Posts made by raphjd

"I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples – as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits," the statement continued. "Discrimination should not be tolerated and any complaint alleging a violation of a citizen's right should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied. To that end, I include in my conditional veto the creation of a strong Ombudsman for Civil Unions to carry on New Jersey's strong tradition of tolerance and fairness."

Yet, that is exactly what he's promoting by vetoing the bill that would give us marriage equality.

"The ombudsman will be charged with increasing awareness of the law regarding civil unions, will provide a clear point of contact for those who have questions or concerns and will be required to report any evidence of the law being violated. In this way, we can ensure equal treatment under the law," Christie said in a statement.

Yet he doesn't want equality under the law, that's why he's against gays having marriage.

We have to remember, that every state that has had a public vote on gay rights have always voted for hate.

The problems with civil unions isn't just in New Jersey.

Even in the UK, MPs and the government don't seem to know what is and is not the same when it comes to rights of gay couples in civil unions.  The reason for this is the government has to write each bit separately to make us "equal", but if they would have just added "including same sex couples" in the marriage law that already existed, then we'd have total equal rights under marriage, because we'd automatically be included in al the rights.

As I pointed out in the thread when the court case started, the irony is that these muslims were charged under the same law that was originally created to protect muslims from hate after 9/11.  Other groups were added to the protected class, with gays being the last.  Of course it took so long to add gays to the list because religious groups kept having hissy fits.

“Removing fat from around that area can make what’s left look bigger,” he says.

This is true, but as he says, it only looks bigger, while penis enlargement actually makes it bigger.

Dead people skin inside my cock just seems gross.

Another rule that needs to be enforced, is the naming one.

Too many people are just uploading VIDEO_TS folders and it causes problems when you try to download a couple of DVD-Rs like this.  This needs to be put in a 2nd folder with the video's proper name.

@ Uwe

While all that is technically true about the definition of DVD-R, the way DVD-R is used here, the R refers more to "replica".

Otherwise I can upload tons of multi converted trash and call it DVD-R.  Using "DVD-R only means it's recordable media" definition means I can drag a video through RM converters 30 times and rip every shred of quality out of it, then make it into a "DVD-R" and all is fine.

The same for the UK.

This guy might be a sex offender too, since part of his crime was sex in public bathrooms.

Ironically, these muslims are being tried under a law that was originally created to protect muslims from hate after 9/11.

One entire series/season of a TV show can be posted at a time.

You will need to make a torrent for series 1 of the UK version and a torrent for series 1 of the US version, and so on.

DVD-R is the format, regardless if it comes in VOB or ISO.

DVD9 and DVD5 are different, so that is an allowable difference.  However, I'm not sure this should be allowed, see below.

Modern porn (last few/several years) is being done in DVD9, so a DVD5 is either "shrunk" or had parts removed.  Shrinking DVD-Rs tends to reduce quality quite a bit, while removing parts defeats the naming of it DVD-R.

Murdoch has publicly stated that he views people being able to read/view anything from his corporation without paying for it as theft.

I use Seedunlimited.com

Families can be really fucked up, to say the least.

I eliminated the fucked up parts of my family from my life, despite my partner always trying to get me to give in,  and I'm much happier for it.

Sadly, I realize you can't really do that due to your situation, but you can limit your exposure to the bad elements in some ways, by being short with your conversations with them and not giving into them; ie not lending them money.

@ Spintendo

Your attitude from your very fist post in this thread has set the tone of my responses.  You attacked  anyone who liked monogamy by calling them possessive and controlling among other things.

I also noticed that you needed to eliminate any relationship that wasn't good, to prop up your idealistic views of open relationships.  If you are willing to take the "good" ones, then you must also take the bad ones.

As someone who has never been in an open relationship, nor ever plans to be in one, I fail to see what it is that you can bring to the table in any discussion about open relationships,

I don't see what you have to bring to the table when I busted your rubbish and you need to lie about what I've said.

well as your belief, not expounded upon, that these relationships are wrong

This is not the first time you lied about what I said.

I never said they were "wrong",  other than many times one party is forced into it.  I explained this several times.  Just because you don't like my answers does not mean you can lie about what I said.

++++

You are treading very close to getting banned.  Any more attacks on me and you will be banned.  This is your 3rd and final warning.

Yet another dig at me, should I be surprised?!

There is a huge difference between expressing opinions and your posts in this thread.

I'll repeat, either post something constructive in this thread or leave this thread.  The choice is yours.

Let me see if I got this right.

Romney said;

"At the same time, from the very beginning in 1994, I said to the gay community, I do not favor same-sex marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view," he added. "If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people – that have different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that in me."

Santorum said;

When the moderator asked Santorum if he would be a voice for "speaking out for gay rights" in the Republican Party, the former Pennsylvania senator replied, "I would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity. That does not mean that I would agree with certain things that the gay community would like to do with changing laws, with respect to marriage or respect to adoption or things like that. You can be respectful. … But just because you don't agree with someone's desire to change the law doesn't mean you don't like them or you hate them or you want to discriminate against them."

What they both said is that gays are equal to heteros except in all the areas we aren't, but they don't see that as discrimination.

It's not anything from us, just that no one has been uploading them here.

Religion was used because of the historical evidence, not that any religion is right.  Besides, I'm an atheist so I hate all religions.