| Author |
 Topic  |
|
busdriver44
Senior Member
United States
59 Posts |
 Posted - 05/17/2007 : 10:01:20 PM
|
| is anyone bi or gay ? |
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2007 : 05:48:48 AM
|
| I'm not good with subtlety, what do you REALLY want to know? |
- Ryan |
 |
|
|
Thomasbus24
Administrator
USA
3170 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 04:55:29 AM
|
Anybody wanna take bets on how long it takes for this to get WAY out of control and deleted?  |
|
|
|
disp29
Advanced Member
United States
202 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 10:03:50 AM
|
Come on Ryan, being "Subtle" is NO FUN!
Yeah... I'm Gay. What would you like to know?
I keep myself just that way... to myself. Only certain people know, especially at work, because I drive in an area that is very, and I mean VERY closed-minded. These are the type of people that believe that if you are Gay, or Bi, or a Lesbian that you are automatically a danger or threat to their children. Plus, my employer leads a VERY religious lifestyle and would probably "find" a reason to get rid of me if they knew. But, I'd bet they (my employer) would really have a fit if they knew just how many more like me were working at our depot. Besides me there are 2 other guys, and a handful of bisexual women... at least that I know of.
Anyone else? Come on, don't be afraid! I'm not |
kEvIn
|
Edited by - disp29 on 05/28/2007 10:06:27 AM |
|
|
|
bus724
Top Member
USA
1609 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 3:04:08 PM
|
Just about everyone I work with knows I'm gay. I have several co-workers that I consider close friends, and they know and accept who I am. The rest of the people I work with, including all the other drivers, mechanics, and even my supervisor know, and have no problem with it.
The kids on the bus? That's another matter. I also live in a rather conservative area, where I'm sure more than a few parents still believe the stereotype that gay means pedophile. I'm careful to make sure the younger kids don't find out, although I suspect some of the HS kids might know--I wasn't as secretive when I was in HS and I had several of their older brothers or sisters as classmates.
A few comments on the news story on the driver in GA being fired: First, I don't have a personal ad of that nature anywhere on the internet, never have, and never will. I know kids on my bus can access sites like that by lying about their age, and God forbid someone sees something. Second, if I did have a profile like that and any kids on my bus saw it, I don't think I could face them and I'd quit before even having the chance to be fired. Third, I consider myself very lucky to live in one of the few states that offers legal protections for non-hetero people, including anti-discrimination/harassment laws and even civil unions. |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 2:14:19 PM
|
Massachusetts is the only state in the nation to allow same sex couples to marry. Our ex-governer pulled a stunt which forced legislator to take an up/down vote which would have the potential to put a question up for popular vote on whether or not to take those rights away.
First: The signatures gathered to allow that to happen were collected by using a scheme (having people sign petitions for things like saving great danes, but they were actually used as part of the signature process). Very sneaky and unethical.
I hope that the legislators of my home state (MA) do not allow such a question to go to popular vote because doing so would be devastating, not just to MA, but to all of the states for this and other reasons. |
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 05/29/2007 2:17:14 PM |
|
|
|
Peter
Top Member
USA
1051 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 2:38:37 PM
|
quote:
I hope that the legislators of my home state (MA) do not allow such a question to go to popular vote because doing so would be devastating, not just to MA, but to all of the states for this and other reasons.
Why? Are you afraid that the general public might actually be allowed to choose the laws of the land? We can't have that! That's government's job. We regular folks don't know anything. We need them smart legislators and judges to think for us and tell us how to live. |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 4:05:11 PM
|
I don't believe it is right or ethical for the general public to vote on the rights of others.
Items that should be placed on a ballot:
-Should stores be allowed to sell alcohol on Sundays (Y) (N)
-Should taxes be raised to $XX.XX (Y) (N)
-And to elect officials.
Human right questions simply do not belong on a ballot.
Why should these types of questions be allowed to be on a ballot?
-Should gay people (the minority), be allowed equality? (Y) (N)
That is strictly what this is all about in our state.
Imagine Rosa Parks not taking a stand? Or Martin Luther King? Where would we be right now?
