Can someone explain this to me?

[popltree2]

Not a tech question by any means, but I saw this banner on the Travelocity website and I figured someone might have my answer.
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9571/060822ggbasfhotels468sq2.jpg

I thought to myself "What makes a hotel 'gay friendly'?" Not a life-altering question, but it seems like this day in age, a gay friendly hotel should be ANY hotel. Any ideas?

[bird603568]

theres no way that this is real can you give use a direct link and not an image shack link?

[striker1211]

http://www.diversityworking.com/career/archive.php/?newsid=192948&cchan=20

[popltree2]

theres no way that this is real can you give use a direct link and not an image shack link?

It was a random banner when I was looking at hotels in that area. Let me see if I can find it agian.

[popltree2]

Not the exact same, but close enough.

http://ag.travelocity.com.edgesuite.net/Sponsor_gifs/060822_ggba_sfhotels_125.jpg



UPDATE: Here is the exact banner

http://ag.travelocity.com.edgesuite.net/Sponsor_gifs/060822_ggba_sfhotels_468.jpg

[kowgod]

It's totally legit. When I went to SF for the rev3 launch, the hotel I stayed at had a "Gay Package." It was for couples only and included tickets to a gay/lesbian theater, free hotel gym pass, a little brochure for a walking tour of the Castro, etc etc.

[bird603568]

shit i can i say im "gay" for a free gym pass those things are expensive

[nextgenxbox]

shit i can i say im "gay" for a free gym pass those things are expensive

LOL. Good times.

[ariastar]

Even though SF is very open and accepting, people are still sometimes uncomfortable going and checking into hotels with someone of the same gender. To my understanding, gay-friendly places are more likely to have gay employees, brochures for gay activities, etc.. It's not a big deal, just an ad letting gay people know that they are okay and welcome. For the discrimination they go through in most parts of the world, I am glad that there are places that try to make them feel welcome. Unlike the crying about how "I" made "so-and-so's people" slaved when that happened before anyone alive today was even conceived, discrimination against gays and the fight for their equal rights still goes on. There's no law that allows gays to be married in marriages acknowledged in all states, for one.

I could go on and on about this because I have a passion for equality.

Basically, most locals around here generally don't think twice about this.

For VCF, are you planning to stay in the city or closer to Mt. View/San Jo?

[v3ry_h-gh]

gay friendly meaning they may offer "items" and special rooms for gay couples.
maybe a couple of enima's!

[JAPPO]

Just what we need...

[ariastar]

gay friendly meaning they may offer "items" and special rooms for gay couples.
maybe a couple of enima's!

This is exactly the type of attitude they are trying to escape.

[klitzy]

I saw some of these in san fran when I went too..It was called like a gay package.

[popltree2]

Even though SF is very open and accepting, people are still sometimes uncomfortable going and checking into hotels with someone of the same gender. To my understanding, gay-friendly places are more likely to have gay employees, brochures for gay activities, etc.. It's not a big deal, just an ad letting gay people know that they are okay and welcome. For the discrimination they go through in most parts of the world, I am glad that there are places that try to make them feel welcome. Unlike the crying about how "I" made "so-and-so's people" slaved when that happened before anyone alive today was even conceived, discrimination against gays and the fight for their equal rights still goes on. There's no law that allows gays to be married in marriages acknowledged in all states, for one.

I could go on and on about this because I have a passion for equality.

Basically, most locals around here generally don't think twice about this.

For VCF, are you planning to stay in the city or closer to Mt. View/San Jo?


I completely agree with equality, but for a different reason than most people. Yes gay people should be able to have their love acknowledged and given the same rights as heterosexual people. But I like to look at the biology of men and women. What's the difference (and I am not talking about the obvious)? I don't see it as a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman. I see it as two BIOLOGICAL creatures that have an great attraction to one another. I hate to take the metaphysical aspect from love, but it really is just a simple biological function.

Thank you for clearing up my question. I just found it puzzling that hotels would have to advertise themselves as gay friendly. I know we aren't past the inequality, but I didn't think we were this far from it!

Since you are going to be pretty close to the action, I will probably stick close to you and the event. I will be a stranger in a strange town, after all :D

[ryudo]

So the stereotype image of San Fran is true.;) j/k

And no I am not against gays even as hetrosexual,they can do whatever they want in the privacy of thier homes...erm or in this case hotel room.
Met quite a few growing up actually and parents had some gay friends...just normal people like anyone else.*shrug*

[tokenuser]

Knowing a hotel is gay friendly is an advantage - it means that two guys checking into a king size room wont cause an awkward situation, it also means that a family that is uncomfortable having their children exposed to a homosexual lifestyle doesn't check into that hotel.

