No More Mr. Nice Gay. (Trees And Things)

Steve Urkel: Re: Pink listed

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:48:15 EST

Fags are indeed vindictive. Yet another reason not to give them what they want.

Thalia: Re: Pink listed

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:44:08 EST

The organization didn't fire him. He resigned when he realized that his actions pissed of a significant portion of the donors and subscribers whose money his organization depends on. I'm not a fan of purges. But I think a director of musi

Steve Urkel: Re: Pink listed

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:31:43 EST

It's too bad he couldn't he keep his job, but do some sort of pennance. It looks like the homosexual community is more punitive againts those who transgress its "morality" than the Catholic Church.

"they will not take his views kindly. Nor should

Thalia: Re: Pink listed

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:11:21 EST

Tolerance / donate to fund assholes' salaries. He resigned because he realized that a significant portion of the donors and attendees at musical theater (not to mention the actors) are gay. And they will not take his views kindly.

skeptic: the slushie economy

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:41:28 EST

During WW II, certain commodities were rationed due to shortages and the demands of the military, and people had ration booklets to ensure that they only bought the allowed quantity. A similar scheme could be introduced for slushies. Everyone c

skeptic: religion compared to labor unions

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:35:55 EST

Insofar as both are organizations which are basically selfish but which pretend to great altruism, then yes, religion is like a labor union. Now if we could unionize the clergy, we would achieve critical mass...

ckm: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:34:38 EST

Perfect. Then the state of California will have to sue the federal gov't to get the to recognize that civil union == marriage. Then we will have removed the last vestige of religion that's still prevalent in US law.

JimmyHavok: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:03:37 EST

can you provide a link to a group demanding such

It's right there up his ass.

JimmyHavok: You are so stupid!

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:01:46 EST

Nobody is demanding the Catholics perform a gay marriage in their church yet.

First Amendment, dimwit. I know you've heard of it, even though you read it backwards. The same amendment that says that churches can't impose their belief

JimmyHavok: you're a fucking idiot. just plain stupid, is all

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:58:50 EST

But what those proponents are protesting now is rights enshrined by the First Amendment; the right to practice religion without state interference is front and center of the damn thing.

Denying gays the right to civil marriage is a protected reli

JimmyHavok: no take-backs

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:54:18 EST

the ones who endorsed a certain President-Elect

Wait, they weren't endorsing the President-Elect, were they? Since God hates them, does that make it not c

JimmyHavok: Re: free slushie Thursday

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:43:00 EST

That's an awfully complicated method for doing something that could be accomplished by handing out Thursday slushie stamps.

It does have the advantage of increasing employment.

pO157: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:15:56 EST

I think one of the things that bothers organized religions about this whole thing is they feel the control slipping away. Marriage is one of the bigger things they can hold against their members. For mormons, unless they got married in the International Ho

meyotch: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:59:14 EST

I think the divorce analogy is apt here. The Roman Catholic Church disdains divorce to the point that they will not marry a couple where one or both parties are civilly divorced. A divorcee wishing a church wedding must go through a separate pr

zyxwvutsr: Re: the nature of religion

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:35:22 EST

...the purpose of religion is primarily to secure power, privilege, and wealth for the clergy who are in charge

Ah, so religion is like a labor union?

pO157: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:34:49 EST

I can't think of many.

I know the red cross owns a fairly ostentatious mansion by me, but I doubt they own the portfolio of commercial and investment properties that the mormons do (I'm pretty sure that if they attempted to buy luxury condos for their

zyxwvutsr: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:33:12 EST

I don't know. Some?

Steve Urkel: Pink listed

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:54:54 EST

The backlash over his donation to the Prop. 8 campaign has forced the artistic director of California's largest nonprofit musical theater company to resign

skeptic: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:08:43 EST

The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, and this is usually interpreted to mean that religion cannot be taxed, because of the principle that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" although I have always wondered why it is apparently OK for t

Thalia: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:04:46 EST

People committing illegal acts / government violating to right to free speech. I'd go so far as to say that those two things have absolutely no relationship to each other.

skeptic: the nature of religion

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:04:17 EST

Religion is capable of charity, and some religious people are quite benevolent (I know some of these people personally) however, the purpose of religion is primarily to secure power, privilege, and wealth for the clergy who are in charge. In this sen

Thalia: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:59:42 EST

Why do you think it'll require a Constitutional amendment to remove a church from from the tax exempt lists? Today all it requires is that the preacher endorse a candidate.

