|
Actually, the shoes are the least "gay" thing about the whole outfit.
|
Oh, please. I can think of three gayer outfits he's worn. And that's just in the last two months. He themes every Saturday class and wears an outrageous costume. Here's his movie day Black Swan get-up:
 We haven't talked about it a whole lot on LoT, but he is mentoring Tom & I. He gave us both scholarships and we're his featured members for March. We were there for Lady Gaga day (he wore the outfit you posted) on Saturday, and we've attended every class he's taught since we started Jan 11. (Except for the one we missed for Ingrid's birthday party last week.) So far we've lost a combined total of 37 pounds. Richard is crazy-amazing. |
Breaking News!
|
Rad, Rad, Rad, Rad.
Of course, they're LYING about it on, d'uh, Fox News - and saying the government will no longer enforce DOMA, which is certainly not the case. They will no longer defend it in lawsuits, because a particular suit in the Second Circuit opened up an avenue to find gays deserving of some kind of strict scrutiny in lawsuits* The suits in other circuits so far have come with the "local" precedence of "rational basis" determination - a much lower bar for constitutionality. Basically, Obama is now free to declare gays are deserving of strict scrutiny, because the 2nd Circuit has never ruled that out. So Obama says they are, and therefore Article 3 of DOMA (which is the one where states are allowed to ignore the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution if they are grossed out by The Gay) is ... wait for it ... UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Finally a back-bone, Mr. Obama. Welcome to the human race. Hahahah, Maggie Gallagher declares Obama's saying Gay is like Black. Well D'UH, Maggie, you stupid cow. That's exactly right. Get.Over.It you loser B!tCh. Oh, they are also lying that Obama MUST defend laws on the books. Not so. The Justice Dept DOES NOT have to defend laws it deems, in its own judgment, to be unconstitutional - just as it can decide whether to enforce ANY LAW on the books based on any decision-making process it chooses for which crimes to prosecute and defend. BUT - individual members of Congress CAN step in to defend DOMA and other laws IF the Justice Department declines to do so ... probably gonna happen. * (There are several levels "strict scrutiny" consideration - Obama did not specify which he believes gays are entitled to in courts of law.) . |
CA Senator Dianne Feinstein says she'll introduce a bill to repeal DOMA
Quote:
|
I misread that. Was having a weird brain vortex since I was sure DADT had already been repealed. Pleased with any and all efforts to repeal DOMA but I assume that won't get through the House.
Out of curiosity, did she introduce similar bills (even if just symbolically) back when her party actually had the responsibility for passing it? |
I have no recollection either way.
|
Some interesting reading (to me at least):
A 1996 DOJ memo detailing past instances of the president refusing to defend the constitutionality of statute and/or refusing to even implement/enforce statutes it felt unconstitutional. |
|
They're just not even TRYING to pretend Ken dolls are straight any more, are they?
|
I could swear I see a bosom there. Maybe "Ken" is the name for Barbie's new Laguna Beach-loving lesbian friend.
|
Quote:
Am I officially a mom because they all look like whores to me? Seriously. They. Look. Like. Whores. There are some other Ken options in the line that are less gay. (But still pretty gay.) |
I love that "Frequently Bought Together" are:
* Fashionistas Ken Sporty Doll * Fashion Fairytale Ken Doll and * Barbie Glam Convertible Cuz, how else are they going to get to the Pride parade? |
I love that "Frequently Bought Together" are:
* Fashionistas Ken Sporty Doll * Fashion Fairytale Ken Doll and * Barbie Glam Convertible Cuz, how else are they going to get to the Pride parade? |
|
Onward, Christian Hypocrites...
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I don't drink alcohol—ever—but after watching this I'm kind of in the mood for a beer.
or maybe I'm just in the mood for a hot, square-jawed adonis... |
I wonder how many Religious Nutbags will read this Onion article and think it's true*....
Quote:
|
Is it hypocritical to be oppose homosexuality and yet be a public masturbator?
|
I'm not entering that debate again. He said he was a hypocrite.
|
And I'm sure he would know. I'm not saying he isn't a hypocrite, I'm sure that with his homophobia he railed in general against all kinds of sexual "deviancy" and excessive public sexualization.
But no story I've seen mentions such and I'm curious to know just how loose the usage of the word hypocrite has become. Because even by the loose usage we last talked about (merely doing something you've said is bad makes you a hypocrite), the simple "anti-gay guy is a hypocrite because he masturbated in a park" doesn't meet that criteria (unless public masturbation is somehow being viewed as a homosexual act which seems differently offensive to me, and hugely more so if it is somehow being connected because he did so near children). |
Quote:
BTW Thanks a LOT !!! Now I've spent 3 hours wasting my time looking at all the cool Vat 19 products. :rolleyes: :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
As if we needed yet another euphemism for masturbation.
|
Because "preventing cancer" is Soooo 2010
|
I think the fapping minister is a hypocrite because he holds himself out to be a beacon of sexual morality ('cuz them homer-sexuals are sinning sodomites, don'tcha know?) and yet there he is making blacklight underpants in front of poor, innocent children. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
BTW, if you haven't clicked on his home page, do so because he's smokin' hot! :evil:
|
Dude should change his name though... just adding in the middle initial isn't going to be enough to keep people from confusing him with John Lovitz the less-than-attractive comedian.
|
Quote:
|
Anti-Gay State Senator’s Secret Gay Life Is Revealed In Bribery Indictment
Quote:
|
Wait... he's a Democrat? That's odd.
|
Not that I needed another reason to say this, but Fvck you, Chrystal Cathedral
|
Eh, it's alright. Hardly any guys in choirs are gay anyway. No prob.
|
|
As stupid as the app appears to be, this does highlight the problem I have with Apples closed app distribution system.
|
Stonewall Uprising coming to PBS in April, part of the American Experience series. Here's the promo.
|
Ed Kennedy of AfterElton wrote:
Quote:
|
While obviously Lambert shouldn't have been banned from TV because of what he did, the comparison would be more useful if Chris Brown had done any of his bad stuff while actually on air.