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 05/29/2007 4:07:47 PM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 4:37:40 PM
|
Thomasbus24, who cares what anyone thinks, there is only one life.
Anyways, a little bit more to the history.
http://massequality.com/
Why It's Wrong to Vote on Anyone's Rights
-It’s wrong to vote on anyone’s rights. Our Constitution was created to protect everyone –
-Basic rights like marriage do not belong on an election ballot
-The Constitution gives legislators the responsibility to decide what’s appropriate to put on the ballot. Keeping discrimination off the ballot is the right thing to do.
-Who are we to judge other people and vote on their rights? Voters should not be asked to cast judgments on their neighbors and deny them basic rights.
-Southerners didn't get to vote on desegregation. Protection of individual rights is a fundamental part of our democracy. This is why we do not allow the majority to vote on the basic rights of minorities.
-Win or lose, it’s still wrong to vote on people’s rights.
http://massequality.com/ |
|
|
|
disp29
Advanced Member
United States
202 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 9:05:43 PM
|
Thomasbus24,
Don't worry if people think less of you. All that matters is what you think... and as long as you are happy with yourself, who cares what anyone else thinks. I think it's great that you can be open about it here. Heck, look at me. School Bus driver, Firefighter, EMT, Instructor.... I'm not sure why we are stereo-typed to the point where people don't think we can't do anything just because we are Gay.
Keep on keepin' on! |
kEvIn
|
|
|
|
PCW
Senior Member
USA
171 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 11:16:17 PM
|
This is a very touchy subject for a lot of us and I'm sure that there will be a lot of opinions voiced however I must say this much...
As an openly gay male I only expect to be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else. I know our culture looks down upon anything that is out of the "norm" but c'mon gang...the "norm" only exists because we make it that way. Let's think outside the box.
I've been in school transportation for most of my adult life with 7 years of school bus and coach driving under my belt. This has been a passion that I've had for a long time and I will be damned if anyone is going to exclude me from that simply because of whom I'm attracted to. I will be the first to voice that my lifestyle does not, nor has it ever influenced my behavior as a professional, period. I pride myself on my accomplishments within this industry and I only expect to improve as my experience and knowledge grows.
Respectfully,
|
Edited by - PCW on 05/29/2007 11:32:53 PM |
|
|
|
kscalf
Senior Member
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 10:36:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 80-RE4
I don't believe it is right or ethical for the general public to vote on the rights of others.
Items that should be placed on a ballot:
-Should stores be allowed to sell alcohol on Sundays (Y) (N)
-Should taxes be raised to $XX.XX (Y) (N)
-And to elect officials.
Human right questions simply do not belong on a ballot.
Why should these types of questions be allowed to be on a ballot?
-Should gay people (the minority), be allowed equality? (Y) (N)
That is strictly what this is all about in our state.
Imagine Rosa Parks not taking a stand? Or Martin Luther King? Where would we be right now?
It's time to study a bit and learn about constitutions and where our rights come from. If you read the constitution and even the writings of some of our constitutional philosophers (Thomas Jefferson, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes), you will find that we actually give up rights in order to establish a government that will provide us with security. The rights that are granted come from "we the people". In a representative republic, that means we elect officials that create laws effecting our personal rights. With every right comes an equal "duty". Everytime someone claims a new right, there is a duty for the rest of "we the people" to do something, or give something up, which often includes sharing the financial burden of the rights. Consider this...If the US citizens believe that there is a "right" to have universal health care for all of the citizens, then the taxpayers have the "duty" to find a way to cover the cost of enrollment, treatment, and inclusion of all citizens. This is just an example of claimed rights and responsibilities...I am not trying to start a new topic on health care. This whole thread probably needs to be stopped, but I can't stand listening to people claiming rights and not understanding our government. We live in a country that allows us great freedom and provides many opportunities. We have a responsibility to understand our role and not act like children claiming we have the right to stay out until midnight! |
|
|
|
BusFreak
Top Member
USA
798 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 6:38:38 PM
|
quote:
This whole thread probably needs to be stopped, but I can't stand listening to people claiming rights and not understanding our government.
