NationStates Jolt Archive

Also, this topic is insane. How many times do newbies turn up to argue this? How the hell does one topic get so many repeats?

This is NSG.

When can MY backwards country legalise it?

When we don't have the ALP in power and a stronger soft liberal faction in government.

To tell you the truth I don't particularly like seeing a couple making out with the guy's hand up her skirt while I am sitting down to lunch either.

Speak for yourself, http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-sleazygrinvp9.png

Violent crime rates are down, divorce is down, teen pregnancy is down. God, what a disgusting world the filthy gays are forcing on us.

I would say something because I am in a bad mood but I know you are joking.

Speak for yourself, http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-sleazygrinvp9.png

Perve :tongue:

I don't mind it in the right setting but not in the wrong setting.

So I was typing quickly and not paying enough attention... :(

I did say it was inveterate.

Seeing people making out reminds me that I'm not getting any. :(

Seeing people making out reminds me that I'm not getting any. :(

Too true, :(

Seeing people making out reminds me that I'm not getting any. :(

:fluffle:

Might as well go all the way. Why not?

It has been a haven for some time now. I went up there a few years back now. I was on my honeymoon. We were in the town of Kennebunkport,ME. We went out looking for some nightlife. I went into a bar, where there were actually two male bathrooms no female bathroom. Oops, my mistake, okay about face try the next place. That look like something out of "Query as Folk". We ended up going to a microbrewery. I guess it was the fact that we didn't know where to avoid but in short it was disappointing to say the least and I won't be back. Too bad to, because it some of the most beautiful countryside in the USA.

It has been a haven for some time now. I went up there a few years back now. I was on my honeymoon. We were in the town of Kennebunkport,ME. We went out looking for some nightlife. I went into a bar, where there were actually two male bathrooms no female bathroom. Oops, my mistake, okay about face try the next place. That look like something out of "Query as Folk". We ended up going to a microbrewery. I guess it was the fact that we didn't know where to avoid but in short it was disappointing to say the least and I won't be back. Too bad to, because it some of the most beautiful countryside in the USA.

Yep. I know I make a habit of boycotting entire states just because I can't find a nightclub I like.

:rolleyes:

I wonder how some of the people in this thread manage to dress themselves in the morning.

To tell you the truth I don't particularly like seeing a couple making out with the guy's hand up her skirt while I am sitting down to lunch either.

Don't watch then.

I wonder how some of the people in this thread manage to dress themselves in the morning.

Well, I have to....

Oh, you weren't talking about me.

*wanders off*

It has been a haven for some time now. I went up there a few years back now. I was on my honeymoon. We were in the town of Kennebunkport,ME. We went out looking for some nightlife. I went into a bar, where there were actually two male bathrooms no female bathroom. Oops, my mistake, okay about face try the next place. That look like something out of "Query as Folk". We ended up going to a microbrewery. I guess it was the fact that we didn't know where to avoid but in short it was disappointing to say the least and I won't be back. Too bad to, because it some of the most beautiful countryside in the USA..

Doubtful that there was only a mens room, as that would be illegal by building codes. Though, in gay clubs, it tends to be "mens" and "whoever needs to pee most"...

Also strange, considering that even in the most liberal, accepting areas, gay bars will almost always still be in the minority (Provincetown and a precious few similar communities are the notable exceptions). Given what I know about the area (friends who grew up in surrounding towns), they aren't even close to large enough to support a gay district (Kennebunkport only has 3,720 people, and isn't quite a community like Provincetown [that is to say, it is far from a Gay Mecca]). In a quick search, I can only find two or three gay bars...evidently, you either have a) bad luck, b) horrible research skills or c) both.

Shame that you swear off an entire state because you found two gay bars. And by shame, I mean just a little pathetic.

Don't watch then.

They really should put up warning signs so when I turn the corner I know I don't have to see it.

But really there are times and places for this sort of thing if you want to act like a couple of drunk 16 year olds at a house party then do it while drunk at a house party not in the middle of a food court.

Of course you won't mind me walking around the streets naked either, if you don't like to see it don't look at me.

They really should put up warning signs so when I turn the corner I know I don't have to see it.

But really there are times and places for this sort of thing if you want to act like a couple of drunk 16 year olds at a house party then do it while drunk at a house party not in the middle of a food court.

Of course you won't mind me walking around the streets naked either, if you don't like to see it don't look at me.

Walking around nude is generally against the law in most places.

Being homosexual around you is not.

Your analogy fails.

Walking around nude is generally against the law in most places.

Being homosexual around you is not.

Your analogy fails.

Where the hell was I talking about homosexuality?

Besides many places do have laws against indecency, depends how it is interrupted I suppose.

Regardless I was talking about what I like and what I don't like.

Where the hell was I talking about homosexuality?


I stand corrected, you were referring to heterosexuality. Same goes, however.

Besides many places do have laws against indecency, depends how it is interrupted I suppose.

Regardless I was talking about what I like and what I don't like.

Well that's fine, and some people like committing crimes versus not.

I stand corrected, you were referring to heterosexuality. Same goes, however.

Actually I was just referring generally, not towards any specific sexuality.

Well that's fine, and some people like committing crimes versus not.

Que?