From the point of view of a producer, what Lambert did is a lot more relevant than what Brown did. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm guessing we must be having something coming up on our ballots because they have launched a big ad campaign. The tv ads are very tastefully done and will hopefully appeal to a wider audience. The ad we llike best has a man/wife couple talking about how their daughters convinced them that everyone has a right to be married and happy just like they are are. I hope it works this time.
|
New letters shed light on Oscar Wilde's trial.
|
I was at Trader Joe's this afternoon. There was a little boy (about 6) who was holding a bouquet of flowers and looking distressed. He was with his mother.
Mom: "We're here so you can pick out some flowers to give Grandma on her birthday." Son: "I want the flowers!" Mom: "The flowers are for grandma, honey." Son: "Why can't I have the flowers? I like them." Mom: "Ok sweetie, We'll give these to Grandma and you can pick out another bunch for you." Son: "Flowers are pretty. I like flowers." Bless you young mother. I hope you'll always be as supportive to your little gay boy in the making. |
So heteros can't like flowers?
|
I hope they turn the Crystal Cathedral into a giant Fry's.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Wow
|
IF (a fact not remotely evidenced by the anecdote) the boy is gay then yay for mom not caring.
Regardless of whether the boy is gay, boo for mom teaching him that nagging will get him what he wants (a fact only slightly more evidenced by the anecdote). |
Quote:
Do I really have to explain how fvcked up your statement is? How reinforcing idiotic stereotypes harms our society? And, most importantly, how untrue it is? I'm using a good deal of restraint here. You've just demonstrated one of the worst examples of prejudice that exist today. Just.....horrifying. |
I was not there, but I think the most reasonable diagnosis is that the boy may be straight, and he may be gay. He may like flowers, and he may not like flowers. What he definitely does not like is being left out of the present giving.
|
Quote:
You know nothing of being a gay man or of growing up as one. I would never presume to attack you for observations you make about growing up as a straight woman or how little straight girls think. I will kindly ask you to keep your hateful comments to yourself. |
Quote:
And then everyone wonders why straight male culture is so destructively chauvinist, machismo, and vilifies any display of caring or sensitivity. Either you fit into the perfect little box of being a straight dude who doesn't cry and doesn't have empathy, or you like dick. |
The exact same argument happened a year or two ago, prompted by pretty much the exact same thing. I imagine we'll all say pretty much the exact same things.
My (hopefully, I didn't go look for it) echo of myself: I fail to see how shouting "you're gay!" at anybody who deviates from oddly defined gender norms has somehow become a sign of enlightened empathy as opposed to the ignorant conformism it really is. Now, the kid may be gay. I have no idea. Maybe you have more information you haven't shared here (like he was wearing a "Nathan Lane speaks for me!" or "Daddy says it is ok that I like ****" pin). But you haven't shared any compelling information with the rest of us (well, not compelling information about the kid). But I do wonder, is there an age when it is possible for a male to like flowers without it also meaning he is gay? Is every male florist in the world gay? Were all those retired bromeliad and orchid enthusiasts I used to have to deal with in Hawaii gay and after 75 years they just hadn't realized it yet? My great-grandfather put his roses in competition at the county fair every year. Is this, despite any other corroborating evidence, proof he was actually gay? Also, I'm curious, is sexual orientation a matter of popular election. Does getting seven queens around a table to all pronounce that So-and-So is gay make them gay? What if a male has "gay" interests as well as "straight" interests? Is it like being black back in the day? One rotten apple spoils the bunch so to speak and one gay behavior overwhelms all other straight behaviors? A boy who like flowers, muscle cars, football, lingerie models, and eating pussy is gay? Or is there a more complex calculus done? Honestly, I'm curious about the details of the burgeoning field of gayometrics. Or how about we go back a dozen posts and state it thusly: Bless you young mother. I hope you'll always be as supportive to your little boy when he strays from gender norms, even if proclaiming it loudly in a store for all to hear, and not try to force him back in that box. |
Quote:
|
It's a Gay thing, you wouldn't understand...
|
I was extremely hurt when I read CP's comment this morning. I shouldn't have lashed back, but I did. I apologize.
I am still somewhat puzzled by everyone's reaction to what I said. It was humor, people. Lighten up. |
Quote:
|
It's pretty obvious that you weren't joking. Nice try though. Defensive when backed into a corner then brushing it off...we've seen this before from you. Wouldn't it be easier to admit a mistake and apologize?
Even joking, telling a child she is one thing or another is very limiting. We all do it from time to time and it's something I'm training myself to avoid. Even repeating things as innocent as "he's good at math but not as good at reading" pidgeonholes him as specificially being a math person, setting him up to let his reading skills lag while working feverishly to keep his math skills up to some inner expecation. If a toddler kicks a ball and you tell him "you're an athlete", or say to a 10 year old "you're not good at sports" when he misses a soccer goal, you're not only influencing his personal view of himself, you're telling him something that is not really being shown, and demonstrating that just one instance of behavior is enough to whitewash his entire persona and reflect either well or badly on him. Talk about pressure..... ....never mind if we're actually talking about a person's sexuality. A far better take - "You kicked that ball!" "We can work on your goal shooting." "Aren't those flowers pretty?" |
10 Facts About America's Gays
According to The Williams Institute and posted on The Advocate, here are 10 Facts About America's Gays:
|
I take issue with conclusion No. 1, or rather feel it needs a clarification. 3.8% of the American adult population identify as LGBT, but since 8.5% are having same-sex sex, I think that lower number is misleading.
|
Great list.
Quote:
|
The concept of the "marriage penalty," which is the source of endless high comedy about old people shacking up, is to the contrary.
|
I've never liked Kobe Bryant. I think he's an asshole and if not a rapist, definitely an adulterer. But now I have a new reason to dislike this punk. Last night he was caught on camera calling a ref a "fücking faggot" (at the 35 second mark).
GLAAD issued a response The NBA fined him $100,000 And then Kobe('s people?) issued this well-scripted apology: Quote:
|
In response to Kobe's "remark," former NBA player John Amaechi had this to say:
Quote:
Anyway, it seems to me like an interesting tangent of discussion ... perhaps. |
I see both sides. While I do think that removing that use of the F word is a good social goal to have, and the NBA making a public statement that it won't be tolerated is a good thing, I don't think it reflects as badly on Kobe as (to use the obvious parallel) a white person calling a black person the N word.