skeptic: Re: free slushie Thursday

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:00:09 EST

Well, in theory the government can do almost anything that it considers to be necessary, but it would be really hard to come up with a reasonable legal basis to require the 7-11 stores to give away slushies. This would appear to be discriminato

pO157: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:11:52 EST

How many hunger relief organizations owns the business property portfolios the mormons have, and how many disaster aid charities have the mansions and assorted bling the Roman Catholic church posses?

profwhat: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:08:35 EST

That is neither simple nor clean. If no one in your state is "married," then you get no federal marriage benefits. Spouse dies? Sorry, you only get their Social Security benefits if you were "married."

zyxwvutsr: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:17:00 EST

What, they're business firms?

thefadd: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:11:10 EST

religious organization =/ charity

zyxwvutsr: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:07:12 EST

I completely agree that religious organizations should not have a tax-exempt status

Do you favor taxing all charities, or only the godly ones?

arromdee: Re: free slushie Thursday

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:10:08 EST

Jokes aside, why couldn't the government demand this? This is basically a tax; the only difference is that the tax is being paid in slushies. You could make it closer to a conventional tax by having them pay the money to the government and then

gameCoder: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:06:17 EST

No, I'm not saying "No on 8" supporters stayed home. I'm saying that around July and August and early September, we got complacent. The polls were all going our way, prop 8 wasn't much in the news, so we thought we had it in the bag. When

gerrymander: Re: Not that anyone asked me, but..

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:57:33 EST

And I think that plan would have been successful..

I think you're right. For that matter, if same-sex marriage activists ever get back to doing something useful and non-destructive, coupling a "freedom for religions" amendment proposal with a "re

gerrymander: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:56:39 EST

The Christian Broadcasting Network? Oh my...right on cue is right.

You'd prefer perhaps the version in the local newspaper? Just bec

skeptic: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:33:00 EST

I completely agree that religious organizations should not have a tax-exempt status, however, that's not a change that can be made by the IRS. It will require a constitutional amendment. The whole concept of freedom of religion needs to be re-d

skeptic: Re: a digression into cultism

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:24:26 EST

It's perfectly true that regardless of what logical objections you may point out to a cultist, that person will find some bizarre rationalization to explain them away. However, it is also true that most Scientologists do eventually leave the cult. &n

pO157: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:15:13 EST

You clearly haven't kept up with gay rights blogs over the past few days, because that's exactly what many are suggesting. Start at Dan Savage's postings in the Stranger's "Slog" if you need proof.

Could you point to a specific post where he adv

ckm: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:15:12 EST

Fine. Search and replace 'status quo' with 'status quo ante'.

ckm: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:14:51 EST

Fine. Search and replace 'status quo' with 'status quo ate'.

ckm: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:10:10 EST

The real solution to the semantic problem is simple. Rip out all references to 'marriage' in the laws of the state and replace it with 'civil union' or some other wording.

Then marriage will be only be a religious act, not a civil act. Simpl

MC Nally: Not that anyone asked me, but..

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:32:23 EST

Nobody is demanding the Catholics perform a gay marriage in their church.
Yet, you mean. Nobody is demanding the Catholics perform a gay marriage in their church yet. Given the importance the pro-same-sex mar

Lou: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:06:12 EST

The Christian Broadcasting Network? Oh my...right on cue is right.

But I digress.

You almost made a good point, but you ruined it with this:

Sure, the damage is low-grade now, but this is the Left Coast. How much you want to bet we

gerrymander: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:33:24 EST
My recollection is that if they wish to remain tax exempt entities, they cannot currently organize politically.
And they haven't. The Mormon Church has made no direct donations to the "Yes on Prop 8" campaign. Funny thing: you can get a right on cue:
Several churches have been vandalized by apparent supporters of same-sex marriage since the idea was

gerrymander: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:15:05 EST
Nobody is suggesting that any group be prohibited from donating to whatever political action organization they want, or from acting like bigoted jackasses if they so choose.
You clearly haven't kept up with gay rights blogs over the past few days

pO157: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:10:30 EST
So are you saying people stayed home from the polls? I don't live in California, but it just seems a bit unlikely since a "history making" Presidential contest was at the top of the ticket.

thefadd: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:17:40 EST
My take is that his argument is a bit more nuanced than that...that marriage for all is still not the status quo even thought it had become the law of the land. Still, I think you are right that there was a palpable complacency among those opposed to Prop

Lou: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:14:53 EST
...

