Prop 8

[JohnG]

There are numerous academic attacks on polygamy. Mostly they describe the abusive power relationships within these multiple-partner marriages. By having a single man at the head and numerous women below, a power structure of dominance and submission is created thereby rendering the women in the relationship subject to psychological and often physical harm. It objectifies women.

...

Gay marriage and polygamy are apples and... used car parts. Completely different.

I agree. They are not comparable, for the reasons you have stated.

That said, you are wrong when you say AllegryDoc is a bigot. He is not. Not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot or homophobe. I believe the arguments for allowing it are superior but I don't write off anyone who disagrees with me as a bigot. There are MANY reasons people object to same sex marriage. I don't happen to be persuaded by those reasons, but I recognize that they are diverse and complex.

[Pugwash]

Yes... the term "marriage" comes from the Bible... it's a religious term... that's what the yes on 8 people were fighting for...

Bull[censored].

The church hijacked marriage. Ancient Greeks married. Romans married. People who never heard of Yahweh or Jesus married. The Christians tried to hijack the institution as a form of control.

[Norm]

Wow .... quite a passionate set of opinions. In reading this post while I let the TV babysit my kids for the moment (please let's not start a debate about that one) I would like to say this ....

The one issue that seems to get twisted is the idea that because to call something different is to call it less than. Personally, I support the supposition that marriage is defined as a union in the eyes of God between a man and a woman. It is a personal preference based on my life experience and I think to change the definition does take us down that slippery slope that AD speaks of. That said, different doesn't imply less than, thus to say that gay's are less than straight's based on a statement like that gives away one's bias (even perhaps their bigotry).

That said, I disagree with the Chruch's stance of homosexuality as sinful. It is however, different, than what is commonly agreed on as mainstream sexuality. To accuse someone of bigotry because they are against the concept of their children being taught that something "different" is "not different" creates confusion. I believe it is a frivolous use of education because teaching tolerance and love for one's fellow man is the job of parent's and family, not for Ms. Smith, my history teacher.

My .02

[downtown]

The argument isn't about ''different'' vs. ''not different'', it's about ''normal'' vs. ''abnormal'', which is really just applied here as a euthenism for ''wrong'' and ''immoral''. I'm also curious as to who is doing the ''agreeing'' on mainstream sexuality. Psychologists? Doctors? Experts? Or are we just talking about JoeNobody, because whenever it comes down to a vote in recent years, there's seldom been a landslide in one particular direction. Popular does not always mean 'right'.

Public opinion has shifted towards increased acceptance of homosexuality and equal rights for gays and lesbians over the past 30 years. According to the Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who think that same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal has increased from 32% to 57% since 1986.[1][2] In 1977, 56% of Americans thought that gay people should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities. Today, that number has risen to 89%.[3][2] In 1992, 38% thought that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle. Today, that number is 54%.[1][2] In 1997, 27% of Americans thought that same-sex marriages should be legally valid. That number is now 39%.[4][2] In 1977, 13% of Americans thought that sexual orientation was genetically determined; now, 42% think it is.

Numerous studies have investigated the prevalence of acceptance and disapproval of homosexuality, and have consistently found correlations with various demographic, psychological, and social variables. For example, studies (mainly conducted in the United States) have found that heterosexuals with positive attitudes towards homosexuality are more likely to be female, young, non-religious, politically liberal or moderate, and have close personal contact with openly gay men and lesbians.[5] They are also more likely to have positive attitudes towards other minority groups[6] and are less likely to support traditional gender roles.[7]

I've bolded the scariest part. It highlights a. the inability of the common population to stay educated and the failure of the public school system, and b. the ability of the people to base their opinions on 'gut feelings' rather than scientific facts. Homosexuals should be outraged when people say that they are less able to control their moral behavior and sexual orientation than heterosexuals. Simply not acting on homosexual impulses does not make one straight. Sexuality is fluid; masculinity and femininity are social constructs and by no means acutely biological.