It has been a haven for some time now. I went up there a few years back now. I was on my honeymoon. We were in the town of Kennebunkport,ME. We went out looking for some nightlife. I went into a bar, where there were actually two male bathrooms no female bathroom. Oops, my mistake, okay about face try the next place. That look like something out of "Query as Folk". We ended up going to a microbrewery. I guess it was the fact that we didn't know where to avoid but in short it was disappointing to say the least and I won't be back. Too bad to, because it some of the most beautiful countryside in the USA.

Why do you hate capitalism?

And is "Query as Folk" a show about data processors and databases?

Why do you hate capitalism?

And is "Query as Folk" a show about data processors and databases?

Niiiiiice.

Niiiiiice.

I learn from the best, Master.

I learn from the best, Master.

Careful, somebody might hear you call another dude master and then boycott your entire state.

Happens.

Careful, somebody might hear you call another dude master and then boycott your entire state.

Happens.

I dont think it would be much loss if Washington was boycotted. :tongue:

I dont think it would be much loss if Washington was boycotted. :tongue:

Here we are now. Entertain us.

Here we are now. Entertain us.

I feel stupid and contagious. Here we are now. Entertain us. A mulatto. An albino. A mosquito. My libido.

Or in other words I don't get it.

I dont think it would be much loss if Washington was boycotted. :tongue:

Y'know, a little self-deprecation is genuinely Washingtonian, but I take offense to you running down my home, pal. I've lived in the west, the middle and the east, and I love it here. If you don't, I'm sorry. That's not the state's fault.

I feel stupid and contagious. Here we are now. Entertain us. A mulatto. An albino. A mosquito. My libido.

Or in other words I don't get it.

It's okay -- Nirvana didn't, either.

Careful, somebody might hear you call another dude master and then boycott your entire state.

Happens.

We can do without the truly blessed. Before the Northwest was America's Athens, it was America's Tumbuktu. Where young guitars cut their teeth and old haiku go to die.

We can do without the truly blessed. Before the Northwest was America's Athens, it was America's Tumbuktu. Where young guitars cut their teeth and old haiku go to die.

When did the Northwest become America's Athens? I'm pretty sure that still goes to Boston...

Y'know, a little self-deprecation is genuinely Washingtonian, but I take offense to you running down my home, pal. I've lived in the west, the middle and the east, and I love it here. If you don't, I'm sorry. That's not the state's fault.

Never said I didn't love it, quite enjoyed my visit actually.

It's okay -- Nirvana didn't, either.

Que?

When did the Northwest become America's Athens? I'm pretty sure that still goes to Boston...

Maybe he means a relic of its former glory.

Maybe he means a relic of its former glory.

hmm...perhaps.

Is it just me or has this thread become very confused?

Perhaps even bi/curious.

When did the Northwest become America's Athens? I'm pretty sure that still goes to Boston...

It was a quote, and about Seattle specifically -- I paraphrased Tom Robbins. Not sure where he got it, but I'll wager it was a travel magazine or newspaper or something. I think that the image overhaul happened after the microbrew, coffee and software re-tooling took hold. I don't think it's a historical reference, clearly Boston has the corner on US history.

Maybe he means a relic of its former glory.

One would have to have had a glory to possess a former glory.

Que?

Uh...didn't you read the quote I...*sigh*

You said "I don't get it" and I said, "that's okay, Nirvana didn't either."

hmm...perhaps.

Is it just me or has this thread become very confused?

Perhaps even bi/curious.

lol, nice way to stay on topic.

I wonder if the straight and gay threads will shun this thread and simply state it is only going through a phase?

Uh...didn't you read the quote I...*sigh*

You said "I don't get it" and I said, "that's okay, Nirvana didn't either."

Yes and I don't get that either.

I know it is a joke but it is not one I understand.

Yes and I don't get that either.

I know it is a joke but it is not one I understand.

What's not to get? Nirvana didn't understand the lyric any better than you do.

What's not to get? Nirvana didn't understand the lyric any better than you do.

Hmmm, O-k

Of course you won't mind me walking around the streets naked either, if you don't like to see it don't look at me.

No, actually, I wouldn't really care.

Of course you won't mind me walking around the streets naked either, if you don't like to see it don't look at me.

What if we did like it? :p

*runs*

What if we did like it? :p

*runs*

:eek:

Then feel free to look.

hmm...perhaps.

Is it just me or has this thread become very confused?

Perhaps even bi/curious.

This thread just woke up in bed with someone after a drunken night and is questioning its sexuality while trying to figure out exactly what it did last night.

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony, and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state... We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage, married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements, and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays. (A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.) I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.
I'm going to go ahead and let other people be mature and grown up about this, because personally I just get a kick out of making homophobes cry.

If you're the kind of person who is saddened by the fact that atheists and gays and uppity women have rights, then you probably should stock up on Kleenex because the next century is going to bum you the fuck out.

Your kids are going to be talking about you in the same embarrassed tones that our generation uses for that one uncle who is still uncomfortable with having brown people in the country club.

I'm going to go ahead and let other people be mature and grown up about this, because personally I just get a kick out of making homophobes cry.

If you're the kind of person who is saddened by the fact that atheists and gays and uppity women have rights, then you probably should stock up on Kleenex because the next century is going to bum you the fuck out.

