Ellen Page is gay

[Hammock Parties]

Well, that's interesting.

http://gawker.com/ellen-page-comes-o...ium=socialflow

Actress Ellen Page publicly came out as gay Friday evening, while giving a speech at Time to THRIVE, a national LGBTQ youth conference held in Las Vegas.

"I'm here today because I am gay," Page told the assembled crowd, which responded with a standing ovation and a long chorus of cheers.

"Whoo!" said Page, before continuing:

"And because maybe I can make a difference. To help others have an easier and more hopeful time. Regardless, for me, I feel a personal obligation and a social responsibility.

I also do it selfishly because I'm tired of hiding and I'm tired of lying by omission. I suffered for years because I was scared to be out. My spirit suffered, my mental health suffered, and my relationships suffered. And I'm standing here today with all of you on the other side of that pain."

Page is most famous for becoming pregnant by her awkward classmate Michael Cera, and for invading the dreams of a stranger alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, neither of which happened in real life, because she is an actress.

After her speech, the Human Rights Campaign, which organized the conference, congratulated Page on the front page of its website for "her brave decision to live openly and authentically."

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

What about straight couples who have no desire to procreate or those that know before they get married that they cannot procreate? In your scenario, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either and enjoy the "special benefits" of marriage.



I guess individuals that feel this way should be pushing for legislation to have all children raised by single parents put up for adoption by traditional families.

Here's the sad thing.

IF a gay couple adopts a kid, they're not taking that kid from some straight couple. There are more than enough poor suffering children that need a home.

People actually think 'the system' is better for kids than the horror of being raised by a gay couple who would love them.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Donger

Now THIS guy really cares. He did math and stuff.

Yeah, I used all of my fingers and toes.

[ping2000]

If any else comes out of the closet, this board is going to explode. Are we going to consolidate them? One thread for chicks, one for dudes? One thread for Hollywood, one for sports?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

What about straight couples who have no desire to procreate or those that know before they get married that they cannot procreate? In your scenario, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either and enjoy the "special benefits" of marriage.

You seem to be ignoring the history of marriage. It's a "tradition" going back, what, a thousand years?

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Here's the sad thing.

IF a gay couple adopts a kid, they're not taking that kid from some straight couple. There are more than enough poor suffering children that need a home.

People actually think 'the system' is better for kids than the horror of being raised by a gay couple who would love them.

I agree. My wife and I adopted a son because we supposedly can't have children. The amount of children out there needing homes is huge. A child being raised by a gay couple is much better off than a child going through the system.

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by Donger

You seem to be ignoring the history of marriage. It's a "tradition" going back, what, a thousand years?

There are a lot of traditions that were thousands of years old that no longer exist as traditions.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

There are a lot of traditions that were thousands of years old that no longer exist as traditions.

Such as?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

I agree. My wife and I adopted a son because we supposedly can't have children. The amount of children out there needing homes is huge. A child being raised by a gay couple is much better off than a child going through the system.

Good for you. That's heart-warming.

And, I tend to agree with the second part.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

I agree. My wife and I adopted a son because we supposedly can't have children. The amount of children out there needing homes is huge. A child being raised by a gay couple is much better off than a child going through the system.

I don't know what the worst thing a gay couple can do to a young developing mind, but I know 'the system' churned out Charlie Manson.

So, yeah. Until they churn out someone worse, I'm sticking to that position.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Donger

Such as?

Well, Slavery was an institution that was as old as recorded history (and likely older) and that's widely frowned upon world-wide now.

So... there's one thing. It still exists though, sadly enough. It's not legal in the civilized world though.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

What about straight couples who have no desire to procreate or those that know before they get married that they cannot procreate? In your scenario, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either and enjoy the "special benefits" of marriage.



I guess individuals that feel this way should be pushing for legislation to have all children raised by single parents put up for adoption by traditional families.

Neither of these criticisms has any merit in terms of undermining "my scenario". There's no requirement for a law to be designed to perfectly achieve an objective. It's enough that it pursues an approximation of that objective. That's why it's OK to use age to determine when people can do such things as entering into a binding contract. It's very likely that there are some 17 year olds who are more mature, intelligent and capable of responsibly entering into a contract than some 22 year olds, but for the sake of administrative simplicity we accept a bright line rule based on age because it achieves an adequate approximation of our goal.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by ping2000

If any else comes out of the closet, this board is going to explode. Are we going to consolidate them? One thread for chicks, one for dudes? One thread for Hollywood, one for sports?

Mega threads that are intended to be a catchall are horrible.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Donger

I'm not sure what implication you are trying to make, but okay.

When I read your posts, I hear his voice. I wouldn't be surprised if you bore a physical resemblance to him either.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You do love to troll and lie. I can't imagine why Frazod thought you were a worthless piece of shit.

You stated that there were rational arguments for discriminating against homosexuals. When I and others asked you what they were, you didn't answer.

There is no lying in what I said. Here's your second chance to offer your rational arguments for discriminating against homosexuals.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by KC native

You stated that there were rational arguments for discriminating against homosexuals. When I and others asked you what they were, you didn't answer.

There is no lying in what I said. Here's your second chance to offer your rational arguments for discriminating against homosexuals.

No one should believe your characterizations.