Gay is seen as wrong for few fundamental reasons. Primarily by the various religious cults who base these opinions on literal interpretations of their Bibles. It's also to be noted that in the same section that states homosexuality is immoral (Leviticus and Genesis), shellfish and pork are also targeted. Talking snakes and flying people are also depicted. Not many christians I know have such strong passions against lobster and bacon as they do of the ''gay agenda''. Which leads me to another popular interpretation. This "gay agenda" is a direct threat to the social control that religions have been steadily losing in the US since the early 80s. Every now and then a little ''awakening'' will happen, but trends are beginning to side with secularism. 16% of Americans don't believe in flying space gods or talking snakes, which is saying a lot (only 12% of the US population is black, so that should give you an idea). It's pretty obvious that the religious should feel threatened by this increasing secularization.

"Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias prevents the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs."

My take home point is this.

Its unfortunate, because AD has impeccable taste with watches, is clearly an intelligent individual and it's highly unlikely his attitude toward the ''homosexual movement'' dramatically affects his relationships with others. I doubt he treats a homosexual who comes to him for help with any less care than he would a heterosexual. We are all products of our environment. These things are self-evident in most people.

When it comes to moot arguments like this, it always comes down to argument over principle and semantics, which I feel are holding the US and the West, really, back from further social progress. I have nothing personal against conservatives in general until it begins to negatively affect public policy. Why should homosexuals have to pay taxes when their rights and opinions aren't respected or represented by the government? Denying them equality with heterosexuals, on a fundamental level, is denying them core citizenship. It just doesn't make any sense that one particular group can mask their opposition to social progress and mask it as free speech, when they do the same things to homosexuals. Both sides are hypocritical, and I don't deny this, but it's also clear that both sides can't be right. Not with individual freedoms.

[Norm]

The argument isn't about ''different'' vs. ''not different'', it's about ''normal'' vs. ''abnormal'', which is really just applied here as a euthenism for ''wrong'' and ''immoral''. I'm also curious as to who is doing the ''agreeing'' on mainstream sexuality. Psychologists? Doctors? Experts? Or are we just talking about JoeNobody, because whenever it comes down to a vote in recent years, there's seldom been a landslide in one particular direction. Popular does not always mean 'right'.

I've bolded the scariest part. It highlights a. the inability of the common population to stay educated and the failure of the public school system, and b. the ability of the people to base their opinions on 'gut feelings' rather than scientific facts. Homosexuals should be outraged when people say that they are less able to control their moral behavior and sexual orientation than heterosexuals. Simply not acting on homosexual impulses does not make one straight. Sexuality is fluid; masculinity and femininity are social constructs and by no means acutely biological.

Gay is seen as wrong for few fundamental reasons. Primarily by the various religious cults who base these opinions on literal interpretations of their Bibles. It's also to be noted that in the same section that states homosexuality is immoral (Leviticus and Genesis), shellfish and pork are also targeted. Talking snakes and flying people are also depicted. Not many christians I know have such strong passions against lobster and bacon as they do of the ''gay agenda''. Which leads me to another popular interpretation. This "gay agenda" is a direct threat to the social control that religions have been steadily losing in the US since the early 80s. Every now and then a little ''awakening'' will happen, but trends are beginning to side with secularism. 16% of Americans don't believe in flying space gods or talking snakes, which is saying a lot (only 12% of the US population is black, so that should give you an idea). It's pretty obvious that the religious should feel threatened by this increasing secularization.

My take home point is this.

Its unfortunate, because AD has impeccable taste with watches, is clearly an intelligent individual and it's highly unlikely his attitude toward the ''homosexual movement'' dramatically affects his relationships with others. I doubt he treats a homosexual who comes to him for help with any less care than he would a heterosexual. We are all products of our environment. These things are self-evident in most people.

When it comes to moot arguments like this, it always comes down to argument over principle and semantics, which I feel are holding the US and the West, really, back from further social progress. I have nothing personal against conservatives in general until it begins to negatively affect public policy. Why should homosexuals have to pay taxes when their rights and opinions aren't respected or represented by the government? Denying them equality with heterosexuals, on a fundamental level, is denying them core citizenship. It just doesn't make any sense that one particular group can mask their opposition to social progress and mask it as free speech, when they do the same things to homosexuals. Both sides are hypocritical, and I don't deny this, but it's also clear that both sides can't be right. Not with individual freedoms.