Thalia: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:06:49 EST
My recollection is that if they wish to remain tax exempt entities, they cannot currently organize politically. Did I miss a memo overturning 501(c) rules?
T.

gameCoder: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:59:35 EST
Just a little quibble... the "Yes on 8" campaign was not status quo. For the last 5 months, gay marriage had been perfectly legal in California. "No on 8" was the status quo (recently, at least) and "Yes on 8" represented a change to that. &nbs

Lou: Re: a digression into cultism

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:40:41 EST
Easy, Ken...your body thetans are showing.

pO157: Re: a digression into cultism

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:52:58 EST
Certain aspects of Scientology show obvious contradictions which should be hard to swallow even for a hardened cultist. Even in "Dianetics: The Modern Science Of Mental Health" it is predicted that clears will have greatly extended lifespan

skeptic: Re: a digression into cultism

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:52:49 EST
OK, this really is a digression, but nobody is complaining, so I will continue.
Certain aspects of Scientology show obvious contradictions which should be hard to swallow even for a hardened cultist. Even in "Dianetics: The Modern Science Of

pO157: Re: a digression into cultism

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:33:08 EST
Nonetheless, I do know some arguments which will give pause even to a hardened cultist, and I would like to have more opportunity to talk to them, but they are afraid to talk to me.
Like what? Our city has a $cientology infestation due to a reg

pO157: They're getting a bargain if it's free.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:31:39 EST
... apparently in fear of being enturbulated
Usually you pay double for that kind of action.

skeptic: Re: free slushie Thursday

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:31:01 EST
Or perhaps I should just have said, your free slushie will be paid for by the slush fund.

zyxwvutsr: Re: a digression into cultism

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:30:50 EST
!

skeptic: Re: a digression into cultism

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:29:48 EST
???

zyxwvutsr: Re: a digression into cultism

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:17:24 EST
Your pimp hand in strong indeed.

skeptic: a digression into cultism

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:13:30 EST
Yes, our local Scientology org films every protest in complete detail. To my knowledge, they have never done anything of interest with these films. The purpose of filming protests is that in theory, if the protesters go crazy and do something i

pO157: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:09:18 EST
Kind of like how we should deal with laws set to overturn Roe v. Wade which are threatened every election but have yet to appear in Congress, right? Ooo, I know! We should work to forbid women's rights groups from donating to "right to life" causes and

gerrymander: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:05:17 EST
Then we'll deal with that when we get to it.
Kind of like how we should deal with laws set to overturn Roe v. Wade which are threatened every election but have yet to appear in Congress, right? Ooo, I know! We should work to forbid women's

pO157: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:39:26 EST
You just said it; they're areligious, and there are plenty of places which can provide a nice backdrop. In contrast, I can think of two types of people who might file challenges to marriage practices in churches: gays who are part of that religion and

gerrymander: Re: the mob rules

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:16:25 EST
Clinics were more worried about their free speech rights than in not being blown-the-fuck-up or having their doctors and clientele shot by the lunatic fringe.
Technically, that would be the freedom of association -- also a valuable part to the Fi

wetkarma: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:56:54 EST
I take your point. We both agree that this is an issue of semantics -- the implied meaning of marriage.
I believe we disagree on two points. The first is that people in the majority ARE willing to discriminate against gays - this discrimination i

1fastdog: the mob rules

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:53:36 EST
Intimidation doesn't count as an abridgment of free speech? Makes you wonder what all those abortion clinics were worried about.
Right. Clinics were more worried about their free speech rights than in not being blown-the-fuck-up or having their d

gerrymander: Re: those poor, helpless churches

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:31:37 EST
At any point along the line, the minister could've said "thanks, but no thanks" and sent us packing
To bad you're not a member of a protected class. You could have claimed discrimination and gotten a lawsuit settlement large enough to pay for the

gerrymander: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:23:31 EST
If this was the case, then how come we haven't seen a bunch of shallow areligious hetero-twentysomethings obtain court orders to get married in Catholic basilicas for their flashy scenery and background?
You just said it; they're areligious, and

1fastdog: those poor, helpless churches

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:21:32 EST
Yet, you mean. Nobody is demanding the Catholics perform a gay marriage in their church yet. Given the importance the pro-same-sex marriage side has placed on the courts so far and and recent behavior of those same advocates at churches, do you really f

zyxwvutsr: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:11:45 EST

If only there were some passage in the Constitution demanding equal protection for all citizens
That's funny: the 14th Amendment didn't grant women the right to vote.