Does anyone really care anymore? Not my thing, but no harm no foul. I have friends (male and female) that are gay (some more open about it than others). They are in committed relationships, and are happier than a lot of hetero couple I know.

I'd say this was a non-issue.

[sevver]

Gay people are definately not cool and should not be treated any differently than anyone else.

[casework]

Even though SF is very open and accepting, people are still sometimes uncomfortable going and checking into hotels with someone of the same gender. To my understanding, gay-friendly places are more likely to have gay employees, brochures for gay activities, etc.. It's not a big deal, just an ad letting gay people know that they are okay and welcome. For the discrimination they go through in most parts of the world, I am glad that there are places that try to make them feel welcome. Unlike the crying about how "I" made "so-and-so's people" slaved when that happened before anyone alive today was even conceived, discrimination against gays and the fight for their equal rights still goes on. There's no law that allows gays to be married in marriages acknowledged in all states, for one.

I could go on and on about this because I have a passion for equality.

Basically, most locals around here generally don't think twice about this.

For VCF, are you planning to stay in the city or closer to Mt. View/San Jo?
You talk about equality yet mock the racial inequality that still is present... No, I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about the racism that has occurred and continues to occur in our country, throughout all of our lives(the 60s were only 40 years ago, a time when at least our parents were growing up).

I'm not trying to argue here, that's just a bit hypocritical in my eyes.

But back to one of your points, I don't get why a gay person would feel uncomfortable renting a room at a hotel. If they are that uncomfortable or feel they would be unwelcomed, all they would have to do is just have one person go in to rent the room(if they hadn't already done it online or by the phone). I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't get how that could be a reason for this. I get the point of the package and all, I just don't get that point.

[sevver]

It is just one more thing that may be added to the database.

[kowgod]

I just don't get how that could be a reason for this. I get the point of the package at all, I just don't get that point.

Simple. Marketing. This is just another way to both embrace the communities they are in, and attract more guests, and their money.

[popltree2]

Simple. Marketing. This is just another way to both embrace the communities they are in, and attract more guests, and their money.

I would have to agree with you here, kowgod. Companies seem to find any niche they can to draw in more money. They pretend to offer a unique service for the benefit of the customer. While that may be true, I think that is more a byproduct of them trying to make money. But that is a discussion from a different thread...

[casework]

Simple. Marketing. This is just another way to both embrace the communities they are in, and attract more guests, and their money.

Oh no, I get that. I just meant I don't get her logic behind one of her other points.

[popltree2]

I honestly didn't mean to turn this into a firestorm of "he-said-she-said". I just wanted to know what gay-friendly ment! Thank you. Continue discussion...

[ariastar]

You talk about equality yet mock the racial inequality that still is present... No, I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about the racism that has occurred and continues to occur in our country, throughout all of our lives(the 60s were only 40 years ago, a time when at least our parents were growing up).

I'm not trying to argue here, that's just a bit hypocritical in my eyes.

But back to one of your points, I don't get why a gay person would feel uncomfortable renting a room at a hotel. If they are that uncomfortable or feel they would be unwelcomed, all they would have to do is just have one person go in to rent the room(if they hadn't already done it online or by the phone). I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't get how that could be a reason for this. I get the point of the package and all, I just don't get that point.


I'm talking about the lowest point of the main event not having been in any of our lifetimes and did not indicate that inequality is over. Slavery is the lowest point that racism has gone. That happened long before anyone on this world was born. The lowest point of gay disctimination has been within the last decade. In the 60's, blacks, while still treated poorly, were not property to be owned and sold as blacks if a century before were.

I know that racial inequality isn't over. Gender inequality isn't either. Women have a harder time in the workplace in most industries, and men have a harder time with rights to their children (I am on the board of directors of an international fathers' rights organization, despite being a woman).

It wouldn't be as easy to have one person go in and bring the other in later. When you check into hotel rooms, most have an additional charge for additional people. To say only one could have you kicked out. To say two and bring in the other person later will draw attention. "Hmmm, I wonder if that's a gay prostitute."

[casework]

I'm not trying to argue either, just for that to be known.

Just wanted to raise a few points in discussion to AriaStar.