I think the "he comes from a different era" defense, as lame is it often sounds, applies. He's my age. When I grew up, that word was not impressed with level of stigma as maybe it should have been. And, even more importantly, it was, in my neck of the woods at least, most often not used in a way that really was intended to connote sexuality. And while I as a more enlightened adult recognize that even such second/third hand denigration shouldn't be acceptable ("F word" means "gay" and gays are bad, therefore by calling you the F word I'm calling you bad), I see a gulf between, "You, black man, are an N word" and, "You, person whose sexuality is likely hetero but is actually unknown to me are an asshole so I'm calling you a F word because that's a near-synonym to asshole in my head". Again, I want to stress, the NBA and people in general are not wrong to cringe at its use and to strongly discourage it and to continue to work to attach N word level stigma to it. But I don't think that Kobe's use of it is indicative of any particularly strong homophobic tendancies. Lord knows I was guilty of its use for most of my life, and it's still part of my reflexive language (I cringe at myself any time I think it, or think "gay" when I see something effeminate). |
Quote:
|
Well, the three of us really talked it out on facebook. I'm not sure that many people read the Gay Thread. Of course, lately, I think LoT would do best to just reduce itself to the Vent Thread, the Happy Thread, and the So Thread - and be done with it. :p
|
p'shaw!
|
Happy 10th Anniversary to Gay Marriage in the Netherlands.
...and the Horsemen of the apocolypse STILL haven't smote the country off the map. :rolleyes: |
|
"It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: ‘marriage.’ You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it." - Liz Feldman
|
:snap:
|
I've brought this discussion here because it seems more appropriate here than in the Bin Laden thread.
Quote:
"I met a woman at the store." vs. "Crap, I'm stuck behind a woman driver." Context & intent are everything. |
I think that the term "breeders" is dismissive and rude.
|
Was it at the Gay Parade in SF the one time I went? Some other downtown or Civic Center rally I stumbled upon? I don't remember. What I do remember is a young gay fellow in the proceedings yelling "Breeder sh*t!" at some passing couple.
|
I don't think I've ever used the phrase. It's not a matter of context, as SM insists. I can't think of a way it can ever be used un-insultingly.
That said, it's a perfectly good insult. I'll have to remember to use it if I'm ever called a faggot by a straight person. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm not a fan of the term breeder, it's generally thrown around as an insult and not in the same context as 'woman'. I also find it inaccurate. We (LoT) agree that you being gay is not a choice. But "breeding" (aka having a child) is a choice and anyone (gay or straight) can chose to have a child. It may be more difficult for someone who is gay (dealing with a surrogate or adoption) but it is possible.
|
I certainly wouldn't suggest that straights get bashed by gays with anything like comparable frequency. However, as to the term "breeder," my anomalous experience was the first time I had ever heard it in action, so the suggestion that it's used more typically as a term of affectionate distinction is news to me.
|
OK, SM, give us an example of "breeder" used in a non-insulting context.
I wait with baited breath for how likely an example this turns out to be. |
Breeder is insulting because - and context doesn't really matter - it reduces a person to one singular aspect that they have no choice over. I was born with one half of the equipment needed to procreate. Procreation may be a choice - or, as in our case, it may not be. Reducing my identity to a term that a) doesn't apply b) is painful and c) is singular is insulting.
I've used the term once and wish I could have rewound time. I reduced a joyful moment/decision into a dismissive event. |
Quote:
|
Calling people names isn't nice. I think that covers it.
Calling oneself the same name affectionatley or jokingly helps to take the sting out it. (fat, gay, breeder, faghag, etc) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Having sex is a choice. Can a male who is attracted to females but has never consummated his feelings be called heterosexual? I think so. Does that prevent his orientation and/or sexual practices from changing? Of course not. Quote:
From my perspective, you guys are trying to prohibit the use of any adjective when used to describe a person. According to NA's definition, the use of any singular adjective reduces a person to that one thing. To me, that's preposterous and impossibly limits the use of language. Clearly I'm not going to sway anyone here. My complete lack of forensic skills isn't doing me any favors either, so may I please propose a compromise? I will do my damnedest to not use "breeder" around you if you will understand that if I slip up, I did not use it with malicious intent. Deal? |
Yes, but if you call Mr. Kim "Slant-eyed", you can't really feign innocence when he is offended.
|
Wow, SM, I'm pretty flabbergasted by that. But ok, if you see "breeder" as simply a description, and not an attempt at to reducing people to animals, then good luck with that.
Of course, I love animals, so maybe the insult is lost on me. But in the English language, people procreate and animals breed. If you missed the obvious etymology of the term "breeder," consider yourself now educated. I'm surprised at your friends. But then again, I don't take much umbrage at being called a faggot. |
Of my gay friends, I have never heard the use of the word "Breeder" without it being in a derogatory sense. That is why I avoid using it myself.
|
Sorry SM: just because you don't believe "breeder" to be derogatory doesn't make it so (or not so to be correct). It is a derogatory term.
|
It is a derogatory term that come with a load of unsaid meaning behind it.
Even with animals, I use the term "breeding bitch" to describe what Kimchi was in S. Korea before she became a pet and a princess, as in "she was USED as a breeding bitch". |
SM - I believe you when you say you don't mean it insultingly.
But if someone is offended by it - what can you say? Just because you didn't mean to hurt someone's feelings (or however you want to say it) doesn't mean they don't feel bad. |
To me, using the term "breeder" goes along with a "them vs. us" attitude. It's a dismissive term to call hetero people in reaction to the (high quantity of) terms that are dismissively directed towards homos.
You know, like when someone you barely know is yammering on and on about their kids, you might think to yourself "grrrrr... friggin breeders, I swear!" Is the term entirely accurate now that so many gays are having kids? Obviously not... but it's really just reactionary byproduct of how the gays have historically been treated -- from the outside looking in. On the grand scale of things, it isn't usually meant to be a horrible slur.... just sort of dismissive. That being said, I think that "breeder" is about as offensive as calling someone a "fag hag." It *could* be offensive depending on the context, but it isn't like we need to call it "the b-word" or something totally childish like that. |
How many gays must God create before we accept that he wants them around? :snap: :snap: :snap:
|
Hahahah, I used "breeder" in a sentence in my el jay today. TeeHee.
|
Quote:
:) |
I was wondering why my initial comment was passed by without notice and then I run across it here.