Your kids are going to be talking about you in the same embarrassed tones that our generation uses for that one uncle who is still uncomfortable with having brown people in the country club.

Bwahahahahahahah! And a distinctly non-christian Amen to that sister Bottle!:D

I'm going to go ahead and let other people be mature and grown up about this, because personally I just get a kick out of making homophobes cry.

If you're the kind of person who is saddened by the fact that atheists and gays and uppity women have rights, then you probably should stock up on Kleenex because the next century is going to bum you the fuck out.

Your kids are going to be talking about you in the same embarrassed tones that our generation uses for that one uncle who is still uncomfortable with having brown people in the country club.

Relevant article regarding the inevitability of the gay rights movement:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Relevant article regarding the inevitability of the gay rights movement:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Don't you mean "Homosexual Agenda?" ;)

j/k

Relevant article regarding the inevitability of the gay rights movement:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
No howl so loud and long as that of a dying dog, they say.

The reality is that gay marriage has been legal in several places for years now, and every passing year puts lie to the homophobic whining about the collapse of civilization and the death of marriage as an institution.

Straight people still get married in Massachusetts. Marriages in Massachusetts are still less likely to end in divorce than are marriages in the Bible Belt. Teens in Massachusetts are still less likely to get pregnant or contract STDs than the Good Christian Youth(tm) of the Bible Belt. Married couples in Massachusetts still report satisfaction with their marriages at higher rates than couples in Bible Belt states. Religious people are still free to worship as they choose, churches are still free to decide whether or not they will officiate gay or straight weddings, and not one single man-toaster wedding has been recognized by the state.

No wonder homophobes are crying. All of reality is aligned against them. :D

No howl so loud and long as that of a dying dog, they say.

The reality is that gay marriage has been legal in several places for years now, and every passing year puts lie to the homophobic whining about the collapse of civilization and the death of marriage as an institution.

Straight people still get married in Massachusetts. Marriages in Massachusetts are still less likely to end in divorce than are marriages in the Bible Belt. Teens in Massachusetts are still less likely to get pregnant or contract STDs than the Good Christian Youth(tm) of the Bible Belt. Married couples in Massachusetts still report satisfaction with their marriages at higher rates than couples in Bible Belt states. Religious people are still free to worship as they choose, churches are still free to decide whether or not they will officiate gay or straight weddings, and not one single man-toaster wedding has been recognized by the state.

No wonder homophobes are crying. All of reality is aligned against them. :D

Amen twice!

Straight people still get married in Massachusetts. Marriages in Massachusetts are still less likely to end in divorce than are marriages in the Bible Belt. Teens in Massachusetts are still less likely to get pregnant or contract STDs than the Good Christian Youth(tm) of the Bible Belt. Married couples in Massachusetts still report satisfaction with their marriages at higher rates than couples in Bible Belt states. Religious people are still free to worship as they choose, churches are still free to decide whether or not they will officiate gay or straight weddings, and not one single man-toaster wedding has been recognized by the state.

Now Bottle most people respect you hell even I do too but source?

And I don't mean the bit "people are still getting married in Ma" but rather the bits about STD's and divorce rates.

Now Bottle most people respect you hell even I do too but source?

And I don't mean the bit "people are still getting married in Ma" but rather the bits about STD's and divorce rates.

Divorce rates by state (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate) (MA is 46, CT is 37)
Pregnancy and abortion rates (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf) (can be found on page 12...takes a few to load. MA ranks 40th for pregnancy rate. CT is 33rd.)
Gonorrhea by state (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/16.htm)
Chlamydia by state (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats00/slides/chlamydia/sld004.htm)

Divorce rates by state (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate) (MA is 46, CT is 37)
Pregnancy and abortion rates (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf) (can be found on page 12...takes a few to load. MA ranks 40th for pregnancy rate. CT is 33rd.)
Gonorrhea by state (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/16.htm)
Chlamydia by state (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats00/slides/chlamydia/sld004.htm)

Cheers Sark, I see some bible belt states have higher rates of those two STD's then MA while other also have less.

Cheers Sark, I see some bible belt states have higher rates of those two STD's then MA while other also have less.

Those were the best I could find quickly...I was hoping to find one for overall STD rates, but I assume they'll be similar to the other two. Also couldn't find the marital satisfaction one.

Just out of curiosity, what do you classify as bible belt? (I've seen pretty far flung ideas about this)

Those were the best I could find quickly...I was hoping to find one for overall STD rates, but I assume they'll be similar to the other two. Also couldn't find the marital satisfaction one.

Just out of curiosity, what do you classify as bible belt? (I've seen pretty far flung ideas about this)

Umm well from what I understand it is what is primarily the red states so it starts up in *pulls out map of US* Montana (I must admit I thought that was Utah) moves down through Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and across to Louisiana and Arkansas.

So basically most of the states involved in the Louisiana purchase and the former republic of Texas.

Umm well from what I understand it is what is primarily the red states so it starts up in *pulls out map of US* Montana (I must admit I thought that was Utah) moves down through Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and across to Louisiana and Arkansas.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/BibleBelt.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/BibleBelt.png

Well I was way off.