[casework]

I'm talking about the lowest point of the main event not having been in any of our lifetimes and did not indicate that inequality is over. Slavery is the lowest point that racism has gone. That happened long before anyone on this world was born. The lowest point of gay disctimination has been within the last decade. In the 60's, blacks, while still treated poorly, were not property to be owned and sold as blacks if a century before were.

I know that racial inequality isn't over. Gender inequality isn't either. Women have a harder time in the workplace in most industries, and men have a harder time with rights to their children (I am on the board of directors of an international fathers' rights organization, despite being a woman).

It wouldn't be as easy to have one person go in and bring the other in later. When you check into hotel rooms, most have an additional charge for additional people. To say only one could have you kicked out. To say two and bring in the other person later will draw attention. "Hmmm, I wonder if that's a gay prostitute."I still don't really get the logic behind not wanting to get a room, but whatever. All hotels nowadays have online registration... it's not like you have to go through some process to get a room. They get a credit card, you get a key.

As for the points of inequality...

So because blacks were no longer being sold, my point is dismissed? I don't believe gays have ever been considered "property", so trying to compare the two is really comparing apples to oranges. I understand the relevance of the "worst point in time", but not having civil liberties isn't comparable to being bought and sold. In the 60s, blacks didn't have a lot of civil liberties either. That WAS in our lifetime(or that of those who raised us).

The two instances really are separate events, and to compare the two, you have to consider comparable conditions.

Getting beaten because you are black(has happened in our lifetime) can be compared to getting beaten because you are gay(also in our lifetime). But saying one is more relevant than the other simply because different things have happened at different times just isn't fair.

[popltree2]

I think we can ALL agree that there is still a lot of work to be done on the equality front, whether it be for sexual or racial (the word "racial" brings up a whole 'nother issue. I mean, humans and Klingons are different races, not white people and black people. But I digress...).

[kowgod]

...whether it be for sexual or racial...

Let alone ethnic, economic, religious, intellectual or ideological.

[popltree2]

Let alone ethnic, economic, religious, intellectual or ideological.

You bring up a lot of valid divides that are the result of the "human condition".

What I was getting at before was...
the word "ethnic" I think is more apt for issues of ETHNICITY (white, black, etc). If you want to say that humans are better than alligators, then you are a racist (or bored), not if you think white people are superior to black people or vise versa.

I have strong religious convictions. I encourage active debate over the ideas of God and existance, HOWEVER I would never condone the harming of someone based on their religious beliefs.

[sevver]

We are all human here, that is except for sammy, he is a monkey.:p

[trashcan]

I completely agree with equality, but for a different reason than most people. Yes gay people should be able to have their love acknowledged and given the same rights as heterosexual people. But I like to look at the biology of men and women. What's the difference (and I am not talking about the obvious)? I don't see it as a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman. I see it as two BIOLOGICAL creatures that have an great attraction to one another. I hate to take the metaphysical aspect from love, but it really is just a simple biological function.

Thank you for clearing up my question. I just found it puzzling that hotels would have to advertise themselves as gay friendly. I know we aren't past the inequality, but I didn't think we were this far from it!

Since you are going to be pretty close to the action, I will probably stick close to you and the event. I will be a stranger in a strange town, after all :D


A simple biological function that has one reason, one purpose, and one meaning: reproduction. Last time I checked, homosexuals cannot reproduce.

[popltree2]

A simple biological function that has one reason, one purpose, and one meaning: reproduction. Last time I checked, homosexuals cannot reproduce.

I have a feeling you are confusing love with sex. Sex != love. Do you think tigers love one another? No. They find a suitable mate and reproduce. Love is something that is uniquely human.

[kowgod]

A simple biological function that has one reason, one purpose, and one meaning: reproduction. Last time I checked, homosexuals cannot reproduce.

Love != reproduction.

[popltree2]

Love != reproduction.

Beat ya...kinda :D

[casework]

I think we can ALL agree that there is still a lot of work to be done on the equality front, whether it be for sexual or racial (the word "racial" brings up a whole 'nother issue. I mean, humans and Klingons are different races, not white people and black people. But I digress...).

That's really all I'm trying to get at.

I just feel it's really detrimental to the entire cause to regard one issue or group of people as more important than the other. To think that racism is no longer is issue is simply ignoring the issue, and that won't get anyone anywhere.

[tokenuser]

A simple biological function that has one reason, one purpose, and one meaning: reproduction. Last time I checked, homosexuals cannot reproduce.
<sniff> .... <sniff sniff>

I always wondered what a homophobe smelt like. Kinda like 1 part bs, with a hint a self importance, and ... wait ... is that a dash of sexual insecurity I detect as well?