That was an excellent discussion. Thanks to everyone that contributed. |
Now on the next topic, then (as suggested by a rather stimulating discussion on Towleroad):
Is there unacceptable discrimination, judgmentalism, intolerance of more feminine gay men by more masculine gay men, and vice-versa? (Don't know whether that will have any traction here, but it sure has sparked a doozie of a debate over there.) |
Which one is it assumed would be considered the more "light-skinned," assuming that's a factor?
|
The masculine dudes are the light-skinned bunch ... in that, the argument goes, they can fit in seamlessly with straight society and hide out there. Flamers have less luck with that.
|
Quote:
|
From a hetero perspective, I'd say that more masculine men and more feminine women don't have much in common with their less-so counterparts, and vice-versa. As a not-so-girly girl, I can honestly say that I am not drawn to girly girls as friends, which makes sense as our viewpoints are very different. Whether this translates to open hostility...well....yeah it sometimes does. ;)
|
Home Depot FTW
|
Well I'm glad we just bought our bbq grill from Home Depot then :D
I think Home Depot does a lot of good things for the communities they are in. They hold a lot of neat classes. Plus they build the set for Game Day! |
Ok, that makes me feel better about shopping at HD. Normally I prefer to shop at smaller stores, but if they support diversity then I feel better. And they told AFA to take a hike. Love it. Thank you.
|
Great Anti-Gay-Bullying song by Rise Against. Very Powerful.
|
36-26!
New York Ummm... or 33-29? Don't know what the difference between the two votes were. But big cheers both times. The point is... IT PASSED |
If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere... :D
|
Congratulations to New York !!!!!! It was just on the evening news here. :snap:
|
1 Attachment(s)
I like this shirt
|
I'm sure we've all heard the news already, but just in case anyone's been under a rock for the last 15 minutes... Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules
|
A CNN analysis points out that the opinion was written in a limited way, specifically relying on California's equal protection laws, such that it's unlikely that the US Supreme Court would hear an appeal. Good news/bad news on that front. It means that, once again, the issue of federal tax status and recognition between states is punted down the road. But on the plus side, it does mean it's likely to stick and not be stomped on by the conservative court.
|
Perhaps my favorite bit from today's ruling - this swipe at the California initiative process:
Quote:
And yeah, it's a very narrow ruling. But that's what courts often do - rule on the narrowest avenue available - and that's usually the way it works out best. Not so sure in this case. There's less chance the Supreme Court will want to take the case, but if they do - they are not bound by the narrow findings of the Ninth Circuit, and are perfectly free to consider the wider question found in the judgment of the U.S. District Court that gays ARE entitled to marriage. (For those keeping score, today's ruling found only that it's unconstitutional to take any rights away, but not whether marriage rights in particular are constitutionally protected.) |
|
"8" to be streamed live on 3/3/12
Dustin Lance Black's play "8" about the Prop 8 trial will be streamed live this Saturday (March 3).
|
"8" has been posted to YouTube to view at your leisure.
|
How many homophobes does it take to change a lightbulb?
Spoiler:
|
So, if gay marriage is threatening to tear apart the very fabric of traditional marriage and society itself...what kind of fabric is it? You can vote!
http://mymarriageruinsyours.com/ |
Spider webs maybe?
|
VGDM!
|
From the article
Quote:
|
sydney Hay & Lesbian Mardi Gras 2012
If you couldn't make it to the Parade, or want to re-live the magic, check out Mardi Gras TV for the Parade highlights package.
Scroll through the arrows for some more great videos including Fair Day 2012, a history of Mardi Gras and a very special behind the scenes look into the making of the K25 float, celebrating Kylie Minogue. Mardi Gras TV is free and does not require an account to log in. Er... All you Gays can watch it too, instead of the Hays....... :blush: |
Haay!
|
Oats!
|
Hall!
|
Pass!
|
Word
|
games
|
Monopoly!
|
That's not Gay !!
|
Depends on how you play it.
|
'Monopoly.
|
VGn2DM.
|
|
A couple weeks ago some infographic or another got me off on a tangent trying to correlate divorce rates to states that allowed gay marriage. Unfortunately due to several factors (not all states report divorce/marriage statistics, and it was difficult to categorize states where actual same sex marriage was illegal but also had laws guaranteeing equal civil rights to same sex couples) I never got the data in a clearly displayable format I was happy with.
But suffice it to say that the data that was available seemed to support my hypothesis going in - that the states with the LOWEST divorce rates were more likely to allow same sex marriage or have laws that granted more rights to same sex couples. The states with the HIGHEST divorce rates were the ones most likely to have same sex marriage banned in their state constitutions. Sanctity of marriage indeed. |
How about an article and a blog post?
|
Yeah. That.
Although that 538 graphic kinda underlines my point about not being easy to represent graphically. There are as many green boxes below the line as above. So while I came to the same "statistically significant" conclusion from looking at the data, the graphic doesn't quite tell the story like I thought it might. |
|
Good.
|
Guy comes out on facebook but friends are more concerned about his boring webpage. http://www.happyplace.com/15065/guy-...-geeky-to-care
|
I just took a call from a woman whose monitor was displaying in portrait mode instead of landscape. I was able to fix it and the following is what I entered in the work order's note field:
Quote:
|
Aha! The "real" Gay Agenda - to reverse our aspect ratios! Diabolical... truly diabolical.
|
|
I'm pretty sure Kimberly-Clark (the company that makes Kleenex) is also benefiting from that ad.
|
As is Vaseline, no doubt....
|
I never thought I'd see the day
|
Awww, how nice. I never thought I'd see the day either but it's great!
|
images takes from www.every1against1.com, a site devoted to defeating North Carolina's anti marriage equality amendment
spoilered due to size Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
|
My daughter helped to create the exhibit, "Queer and Here", about the LGBTQ community at her college. She's the kid in the light purple sweater and the banner with the rainbow-leafed tree is one of her contributions.