1. Mainstream, without hitting the Webster's, is considered what is typical of or practiced by the majority. Only if you think that the bulk of the population is homosexual can you disagree that heterosexuality is not considered mainstream. To even make that statement says to me you just want to continue to argue for no other reason than to try and yell louder than the other side.

2. Different was a term used in these posts, I believe at one point by AD. To say it's a euphemism for something else is to claim to know someone else's thoughts ... It is arrogant and implies a morally superior attitude. Isn't that one of the accusations you have made of those on the conservative right?

3. In the discussion of Prop 8, what rights are being denied? The right to call the union a marriage? I don't see the "denial of equality" because of the refusal to change the definition of a term rooted in not only civil but religious tradition.

All that said, I think you make some very valid points. While I was raised in a conservative Catholic household and do believe in God, I also think that organized religion has a history of corruption and changes in stance based on their own best interests. They hold the most clear and blatant anti-gay policies .... and coming from a man with a bi-sexual daughter I sincerely disagree in the interpretation that homosexuality is immoral .... although it is different that mainstream sexual behavior.

[downtown]

1. Sexual orientation is largely fluid, especially in women, and is person-specific rather than gender-specific (which itself is a social construct). I'm not arguing that everyone is gay, but I am arguing that Western gender relations are a result of social constructions. Mainstream in popular social thought or mainstream in scientific and academic thought are certainly separate. I would argue that mainstream is not the same as traditional, because mainstream is constantly evolving, whereas traditional can be considered as fixed. Perhaps that was a point I didn't need to make as strongly as I did, granted.

2. It's clear that homosexuals are 'different' than heterosexuals when it comes to sexual preference and its subsequent cultural norms, but the language used by AD has been primarily ''normal'', which in this case has a separate meaning and implication from ''different''. Semantics?

3. In the discussion of Prop 8, various rights are being denied. Instead of summarizing, which I probably don't have time for, I'll just post information:

The Difference between Gay Marriage and Civil Unions

by Kathy Belge

You hear the politicians saying it all the time.

[JohnG]

We'd need to hear from an actual homosexual to know why they don't like being singled out, I guess.

There is a gay member here named Chancellor. He is out and always happy to talk about his opinions and experiences. I saw him in a thread titled, "Demsey lives" here in the same subforum - you could try posting this question to him there.

Hope that helps.

[swissaddict]

JohnG, always trying to help... it's a shame the Church requires death before Sainthood.

[JohnG]

[TeeJay]

Let me preface my .2c with this:

Yes.... but if it's not a "marriage" then it's not religious... and if it's not religious then the fight loses its' passion.... people make think its' wrong, but they'll be out on street corners protesting basic civil rights, not religious beliefs... it becomes a much more clear, unemotional fight...

As for the religious connotation of homosexuality.... well, as someone who has studied the Bible, I can tell you that God hates ALL sin... and all is EQUAL in the eyes of Lord... so, if you sped on the way to work, you went against the law of the land and therefore, you have sinned... if you have checked out a woman's ass today as she walked by you, you have sinned.... if you looked at a watch on this board and were jealous, you have sinned... but none of those is more or less of a sin than homosexuality... so, let he without sin cast the first stone and all that...

People are fighting the wrong fights...

Absolutely spot on, brother

First off, if I might make a few observations and suggestions...

With regards words like 'normal' or 'natural', I think there needs to be clarifications made to distinguish these concepts. What is 'natural', is not always, statistically speaking, 'normal'. There will always be, statistically speaking, a 'norm'. Example: Handedness. The majority of the Human race is right-handed. A minority of Humans are left-handed. Statistically speaking, left-handedness is 'abnormal', but that does not mean that left-handedness is 'unnatural', nor does it mean that left-handedness is 'wrong'.