I don't think the thread needs to be stopped, but I do think the political piece of this thread should be. Let the topic be what it is, and nothing more. The country would be a peaceful place if people's political views did not clash. Let's let them clash in a thread titled "political views." |
= |
|
|
|
disp29
Advanced Member
United States
202 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 6:54:43 PM
|
AMEN!  |
kEvIn
|
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 06:43:31 AM
|
So far, in this thread, people are acting respectfully, which is good and shows that we can have an ethical discusion about sensitive topics like this.
There is a very heated debate in the state that I live in (Massachusetts) over the gay marriage issue. Sometimes you just have to laugh at it, because the oponents of gay marriage will preach that it is wrong and sinful. However, on the other hand, a gay marriage oponent, a male, assaulted a female gay activist. Who is the one that is creating hate?!
Our ex Gov. Romney (and pray that he does not become President Romney) used his anti-gay role to aquire popularity. Thankfully, our state now has a new Governer who understands the value of equality.
(Here is part of the story, remember, the 17,000 signatures were COLLECTED by tricking people into signing a petition for other purposes) Talk about decietful.
Anti-gay activist faces new charge is shoving case
Civil rights violation alleged
By Milton J. Valencia TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
WORCESTER, MA— Larry Cirignano, the outgoing head of the Catholic Citizenship group who allegedly pushed a counter-demonstrator at the agency’s anti-gay marriage rally at City Hall, faces an additional accusation: Interfering with civil rights.
Mr. Cirignano, 50, of Canton is already facing a possible charge of assault and battery stemming from the Dec. 16 rally. He is due in Central District Court Feb. 20, when a magistrate will determine if the charge should be brought before a judge.
Police said yesterday they are seeking an additional charge of interfering with civil rights. Police Capt. Edward J. McGinn Jr. said a complaint application was filed with the court Friday afternoon. That application requires a magistrate review.
Mr. Cirignano was head of the Catholic Citizenship group when the agency staged a rally outside Worcester City Hall protesting same-sex marriage. The rally was timed with the state Legislature’s debate on whether the issue of same-sex marriage should go before voters.
Speakers at the rally urged legislators to allow the public vote. A petition signed by more than 170,000 state voters called for marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman. The amendment, which needed 50 votes, garnered 62 votes on Jan. 2, the last day of the 2005-06 session. If legislators pass the marriage petition a second time in the 2007-08 constitutional convention, it would appear as a referendum on the November 2008 ballot.
Several people held counter-demonstrations at the December rally in Worcester. Sarah Loy, 27, of Worcester, was holding a sign in defense of same-sex marriage at the demonstration when Mr. Cirignano allegedly grabbed her and pushed her to the ground. He allegedly said, “You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now.”
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS/702060368
|
Edited by - 80-RE4 on 05/31/2007 06:47:14 AM |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 07:10:42 AM
|
The petition for the Georgia Driver who was fired is located at www.petitionspot.com/petitions/DiscriminationinHenryCounty
For anyone interested |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
Peter
Top Member
USA
1051 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2007 : 2:53:23 PM
|
quote:
I don't think the thread needs to be stopped, but I do think the political piece of this thread should be. Let the topic be what it is, and nothing more. The country would be a peaceful place if people's political views did not clash. Let's let them clash in a thread titled "political views."
Like it or not, the issue of homosexuality has become inseparably tied to politics in this country. This does not particularly concern me. Does it concern you?
Clashing political views are the evidence of our free will and independent thought. The absence of disagreements would verify beyond a doubt that we had ceased to function intellectually, spiritually and emotionally. What and where would we be then? |
Spicer is nicer. |
Edited by - Peter on 05/31/2007 7:37:46 PM |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 08:35:05 AM
|
It does concern me and I feel that ALL PEOPLE WERE CREATED EQUAL, regardless of anything. I feel everyone should have the same rights and freedoms. As it stands now, this is not happening. Some people are being singled out for various reasons. The Constitution guarantees a few things that are being denied some people. The pursuit of Happiness. Why is it that some are allowed to pursue happiness, but then we tell some people their happiness is not right and they can't go after it? I say WE do this because, we do elect the people and we SHOULD control what they do as far as letting them know our views. I actually do not want this to turn political. I just want a view seen that otherwise might not be seen. I understand we all have different views, and that is good. If we all thought the same way, the country would be a boring place to be.