Sure they can reproduce. They have all the right parts. In fact, many hide their preferred tendancies behind a hetero relationship that sometimes involves kids. So, homosexuals can reproduce - just not with each other.

[trashcan]

Homophobe implies that I'm afraid of homosexuals. I'm not afraid, I just don't approve.

Edit: State a scientific fact, and people resort to personal attacks.

[popltree2]

Homophobe implies that I'm afraid of homosexuals. I'm not afraid, I just don't approve.

Edit: State a scientific fact, and people resort to personal attacks.

No, that is not a scientific fact. Homosexuals can reproduce, just not with one another. Did you even read what Tokenuser wrote?

[trashcan]

Allow me to rephrase. Love is a chemical reaction which ensures that reproduction and nurturing protection occur. Homosexuals cannot reproduce (with eachother), therefore the concept of love without purpose in a homosexual relationship.
The only definable goal, point, or reason for life is to reproduce. It's the one thing that all organic life must do to ensure survival.

Not to sound harsh, but homosexuals living their lives together, while not wrong or bad, is essentially saying "**** you" to nature.

If the entire species were gay, it would die out immediately.

Hence, scientific fact.

Also, allow me to say that I haven't said a single homophobic thing, and yet you call me "insecure."
I have not once said that homosexuals are without value. If you're going to read between the lines, try wearing your reading glasses.

[ariastar]

A simple biological function that has one reason, one purpose, and one meaning: reproduction. Last time I checked, homosexuals cannot reproduce.

By your logic here, a gay guy CAN be with another gay guy, but a straight infertile girl shouldn't be with anyone.

A gay guy, as others have said, with no medical problems CAN reproduce. So he can reproduce, therefore is okay.

A straight girl who can't conceive or carry should not be allowed to marry because she is incapable of reproducing.

Allow me to rephrase. Love is a chemical reaction which ensures that reproduction and nurturing protection occur. Homosexuals cannot reproduce (with eachother), therefore the concept of love without purpose in a homosexual relationship.
The only definable goal, point, or reason for life is to reproduce. It's the one thing that all organic life must do to ensure survival.

Not to sound harsh, but homosexuals living their lives together, while not wrong or bad, is essentially saying "**** you" to nature.

If the entire species were gay, it would die out immediately.

Hence, scientific fact.

Apply this to infertile people who CAN NOT reproduce, not just with their opposite-gendered partner, but with ANYONE.

And it's EXTREMELY homophobic to say that "nurturing protection" is something that only happens with straight people. That is essentially what you are saying, that gays can not reproduce and have "nurturing protection," and this makes you a homophobe.

[trashcan]

I retract my argument. It's not worth the time arguing the philosophy of homosexual relationships on a tech forum.

[ariastar]

Also, would you say that couples who CHOOSE not to reproduce have "love without purpose," or are they okay because they are making a choice? How is this that much different from two gays who are together who are essentially making the choice to be with someone with whom reproduction can't happen at this time?

And do you really think we need more people born in this world? Already countless thousands of children are born who don't have families. Heaven forbid gays bypass passing on their genetics to adopt one of these children. They can't provide "nurturing protection" simply because they are so open-hearted that they happen to love someone of the same gender!

If the human species were all gay, this does NOT mean we'd die out. Most people would still be capable of reproduction. A fertile gay guy is no less capable of having a child with a fertile woman as a fertile straight man would be. I'm sure that if it came down to only gays being alive, humans would be fine. Have you ever heard of in vitro and artificial insemination? It happens now. Therefore, gays ARE capable of reproduction, making your "point" broken.

Answer my questions in a logical manner. If you can not answer the following questions, you have no right to talk:

If two gays being together are wrong because they can not reproduce with each other, why is it okay for an infertile man and an infertile woman to be together when they can't reproduce with ANYONE at all?

On what do you base the belief that gays love "without purpose"?

On what do you base gays neing incapable of "nurturing protection" for being gay?

To whose nature are they saying "*** you" by being together? What YOU think nature should be?

Would it not be saying "*** you" to their nature to deny who they NATURALLY are by being in a straight relationship?

[ariastar]

I retract my argument. It's not worth the time arguing the philosophy of homosexual relationships on a tech forum.

Because you can't back up your argument.

