Jump to content
LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store

The End Of Proposition 8!


Leilin

Recommended Posts

I wonder why it's so hard for trolls to troll ... then I am reminded, even grammar nazis have their kryptonite. Yep, logic fails them so easily. So, when you go to California (if you're gay) and get the shit kicked out of you, beaten to death, then don't go crying to anyone else. In Washington we are considered one f the "safest" states for gay people, yet here there is more violence toward gay people. Trans are beaten to death almost monthly ... yeah, we're safe. The option was never put to a public vote, so people think we're a "safe state" for gays, but we are far from it. So what does that say about California? It says we can't trust them either. If you think that just because gay people have the right to marry in Washington makes them safe, dare you to kiss on third and Pine, double dare you to. If you're TG, forget it, you're dead unless you're me.

Yeah, the police know about it, and they arrest the perps, but the courts ignore this shit and let the killers out on technicalities. So if you want to trust California now, you're doing the same thing people do in Seattle. When the voters are overruled, then you are just giving them an excuse to continue their crimes without being checked anyway. A TG child, yes a child, was beaten nearly to death by an adult here recently, not her parents mind you. The police and courts did nothing. Nothing. So ... yeah. Just because something is legal in a state does not mean you are safer. So no, I will NOT trust anyone from California anymore than I trust those in Seattle now. Period. Government intervention only creates a more dangerous and volatile situation, no arguing that. It also gives the bigots a way to hide. I live from experience, not from mainstream media. Hipsters are the reason our society is falling apart, they allow the morons to hide, so yeah, Leilin is a hipster troll, and nothing more. Complaining about other people's mistakes yet never admitting his own .. hipster .. then dictating which mistakes are legit ... troll.

Ha ha, you may have just proven them right and ruined your own argument. There is a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the Seattle Police Department ongoing. Are you in favor of this investigation if it brings results, thereby being antithetical to your current position? The truth is everyone is quite aware of the Seattle Police Department's unetical behavior, so something will be done eventually. Whether it will be enough or even effective for that matter, we can only wait and see.

Anyways, it is unfortunate Seattle has been having a hard time controlling its police department. I really hope something does come of this investigation. Luckfully, my town's police department is 'relatively' much better.

Edit: Actually, here are the results of the investigation (http://www.justice.g...1-crt-1660.html)

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I wonder why it's so hard for trolls to troll ... then I am reminded, even grammar nazis have their kryptonite. Yep, logic fails them so easily. So, when you go to California (if you're gay) and get the shit kicked out of you, beaten to death, then don't go crying to anyone else. In Washington we are considered one f the "safest" states for gay people, yet here there is more violence toward gay people. Trans are beaten to death almost monthly ... yeah, we're safe. The option was never put to a public vote, so people think we're a "safe state" for gays, but we are far from it. So what does that say about California? It says we can't trust them either. If you think that just because gay people have the right to marry in Washington makes them safe, dare you to kiss on third and Pine, double dare you to. If you're TG, forget it, you're dead unless you're me.

Yeah, the police know about it, and they arrest the perps, but the courts ignore this shit and let the killers out on technicalities. So if you want to trust California now, you're doing the same thing people do in Seattle. When the voters are overruled, then you are just giving them an excuse to continue their crimes without being checked anyway. A TG child, yes a child, was beaten nearly to death by an adult here recently, not her parents mind you. The police and courts did nothing. Nothing. So ... yeah. Just because something is legal in a state does not mean you are safer. So no, I will NOT trust anyone from California anymore than I trust those in Seattle now. Period. Government intervention only creates a more dangerous and volatile situation, no arguing that. It also gives the bigots a way to hide. I live from experience, not from mainstream media. Hipsters are the reason our society is falling apart, they allow the morons to hide, so yeah, Leilin is a hipster troll, and nothing more. Complaining about other people's mistakes yet never admitting his own .. hipster .. then dictating which mistakes are legit ... troll.

Okay, Peeps, this is how you deal with trolls!!

Link to comment

Wow, I am shocked by the fact that Kitten can make one logical post (about both political sides being as bad as the other) and her next post is out in left field to a point where I can't even comprehend what the point is.

Homophobia will not be made worse or better because of government intervention unless the government puts out propaganda that is against homosexuality and it is right to commit violent acts against homosexuals. All the government can do is make laws protecting homosexuals and educate the people on the reality that your sexuality is not a choice you make.

Link to comment

I'm sorry, but in spite of gay marriage being made legal here, it's a really dangerous place to be anything but straight. So my point is 100% valid. The "control" of the police department is not the issue, the fact that this type of crime happens is the issue. It's because a majority here are still bigots, plain and simple. It is very simple logic, when the voters do not approve of something it means most of the people are against it, thus you have a higher chance of encountering a person against something (and many people are violent when they oppose something like this) than encountering a person who will be friendly or safe. It's called odds, and odds here are bad enough, odds in CA ... worse.

I mean, a transgendered child, a child, was attacked viciously by a woman for "dressing wrong" ... if that's a safe society then I don't want to even know what your idea of ghetto is.

