adoption? Well what if you're in a mixed raced marriage? There have been no studies performed on such families to see if those children could grow up to have psychological problems associated with the societal stigmatisms against such families so why allow them the ability to adopt? Furthermore, perhaps we could set up a sliding scale system of sorts … those who have a successful history of raising children without any apparent psychological problems could be given priority over those parents who are perhaps sterile and therefore have had NO experience raising children, correct? We could look at this issue at all angles and edit out entire segments of society (along with the homosexuals) until we have “observed” all possible scenarios I suppose.

I think the simple answer to this is that we aren't talking about race here, we're talking about lifestyle. Again, I'm not against gay adoptions per se, but if I were, I would be saying that the adoption boards have plenty of other requirements for adoption, they do screen their applicants, and I think they kind of have a right to decide who they feel is best for the child. I don't think that gays should be legally prohibited from adopting, but I also think that if the legal guardians are uncomfortable with letting that couple adopt, then they shouldn't be forced to do it.

In fact, I worry that any pro-gay legislation in this area would lead to the same kind of reverse-discrimination that we see in other areas - I worry that the legal guardians would feel compelled to let that couple adopt because they're gay, even if they feel like they'd be unfit parents for some other reason. Because, if they refused, they would probably get taken to court for discrimination and the couple would claim that they were only refused because they're gay, and the guardians would have to go through a whole long process of proving that they thought they were unfit parents... blah.

Gays like to "victimize" themselves like many other minorities even when other people aren't discriminating against them, and this is why the whole marriage thing bothers me. Adoption? Okay, it's fine, but let's study it for a while too, we're breaking new ground here...

I really do worry about self-victimizing, and I think I can say with confidence that this worry comes from experience with all kinds of minorities including gays, it's not a theoretical concern.

quote:

So what if the kid ends up homosexual? Does that mean all the heterosexual bearing portions of the population are going to die out? Is homosexuality going to be spread like some kind of virus?

No, of course it doesn't mean that, but it would kind of serve to prove that homosexuality isn't something purely genetic, and that equating homosexuals on the same level as blacks or Arabs (who obviously can't change their skin colour or cultural heritage) is fundamentally flawed.

quote:

But wait, if homosexuality is about genetics then this shouldn’t be a problem?

Exactly, and that's why I said, let's see what happens. Let's see whether or not this is really genetic. The proof lies in the grown children.

quote:

At either rate, can you show studies proving that homosexuals raise homosexuals thereby providing some kind basis for removing their right to raise children (note: not the right to adopt, the right to raise children)?

Not as such, because no such studies have been conducted - don't you agree that we should conduct them, though? If not for any other purpose than pure scientific curiosity? I see a lot of other bullshit studies and "junk science" being done - at least this would be a topic of interest and importance.

quote:

If we’re going to base our arguments on determining the eligibility of parenting based upon lifestyles the children may adopt, once again I can see large proportions of the population that we can deem ineligible as well.

I agree completely. There are a lot of people that probably shouldn't be allowed to adopt (shouldn't be allowed to have kids either) - horrible parents that raise emotional wrecks or, even worse, abuse their children. Should known child molesters be allowed to adopt kids?

That's why when a child is going to be adopted, the guardians are supposed to screen the potential adopters and see if they would be fit parents. I don't think this should be written into law for gays or any other social group, but I think the guardians should be able to make their decisions based on any criteria they want without interference from the government. They are trying to act in the best interests of that child.

quote:

Then by similar standards sterile heterosexual couples do not have the “right” to these benefits as well.

Again, I agree - parents shouldn't be receiving legal benefits related to child-bearing if they can't have kids. I like your original suggestion about making those laws for people who actually have kids, but somehow I don't think it will happen, we're being idealistic.

quote:

But you are correct that adoption is a legal procedure not a biological one. And the institution of adoption is not set up to mold individuals to select lifestyles or as a method of encouraging procreation … is it? It’s about finding loving homes for unwanted children. I would be surprised to find text in their charters that their desire is to help these children by finding homes that encourage procreation. If you want to set up adoption as a means to encourage making babies then once again we can have plenty of fun finding out what segments of society best suit these needs. Eg: Mormonism encourages large families and greater procreation therefore they would be given adoptive priority over say …. Aetheists

Ha ha. Once again though, I tend to sit on the fence when it comes to gay adoption. If they're going to raise kids when nobody else will, that's okay. Even if those kids turn out all gay, I guess there's nothing wrong with that.