Even though there have been instances of homosexuality amongst both the Animal and Human Kingdoms throughout history, biologically and statistically speaking, heterosexuality is 'the norm', to maintain propagation of the species. Homosexuality is not 'unnatural', but it is not a statistical 'norm'. There are species of fish which, if there is an abundance of one gender, will biologically metamorphose into the other gender. A natural 'transsexual'

With regards concepts such as 'sin', I would suggest mentally substituting that word with 'test'. God has given specific laws, guidelines and rules to live by. It is said that to live outside of those guidelines, is to sin. As AllergyDoc mentioned previously, tendencies such as alcoholism, can be (and have been proven to be) genetically determined. As has been mentioned, people are born knowing they are gay, or transgendered, or with tendencies towards addictive behaviors. As AllergyDoc mentioned, as Humans, we have the ability to resist and rise above those genetically determined traits, or, to use that scary word, jihad, (Meaning to struggle, to strive, to seek, to overcome) against those traits and still live according to God's Will. In Iraq, if a man has sex with another man, that is considered homosexual and forbidden, but, if, however, someone feels that they are indeed a female 'trapped in a man's body', (ie a genuine case of gender dysmorphia) and they undergo sexual reassignment surgery, becoming a transsexual, if this person then has sex with a man, that is not considered to be homosexual, because they have overcome their 'test' of being male, by becoming (as close as is biologically possible for a Human) female. Under Islamic law, homosexuality is considered fornication, or, if the men are married, adultery. That is what is forbidden, adultery and fornication, or rather, public adultery and fornication.

Now, while it is forbidden for a man to have sex with another man, according to the Qur'an, adultery and fornication must be proven before a sentence can be passed. For it to be proven, as with fornication, this requires multiple witnesses.

Sura 4:

And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four, from among you; and if they bear witness to the fact , shut them up within their hourses till death release them, or Allah make some way for them.

And if two men among you commit the same crime, then punish them both; but, if they turn and amend, then let them be: for Allah is He who turneth, Merciful!

Now, if two men are having sex in their own home, how are there going to be multiple witnesses? Answer: There are not going to be any, therefor, homosexuality cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven, then it is not possible for sentence to be passed, therefor it is not for people to pass judgement on one another in such matters, but a case of it [their judgement] being between those people and God. God will judge them as He sees fit. It is not for us to judge one another. The conduct laid out thus in the Qur'an is not aimed at suppressing homosexuality (or sexuality of any kind), it is making a statement against lewd public conduct (regardless of the gender or sexualities involved)

Homosexual relationships are well documented as having occurred during the time of the Roman Empire, and even during the Feudal Era of Japan, where it was not considered 'manly' for a warrior to show affection to a female, so while a samurai (or Roman Senator, or even an Emperor, such as Hadrian) might well be married to a female, it was also entirely common and accepted for them to also have younger male lovers. This was most likely not looked on as 'being gay', as it would be in today's 21st Century Western Society. I would think the closest modern equivalent, would be men who keep it 'on the down-low' (men who do not identify themselves as being homo or bi-sexual, but who still have sex with other men) the only difference being that in those previous times, such relationships were not 'hidden away', as a 'down-low' relationship most likely would be.

Personally, I have no issue with gay people. One of my best friends is gay. Admittedly, if he was any further in the closet, he would be in Narnia, but as a result, he has never had a proper adult relationship, as, in attempt to 'look straight', he keeps trying to hook up with girls, only for the relationship to fizzle out after a few weeks. Leonardo da Vinci was gay, he also had an incredible intellect, and I can't think of anyone who has inspired me more. John Barrowman is gay, he is also an awesome actor, singer, and presenter, and I'll watch any show that he appears in, simply because I enjoy his performances, and I never tire of trying to see what watch he is wearing (I believe he may well be a collector, and I have seen him wearing various Rolexes, and an Ebel 1911 Discovery)

I just thought I'd get that out of the way before anyone considered calling me a homophobe.

Now, down to the meat and two veg of the debate. Gay Marriage. It is a word, people. That's all. A word. When I have my 'legal' wedding in February, it is not going to be a religious ceremony, but a civil ceremony. That does not mean I am gay, nor does it mean that my wife is gay, it just means that we are not having a religious ceremony. Before his own civil ceremony, John Barrowman was quoted as saying:"We're just going to sign the civil register. We're not going to have any ceremony because I'm not a supporter of the word marriage for a gay partnership."