Well I was way off.

It's basically slave states prior to the US Civil War.

Well I was way off.

Main reason I had to check...haha...it's far from a concrete region, but I've seen some people extend from SD's map up into North Dakota, while others drop off states like Virginia

Main reason I had to check...haha...it's far from a concrete region, but I've seen some people extend from SD's map up into North Dakota, while others drop off states like Virginia

heh, I guess you learn something new everyday.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/BibleBelt.png

This has Missouri on it--why did Poli pound me so hard when I said that was a State I would not mind seeing leave the Union?

This has Missouri on it--why did Poli pound me so hard when I said that was a State I would not mind seeing leave the Union?

I would suspect it is because she is from Missouri.

I would suspect it is because she is from Missouri.

:tongue: That might do it. But it looks like I hit the general state culture pretty well, since we were discussion it with the likes of Georgia and Virginia.

:tongue: That might do it. But it looks like I hit the general state culture pretty well.

O maybe she just likes pounding people. :tongue:

Seeing people making out reminds me that I'm not getting any. :(

I wonder if THAT'S why some people are against gay marriage...

and its DONE!


Maine’s Democratic governor, John Baldacci, has signed a recently passed bill approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice, the Associated Press reports.


New Hampshire legislators are also poised to send a gay marriage bill to their governor, who hasn’t indicated whether he’ll sign it. If he does, Rhode Island would be New England's sole holdout, the AP notes.


http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/maine-become-5th-state-to-approve-gay-marriage.html

and its DONE!



http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/maine-become-5th-state-to-approve-gay-marriage.html

Victory!

Victory!

The South is all I am worried about.

and its DONE!



http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/maine-become-5th-state-to-approve-gay-marriage.html
Yay! *updates scoreboard* Step by step, state by state.

The South is all I am worried about.

Eventually, gay marriage will be made a reality by the Supreme Court. Then the South will have no choice.

Eventually, gay marriage will be made a reality by the Supreme Court. Then the South will have no choice.

That is a tricky thing to do. The South has history of violently protesting the Feds making civil rights mandatory. I am not talking about a civil war, but I am thinking of much death and arson.

That is a tricky thing to do. The South has history of violently protesting the Feds making civil rights mandatory. I am not talking about a civil war, but I am thinking of much death and arson.

Then, they are arrested and made examples of.

Then, they are arrested and made examples of.

Not so easy. They might become another secret group like the KKK, specifically concerned with homosexuals and the Federal Government. The State police might start to help cover-up crime and vandalism.

Not so easy. They become another secret group like the KKK, specifically concerned with homosexuals and the Federal Government. The State police might start to help cover-up crime and vandalism.

Then the Feds act on it. And punish the officials who cover things up as well.

Not so easy. They might become another secret group like the KKK, specifically concerned with homosexuals and the Federal Government. The State police might start to help cover-up crime and vandalism.
The KKK existed and terrorized people with official collusion for almost 100 years before the Civil Rights movement and the forced end of segregation. I'm sure violent homophobic social clubs of a similar kind (though with less fabulous outfits) already exist as well. After all, gays already get bashed and murdered just for being visible.

Then the Feds act on it. And punish the officials who cover things up as well.

They will have to, but it will be the same pain-in-ass integrating schools was. This nation had a shit-load of trouble from that. Still, we pulled-through, and it was worth it.

They will have to, but it will be the same pain-in-ass integrating schools was. This nation had a shit-load of trouble from that. Still, we pulled-through, and it was worth it.

In that case, do it again and again - How many times it is necessary until Americans have equality.

The KKK existed and terrorized people with official collusion for almost 100 years before the Civil Rights movement and the forced end of segregation. I'm sure violent homophobic social clubs of a similar kind (though with less fabulous outfits) already exist as well. After all, gays already get bashed and murdered just for being visible.

Sure. I am just saying that creating marital equality will lead to much more acceptance of them. Some (relatively) moral bigots might raise little protest compared to what they used to when homosexuals are murdered. Terrorist groups could become heroes in the South.

I am very concerned about this, though I still support a Federal mandate.

Terrorist groups could become heroes in the South.

Then, they are arrested, discredited and squashed. That simple.

In that case, do it again and again - How many times it is necessary until Americans have equality.

Sadly, they probably never will, entirely. Some states will continually find some loop-hole to exploit, and manage to enforce some bigoted law. Homosexuals today, atheists tomorrow.

Sadly, they probably never will, entirely. Some states will continually find some loop-hole to exploit, and manage to enforce some bigoted law. Homosexuals today, atheists tomorrow.

They will. If equality must be forced, then so be it. But if the "fate" of some groups is to be oppressed, then they have all the reasons in the world to fight for their rights however they see fit.

They will. If equality must be forced, then so be it. But if the "fate" of some groups is to be oppressed, then they have all the reasons in the world to fight for their rights however they see fit.

Fuck yeah. It was Jews in the Middle Ages, and it is homosexuals today. The fight for a progressive world must continue.

Eventually, gay marriage will be made a reality by the Supreme Court. Then the South will have no choice.

Judicial activism!!!!!!111

(Just kidding. Sadly, though, that's how many of the Chicken Littles who believe that giving gays equal rights will cause the sky to fall would respond to such a scenario.)