Again, the reason I brought this up was to say that the adopted children of these gay couples are going to be the conclusive proof of whether or not homosexuality is truly something you're just born with and could never change no matter how much you wanted to.

Against gay marriages here, not gay adoption.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I pretty much agree with you here. Not much more to say...Against gay marriages here, not gay adoption. [/COLOR][/FONT]

Gays can't adopt if they aren't married. They are considered a not stablized household. At least that's what I was told at the lecture

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa being gay is not a fad, a phase, or even a choice. it's part of who someone is. i can't bring myself to even fathom why someone should be denied the same rights as other people because of a characteristic they had nothing to do with.

Thank you for understanding the fucking basic point.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa The biggest doubt I have about gay adoption is that I suspect many gay people may not be bad enough Competitiveness and physical sports (= boxing, ice hockey, etc.) are IMO the most valuable parts that a father provides in a son's education. Unfortunately, these qualities may not be emphasized enough in modern gay culture (the great individual differences notwithstanding). It's the mother's role to be a good person (on the surface), so that the son won't become an outright monster It may be within the capability of most gay couples to get all this right, but they may need some planning before they can find the right balance of roles in their family.

Obviously you know jack shit about parenting and raising a child. My parents divorced when I was 4, and my father was forced to move to the other side of the country to work. I never had a stable father figure when I was growing up. I had a step-father per se, who, however, was an alcoholic and childish asshole. Not that I ever even thought of him as a father. To me he was always just my mom's boyfriend. And thats probably a very good thing, I have plenty more negative memories of him then I do positive. I'd have probably been scarred for life if I thought of him as anything else but "an example of how not to end up."

I never had a problem discovering sports. The basic rule of parenting is that if a kid wants to find it (sports, porn, drugs, whatever), he will. Hell, all kids in the US are going to public school anyways and getting their mandantory P.E. We got exposed to just about every sport under the sun. If your kid doesnt get exposed to them one way or the other he probably belongs in a coffin.

So then, what the hell is wrong with letting gays marry?

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The purpose of a civil marriage is to provide beneficial financial situation to the young couples in hope they'll have children, as well as to provide some security for those children. Therefore gay marriages are an oxymoron, since gays don't have children. I personaly don't have anything against gays screwing one another if they find it pleasurable, or living together for that matter, but they shouldn't recieve subsidies intended for people with children.

Well then, should we deny straight, atheist (or agnostic) couples who have no intention of, or ability to, bear children the right to a civil marraige? To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a little form you must sign "I agree to have kids" before you obtain one. Some couples want to marry simply for the pleasure of having a life-long union with the person they love. How is this wrong? How is it, therefore, wrong for gays to marry? Like it says right in the constitution: "all men are created equal." Isn't it about time we started living up to that?

And just what is wrong with letting gay couples adopt? Don't we already have procedures for adoption anyways? You dont just stroll down to the orphanage and pick one out like picking a puppy at at the pound. Theres lots of questionnaires, interviews, and everything else designed to ensure the adopted child isn't ending up with a whacko family. Just apply the same procedures to a gay couple just like you would to a straight one. I wouldn't be worried about psychological harm to any child living with a gay couple. FFS, Have you ever seen the kind of dysfunction that goes on in average straight families anyways? Beleive me, I've experienced it. Kids can get fucked up a lot worse than simply living with a gay couple. Gay people aren't all effeminate men or butch lesbians. The majority are normal people who you'd probably mistake for an average straight person just by looking at them or chatting with them. Although most gay people seem to be more accepting and tolerant of others than the social majority, which is something our next generation is in dire need of anyways.

For the record, I'm straight as an arrow. I do, however, beleive people are people no matter what, and deserve every right entitled to anyone else. Its a shame that so many people cant see this.

___________________
NEW MIX [Feb/March 2008]

I believe in equality and equal rights under the law.

Either the state needs to get out of the business of marriage, or it should treat everyone equally. I'll leave it at that.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Of course, a son discovers most sports himself. So did I. But my point about ice hockey is not so much the physical side as the team politics. How to get playing time? How to deal with different kinds of troublemakers? How to become proficient in troublemaking when it suits own interest? How physical can you get at tackling without upsetting the referee? In the style of the movie Slap Shot with Paul Newman.