Thanks everyone for your opinions. I enjoy reading them even if I do not agree with them. It does give us a place to hopefully make someone else see a different side of the issue they may not otherwise see. |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
KJHill
Senior Member
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 09:21:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by SW1976
It does concern me and I feel that ALL PEOPLE WERE CREATED EQUAL, regardless of anything. I feel everyone should have the same rights and freedoms. As it stands now, this is not happening. Some people are being singled out for various reasons. The Constitution guarantees a few things that are being denied some people. The pursuit of Happiness. Why is it that some are allowed to pursue happiness, but then we tell some people their happiness is not right and they can't go after it? I say WE do this because, we do elect the people and we SHOULD control what they do as far as letting them know our views. I actually do not want this to turn political. I just want a view seen that otherwise might not be seen. I understand we all have different views, and that is good. If we all thought the same way, the country would be a boring place to be.
Thanks everyone for your opinions. I enjoy reading them even if I do not agree with them. It does give us a place to hopefully make someone else see a different side of the issue they may not otherwise see.
For the most part I agree with most of what you say. I have a problem though with the part where you claim that everyone should be allowed to do what they want as long as it makes them happy. I really don't think pedeophiles should be allowed to continue doing what makes them happy. And what about the KKK? Aryan Nation? Rapists? NAMBLA? If someone is walking down the street shooting people because that makes him happy should he be allowed to continue? I know that is extreme, but boundries do need to be set. And no matter where we put those boundries, someone or some group is not going to be happy and start fighting for their rights as citizens to be allowed to do what they want so they can be "happy". |
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 10:03:27 AM
|
I think you're comparing apples and oranges KJHill. KKK and Aryan Nation are driven by hate. Rapists are power hungry and driven by violence. The actual sexual act itself is only a small part of it. Nobody, even gays, condone NAMBLA.
Someone wanting to be "happy" while being gay means they live an ordinary life just as straight people do. But bear in mind, even the straight people also commit rape, some are pedofiles, some are murders, some have many partners, cheat on their spouses, contract AIDS, visit fetish bars, etc. These are all steroetypes commonly associated with homosexuals, but also includes many straight people. How is it any different should a straight person do any of these actions versus a gay person? Why is not the straight person mocked and ridiculed? How is the straight person any more "Christian acting" over the gay person? |
- Ryan |
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 1:41:42 PM
|
| I am saying LEGAL happiness. Not craziness. |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
bus724
Top Member
USA
1609 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 4:55:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by KJHill
For the most part I agree with most of what you say. I have a problem though with the part where you claim that everyone should be allowed to do what they want as long as it makes them happy. I really don't think pedeophiles should be allowed to continue doing what makes them happy. And what about the KKK? Aryan Nation? Rapists? NAMBLA? If someone is walking down the street shooting people because that makes him happy should he be allowed to continue? I know that is extreme, but boundries do need to be set. And no matter where we put those boundries, someone or some group is not going to be happy and start fighting for their rights as citizens to be allowed to do what they want so they can be "happy".
Here's the difference: Everything you mention is people pursuing happiness in ways that violate other people's rights and liberties. By contrast, we should all have the right to pursue happiness by entering a relationship with another consenting adult. |
|
|
|
Thomas Ford 85-16
Top Member
USA
4148 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 6:38:31 PM
|
With the exception of this Georgia firing situation, is the only government "sanction" over homosexuality the marriage issue? I could be wrong, so please fill me in if I am, but I really think that's the only thing. While I'm Christian and all and would respect the decision of a church not to honor a marriage (it's against their private beliefs after all) I've often asked myself the question: why, fundamentally, should government even be involved with straight marriage? It originated as a church custom, so why should it be hampered by the government?