Link to comment

I mean, a transgendered child, a child, was attacked viciously by a woman for "dressing wrong" ... if that's a safe society then I don't want to even know what your idea of ghetto is.

The 300 pounders, where you hardly notice that it is a woman, are the worst attackers.

Link to comment

I'm sorry, but in spite of gay marriage being made legal here, it's a really dangerous place to be anything but straight. So my point is 100% valid. The "control" of the police department is not the issue, the fact that this type of crime happens is the issue. It's because a majority here are still bigots, plain and simple. It is very simple logic, when the voters do not approve of something it means most of the people are against it, thus you have a higher chance of encountering a person against something (and many people are violent when they oppose something like this) than encountering a person who will be friendly or safe. It's called odds, and odds here are bad enough, odds in CA ... worse.

I mean, a transgendered child, a child, was attacked viciously by a woman for "dressing wrong" ... if that's a safe society then I don't want to even know what your idea of ghetto is.

Fine, ignore the question, but you and I both know a police force guilty of civil rights violations can not enforce civil rights laws.

I think you are misintrepreting the definition of civil rights KittenAB. I say that because civil rights are made to protect people from other people's civil liberties. Since it is the miniorities that are usually discriminated against, the majority will likely be opposed to change. That is why you cannot really legislate civil rights by allowing the public to vote. Would the Jim Crow laws ever have been overturned if it had been left up to a vote by the people? That is certainly not fair. I do not know why you are complaining when our state governer chooses to govern. If you really disagree with the law, then start collecting signatures for a referendum. If you don't want to do that, than stop complaining.

Link to comment

Okay, it seems that a lot of people on here to not understand conservatives. They are not evil figures who derive pleasure from denying the rights of others. They are fighting for the status quo and believe that change will personally affect them in a negative way. They believe that expanding marriage is a personal attack on them and the nation's morality. Okay, people like Kitten need to understand that not all conservatives are violent. Let's say John Doe voted for prop 8 because he is a conservative, and wanted to preserve the current order of things, and that gay marriage would cheapen marriage, and open the floodgates to polygamy, to incest, to child marriage, and even marriage to animals. John Doe has a neighbour with a transexual child. He may be deeply concerned if his child ever challenged nature in such a way, but he is a peaceful person and would never harm this child.

Guys, John Doe represents the typical conservative, not the homophobic axe murdering hun most liberals envision. John Doe also reads his Bible, and believes that it is the inspired word of God and 100% accurate. The mistake here is not a religous one, but a philosophical one. Enlightenment philosphy teaches us that religous rules apply to individuals, and that it is wrong to impose them upon society as a whole. In this sense, criminalizing gay sex is no more valid than say forcing all Americans to become Catholic. Let's take another step back here. If a man and a woman are married in their church, they are not considered to be legally marriage, unless that union is recognized by the government. This is called CIVIL MARRIAGE!!!!!! Thus, it is not God, but the State that recognizes marriage in this Country. Perhaps modern American Christians are practicing a form of syncretism, coupling Christianity with enlightenment values, but this practice has kept rivalries between Catholics and Protestants bloodless. My mother and grandmother both oppose gay marriage for traditional reasons. My grandmother asked me if I was embarrassed to live in a state that allows gay marriage, I said that it does not really apply to me. My mother's take was much gentler, she believes that God does not make mistakes, (Meaning that there is no such thing as a transexual, and homosexuals are deceived). Religious beliefs are irrelevant in the discussion of social issues.

Link to comment

Okay, it seems that a lot of people on here to not understand conservatives. They are not evil figures who derive pleasure from denying the rights of others. They are fighting for the status quo and believe that change will personally affect them in a negative way. They believe that expanding marriage is a personal attack on them and the nation's morality. Okay, people like Kitten need to understand that not all conservatives are violent. Let's say John Doe voted for prop 8 because he is a conservative, and wanted to preserve the current order of things, and that gay marriage would cheapen marriage, and open the floodgates to polygamy, to incest, to child marriage, and even marriage to animals. John Doe has a neighbour with a transexual child. He may be deeply concerned if his child ever challenged nature in such a way, but he is a peaceful person and would never harm this child.

Guys, John Doe represents the typical conservative, not the homophobic axe murdering hun most liberals envision. John Doe also reads his Bible, and believes that it is the inspired word of God and 100% accurate. The mistake here is not a religous one, but a philosophical one. Enlightenment philosphy teaches us that religous rules apply to individuals, and that it is wrong to impose them upon society as a whole. In this sense, criminalizing gay sex is no more valid than say forcing all Americans to become Catholic. Let's take another step back here. If a man and a woman are married in their church, they are not considered to be legally marriage, unless that union is recognized by the government. This is called CIVIL MARRIAGE!!!!!! Thus, it is not God, but the State that recognizes marriage in this Country. Perhaps modern American Christians are practicing a form of syncretism, coupling Christianity with enlightenment values, but this practice has kept rivalries between Catholics and Protestants bloodless. My mother and grandmother both oppose gay marriage for traditional reasons. My grandmother asked me if I was embarrassed to live in a state that allows gay marriage, I said that it does not really apply to me. My mother's take was much gentler, she believes that God does not make mistakes, (Meaning that there is no such thing as a transexual, and homosexuals are deceived). Religious beliefs are irrelevant in the discussion of social issues.