Click me for a slideshow of the exhibit and its creators. ETA: Also, she made this timeline: http://youtu.be/6Ai2vv_oCHc Maximize to be able to see it. It made me so proud, I cried. (The handful of names you don't know relate to the exhibit.) |
Basingstoke
|
Who wants to come and see Puppetry Of The Penis in 3D with me?
Article on the show The Guys discuss the show. |
Susan and I do!
|
Rightie-o then, come on over.
|
Okay, give me a few minutes... we need to stop for gas
|
Well if you're going, maybe I can hitch a ride with you. I can chip in a little for gas.
|
$5 should cover your share
|
See you soon Lashie!
|
I've got the guest room ready !
|
|
**** North Carolina.
|
|
Quote:
|
you'll need to manually adjust the URL
|
Quote:
|
I made no claims of quality.
|
Quote:
|
Thank you Mr. President!
|
I don't think this would have turned any tides, but I am nagged by a supposition of what might have gone on in the minds of more than a few black churchgoers in North Carolina had this whole thing been orchestrated last week instead of this.
Anyway, I am happy - and happen to agree with the Obama campaign's political calculation on this. Sure, it will bring out the crazies - but they were all coming out to get that damn Ni ... out of the white house anyway. Meanwhile, the base needs to be stoked and the youth vote needs to be re-energized. This will help. |
Quote:
|
I think it would have been in his best interest to keep dodging the issue until November 7. It's political suicide. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, the majority of voting Americans are appalled by the idea of "letting faggots and dykes get married." Maybe that will be different in 25 years but there's an awful lot of people who need to die off before the scales will tip in our favor.
I'm worried the only guy (with any hope of being President) who actually supports LGBTs just pissed away his chance of being elected. |
Quote:
Yeah, that gets skewed once you narrow down to who actually shows up to vote...which is why he's doing this. Because while there are not a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage who are on the fence about Obama, there are a lot of people who would otherwise support Obama but have been reluctant to show up and cast a vote his way because of his refusal to take a firm stance in favor. The old people that oppose Obama are going to vote, and vote against him, no matter what. The variable is how many of his younger would-be supporters will be motivated to actively support him. This kind of stance creates the charged atmosphere necessary to get people off their asses to the ballot. |
It all depends on swing states, though - so national polls are pretty useless. And that's why the general worry among some that this was a bad move. Swing States = Redneck States, by and large (and very generally speaking).
But I'm sure they gauged the reaction to the vice-president and the cabinet secretary both floating trial balloons earlier in the week. I'm happy they decided to go ahead with fireworks. I think it's the smart move, and I'm going to trust the multi-zillion dollar smart political campaign that happens to agree with my own informal analysis. Sure it will be nasty, and this will bring out the crazies in droves. But no more drove than were already driven. And it sure doesn't hurt to have an opponent with such pathetic foot-in-mouth disease. ;) |
A few important swing states for Obama: Colorado - 47%-43% in favor of legalize marriage. Virginia - 47%-43% in favor. Iowa - same sex marriage IS legal. New Hampshire - same sex marriage IS legal.
In many of the other swing states, the percentages are close to even. And if the question is expanded to "Should same sex couples at least have the same legal protection via civil unions" the numbers are OVERWHELMINGLY in favor (on the order of 65%-35%) in every swing state. Compare that to the numbers from less than 10 years ago and it's a complete reversal almost across the board. The momentum is clear. And I can't believe that there is a large number of undecided voters whose deciding factor is Obama's stance on gay marriage. Do you really think there's a good number of people that are thinking, "Well shoot, I WAS going to vote for him, but now..." Similarly, are there a lot of people who were sitting around saying, "You know, I was going to sit this one out, but now that he's supporting gay marriage..." I really don't think so. The kinds of people who might get motivated for that reason were by and large already motivated for plenty of other stupid reasons. But I've talked to PLENTY of people who would be supporters, but were feeling very unmotivated to support him this time because of his weak record on these kinds of issues. Without those people in his corner, he's doomed. |
Our rights by state
It's an interactive color wheel depicting the wide array of rights on a state-by-state basis. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Of course there are some. But my perception (and it seems Obama's camp agrees) is that it's a small number compared to the number of people who are too unhappy with how little he's supported the community so far to want to vote for him again.
Looking at the 60%+ vote for Amendment 1, it's clear that the anti-gay vote is ALREADY mobilized. Any further mobilization caused by this is going to be marginal. A small price to pay to re-mobilize the base that carried him in '08. |
I'm starting to think we need a law that constitutional amendments (state or national) can only be put on the major ballots. They're always sneaking sh*t like this in on primary ballots, which makes it way to easy for the non-incumbent party to ensure better turnout.
|
Quote:
|
Are you drinking The Gay ?
|
Quote:
|
 |
Chess joke = funny!
|
|
I am getting extra excited for Pride SLC this weekend...
Mormons Building Bridges is supposed to be at the front of the parade. This group's intentions are to be involved with Pride festivities around the country... Interesting... A lot of LGBTQ out here come from Mormon families, so it's obviously a huge deal here. There has been a big It Gets Better movement out here, but until this group it always felt a little more like "we get the attraction you have, but we won't really accept you 100%". Hmm, hmm, hmmmmm... |
For those comic book followers....
It’s Official. Alan Scott, The Original Green Lantern, Is DC’s Newest Gay Hero http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/06/...west-gay-hero/ Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Nice!
|
Looks like 1 "million" Moms will be boycotting Nabisco
|
OMG - See - you get a lot of stuffing at a pride celebration.....
|
|
Colbert has a great riff on the "Gay Oreos" and coins the word "homosnackxuals". ;)
|
Apparently Tom Cruise is getting divorced. This is not good news for supporters of gay marriage.
|
Coop Comes Out!
Anderson Cooper: "The Fact Is, I'm Gay."
|
Is anyone really surprised about this?
|
I'm a little surprised he came out. I'm not even remotely surprised he's gay.
|
No, but then the point wasn't that you should be.
|
Also, to steal someone else's joke, I don't think the fact that this is timed just as Tom Cruise* is back on the market is a coincidence.