It's practical applications, as far as I'm aware, exist in tax code and custody rights. If there were other ways to acknowledge working couples for tax advantages (or why bother at all?) or to track parenthood (which there are) then why do we need marriage licenses anymore? Leave it up to the religious to regulate a sacrament.
Just an idea. I'm sure I could hear many cons about it. |
Mike's Bus Yard - http://buses.zwebpages.com - Since 1999
|
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 11:37:36 PM
|
| There are many gay issues in the news right now. ENDA which is to end workplace discrimination. Gay Marriage is still on heavy. Their are a few others that I am not aware of right away. But, I know there are a few. I think we just need to go to EVERYONE is equal and be done with it. As far as government being in marriage, it is so they can collect your money for the mariage certificate and then they can charge you to get a divorce later. After all, what is the government for other than to take your money? |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
Peter
Top Member
USA
1051 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 02:31:47 AM
|
quote:
After all, what is the government for other than to take your money?
That is right on the money! We just got ourselves a new Democrat majority at the state level last this year and the first session has been all about raising our taxes. Didn't see that one coming... |
Spicer is nicer. |
|
|
|
Steven A.Rosenow
Top Member
USA
1926 Posts |
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 5:53:46 PM
|
Just an update:
Today was a very important day in Massachusetts. Our old governer, Romney (TG he is gone!) set up a ploy to place a discriminatory question on the ballot. Here is what happened today in the state house.
Romney must be crying a river!
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO54914/
Massachusetts lawmakers vote to kill anti-gay marriage question
Related Links
POLL: Gay marriage ban
Gay marriage debate timeline
Sides on vote blocking gay marriage amendment
Lawmakers who changed their vote
Hiller Instinct: Same-sex marriage
BOSTON -- Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state in which same-sex marriages are legal.
The vote -- which came amid heavy pressure to kill the measure from Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders -- was a stunning victory for gay marriage advocates and a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
"Today's vote is not just a victory for marriage equality. It was a victory for equality itself," Patrick said.
The question needed the approval of 50 of 200 lawmakers in consecutive sessions to advance to the 2008 ballot. It got the first approval at the end of last session in January with 62 votes but failed to move forward Thursday with a 45-151 vote.
As the tally was announced, the halls of the Statehouse erupted in cheers and applause from supporters of gay marriage gathered outside the House chambers.
"We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the Legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.
"Equality for gay and lesbian citizens has enriched our state, made our communities stronger, and our families happier," Swislow said. "The vote today was the triumph of time, experience, and understanding over fear and prejudice."
In contrast to several past joint sessions, there was no debate Thursday: Senate President Therese Murray opened the constitutional convention by calling for a vote, and the session was gaveled to a close immediately after.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, pledged to continue fighting. He questioned the legality of what he said was rampant horse trading in the final hours, saying there was "tremendous pressure and we believe some tremendous incentives" to flip votes.
"We're shocked at the number of votes that changed in a 24-hour period," he said.
Patrick said he made no deals, other than to agree to appear at fundraisers for lawmakers who opposed the amendment.
Among the nine lawmakers who switched from last session's vote was Rep. Richard Ross, a Wrentham Republican who said there was no trading for his vote.
Ross said he no longer believes that people should vote on the matter, and feared that "hatred and vitriol" would dominate the ballot question campaign.
"Nine thousand of them have now married, who have blended into society, who have hurt no one," Ross said. "I just couldn't see exposing them to all of that stuff over the next two years.
"I know there's going to be a lot of folks that I need to apologize to in my district," he said. "Whatever happens I'm moving forward. I know I did the right thing."
Republican presidential candidate and former Gov. Mitt Romney said he was disappointed that legislators did not let voters have their say on the issue, and said it adds to the need to pass a national amendment banning gay marriage.
"We need to have a federal marriage amendment to assure that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman because states like Massachusetts will take the course they did," Romney told supporters at a campaign stop in Chicago on Thursday.
Raymond Flynn, the former Boston mayor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican who was the lead sponsor of the proposed amendment, said the 170,000 Massachusetts residents who signed the petition for the ban "had their vote stolen from them."