[trashcan]

Also, would you say that couples who CHOOSE not to reproduce have "love without purpose," or are they okay because they are making a choice?

If everyone "chose" not to reproduce, the species would die out. It's as simple as that. It's still their choice, but my argument is still completely reasonable.

Edit: and while love may be infinitely more complex than this statement can define, I still believe that the purpose of love is to ensure survivability of the species.

[ariastar]

If everyone "chose" not to reproduce, the species would die out. It's as simple as that. It's still their choice, but my argument is still completely reasonable.

Edit: and while love may be infinitely more complex than this statement can define, I still believe that the purpose of love is to ensure survivability of the species.

So let all those people who have babies they don't want give their babies to gay couples who will love those babies. I this way, love IS ensuring the survival of the species.

Many women give birth and dump the babies in garbage cans. Biological reproduction alone does not mean survival. It does not even mean love.

And how many college kids go off and have lots of meaningless sex and end up with babies?

Love and reproduction are not connected. The inability to do one does not indicate the inability to do the other.

[trashcan]

So let all those people who have babies they don't want give their babies to gay couples who will love those babies. I this way, love IS ensuring the survival of the species.

Many women give birth and dump the babies in garbage cans. Biological reproduction alone does not mean survival. It does not even mean love.

And how many college kids go off and have lots of meaningless sex and end up with babies?

Love and reproduction are not connected. The inability to do one does not indicate the inability to do the other.

What I said was that love is necessary for survivability. You clearly proved my point. If lack of love leads to dumping a baby in a dumpster, then lack of love leads to extinction.

[point5o]

I think we can ALL agree that there is still a lot of work to be done on the equality front, whether it be for sexual or racial (the word "racial" brings up a whole 'nother issue. I mean, humans and Klingons are different races, not white people and black people. But I digress...).

What I was getting at before was...
the word "ethnic" I think is more apt for issues of ETHNICITY (white, black, etc). If you want to say that humans are better than alligators, then you are a racist (or bored), not if you think white people are superior to black people or vise versa.

popltree2, I agree with your logic but that sadly isn't the reality. When discussing matters of race, it's assumed that race refers to ethnicity. And changing the way people speak isn't going to happen anytime soon. Ethnicist just doesn't have the same ring to it does it? Do you adhere to your scholarly post above and deservingly call someone an "ethnicist" rather then using the popular but erroneous "racist?"

[popltree2]

popltree2, I agree with your logic but that sadly isn't the reality. When discussing matters of race, it's assumed that race refers to ethnicity. And changing the way people speak isn't going to happen anytime soon. Ethnicist just doesn't have the same ring to it does it? Do you adhere to your scholarly post above and deservingly call someone an "ethnicist" rather then using the popular but erroneous "racist?"

Well I am going to start using ethnicist...if I can pronounce it.

[casework]

Ethnicist sounds more like an "Ethnic Enthusiast" to me. :p

[bman]

I just read the first post, and I was like I know this is going to be good.

All I am going to say, since I don't want to start anything further, things are how they are, who cares.

[popltree2]

I just read the first post, and I was like I know this is going to be good.

All I am going to say, since I don't want to start anything further, things are how they are, who cares.

That's me, a regular debate-starter :D

[masherscf]

I think the basis of the thread starter's question contains thinly veiled homophobia.

What's not to understand about "gay friendly hotels"? In a world where gays are still beat to death by people who don't understand "gay friendly.", no one should take these things for granted.

When you're handicapped, there are several laws requiring hotels to be friendly. Gays have no such protection.

On the other hand, maybe the adsense software that sent that ad to you knows about the other websites that you tried to delete from your browser history...you know the ones I'm talking about...

[popltree2]

I think the basis of the thread starter's question contains thinly veiled homophobia.

What's not to understand about "gay friendly hotels"? In a world where gays are still beat to death by people who don't understand "gay friendly.", no one should take these things for granted.

When you're handicapped, there are several laws requiring hotels to be friendly. Gays have no such protection.

On the other hand, maybe the adsense software that sent that ad to you knows about the other websites that you tried to delete from your browser history...you know the ones I'm talking about...

Point taken. The thread was started more because I had never heard the term before. I was simply wondering what it was that constituted "gay-friendly". Agreed, I could have worded it better and that is my fault. It is quite sad indeed that people are treated so poorly for either their beliefs or their lifestyle. I am pro-choice in a numbe of areas. This is one of them. Again, I apologize if either my starting of this thread or anything I have said has lead anyone to believe that I am homophobic. That was not my intension.