pO157: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:03:17 EST
Yet, you mean. Nobody is demanding the Catholics perform a gay marriage in their church yet. Given the importance the pro-same-sex marriage side has placed on the courts so far and and recent behavior of those same advocates at churches, do you really

ckm: Re: ignoring the will of the majority

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:56:38 EST
No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that, with no outside influences, people will follow the status quo and what they know. It was up to the No on 8 people to create effective outside influences to convince people that a no vote was

gerrymander: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:50:53 EST
I take it you're with Governor Palin that media or public criticism of your views impinges on your first amendment rights?
By the time it's gone to the point of thousands of people surrounding a gathering place, screaming obscenities and jumping

gerrymander: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:41:23 EST
Nobody is demanding the Catholics perform a gay marriage in their church.
Yet, you mean. Nobody is demanding the Catholics perform a gay marriage in their church yet. Given the importance the pro-same-sex marriage side has placed on the co

ckm: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:39:33 EST
I think the No on 8 people should support an amendment to the California constitution that makes it illegal for religious institutions to tithe their members without local county approval.

Thalia: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:21:23 EST
I take it you're with Governor Palin that media or public criticism of your views impinges on your first amendment rights? Pray tell, in what way did GOVERNMENT restrict the right of churches to speak freely? In what way did GOVERNMENT restrict

pO157: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:52:14 EST
Judging on the actions of the "No on Prop 8" side over the past week, they were absolutely correct. Unlike anti-sodomy laws, the debate over marriage rights is entirely within the public sphere.
Sure, as a civil construct. What say does a

pO157: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:47:44 EST
That's totally cool with me.

gerrymander: Re: Fark the Mormons, et al

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:44:56 EST
If the IRS goes after churches for political issues, they will need to include all churches which took political stances, including the ones who endorsed a certain President-Elect. Just saying.

gerrymander: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:38:18 EST
There's one huge problem with the idea of targeting churches: bigotry. No, not by the churches' congregations, but by the gay rights activists.
Same-sex marriage proponents have repeatedly claimed that marriage right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment,

pO157: Fark the Mormons, et al

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:13:02 EST
I understand that Jesus/Ganesha/the CEO/HR Department/whoever says that policy is against gay marriage. That's fine. Nothing is requiring them to marry homosexuals in their temple or

pO157: Re: The mind reels

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:59:27 EST
Do the Scientology folks follow the same pattern as they do the protesters here? Instead of trying to engage them in any reasonable debate or simply ignore them they simply stand across the street taking hundreds of pictures constantly for hours on end.

skeptic: Mormons

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:26:04 EST
The Mormon church has taken an actively anti-gay position and is funding anti-gay political intiatives. Those of us who believe that gay people should have the same civil rights as straight people therefore have reason to be offended by the Mormon ch

skeptic: the return of slavery

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:19:59 EST
I might point out that the US constitution originally DID authorize slavery, which was only abolished about a century later by an amendment. Obviously, if the majority of the American public wanted to bring back slavery, they could amend the constitu

skeptic: free slushie Thursday

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:13:12 EST
I think that it would be illegal for the state government (even acting in accordance with an initiative that is approved by the majority of voters) to require the 7-11 stores to give away slushies on Thursdays. That would constitute an arbitrary seiz

Lou: Re: The mind reels

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:08:32 EST
My bad...you attend the protest at the church. Gotcha.

skeptic: Re: The mind reels

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:56:24 EST
The reason why I attend anti-cultist protests is that I am deeply offended by cultism. And it isn't a Scientology service that I attend; I would never enter a Church of Scientology building for any reason. Since you were not the only person who

skeptic: Re: Let me get this errrr straight

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:51:09 EST
As thefadd realizes, it is the protest which I attend religiously, not the church, and I was being deliberately ironic in my use of the term "religiously" since I am quite irreligious. Actually, my claim of attending religiously is also an exaggerati

wetkarma: ignoring the will of the majority

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 04:53:34 EST
CKM,
the basic thesis of what you are saying is that people didn't understand what they were voting for? I recall a ballot initiative (in Georgia) which asked me whether farm workers should get a higher deductible for farm vehicles -- and yea I had no

ckm: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:28:20 EST
The reason why prop 8 passed is because the gay community was too busy organizing and proselytizing San Francisco & West Hollywood and not South San Francisco, Bakersfield, Fresno, Tracy or other non-urban communities.
I have a warehouse in South Sa

zyxwvutsr: Re: polling

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:05:41 EST
78% of all statistics are invented on the spot.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Crazy, crazy train! Chooo, chooo!