Judicial activism!!!!!!111

(Just kidding. Sadly, though, that's how many of the Chicken Littles who believe that giving gays equal rights would respond to such a scenario.)

They can whine to their little hearts' content. It won't change anything. That's the beauty of it.

and its DONE!



http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/maine-become-5th-state-to-approve-gay-marriage.html

Nice, now hopefully New Hampshire follows suit.

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony
No, "marriage" is a legal institution. You can have all the religious ceremonies you want, and you can refuse to perform religious ceremonies for people you don't care to allow in; we don't care.

Sure. I am just saying that creating marital equality will lead to much more acceptance of them. Some (relatively) moral bigots might raise little protest compared to what they used to when homosexuals are murdered. Terrorist groups could become heroes in the South.

I am very concerned about this, though I still support a Federal mandate.
And I'm saying that those bigots and extremists are already heroes in those states. They don't need gay marriage to be legal to provoke them. The mere existence of gays is enough. Since they are already attacking gays and discriminating against gays, why should they not at last be provoked for it? I mean, if gays and those who fight for rights are going to be attacked anyway no matter what we do, there is no reason to be afraid to push for rights. We just need to brace ourselves to defend against the inevitable attacks.

This has Missouri on it--why did Poli pound me so hard when I said that was a State I would not mind seeing leave the Union?

As already mentioned, there's the bit where I live there, but mostly it's that that map features the most nonsensical version of the Bible belt I've ever seen. St. Louis is in it, but Kansas is not? The only way that makes sense is if "Bible belt" has somehow been redefined from "area with a lot of Christian fundamentalists" to "area vaguely corresponding to former slave states regardless of their religious makeup." Which is, y'know, dumb.

As already mentioned, there's the bit where I live there, but mostly it's that that map features the most nonsensical version of the Bible belt I've ever seen. St. Louis is in it, but Kansas is not? The only way that makes sense is if "Bible belt" has somehow been redefined from "area with a lot of Christian fundamentalists" to "area vaguely corresponding to former slave states regardless of their religious makeup." Which is, y'know, dumb.

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif

I'm not sure what your definition of "Bible Belt" is, but "area with lot of Christian fundamentalists" isn't far off. It's the area of the country where socially conservative evangelical Anglican Protestantism is dominant.

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif

I'm not sure what your definition of "Bible Belt" is, but "area with lot of Christian fundamentalists" isn't far off. It's the area of the country where socially conservative evangelical Anglican Protestantism is dominant.

Traditionally it's the Southeast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt).

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif

I'm not sure what your definition of "Bible Belt" is, but "area with lot of Christian fundamentalists" isn't far off. It's the area of the country where socially conservative evangelical Anglican Protestantism is dominant.

Baptist =/= "socially conservative evangelical Anglican Protestantism." Baptists CAN certainly fit that description, and many socially conservative evangelical Protestants are indeed Baptists, but those are far from interchangeable terms.

(I also rather doubt the polling methodology there, unless someone can offer a good reason why the Kansas state line is poisonous to Baptists, and further why someone who lives about 5 minutes from said state line has never ever noticed this magical de-Baptistification.)

843 postings about queer marriages!!!

Why are so many people attracted to this subject?

Traditionally it's the Southeast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt).

Yeah, the map in that article sure looks familiar.

Baptist =/= "socially conservative evangelical Anglican Protestantism." Baptists CAN certainly fit that description, and many socially conservative evangelical Protestants are indeed Baptists, but those are far from interchangeable terms.

(I also rather doubt the polling methodology there, unless someone can offer a good reason why the Kansas state line is poisonous to Baptists, and further why someone who lives about 5 minutes from said state line has never ever noticed this magical de-Baptistification.)

So Poliwanacraca's personal experiences are canon now? Got it.

So Poliwanacraca's personal experiences are canon now? Got it.

Thanks for answering my points!

Oh, wait, you didn't. At all. So...thanks for making a snide remark that didn't address anything I said!

Thanks for answering my points!

Oh, wait, you didn't. At all. So...thanks for making a snide remark that didn't address anything I said!

Yeah, you didn't say anything. I've posted multiple sources identifying the Bible Belt as including Missouri. This offends your delicate sensibilities, so you offer back a very convincing "nuh uh." Trust me, when you offer back something of substance, perhaps some reason why Missouri should be excluded from the Bible Belt besides your say so, then I'd be glad to address it. Or if you could demonstrate in any way why we should doubt the methodology of the reporting church bodies for their own congregations used in that map, then I'd be glad to address that. But you didn't. You didn't say anything, except a spruced-up "nuh uh."

Yeah, you didn't say anything. I've posted multiple sources identifying the Bible Belt as including Missouri. This offends your delicate sensibilities, so you offer back a very convincing "nuh uh." Trust me, when you offer back something of substance, perhaps some reason why Missouri should be excluded from the Bible Belt besides your say so, then I'd be glad to address it. Or if you could demonstrate in any way why we should doubt the methodology of the reporting church bodies for their own congregations used in that map, then I'd be glad to address that. But you didn't. You didn't say anything, except a spruced-up "nuh uh."

Wikipedia is "multiple sources"?