They'd have the cutest babies. *Note: I don't actually know or care if Tom Cruise is gay. So long as he wants to say he's straight and isn't actively hurting people who aren't I am fine with taking him at his word. |
I guess it was a slow news gay, er,um, day.
|
What SM & Alex said.
[breathlessteengirlsqueal]And they would have the cutest babies!!![/breathlessteengirlsqueal] |
Google is gay! Elsewhere, I have seen people surmise that now fundie Christians will have to stop using the internet.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Nice!
|
Quote:
|
Um, SM & JWBear, have either of you seen THIS yet ???
*Yowza* !! (Rendered & no full nudity, but I still raised a sweat watching it) |
No, I hadn't. Thanks!
|
I had, and it was wonderful. :evil:
|
|
 |
Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.
Quote:
|
Nice.
|
Love it. :)
|
That was an excellent response!
|
Wow!
|
Outgoing gay Congressional representative Barney Frank is teh awesome.
A few days ago he insulted the Log Cabin Republicans with this barb: Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Nice letter, but when people are slinging around the phrase "Uncle Tom" I wish that every once in a while one of them would show some sign of actually being aware of what the character Uncle Tom was. He wasn't himself an Uncle Tom.
There is no "Uncle Tom" in the pejorative sense in "Uncle Tom's Cabin." That was a creation of later works. The actual Uncle Tom character refused to escape slavery because he feared it would put other slaves in danger of punishment and then encouraged others to escape and was beaten to death because he refused to rat give any information on where they might be. I know meanings don't always correspond to origins but in that letter Frank doesn't say he's calling them Uncle Toms in the metaphorical sense but rather comparing them to Uncle Tom the character and that annoys me more than normal. But otherwise the points are valid, I just would prefer he did it without name calling. |
Quote:
|
Really, Alex, that was perhaps one of the weakest arguments you've ever made, imo.
Thanks for the education of how the actual Uncle Tom does not meet the standards of the popular phrase, but the derived common understanding of that term IS the common meaning of that term. It's all well and good to point out the fallacy, but since 99.9% of people understand "Uncle Tom" to mean precisely what Barney Frank espoused, I could hardly expect him - or anyone - to take a different tack. |
Yes, as I said, it is just a peeve of mine. I wasn't really making an argument, per se, just pointing out something that is annoying to me. I even acknowledged that meaning does not necessarily follow origin.
Especially since he phrased it such as to say he was comparing the Log Cabin Republicans to Uncle Tom (particularly the final paragraph), not to the abstract concept that is now "an Uncle Tom." He references the character of Uncle Tom, not the concept of "Uncle Tomness" and in so doing misrepresents that character. But still, just a pet peeve. As I said, I agree with his larger point that while being gay isn't necessarily everybody's topmost issue the Republicans are so bad on the issue that it is hard to imagine how they aren't disqualified from consideration for anybody who cares about the issue. Said without name calling. |
|
Perhaps. I'll just say I like the cut of her jib.
|
|
I love how the guy says "Plenty of privacy out here" with someone else's balcony in the background.
|
|
Will be interesting.
Because of the narrow scope of the decision as written by the previous courts, the S.C. could uphold the ruling (i.e., Prop 8 remains overturned) without setting precedent for the larger national gay marriage picture. But they could choose to rule on the larger issue. So there are a lot of possible outcomes: A. Prop 8 remains overturned, but the constitutionality of other states' bans (and possible future bans in California) remains unchallenged ("The process that got Prop 8 passed does not fly in California, therefore the prop is overturned. Matter of California legislative rules, not the gay marriage") B. Prop 8 remains overturned and other bans are rule unconstitutional ("Forget the proposition process, equal rights is equal rights, prop 9 is unconstitutional on its face") C. Prop 8 is un-overturned (?), and all state-level bans are considered constitutional. ("The process in California was kosher, and we find that the proposition passes constitutional muster, you have our blessing to go ahead and discriminate") D. (can this happen? not sure). Prop 8 is un-overturned, but the ruling doesn't address whether the ban is constitutional leaving Prop 8 and other states' bans in effect, but challengeable. I suppose it's possible, right? If they basically say, "The issue here is whether the process of passing prop 8 was kosher in terms of Callifornia law. We rule that it was kosher, therefore that's not grounds to have overturned the prop. But whether the prop itself is Constitutional is not at question. That would have to be brought back to the court through another challenge." Right? |
I think we have to consider the strategy of the conference process, convoluted and extended in this case, where SCOTUS decides what cases to take. There were several DOMA cases to choose from, the Prop 8 case, and also an Arizona case about discrimination against state employees on the basis of sexual orientation.
Kagen would have potentially have had to recuse herself if the Gill DOMA case was chosen, but she doesn't have to on the Windsor case that was selected. That was under consideration. As was, most importantly to the point I'm about to make, whether there's any point to take a particular case of the 6 on the table. There needs to be at least 4 votes to take any case. So what I submit is there's no strategic point in taking up the Prop 8 case if the outlook was there's not enough votes to overturn Prop 8. The justices know where their colleagues stand on this issue. It's not widely thought there are 4 votes to uphold Prop 8 - but even if there were, there's nothing to be gained from taking the case merely to uphold it. In that unlikely event, equal marriage would still exist in 9 states. SCOTUS is almost certain to overturn DOMA, so those states would have full federal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Even California would be able to overturn Prop 8 at a future election. There's just no positive outcome available for ultra-conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Even if it's determined by SCOTUS there is no constitutional right to equal marriage, that won't stop it at all. With DOMA overturned, any gay couple in America could travel to a state that allows gay marriage, and on return home to their backwards state that marriage would be recognized by the federal government. So strategically, I think the Supreme Court just indicated confidence they will overturn Prop 8 at the least, and possibly even find a constitutional right to equal marriage under the 14th Amendment. (Remember, in taking the case, SCOTUS is in no way limited to the narrow findings of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the constitutional issue is not reached for determination, because taking away existing rights - applicable only to California - is a no-go from the get-go. No, the Supreme Court can revisit the federal district court's ruling that Prop 8 violates the due process and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution, or consider any other damn thing they please.) Ironically, the only down-side indicated by SCOTUS conference strategy in taking the case is they left open the standing issue of the Prop 8 proponents to have even appealed the district court judgment. The Supremes may want to put a kibosh on that kind of thing (technically the Prop 8 proponents are unlikely to have Article III standing). So even though the case was delayed an entire year while the California Supreme Court addressed the standing issue posed to them by the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court could still overturn that - and may indeed want to - leaving us with gay marriage legal in California and - again - with DOMA overturned, all such marriages recognized by the federal government. In short, I just don't see any downside to the decision to take up the Prop 8 case. More delay certainly - but not much to lose, and so very much to perhaps be gained. |
The USSC also will be addressing the backers of Prop 8 had standing to pursue the appeal that resulted in the 9th circuit opionion.