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:03:07 EST

Pat Boone never recovered from that
You obviously don't own In a Metal Mood, an album whose subtitle, I might add, is quite similar to t

thefadd: Re: Boycotting

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:52:08 EST
I don't think you're wrong. I'm not exactly puzzled by why these people are protesting in West Hollywood and Silver Lake but I think they should be protesting at the Mormon Church (like they did) and in South Central (like they didn't) if they are serious

profwhat: Re: Boycotting

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:43:06 EST
My exit poll says African-Americans were 70% for Prop 8, compared to 65% of over-65s. That poll doesn't tell me about the other categories you mention. Is there anot

port1080: Re: Boycotting

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:41:45 EST
Why boycott Utah when California was the state that voted for this thing?
I think that there is some justification in being bothered by how much out of state money was poured into this campaign (by both sides, for that matter). It just seem

thefadd: Re: Boycotting

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:35:17 EST
Unless you're a Mormon, they were all lies.

Lou: Re: Boycotting

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:34:57 EST
Follow the money.

Thalia: Re: Boycotting

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:17:47 EST
Why are you calling out African Americans, when they're less than 15% of California voters? Why not call out people over 65? McCain supporters? People who live in rural communities? Married people with children? Frequent churc

profwhat: Boycotting

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:09:07 EST
Why boycott Utah when California was the state that voted for this thing?
Why protest the Mormons when it was African Americans who contributed the votes that passed this thing?
Obvious answer: Because gay activists are far more comforta

Lou: Re: Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:38:46 EST
Slim Whitman had a longer career too.

Thalia: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:36:39 EST
While the Constitution in California can be changed by a simple majority, that is only for aspects not previously addressed. That is, you cannot alter the Constitution by simple majority. You can add to it. So, for example, slavery is spe

ms sue: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:23:19 EST
More like mob rule (funded by deep pockets) in action.

thefadd: Re: Let me get this errrr straight

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:10:47 EST
I had to think about that one for a second, too. After reading Thalia's comment, though, it does make sense to me that skeptic would take it as a "religious" obligation to protest a church on a monthly basis.

thefadd: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:10:27 EST
Direct democracy in action baby! The problem is, we're just not taking advantage of this thing enough. I vote for free slushee Thursdays--who's with me?

ms sue: Re: Let me get this errrr straight

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:55:51 EST
Hmmm....but it's "my" local church, and the "which," if used correctly, should refer immediately back to that "church."
Maybe he attends the church and then protests his attendance?

Steve Urkel: Re: Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:30:16 EST
Never recovered is an odd claim, considering Boone outlasted the Beatles. In just the 70's alone Boone was releasing classic albums like "The New Songs of the Jesus People", "Texas Woman", and of course "Miracle Merry-go-round".

T Slothrop: Re: Let me get this errrr straight

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:19:10 EST
Thanks for pointing out my error (even if that wasn't your intent), Thalia.
OK, he attends the protest as some kind of religious observance or pennance? I understand that even less.

Lou: Re: Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:11:56 EST
Yes...Sadly Pat Boone never recovered from that.

Steve Urkel: Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:06:39 EST
I prefer to imagine a world where the Beatles never came along to ruin popular music.

Thalia: Re: Let me get this errrr straight

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:04:59 EST
He attends a protest religiously. Is that healthy?

T Slothrop: Let me get this errrr straight

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:59:27 EST
You are not a Scientologist, yet you regularly attend services at a Scientology center as some kind of pennance? Do I have that (even approximately) correct?

MayorBob: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:49:20 EST
"Can the constitution of the state of California be changed by a simple majority in a plebiscite?"
Yes, indeed, it can and has be

tomc: Re: No More Mr. Nice Gay.

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:30:24 EST
I'm seriously trying to understand this whole process:

A ballot initiative asking that marriage be only between a man and a woman is passed.

The California Courts reject this as unconstitutional.

A b

Lou: The mind reels

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:18:39 EST
which I attend monthly, as a religious obligation
Did you lose a bet? Is there someone you want to date/are dating that goes? Do they have awesome coffee and doughnuts after service?

tomc: Re: religious homophobia

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:17:00 EST
Scientology doesn't actively campaign against the civil rights of homosexuals. The main social change that they seek is the destruction of the profession of psychiatry.
Clearly, if we got rid of psychiatry, homosexuality would eventually di

skeptic: religious homophobia

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:09:12 EST
At a recent protest outside my local Church of Scientology (which I attend monthly, as a religious obligation) I was once asked about the homophobic element of Scientology. There are certainly anti-gay sentiments in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, ho