http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/03/06/rank_incompetence Comments On: The Gay Brain Drained by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:00:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
You are SO right that if they uphold Prop 8 each of the bundle of rights Kennard spoke so lovingly of will be removed one-by-one. First they will go after adoption, then employment & housing discrimination and so-on. I truly hope the justices see how allowing this fundamental right leads to others in the bundle being taken away bit-by-bit until there is nothing left.
Posted by Carlton]]> Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:15:32 -0700 The Stranger
oh wait... we did that already...

todays gays are beyond pathetic and exist as a group of permanent adolescents to be marketed to... COORS LIGHT PrESENTS!!!! GAY PRIDE 2009!!! The LOGO channel reminds me that soon gays will be just as brainwashed marginalized and dull as our heterosexual counterparts... Politics are for the old and ugly ! ewww !! Madonna YAY!!!

Milk is rollling over in his grave... and he wasnt a bottom either ..

PATHETIC!!
Posted by Anxious Fairy]]> Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:14:36 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Q]]> Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:03:44 -0700 The Stranger
As to the "leaders", we're all suppose to be leaders in getting equality. You want to blame someone, ask what you did? Did you March? Organize? Talk? Or just give money? Ask an elder black male or female that actually lived during those times and see if they just gave money.
Posted by MD Reader]]> Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:21:28 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Chris down in The Couv]]> Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:27:11 -0700 The Stranger Posted by diogenes]]> Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:25:48 -0700 The Stranger Posted by diogenes]]> Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:29:47 -0700 The Stranger
Pay attention, Bill!
This is serious.

And leave Dan alone.
His rectum was going to leak anyway so so what if he's blown it out with anal sex.

The problem is that brilliant homosexuals' brains are starting to drain out through their leaky rectums.

It is glaringly obvious that today's homosexuals are just an intellectual shadow of Gays from the 70s and 80s.
Proof is in the fact that they are working so hard to get Gay Marriage legalized. Obviously they never polled already married men about this.

And of course if you hire heteros to run your campaign you'll get a shitty half-ass product. It isn't on purpose- it's just that the heteros have already been married and can't muster any creative genius to sell the concept.
Posted by let's develop butt-plugs that won't let our brains leak out]]> Sun, 08 Mar 2009 04:46:27 -0700 The Stranger
Probably not.

This post is proof of that phenomenon. The Party is always willing to risk the wrath of the gays (because it never gets any). Even when they tip their hand - like Obama did in his letter to Alice - the gays are too obedient to take advantage and use it to help themselves.

The gays are trained really well...aren't they, Dan? Didn't you read this in July

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/pol…

or this

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg…

Why didn't you make a bigger deal of this back then?



Posted by patrick]]> Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:49:59 -0800 The Stranger
At some point "asking" for equality will not work, I think we have passed that point. HOWEVER, are there enough Gay Americans and concerned allies to "Demand" Civil Rights and equality? There in is the mystery.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:33:13 -0800 The Stranger So, you're saying the mother does not get fucked in the ass? Or just that she doesn't have a good time when she is fucked in the ass?
Posted by how does that relate to this post?]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:24:19 -0800 The Stranger Posted by fgfffffffffff]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:21:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by republican pussy licker that cries after coitus]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:59:59 -0800 The Stranger Maybe you should wiki gender.
Posted by but what do you know- you vote Democrat!]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:18:41 -0800 The Stranger Damn, I knew it!
Stabbed in the back by dirty breeders!!
Posted by hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahashshshshshshshshshahah]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:16:58 -0800 The Stranger
In fact, the campaign was only able to undo some of the damage that Steve had done for the first few months of the campaign after they gave the gay consultants a little more authority, around early October. It seems to me that something different from gay brain drain happened: the best and brightest gays were hard at work on the campaign; but the straight leadership didn't want their help.
Posted by mattymatt]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:31:28 -0800 The Stranger Posted by stupid xtian that sucks cocks and votes for democrats]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:32:23 -0800 The Stranger
I disagree.

Marrying someone of your own gender is not a 'civil right'.
Posted by there, I've said it]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:12:43 -0800 The Stranger you really shouldn't feed the trolls
Posted by they only laugh at you]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:11:04 -0800 The Stranger
Marriage is a civil right. We all agree on that part, or at least the Supreme Court did. You say that the court didn't guarantee that marrying who you love is a civil right, and that's correct, but that's not what we're arguing. We're arguing that there's no compelling reason to restrict marriage on the basis of gender, and the reasons that have been provided are unfair and (in some cases, like CA) illegal.
Posted by pico]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:44:11 -0800 The Stranger
Why didn't your mother abort you when she had the chance? Did you dodge the coat hanger before she could evade a lifetime of misery listening to your stridently idiotic drivel? Let's be real coy and quick.

That just assumes the truth of the premise that it's not a civil right because...and here it is...because it's not a civil right, ya fuckin' moron! *jazz hands* That's some argument. Same sex marriage is not a civil right because it's not a civil right. So the fantasy that it is not a civil right is caused by itself! Jesus thinking...self caused unmoved movers...

Then idiots like you go off about it being a privilege because you have to meet certain criteria, whereas you don't have to meet any criteria for something to be a right like, say, the option of owning a firearm or being born in a country which acknowledges your right to free speech as a citizen of said country (also a privilege, and not a right according to this reasoning unless people choose to be born male or female) and yet, legal minors who can't access their RIGHTS yet because they don't meet certain criteria reduces said rights to privileges (daaaaaaaaaaaa)...and a criterion is, according to you douchey schmuck bastards, being male and female...once again, begging the question!

As to the GUVMENT not being able to make sure people have the option of marriage, and the rights and responsibilities that accompany said right, apparently you don't know what a marriage license is or that states issue them.

Even if it were a privilege (which there's no non-arbitrary way of distinguishing from a right that doesn't beg the very question by assuming the truth of the distinction), why should that privilege only be extended to opposite sex couples and not same sex couples? Why should religions be protected from workplace discrimination when gays aren't? Seems like you folks do advocate special rights and special treatment, but only for yourselves. That seems to reenforce extra special treatment and consideration to opposite sex couples for no other reason than discrimination. You idiots cheapen the discourse.
Posted by TANK]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:32:08 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Starry Decisis]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:12:18 -0800 The Stranger
fartiepie,

perhaps I can be of assistance:

Marrying someone of your own gender is not a 'civil right'.

No one is, or can be, promised by the government that they can marry the person they 'love'.

(I have read this several other places on slog. It must be true.)
Posted by 3rd time's the charm]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:33:49 -0800 The Stranger
What evidence can you use to support your assertion?
Posted by hartiepie]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:13:34 -0800 The Stranger
just kiddin, Dan
Posted by peace]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:44:03 -0800 The Stranger