These things would usually come from a coach or any other mentor a kid can find. There are plenty out there for kids who need them. And how would a gay person be any less qualified? They're like everyone else, except they have a different sexual life style.

quote:

Even without an expert father, a son learns a lot in his ice hockey hobby, but the learning process is skyrocketed if he has a mentor who can advice him and suggest political ploys which are too complicated to think up at his age. So I'm endorsing ice hockey as a miniature world of team politics where a novice inherently needs a mentor to benefit maximally.

Why not his mother? You assume mothers and fathers are like polar opposites. My mother taught me everything I know. Still, much of it I learned on my own, and it made me stronger this way because I experienced it myself and came to my own conclusions. Its very important for a child to learn a lot of the social lessons on his own, with the parents there to catch him if he falls. These kids cant be dependent all their lives. Hell, 100 years ago most kids would be expected to hold their own by age 12. But then again, a gay person would be no less qualified than anyone else.

quote:

Mentoring is even more critical in self-defense arts, which are not usually even taught at PE classes because they are too dangerous in an uncontrolled environment. Self-defense arts are 95% politics and manipulation to surprise the opponent, and then make him shit his pants, so that he'll be easy to eliminate without excessive force or risks. For example, the best way of elimination is running away, and it's a mentored art in itself as explained in Marc MacYoung's book about E&E.

I never had a lot of trouble in this area. And again, you assume gays would somehow be less qualified.[/quote]

quote:

I'm not sure if I'm on the right track when I suspect that modern homosexuals have below-average trainer skills in physical combat and team politics. Society unfortunately discriminates against them, so they are probably given less hands-on practice as members of macho wolf-packs about how to survive on the street and how to manipulate rivals at work. Those are critical skills for a father to pass on to his son. But perhaps many homos compensate by self-learning, so they may be just as worthy adoption fathers as heteros.

I didnt realize it was necessary to know how to beat someones ass and to pass this knowledge on to be a successful parent. While certainly helpful, it would be incredibly easy to send a kid off with the impression that fighting will solve his problems. And I'd certainly feel more comfortable with a kid being raised by 2 gay guys than with "macho wolf packs" who know to survive on the street and maniplulate rivals at work. While I personally beleive I could hold my own in a fight and would probably teach my kid to do the same, if I could not, there is still plenty of ways a child could learn to defend himself. Theres countless forms of martial arts, boxing, and everything else for a child to take. I'd personally trust a martial arts school to teach the responsibility and dicipline that should go with knowing how to fight before I'd trust most of the fathers out there to do the same. Oh, and I didnt realize being able to "manipulate rivals at work" was a necessary life skill. Perhaps a more competent parent would teach their child how not to make a rival in the first place, or how to resolve disputes peacefully should they occur? And once more you assume a gay person would be any different from another person.

quote:

Of course, all this only applies if one believes (like I do) that success through strength is the most important lesson that fathers teach their sons. Consequently, the son becomes socially popular and learns mature thinking about what is appropriate behaviour, and then it will be easy for his father to succeed in other areas of parenting.

Actually I believe success through (physical) strength is one of the most ignorant lessons any parent could teach their child. Any kid who knows how to kick someones ass had better know humility, patience, and when to use force as a last resort. Mental strength is certainly very very important of course, but does it take a straight father to teach this? I learned most of it from my mother and the rest on my own. And since when is social popularity important to a childs development? I found the socially popular, 99% of the time, were the least mature and had the least appropriate behavior. I never did fit in with the "popular" crowd anyways. Actually, I've had (and still have) friends that are on both sides of the spectrum, pretty much complete polar opposites of each other. Most of them were cool with each other. Some weren't. I was never part of the popular crowd but I did my own thing, and if some of the popular kids decided that was cool, then we'd be friends no problem. I also had (and still have) many friends in the "unpopular" crowd, the geeks, nerds, everything. But I never thought of them as anything like that. Just my friends. I never put them down because they liked video games, were smart as hell, didn't play sports. Nor did I put any of them down for being walking A&F advertisements or fucking 10 girls at once or whatever. The #1 social lesson a parent should teach their kid is to be themselves and proud of it, and to accept others for who they are and embrace that. If more parents had done this, we wouldn't have all these homophobic fucktards spreading hate and dragging this thread into 4 pages.

___________________
NEW MIX [Feb/March 2008]

Last edited by nrjizer on Dec-19-2003 at 04:05

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa [...]gay marriage should be legal in ALL states.

...and countries!