I didn't even know I had delicate sensibilities, let alone that they were offended. I'm pretty certain I just said that defining the Bible belt as the former slave states makes very little sense, as it includes the entirety of Missouri - including St. Louis, which is fairly definitely not what people think of when they think of "Bible belt" areas - and almost none of Kansas, which is pretty much precisely what people think of when they think of "Bible belt" areas. If you'd like sources, how about, I dunno, a very quick google of the respective voting records of Missouri and Kansas? (Protip: Kansas is more conservative and religious! This is common knowledge to pretty much anyone who's paid even faint attention to US politics in the past several decades!)

Or would you perhaps like a source for the fact that using "Baptist" interchangeably with "fundamentalist" is dumb? Here, have "multiple sources":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist

It's like they're two separate pages with different information on them or something!

Or were you looking for a source on "I personally doubt the polling methodology, seeing as it reached a result that does not make a great deal of sense based on commonsense population demographics and my own knowledge of the region." How precisely would you like me to source those doubts?

Then the Feds act on it. And punish the officials who cover things up as well.

Pretty simple world we live in.

Wikipedia is "multiple sources"?

I didn't even know I had delicate sensibilities, let alone that they were offended. I'm pretty certain I just said that defining the Bible belt as the former slave states makes very little sense, as it includes the entirety of Missouri - including St. Louis, which is fairly definitely not what people think of when they think of "Bible belt" areas - and almost none of Kansas, which is pretty much precisely what people think of when they think of "Bible belt" areas. If you'd like sources, how about, I dunno, a very quick google of the respective voting records of Missouri and Kansas? (Protip: Kansas is more conservative and religious! This is common knowledge to pretty much anyone who's paid even faint attention to US politics in the past several decades!)

Or would you perhaps like a source for the fact that using "Baptist" interchangeably with "fundamentalist" is dumb? Here, have "multiple sources":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist

It's like they're two separate pages with different information on them or something!

Or were you looking for a source on "I personally doubt the polling methodology, seeing as it reached a result that does not make a great deal of sense based on commonsense population demographics and my own knowledge of the region." How precisely would you like me to source those doubts?

Wikipedia and the second map are multiple sources.

I've presented multiple sources that identify Missouri as part of the Bible Belt. You've presented exactly nothing to contradict that. Present at least one reason why Missouri should not be included, besides your own opinion. Just one. You speak of what "people" think when they think of the Bible Belt, it should not be difficult to find a single source to back up your claim that Missouri does not belong in the Bible Belt.

So, please, keep your snarky protips to yourself and actually present an argument that extends beyond your own biased opinion, or cease this pointless hijack.

843 postings about queer marriages!!!

Why are so many people attracted to this subject?

Some gays are hot.

Some of them are most definitely not.

Pretty simple world we live in.

It may not be, but if the Civil Rights movement didn't stop because morons hung blacks and motherfuckers covered that up, the Gay Rights movement won't stop because morons commit hate crimes and motherfuckers cover that up either.

Baptist =/= "socially conservative evangelical Anglican Protestantism." Baptists CAN certainly fit that description, and many socially conservative evangelical Protestants are indeed Baptists, but those are far from interchangeable terms.

(I also rather doubt the polling methodology there, unless someone can offer a good reason why the Kansas state line is poisonous to Baptists, and further why someone who lives about 5 minutes from said state line has never ever noticed this magical de-Baptistification.)
US Census Bureau is usually pretty good. Personally, when someone says "Bible Belt," I think of traditional southern Baptists rather than televangelists, small-town preachers rather than giant megachurches. The old fashioned big-tent revival? Sometimes I think of that. The rapid growth of the Pentacostals is new; the regional identification of the Bible Belt is not.

Now, see that teeny little white county in the middle of North Carolina, all by its lonesome with less than 10% Baptists? That's where I grew up.

Why are so many people attracted to this subject?

I'm just like the homophobes: I can't think about gay marriage without thinking about gay sex.

Wikipedia and the second map are multiple sources.

I've presented multiple sources that identify Missouri as part of the Bible Belt. You've presented exactly nothing to contradict that. Present at least one reason why Missouri should not be included, besides your own opinion. Just one. You speak of what "people" think when they think of the Bible Belt, it should not be difficult to find a single source to back up your claim that Missouri does not belong in the Bible Belt.

So, please, keep your snarky protips to yourself and actually present an argument that extends beyond your own biased opinion, or cease this pointless hijack.

Again, identifying Missouri as "containing Baptists" does not equal identifying Missouri as being in the Bible belt. I'm getting the impression you want to argue more than you want to read what anyone other than you is saying. The only source you've actually provided for all of Missouri being in the Bible belt is a map from a wiki page labeled right at the top as containing unverifiable and biased information.