For a group or government to try and legislate against a legal partnership, is wrong. No ifs, no buts, just wrong. Anyone, should have the legal right to 'enter into a legally defined long-term relationship' ( ) with whoever they want (within legal guidelines of age, relationship to each other etc etc). With regards the argument that one is a right, the other is a licenced act, yes, marriage is licensed, yes, driving is licensed. But. People must not only learn to drive, but also be tested to prove their competence. In order to get a marriage license, my wife and I (as folks may recall, we signed an online marriage register early in the year so consider ourselves to be married, even if it is not 'legally binding') had to be interviewed and answer numerous in-depth questions about the other and our families, before we could be issued with the marriage license. That license does not mean we are married, it simply proves that we have satisfied the legal requirements (in the UK) to get married.

Okay, that's my .2c. If anyone wants to pick apart what I have said and try and argue that I am a homophobe, fuck you, look somewhere else for an argument, as I've made my feelings on the issue as clear as I can, and am not prepared to debate them further. To round off on a more upbeat note, here're some pics

[Demsey]

If anyone wants to pick apart what I have said and try and argue that I am a homophobe, [censored] you,

Well, I really couldn't be bothered, but since you put it that way;

I just thought I'd get that out of the way before anyone considered calling me a homophobe.

Your anecdotes have absolutely zero bearing on your predisposition of "phobia". You could be married to a black woman and still be a racist.

Now, down to the meat and two veg of the debate.

See? You are a homophobe. If only on a subliminal level.

[JohnG]

See? You are a homophobe. If only on a subliminal level.

[TeeJay]

Well, I really couldn't be bothered, but since you put it that way;

I wish you'd stuck with the instinct not to be bothered.

Your anecdotes have absolutely zero bearing on your predisposition of "phobia".

Anecdotes? Sorry, I was quoting scripture, historical facts, as well as relevent personal opinion (John Barrowman's thoughts on 'gay marriage')

With regards "phobia", the word does not even apply. Oh I don't deny that homophobia is a word, but it is not one which applies to me.

The points I was raising were intended to further the debate on 'gay marriage'. If you choose to see that as homophobia, then that is your issue, and not mine.

See? You are a homophobe. If only on a subliminal level.

On second thoughts, as JohnG responded:

Sorry that tone doesn't really translate properly through text, but the comment I was not making was not homophobic.

I'm such a homophobe, that I admire homosexual artists and actors. Yeah, that's really homophobic

Did you have anything to add to the debate itself?

[Demsey]

Personally, I have no issue with gay people. One of my best friends is gay. Admittedly, if he was any further in the closet, he would be in Narnia, but as a result, he has never had a proper adult relationship, as, in attempt to 'look straight', he keeps trying to hook up with girls, only for the relationship to fizzle out after a few weeks. Leonardo da Vinci was gay, he also had an incredible intellect, and I can't think of anyone who has inspired me more. John Barrowman is gay, he is also an awesome actor, singer, and presenter, and I'll watch any show that he appears in, simply because I enjoy his performances, and I never tire of trying to see what watch he is wearing (I believe he may well be a collector, and I have seen him wearing various Rolexes, and an Ebel 1911 Discovery)

I just thought I'd get that out of the way before anyone considered calling me a homophobe.

This paragraph contains anecdotes and could, in no real way, persuade the reader to align themselves with your opinion' "I am not a homophobe". It is a weak case at best. As a matter of fact, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. "Meat and two veg", as you well know, but perhaps not all the readers, is a British colloquial euphemism for a man's genitalia. It wasn't as clever as it was 'telling'. You may not be a subliminal homophobe, but you certainly may be a subliminal homosexual. You can site the fact, anecdotally, that you have a girlfriend, but that does not prove a case to the contrary. Anymore than the fact you keep Guinea Pigs as pets lends to the case you are gay.

Did you have anything to add to the debate itself?

No, and that makes the two of us. You said you weren't going to argue. You lied.

I am glad to see your time on the boards hasn't tempered your demeanor T'J. You're still a prickly pear. Sorry for the euphemism, but my membership level won't allow me to call you a [censored]. But you certainly are.

Cheers!

Edited November 10, 2008 by Chancellor

[alphakazi]

no more bunghole - no more bunghole!