[masherscf]

Point taken. The thread was started more because I had never heard the term before. I was simply wondering what it was that constituted "gay-friendly". Agreed, I could have worded it better and that is my fault.

Now if you'll just tell us about those alternative websites... ;)

[popltree2]

Now if you'll just tell us about those alternative websites... ;)

lol...that's between me and my browser, thank you very much! :D

[casework]

I think the basis of the thread starter's question contains thinly veiled homophobia.

What's not to understand about "gay friendly hotels"? In a world where gays are still beat to death by people who don't understand "gay friendly.", no one should take these things for granted.

When you're handicapped, there are several laws requiring hotels to be friendly. Gays have no such protection.

On the other hand, maybe the adsense software that sent that ad to you knows about the other websites that you tried to delete from your browser history...you know the ones I'm talking about...
I don't think asking a valid question such as his holds any homophobia. Maybe ignorance on the subject, but not any homophobic tendencies. The fact that he asked the question and wanted to better understand something that he didn't know about, shows me a willingness to understand something he is not familiar with. Homophobia would be dismissing the idea to begin with because it contains the word "gay".

[ariastar]

What I said was that love is necessary for survivability. You clearly proved my point. If lack of love leads to dumping a baby in a dumpster, then lack of love leads to extinction.

Just because that straight mother dumps a baby doesn't mean that a gay person isn't capable of loving. She has the desire to be with a partner with whom she can reproduce, the gay person has the desire to love and be with a partner with whom genetic reproduction is not possible at this time. You are copletely dimissing that gays can love each other, saying their love is without purpose because they can not have biological children together.


@ masherscf: Outside of certain areas, phrases like this are unheard. It's not homophobia to wonder what it means.

[masherscf]

@ masherscf: Outside of certain areas, phrases like this are unheard. It's not homophobia to wonder what it means.

Oh, I was just being over-dramatic.

I only think the question was a little dense not homophobic.

I meant for the semi-humorous remark at the close of the post to blunt the seriousness of the opening. Sorry for the confusion.

[adamzx]

is it still not possible for one human being to respect the opinion of another human being? .. not everybody can agree on everything
lets all just agree to disagree
if you want to be gay or straight, thats fine
I don't have a problem with anything - gay straight, black white hispanic asian be any race you want, any religion you want, vote for whoever the hell you want

i guess i just dont understand..
how can a person hate another person without having met them or been given the OPPORTUNITY to get to know them better?
thats right i said OPPORTUNITY.

someones sexual orientation, race, political stance/the issues they support, and religious beliefs or lack thereof should not be a deciding factor on whether or not you like them or dislike them.

grow the **** up
seriously, wheres the love?

i guess it's like independence day and the only thing that will bring us all together is a freaking alien attack ?

[masherscf]

is it still not possible for one human being to respect
grow the **** up
seriously, wheres the love?


I got your love right here baby. *HUGS*

[adamzx]

I got your love right here baby. *HUGS*
*HHHUUUGGGSSS*
:)

lol

[hoodedrobin]

You know what this made me realize... I need to download som Wham!

[ariastar]

Without reading everything to catch up, the way that I see it is that there is enough hate and intolerance in this world without hating people for loving each other. Gays are no less able to love, straights are no more capable of parenting. It's a better use of hatred to focus on taking child molesters off the streets or protesting the government to stop the torture of people who are turning out to be innocent more often than involved in terror.

Intolerance of the life choices of others than have no impact on our own lives is pathetic.

If people are hugging now, I'll join in! *HUGS*

[adamzx]

lets all - "HUG-IT-OUT *****"

I stole that from the newest episode of "The Office" please forgive me.

"Hug-It-Out *****, that is what men say to each other after a fight. They hug it out, and in doing so.. they just.. let it go.. and walk away.. when they're done. Not a good idea to.. say that to a woman however.. I have found.. It doesn't translate." - Michael Scott AKA STEVE CARELL

[bman]

lets all - "HUG-IT-OUT *****"

I stole that from the newest episode of "The Office" please forgive me.

"Hug-It-Out *****, that is what men say to each other after a fight. They hug it out, and in doing so.. they just.. let it go.. and walk away.. when they're done. Not a good idea to.. say that to a woman however.. I have found.. It doesn't translate." - Michael Scott AKA STEVE CARELL

It's a very good idea, but won't happen lol

[popltree2]

Wow man, it's like the 60's again. That's beautiful, man. *hugs self*