The cafe I'm sitting in is closing, so I won't be online for a few hours, but since you apparently need sources beyond my "biased opinion" that Kansas is more rural, religious, and conservative than St. Louis, may I ask the helpful denizens of NSG to provide definitions of such terms as "farmland" and "city" for your assistance? :rolleyes:

I didn't even know I had delicate sensibilities, let alone that they were offended. I'm pretty certain I just said that defining the Bible belt as the former slave states makes very little sense, as it includes the entirety of Missouri - including St. Louis, which is fairly definitely not what people think of when they think of "Bible belt" areas - and almost none of Kansas, which is pretty much precisely what people think of when they think of "Bible belt" areas. If you'd like sources, how about, I dunno, a very quick google of the respective voting records of Missouri and Kansas? (Protip: Kansas is more conservative and religious! This is common knowledge to pretty much anyone who's paid even faint attention to US politics in the past several decades!)
Missouri has traditionally been included in the Bible Belt by reference. St. Louis, like many of the more urban Southern areas, is often excluded.

I'm perfectly happy to include the rural flatlands in which megachurches thrive, including most of the rural parts of Kansas and Nebraska. You could even claim some of Iowa, north of Missouri. Show both evangelicals and baptists on the map and you should get a very complete picture.

Again, identifying Missouri as "containing Baptists" does not equal identifying Missouri as being in the Bible belt. I'm getting the impression you want to argue more than you want to read what anyone other than you is saying. The only source you've actually provided for all of Missouri being in the Bible belt is a map from a wiki page labeled right at the top as containing unverifiable and biased information.

The cafe I'm sitting in is closing, so I won't be online for a few hours, but since you apparently need sources beyond my "biased opinion" that Kansas is more rural, religious, and conservative than St. Louis, may I ask the helpful denizens of NSG to provide definitions of such terms as "farmland" and "city" for your assistance? :rolleyes:

You're setting up quite the elaborate strawman. I never once said that Kansas wasn't more rural, religious, or conservative than St. Louis. Do try and stay on topic here. I said that Missouri is part of the Bible Belt, by multiple definitions. Show me that it is not.

You're setting up quite the elaborate strawman. I never once said that Kansas wasn't more rural, religious, or conservative than St. Louis. Do try and stay on topic here. I said that Missouri is part of the Bible Belt, by multiple definitions. Show me that it is not.

...exactly what do you think the Bible belt is? Every definition I've ever heard involves religious conservatism, so if you are aware that Kansas is more religious and conservative than St. Louis, why the fuck are you arguing with my statement that a map of the Bible belt that includes St. Louis and excludes Kansas doesn't make a great deal of sense?

By the way, it cracks me up that you accuse me of making up strawmen and then promptly claim that I somehow need to defend an allegation I never made.

...exactly what do you think the Bible belt is? Every definition I've ever heard involves religious conservatism, so if you are aware that Kansas is more religious and conservative than St. Louis, why the fuck are you arguing with my statement that a map of the Bible belt that includes St. Louis and excludes Kansas doesn't make a great deal of sense?

By the way, it cracks me up that you accuse me of making up strawmen and then promptly claim that I somehow need to defend an allegation I never made.

I think the Bible Belt is the area defined on the two maps that I linked. I am apparently not alone on this. Areas of the country where Baptism is a strong religious presence. Unfortunately, this excludes Kansas, where Roman Catholicism is the predominant religion.

If your main concern is that St. Louis is on that map, then I will concede that St. Louis is not part of the Bible Belt, nor are most of the major metropolitan areas within the geographically defined area on those maps.

However, I do not consider Kansas part of the Bible Belt, and like I said, I don't appear to be alone. If you've got a source for a definition of the Bible Belt that includes Kansas sheerly because of "religious conservativism", then by all means, link it. Link anything, really. Show me that what you're saying isn't merely your own personal opinion, because that's all I've seen so far.

I think the Bible Belt is the area defined on the two maps that I linked. I am apparently not alone on this. Areas of the country where Baptism is a strong religious presence. Unfortunately, this excludes Kansas, where Roman Catholicism is the predominant religion.

If your main concern is that St. Louis is on that map, then I will concede that St. Louis is not part of the Bible Belt, nor are most of the major metropolitan areas within the geographically defined area on those maps.

However, I do not consider Kansas part of the Bible Belt, and like I said, I don't appear to be alone. If you've got a source for a definition of the Bible Belt that includes Kansas sheerly because of "religious conservativism", then by all means, link it. Link anything, really. Show me that what you're saying isn't merely your own personal opinion, because that's all I've seen so far.

The first paragraph of your own wiki article reads:

Bible Belt is an informal term for an area of the United States in which socially conservative evangelical Protestantism is a dominant part of the culture and Christian church attendance across the denominations is extremely high.

Note the complete lack of the word "Baptist," which seems to be solely your own addition to the definition of "Bible belt."

Given the Kansas school board's infamous decision regarding evolution and creationism a few years back - a position the Catholic church disagrees with, by the way - it is rather silly to argue that socially conservative evangelical Protestantism isn't "a dominant part of the culture" there.

If you actually want my personal opinion, which I hadn't stated at all beyond "a definition that includes St. Louis and excludes Kansas makes no rational sense, seeing as the former is liberal and religiously diverse and the latter is...not," it's that there are two sensible "versions" of the Bible belt I can see. The more generous one would include the southern half or so of Missouri and much of Kansas; the less generous one would stay out of the Midwest altogether and stick to the very conservative states in the South. I've seen both used, and while I somewhat prefer the latter insofar as it seems like a more useful term in that context to me, I have no problem with seeing much of my state tossed into the "Bible belt" category. I just have a problem with doing it in the sort of blanket, brainless way that includes areas without a logical basis, because, especially as a resident of the state myself, that strikes me as involving the same sort of uninformed arrogance that leads a lot of coast-dwellers to categorize everything between Ohio and California as "flyover territory."