The defeat of the question -- after more than three years of sometimes wrenching debate -- makes the successful mounting a future challenge even more unlikely.
Any effort to mount a new ballot question would take years at a time when political support in Massachusetts is swinging firmly behind gay marriage and public attention has moved onto other issues, including the state's landmark health care law.
For gay couples, the vote marked what could be the end of a struggle that began in 2001, when seven same-sex couples, denied marriage licenses, sued in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston to challenge the state's gay marriage ban.
More than 8,500 same sex couples have married in Massachusetts since they became legal in May 2004.
Constance Cervone and Janet Deegan were married on the first day that same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts -- May 17, 2004 -- and hugged each other on the steps of the Statehouse after the vote.
"This is my wife and she gets to stay my wife, the person I've chosen to live my life with," Deegan said, her arm around Cervone. "Our relationship is acknowledged and more than tolerated. I'm not a lesser citizen."
The vote is also a victory for the state's Democratic leadership. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston and Murray, D-Plymouth, worked with Patrick to change votes -- arguing the rights of a minority group should not be put to a popular vote.
Outside the Statehouse, some tempers flared after the vote. A gay marriage opponent, Diane Steele, 52, of Richmond, was arrested for assault and battery after she slapped a gay marriage supporter during an argument. She was released after posting $40 bail, police said.
Rinaldo Delgallo, a lawyer in Springfield and opponent of gay marriage, said he's disappointed people won't have a chance to vote on the definition of marriage.
"I think it would have been much better for the gay lobby if they won at the ballot box," said Delgallo, 45. "But I think they would lose. That's why they worked so hard to defeat it."
Trisha Malphrus, a recreational therapist in Reading, said she believes in traditional marriage and hopes one day to be able to cast a vote on the issue.
"God's in control of this," she said. "God is going to turn this around."
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
|
|
|
|
SW1976
Senior Member
United States
51 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 11:51:36 AM
|
| Yes, God is in control and moving Equal Rights forward into the 21st Century. No matter how many people want to live in the 1930's, that life is over and it is 2007, almost 2008. We need to understand people and quit pushing them down. I am not sure who exactly said it, but I think this saying says it best. "Don't let the bastards grind you down!" |
Equality for everyone!
When you have lost your job of 6 years for being who you are, then you can tell me how to feel. I am the Georgia School Bus Driver who was fired because I had a personal ad online. |
|
|
|
School Bus 7
Senior Member
USA
123 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 8:18:23 PM
|
| May I ask how are you (those who are Gay) suppose to Repopulate (or however thats spelled) the World? By the way does it make me wrong to live in the 1930's since thats the way I been raised and tought? And why Does it make me wrong not to agree with gay rights? (I Dont hate Gays I just dont agree with it) I Mean I dont wanna start anything here Im just curious to why things are the way they our and some People have no say. |
Edited by - School Bus 7 on 06/27/2007 8:19:54 PM |
|
|
|
bus724
Top Member
USA
1609 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 8:26:13 PM
|
We can repopulate by being responsible parents through adoption or co-parent adoption. I'm assuming someone conservative like yourself is also opposed to abortion, why not give us a chance at rasing those unwanted children?
And it's not wrong to live in any decade or follow the beliefs that go with your upbringing. You're entitled to your opinion as much as I'm entitled to mine. All I ask is that you respect other sexualities (not treating us as second-class citizens) as much as you expect us to respect yours (for example, by not hitting on you). |
|
|
|
disp29
Advanced Member
United States
202 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 10:17:04 PM
|
Very well put, Phil
I couldn't have said it any better. Everyone is/should be entitled to live EXACTLY how they want to. If that means that you wish to believe and follow what you've been taught, that's great. Same way with me and people like me. It's where that whole "mutual respect" comes in to play. As far as people that say (and no one has...yet) that "Adoption is NOT repopulating the World"... OK, we'll cheat the system then... but it's no different than the Heterosexual couple that lives their life without Children because they either can't or decide not to. |
kEvIn
|
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 08:14:03 AM
|
School bus 7, I assume you are about 55 years old because if your parents were born in the 30's you must have been born in the 50's. My mom and dad were born in the 50's too. Anyways lets take Massachusetts as a prime example of a statement that you made
(Anyways, before you read further, please take some time to watch this interview on YOUTUBE.com) I give the girl in the video a lot of credit for coming forward to expose the UNETHICAL and deceitful tricks that gay opponents used to gather their so-called 170,000 signatures to put forward a question on the ballot to ban gay marriage).