If they say no, I'm not clear on what happens. Is it just that they didn't have standing to appeal? In which the District Court ruling stands but has no weight as precedent? Or would it mean they didn't have standing to defend Prop 8 at the original trial and the District Court ruling is tossed and has to be repeated (with, once again, the state having no interest in defending it and perhaps no other entity with standing)? |
It doesn't go back to the trial level. The district court had legitimate authority to allow the Prop 8 proponents to intervene as plaintiffs. What's at issue is whether the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court got it right when granting those same Prop 8 proponents standing to press an appeal when the state refused to do so, and also whether they meet the other standards for Article III standing TO APPEAL that neither the 9th or the California Supremes even addressed.
Interestingly, there's a similar stated question on the SCOTUS order accepting the Windsor DOMA case. Does the House of Representatives have standing to defend DOMA when the justice department refuses to? In this instance, I believe the law is clear it does. But it seems the conference strategy was to give SCOTUS an opt-out option on both hot-button cases. I don't expect them to take either easy out. Again, because then Why Bother to Take the Cases? |
I'm not knowledgeable enough to know either way, but in the discussion over at ScotusBlog there seemed to be reasonable arguments that there scenarios that would kick all the way back to trial.
But I like your outcomes so I'll take those as a given until the Supreme Court decides to go all Citizens United on our asses again. |
I failed to mention that the LDS church has launched a new website that teaches compassion for those afflicted with teh gay, but is really (to me) a stepping stone for just another change in doctrine, despite the "God doesn't change" outlook they're speaking of now. They've radically changed their opinion before; why not now?
http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ |
I call shenanigans on that. They want to urge teh fags to stay in the fold, as long as they don't fold in half and take it up the a$$. In other words, homo is ok as long as no homo really happens. Suppress your sexual urges forever and remain celibate, and you can remain a Mormon. Oh, yeah, ignore all that stuff about how Mormons can only have that after-life planetary existence if they marry and have kids. But you're all good for this lesser, earthly life of suppressing your sexuality and living loveless. Enjoy!
|
I'm assuming that Mormon, Sand, Gays is a all-inclusive Caribbean resort?
As for the tone, it is of course shenanigans but a pretty standard "hate the sin, not the sinner" religious position. |
Or as I like to say, it's okay to be a Mormon, as long as you don't practice Mormonism.
|
|
Any Aussie Friendly links there? (I'm not allowed to watch it because I'm from the wrong hemisphere. I Effen hate that.
|
Try catching it from the Conan web site (It is from George's appearance on Conan's show)
|
Quote:
|
I'm sure I'll be excoriated for posting this, but here goes...
Quote:
|
Good on George. But how about she didn't come out and say "I am a Lesbian" because there's not a living soul on earth with a pulse who didn't already know that? She came out ages ago. When someone that public is gay, they don't have to make some announcement; it becomes - as it did in her case - common knowledge.
Instead, she did what I think is a much classier way to acknowledge her gayness publicly - she thanked her long-time partner of the same gender on national television. To me, THAT's how to come out - not to make some bold pronouncement - but rather to casually mention your boyfriend or girlfriend when appropriate, in the same manner any straight person would. |
|
I just KNEW Minnie was a lesbian. But who's that chick Mickey just married?
|
I love the mirror-image dresses.
|
I want to see the pictures of the consummation.
|
Very nice! Yeah, I love the mirror-image dresses, too.
|
Yes, it's a new world. Come What May.
Arguably the most romantic song ever to grace the silver screen is sung on (what was at least once) an uber-hit television show between Two Men about their Love for Each Other! Pinch me! :snap: :snap: :snap: |
Very sweet, but why the urge to bitch-slap the incredibly popular (but not quite the phenomenon it once was) tv show?
|
from So Let's Talk About.com
Quote:
|
^ So Frelling Awesome.
|
Hope it's true, but it doesn't read like real conversation. But maybe it is just cleaned up.
|
He should just post the audio.
|
Of course it sounds like one of the boys hasn't fully come out yet, so that would put him in an awkward situation, despite having a supportive father.
|
What's the general feeling on LoT about the two marriage equality cases before the Supes this week?
It feels weird to go against my typical pessimistic nature, but I kinda sorta almost feel like we might have a chance at victory. |
I'm hopeful, since the pro-8 side doesn't really have a case. But on the other side, the justices don't really want to legalize gay marriage...
Hoping, but not holding my breath. |
It was reported that if the SCOTUS elects to not rule on the Prop 8 issue, that marriage between same sex persons would become legal in California - is this correct?
|
That should be correct, since the last ruling on Prop 8 was to overturn it.
|
DOMA down, minimal ruling on Prop 8 that knocks it down in California but has no precedent outside of the state.
|
It's unwise to read too much into the tea leaves of the justices' questions during oral argument - but I have to say the comments and queries (or is that queeries?) during the Prop 8 hearing made the Supreme Court look like a medieval institution and the justices seem as if they lived behind dusty cloistered walls.