[JohnG]

This paragraph contains anecdotes and could, in no real way, persuade the reader to align themselves with your opinion' "I am not a homophobe". It is a weak case at best.

What if TJ went out and sucked a [censored], and then posted the pics here? Would that convince you that he is not a homophobe?

[TeeJay]

You lied.

Changing one's mind, is not lying. Neither is going back on one's word. It does not matter if you give your word, it matters who you give it to.

I dunno guys, I really don't think Ken, TT, the membership et al are, should be, or should be expected to be, copacetic with all this. It's kinda a cultural imperialistic exodus for you (us) guys to be here under "our terms". There are A LOT of members here who were so grateful that rwgjr was formed. Not that it was sprung from it's (RWG's) pinnacle, but rather what it had become, devoid of a webmaster; a "bin". Even though rwgjr. has this "laissez-faire" subforum I really don't think it is appropriate to take advantage and squat here.

You're absolutely right about that, and I suspect the only reason why Admin allowed this 'squatting' to take place, is because from an administrator's point of view, it is easier to let people in, and keep all the shit in the valley, than it is to try and keep people out. Personally, I don't like the kind of posting which now takes place 'in the bin', so as a result, I stay out of the bin and ignore it. This thread does not have an RWG1 flag, so when I clicked on it, I did not realize that it was 'in the bin', and thought that it was going to be a reasonable debate. You, on the other hand, clearly responded only to troll and try and get a rise out of me, as your last attempted digs at my sexuality indicate. Sorry, but I'm not going to indulge you. Now I know that this is a 'junk thread', I'll be ignoring it, just like I ignore the rest of the shenanigans which go on 'in the bin'.

No,

And that's all I needed to hear.

I am glad to see your time on the boards hasn't tempered your demeanor T'J. You're still a prickly pear. Sorry for the euphemism, but my membership level won't allow me to call you a [censored]. But you certainly are.

Cheers!

Your participation level proves you're still a troll, so I won't waste any more of my time acknowledging you.

[TeeJay]

What if TJ went out and sucked a dick, and then posted the pics here? Would that convince you that he is not a homophobe?

Probably not

Demsey probably doesn't really believe I'm a homophobe or a homosexual, he's just trolling for a response, and I've better things to do than respond

[JohnG]

Probably not

Demsey probably doesn't really believe I'm a homophobe or a homosexual, he's just trolling for a response, and I've better things to do than respond

Oh I know he is trolling, but his trolls are worth trolling for.

The Loony Bin is quickly becoming the most active sub forum on RWGjr. And the Return of Demsey could well push us over the top. It is important to keep him welll fed - he is our only resident celebrity - aside from Dave "da man" of course.

[TeeJay]

Oh I know he is trolling, but his trolls are worth trolling for.

The Loony Bin is quickly becoming the most active sub forum on RWGjr. And the Return of Demsey could well push us over the top. It is important to keep him welll fed - he is our only resident celebrity - aside from Dave "da man" of course.

The thing is, I have no time for trolls, I've seen it ruin too many forums. As long as it stays 'in the bin', I can ignore it, no harm no foul. It's a shame, as this could have been a good debate. Oh well.

[Demsey]

"my .2c."

You overcharged us.

Of course I was trolling ya' dope ya'. And I will fully accept the charge, if you will, and even if you won't. I am a firm believer in "It takes one to know one" and in "Treating people with kind". You T'J, are probably the biggest troll, in the essence of the word, these boards have ever seen. You often try to guise it as contrived benevolent contribution, which is still a form of 'trolling' as the true definition of the word put forth by "Neo" those years past and widely accepted is; the propensity of an entity on an internet message board to rally opinion and sway to his/her exclusive way of thinking, often, but not always, surrounded with turmoil and discord, but you just can't help tripping over your size 14 Doc Martins and blowing it:

Okay, that's my .2c. If anyone wants to pick apart what I have said and try and argue that I am a homophobe, [censored] you, look somewhere else for an argument, as I've made my feelings on the issue as clear as I can, and am not prepared to debate them further.