Thankfully, the question did not win support. It just shows that good will always win and to ALWAYS make sure you know what you are signing.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SMGUaCpmEPU
"Some people have no say"
Here is a brief history of how Massachusetts paved the way as the first state in the nation (or first commonwealth) to give same sex couples more rights.
April 2001: Seven same sex couples are denied the right to marry and challenge the decision
Nov 2003: The SJC rules that it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage
Feb 2004: SJC on a request from state lawmakers says that only full marriage for same sex couples will constitute as having legal rights as heterosexual couples
May 17 2004: MA becomes the first state in the nation to allow for gay marriage, many same sex couples are married in this state
May 18 2004: The Gov. Mitt Romney starts to cry in anger because he is a two faced bigot
(This is incomplete)
|
|
|
|
IC
Top Member
USA
3410 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 09:16:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 80-RE4
School bus 7, I assume you are about 55 years old because if your parents were born in the 30's you must have been born in the 50's. My mom and dad were born in the 50's too. Anyways lets take Massachusetts as a prime example of a statement that you made
(Anyways, before you read further, please take some time to watch this interview on YOUTUBE.com) I give the girl in the video a lot of credit for coming forward to expose the UNETHICAL and deceitful tricks that gay opponents used to gather their so-called 170,000 signatures to put forward a question on the ballot to ban gay marriage).
Thankfully, the question did not win support. It just shows that good will always win and to ALWAYS make sure you know what you are signing.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SMGUaCpmEPU
"Some people have no say"
Here is a brief history of how Massachusetts paved the way as the first state in the nation (or first commonwealth) to give same sex couples more rights.
April 2001: Seven same sex couples are denied the right to marry and challenge the decision
Nov 2003: The SJC rules that it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage
Feb 2004: SJC on a request from state lawmakers says that only full marriage for same sex couples will constitute as having legal rights as heterosexual couples
May 17 2004: MA becomes the first state in the nation to allow for gay marriage, many same sex couples are married in this state
May 18 2004: The Gov. Mitt Romney starts to cry in anger because he is a two faced bigot
(This is incomplete)
Hey 80-RE4, being born in the 50's does not make one an unthinking Neanderthal.
Case in point...the computer you're playing on....Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steve Jobs (Apple) were both born in 1955.
When your generation has come up with anything even approaching that....changing the world....you can talk! |
|
|
|
Lords47
Top Member
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 10:08:50 AM
|
I think 80-RE4's point is that the baby boomers generally tended to be more close minded about issues concerning change or equal rights.
Case in point... the civil rights movement from your era. Segregation, seperate drinking water fountains, seperate schools, banned from voting.
When your generation is more accepting of those who don't follow your definition of the "norm", than you can talk!
By the way, do a little research about the founders of Google.com, Dell Computer Corp, Linux OS and then get back to me about my generation not contributing anything of value.
Furthermore, I'm 26, and I've had a patent out on a design since I was 22 that the US Navy is using around the country. It's not changing the world, but your generation didn't invent it. |
- Ryan |
Edited by - Lords47 on 06/28/2007 10:26:16 AM |
|
|
|
80-RE4
Top Member
USA
5700 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 10:15:31 AM
|
Sorry IC, I didn't mean it in that context. I was just saying that because School Bus 7 said he was raised and taught in the 30's so maybe he is older, 77? I have a lot of friends that were born in the 50's. Most of my friends were born in the mid/late 70's to early/mid 80's though, but my oldest non relative friend is 65 and I keep in contact with her almost everyday.
Thank God for Bill Gates andSteve Jobs! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
bi or gay