So it looks as if they will try for a narrow ruling affecting only California - but since quite a few realize how ridiculous and untenable it would be to say something is unconstitutional in one state but not the others - it may very well be they will deny standing in the case and leave either the 9th Circuit decision or the district court decision in place. Either way, Prop 8 is dead in California - but it's looking very unlikely gay marriage bans will be ruled generally unconstitutional ... yet. If the 9th circuit decision is left standing, that has valuable precedent that can be used in other cases. If just the district court decision is upheld, there's little future value of that broad and landmark decision. DOMA, on the other hand, appears to be unquestionably and door nail dead, based again on the uncertain but certainly more crystal clear questions and concerns expressed at the hearing this morning. (The audio hasn't been released quite yet, as I write this, so I haven't heard with my own ears as of now.) |
|
Brilliant.
|
A couple of weeks ago at Disneyland we saw a young man (maybe 5 or 4) dressed as a princess. Maddie said it made her happy to see it.
|
Love those sorts of stories. :)
|
I'm spending far too much time on Facebook. I just spent a minute looking for the "Like" button on Katiesue's post.... :rolleyes:
|
French National Assembly Finalizes Passage Of Marriage Equality
14 down and a lot more to go, but this is definitely progress! |
So, Szb, you think Jason Collins might be making it easier for Wally to come out?
|
Apparently he's the first NBA star to come out !! http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/...mes-out/103168
|
"star" is putting it a bit strongly. But good that it finally happened.
|
I thought anyone who played professional basketball was considered by Americans to be a star....
...or is it just Wally? |
This "star" is someone most basketball fans had never heard of (or, more accurately, had no reason to remember having heard of) and someone nobody who doesn't watch basketball had ever heard of.
That said, even as a bench warmer whose job is to commit a handful of fouls once a week most people would consider him to have a pretty sweet situation compared to the average person. But if you want to go bigger, he's not just the first for the NBA, he's the first in any of the major American sports leagues (baseball, basketball, football, hockey). |
Actual headline on front page of CNN - Barkley: We've all played with gays :D
|
Quote:
But in all seriousness, I am overjoyed beyond belief that a major US professional team-based male athlete has finally come out. I didn't expect this to happen for at least 15-20 years. I also didn't expect there to be so much support for him. The nutbag responses have been surprisingly limited. Three cheers to Jason!!! |
The meaning of Jason Collins' coming out
By Cyd Zeigler, co-founder of OutSports.com Quote:
|
In related news, it is rumored that a player in the WNBA will be announcing this week that they are straight.
|
Ha ha ha. Girls who do boy things are gay.
|
Out of curiosity, as someone who pays almost no attention to professional sports (possibly related to being called faggot and being beat up regularly by people who played sports, maybe just because I'm gay. Who can really tell?), are there any professional female athletes who are out? Or do you suppose they suffer the same fears of public/lockerroom/professional backlash as male athletes?
I feel a rant coming on that involves things like "of course everyone knows that queers don't play sports, but they can decorate the sh!t out of your house, and real women stay out of sports and car repair, because, well, dykes" but I'm going to bite my tongue because I know and love Kevy and I know he was just making a joke, but JESUS CHRIST. BTW, not something I would ever, EVER post on FB. |
Quote:
Wikipedia's Lesbian Sportswomen from MotherJones.com Quote:
|
I think it's more that women's sports don't get the attention that men's sports do, so fewer people cared that some of them were gay. It's also the idea that male athletes are the macho-est of the macho, and that is somehow perceived by the masses as incompatible with being gay. Of course, both of those assumptions are stupid, but you know. Women don't have quite the same problems with the macho nonsense.
I think other than the initial sensationalism, nobody will care who's gay so long as they play well. And that is how it should be. |
In regards to a female athlete coming out, I think there is a common assumption that all women athletes are lesbians, so when one actually does come out, it's regarded as a "no sh¡t" event. That assumption is incorrect, of course, but is exists nonetheless.
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
I'll go back and try to find some parody.
|
|
So, New Zealand's legalised Gay Marriage. Now maybe Sam & Frodo have a chance.
|
Gays Beware with Jesse Tyler Ferguson and George Takei
be sure to watch the whole thing |
This may be more related to my inner geek than my outer gay, but it nonetheless made me smile.
Some Klingons Are Gay. Get Over It!  Quote:
|
Truth
 |
Tomorrow is the big day. SCOTUS said they're going to rule on Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop H8) and U.S. v. Windsor (DOMA).
My heart is racing. |
And, interestingly, the decisions will be released ten years to day after Lawrence v. Texas struck down anti-sodomy laws.
|
|
And prop H8 is dead.
Today is a good day. |
 |
|
Hey Ernest Dronenburg Jr.: don't be a dick.
|
He seems like one of those people who is still pissed that miscegenation is legal.
|
|
We got invited to our first gay wedding!
|
I've DJ'd a couple of them, alas back in the day when it was just symbolic.
|
Australian Conservative Pollies will BRIBE you to be straight. Gay couples need not apply.
|
Quote:
|
Well, now that we have a Preservative Government leader (who a lot of overseas people are comparing to GWB) you might get the chance...
|
|
I realize they're referring to the old-fashioned meaning of "gay", but these still made me chuckle:
Spoiler:
|
Kudos!
To the Rams for being the first NFL team to draft an openly gay player (and the first Black player back in 1946.)
To ESPN for having the courage (not that it should be courageous, but because 'Murica...) to repeatedly show Sam kissing his (HOT) boyfriend after receiving the good news. The Dolphins for reminding Don Jones his obnoxious comments are not appreciated. OutSports for this biting sarcasm. |
Typical. Another big black athlete just out to steal our white men.
|
VSLM
|
 |
|
**** yeah, America! SCOTUS for the win.
|
Does this mean I get to marry my dog now?
|
Yes, absolutely. What else can it possibly mean?
|
Whoo-hooo!!! Thank you, SCOTUS!
|
It does mean my traditional heterosexual marriage is rendered meaningless and ruined, so I gotta find SOMETHING else.
|
Seems a small price to pay for innerSpaceman to have the right to make some guy miserable till death do they part.:D
|
I've had an absolutely miserable week, but after reading this morning's news, I am elated!
|
I don't know if this Grindr chat session is real, but it's funny (to me, at least) and may be particularly amusing to members of LoT:
 |
No, just high capacity.
|
VG2DMJ because I'm literally LOL!
|
Hahahahaa!! I am indeed amused.
|
Just read the news about Orlando. I am simultaneously depressed, sickened, and furious.
|
Obviously it's WAY too soon to make a comparison, but there's a part of me that wonders if this will have a Stonewall effect.
|
It's absolutely horrible. What is wrong with people????
My heart goes out to all of those effected. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