It doesn't matter what brilliant insights your post may have held ( I wouldn't know really, seeing you penned it remanded I only give it cursory examination; you are boring) the final exeunt to your post, while not the most 'trolling' ends you've ever put inside, is certainly in the top five and is what caught my attention. Youn planted 'corn' and now stand arrogantly in resentment and indignation that indeed 'corn' has grown. You are actually, allegorically speaking, trying to berate 'corn' for being what it is; 'corn'. It's funny. It's gay. Not in an homosexual way, but in the way a '[censored] pack' is well, funny and gay.

This is your 'style' afterall T'J. It was when you left RWG for more civilized and worldly fields, but it desn't seem you've found them yet?

http://www.rwg.cc/members/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0

It seems at least two Mods called you out on the fact; you are a 'drama queen'. Maybe it wasn't RWG at all? It seems perhaps you are the common denominator?

You're absolutely right about that, and I suspect the only reason why Admin allowed this 'squatting' to take place, is because from an administrator's point of view, it is easier to let people in, and keep all the [censored] in the valley, than it is to try and keep people out.

Quite. So perhaps when the tide ebbs, John has his new site hooked up and the RWG flotsam and jetsam rolls out of the rwgjr sea, perhaps you could go with it? Not so sure you would be missed.

Now I know that this is a 'junk thread', I'll be ignoring it, just like I ignore the rest of the shenanigans which go on 'in the bin'.

One could only hope.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Chancellor

[TeeJay]

( I wouldn't know really, seeing you penned it remanded I only give it cursory examination; you are boring)

And yet you still read it, and not only felt the need to troll me, but still feel the need to do so. Sad.

This is your 'style' afterall T'J. It was when you left RWG for more civilized and worldly fields, but it desn't seem you've found them yet?

Lets just say that the tone has significantly lowered recently.

http://www.rwg.cc/members/index.php?showto...t=0&start=0

It seems at least two Mods called you out on the fact; you are a 'drama queen'. Maybe it wasn't RWG at all? It seems perhaps you are the common denominator?

As you clearly dug through the files to find that, it might interest you that those two mods have apologized for 'calling me out'. It really is sad that you went to the lengths to find that thread to try and validate your 'point'.

Quite. So perhaps when the tide ebbs, John has his new site hooked up and the RWG flotsam and jetsam rolls out of the rwgjr sea, perhaps you could go with it? Not so sure you would be missed.

Maybe so. I doubt you would be missed either.

[Demsey]

One could only hope. Beyond hope.

[JohnG]

You're absolutely right about that, and I suspect the only reason why Admin allowed this 'squatting' to take place, is because from an administrator's point of view, it is easier to let people in, and keep all the [censored] in the valley, than it is to try and keep people out.

I am sure it doesn't hurt that a lot of us are now paying members.

Personally, I don't like the kind of posting which now takes place 'in the bin', so as a result, I stay out of the bin and ignore it.

NOW goes on? This was the trash bin for all the [censored] threads that went south. Nobody started threads here, much less posted here. It was a garbage dump, so we have hardly made it worse than it was.

A Prop 8 thread was ALWAYS going to become contentious and end up here. No way around it. And the vast majority of the posts in this thread are not RWG1 posts...

It seems at least two Mods called you out on the fact; you are a 'drama queen'. Maybe it wasn't RWG at all? It seems perhaps you are the common denominator?

TJ, just ignore this kind of stuff. Demsey is doing his Dr. Lecter shtick where he tries to dissect your psyche and expose some kind of ugly core, therefore causing you to kill yourself by swallowing your tongue. It hasn't worked yet, but he never loses hope, bless his little pumpkin head.

[Demsey]

shtick

No, it's spelled; t-r-i-c-k, and it's done with mirrors. The reflection never lies. The more they kick, scream, deny and try to deflect the image as result of the trick itself, the better the trick has worked. It's a disappearing act. No one can stand to be in the box with themselves, so they just go.

I can abide boors, self imports, the arrogant, the self righteous, the flippantly rude for rudeness' sake, anarchists and trolls. It's how I largely live with myself. What I can not abide are those who stand on the mountain top of self denial screaming to the echo; "I am not conceded! That's what makes me so great!" and then argue with the echo absentia. You know, 'jerk offs'.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Chancellor