I agree with most of what you said though there are some points I noticed that were wrong, for one while your definately right when you say the average conservative is no more violent then any one else and they shouldn't be generalized as some evil organization but at the same time your kind of generalizing liberals aren't you, I mean I know a lot of democrats who simply disagree with the republican party but I've never meet one who thought they were evil or anything. also and maybe this is just me but I can sum up my problems with the conservative party in three issues:

first, they think the economy can fuction without taxes and it can't, no one likes paying taxes but still the money has to come from somewhere and the government can't just make it appear like magic or else they'd create inflation, the most recent example is George W. Bush's tax cuts which are a major reason the economy is as bad as it is today. second, and I know not every conservative does this and liberals do this too, the slander campaigns, again the liberal party does this too but I see it more from the conservative end, take for example the recent issue of concraceptive inssurance, I won't go into wheter Obama was right or wrong here that is a whole other debate, the fact that the republican candidates would have the never to call this a war on faith is simply offense as this was never about faith it was about bussesness which is wholely seperate but they knew calling violation of the 1st admendment would swing more voters too their side and that kind of lazy campaigning just ticks me off. finally, I don't believe that always wanting the status quo is good much like how change isn't always good in this case both parties are in the wrong because they're needs to be a middle ground here.

lastly although I fully agree religion and politics have no place togather, but I don't think anyone here brought up religion but I could be wrong or misunderstanding your meaning.

Link to comment

^ I was primarily referring to Kitten who has a warped view of conservatives. Second, you have to address religion on a discussion of gay marriage becase we are addressing a religious debate. Read some of Kitten's posts, you will know what I am responding to. She said she does not trust Californians because the govt overruled prop 8, etc. I was primarily trying to de-boogeyman conservatives, of course liberals are not evil, I felt it neccessary to state that most conservatives are not.

Link to comment

^ I was primarily referring to Kitten who has a warped view of conservatives. Second, you have to address religion on a discussion of gay marriage becase we are addressing a religious debate. Read some of Kitten's posts, you will know what I am responding to. She said she does not trust Californians because the govt overruled prop 8, etc. I was primarily trying to de-boogeyman conservatives, of course liberals are not evil, I felt it neccessary to state that most conservatives are not.

Okay, one last post here then I grow bored of this go around, but .... did I mention any political alignment at all?Not here at least. Because, in reality, I have discovered there is no difference between them and political alignment has little to do with what people vote for. Intelligence and logic (or lack thereof) dictate what they vote for, but if you want to pull politics into it, I agree with both liberals and conservatives .... just on different things. But here's the thing, there was no danger to the lives of gay people if they are denied it, though the religious doctrine should not dictate law, at least it wasn't a life threatening issue. But violent groups of people are life threatening. Knowing where the largest concentrations of people likely to incite violence toward you can save your life, I barely made if out of Indianapolis alive because I didn't pay attention to that, and learned my lesson the hard way. But meh, the problem is the failure to see more than one side, or in this case more than two sides, of an argument. I have a third side, and it's being discounted simply because it recommends something that neither side wants. On one hand, putting this kind of law to a vote to find the hot spots of bigotry (anti-liberal), but allowing gay marriage because I just don't see a reason not to (anti-conservative). It sucks being in the middle because no one wants to consider other views as valid, just because it challenges their preconceived notions.... and this is what's wrong with society as a whole. There is no middle ground, no consideration of other implications, no big picture voices at all. So whenever someone comes up with any other possible flaw or benefit in something, one side or the other has to attack it, then when they explain the reasoning, both sides attack it .... I just don't shut up as easily as most. Society is insane, I know this and accepted that fact when I was really young, so it doesn't surprise me that those who pretend to be accepting and tout their tolerance are not even close to that. This whole mess has so many negative implications to consider, yet not really that many positive ones ... except as a litmus test for how far our country progresses. At this stage, our country has not progressed very far for gay rights at all. Much less, the smallest minority of all, the one minority often forgotten by everyone else and even attacked by other minorities, the transgendered. We are at the greatest risk of violence, because even many gay people are violent against us. They preach tolerance in the political circus but yeah ... they don't live tolerance at all. But that's just one of the big, really huge, negative implications to consider with this move toward having government make policies like this. So yeah, I am scared of Californians, and I have a perfectly logical reason. We are not heading toward equal rights or respect here, we are only heading toward laws being made, nothing more.

Frack, I give up on correcting the paragraph breaks, so sorry for that. Firefox is giving me headaches since the last upgrade.

Link to comment

if marriage is a religious ideal.. then NO ONE should be 'legally' married.. because there is this thing called separation of church and state.. so either marriage has a completely different legal definition, or it is considered a religious ideal and in that case has no right on legal language.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...