Gays should be free to marry if it makes them happy. The government shouldn't regulate
marriage, anyway, though it has too for tax reasons, I guess.

Missouri has traditionally been included in the Bible Belt by reference. St. Louis, like many of the more urban Southern areas, is often excluded.

I'm perfectly happy to include the rural flatlands in which megachurches thrive, including most of the rural parts of Kansas and Nebraska. You could even claim some of Iowa, north of Missouri. Show both evangelicals and baptists on the map and you should get a very complete picture.

I was once yelled at for referring to St. Louis as "the kind of city that makes you forget Missouri is part of the South." Extensively yelled at. :(

If you actually want my personal opinion, which I hadn't stated at all beyond "a definition that includes St. Louis and excludes Kansas makes no rational sense, seeing as the former is liberal and religiously diverse and the latter is...not," it's that there are two sensible "versions" of the Bible belt I can see. The more generous one would include the southern half or so of Missouri and much of Kansas; the less generous one would stay out of the Midwest altogether and stick to the very conservative states in the South. I've seen both used, and while I somewhat prefer the latter insofar as it seems like a more useful term in that context to me, I have no problem with seeing much of my state tossed into the "Bible belt" category. I just have a problem with doing it in the sort of blanket, brainless way that includes areas without a logical basis, because, especially as a resident of the state myself, that strikes me as involving the same sort of uninformed arrogance that leads a lot of coast-dwellers to categorize everything between Ohio and California as "flyover territory."

I usually think of that part of the country as "the big square states", but I think that's a pretty accurate description.

The term "Bible Belt" to me connotes a certain... well... passion, that Kansas just lacks. I feel like they're less fiercely religious and more irreparably retarded.

Then again, my experience in Kansas up to this point has been a week-long stay in a town of about 200, spent eating taco salad (shudder) and hanging out in a basement with a bunch of drug addicts and alcoholics also known as my extended family.

So maybe Topeka is really quite charming, and I just missed out. Although I did see the country's deepest well or something.

I was once yelled at for referring to St. Louis as "the kind of city that makes you forget Missouri is part of the South." Extensively yelled at. :(

*yells* :p

I don't understand people who classify Missouri as being part of the South, and I've never met an actual Missourian who does so. To me, the South tends to mean "the former Confederacy, which, as you might notice, is actually located in the southern part of the country, unlike Missouri, which is fairly obviously in the middle." Maybe some Ozarks folk think of themselves as Southerners, but around here, we're pretty freaking clear that we're in the Midwest.

I usually think of that part of the country as "the big square states", but I think that's a pretty accurate description.

Hehe. Missouri isn't a big square state, though! We're more of a big....vaguely squarish state! :p

The term "Bible Belt" to me connotes a certain... well... passion, that Kansas just lacks. I feel like they're less fiercely religious and more irreparably retarded.

Hahahaha. I would basically agree - that's why I wouldn't personally put either KS or MO in there, because to me, the Bible belt is more, y'know, the sort of place where you could easily find churches where people speak in tongues and play with snakes and stuff, not just the sort of place where almost everyone is some kind of Christian because that's what their family has always been.

So maybe Topeka is really quite charming, and I just missed out. Although I did see the country's deepest well or something.

Nah, after you get west of Lawrence - which is actually a fairly nice town - Kansas's attractions basically boil down to "Hey, there's a wheat field in between the corn fields, and if you look over there, you might be able to see a soybean field!" :p

As already mentioned, there's the bit where I live there, but mostly it's that that map features the most nonsensical version of the Bible belt I've ever seen.

Wiki says it.

St. Louis is in it, but Kansas is not? The only way that makes sense is if "Bible belt" has somehow been redefined from "area with a lot of Christian fundamentalists" to "area vaguely corresponding to former slave states regardless of their religious makeup." Which is, y'know, dumb.

If you could show me another map, I will gladly reconsider. I know it sucks for you to have your home state considered the "Bible Belt", especially when you are so progressive.

Hehe. Missouri isn't a big square state, though! We're more of a big....vaguely squarish state! :p

Oh, Missouri isn't among my "big square states" because I can actually half-locate it, being next to Illinois and all. Then again, I often can't find Ohio, so this says a lot more about my complete lack of geographic... anything. I get lost in my own city, seriously. It's near functional retardation. I can hear someone say something in a certain tone of voice and remember exactly what my friend said in that tone of voice five years ago, where we were standing, how she moved her hands... but I navigate according to the hills (if I'm going TOWARD them, I'm going home, if I'm going AWAY, I'm screwed).

Nah, after you get west of Lawrence - which is actually a fairly nice town - Kansas's attractions basically boil down to "Hey, there's a wheat field in between the corn fields, and if you look over there, you might be able to see a soybean field!" :p

Kansas was the first place I'd ever been where I saw a town take shape on the horizon. There was nothing but wheat, then there was a town, then we were in the town. I didn't even know there were spaces between towns in some places. It was mind-boggling. Like being in international waters, I imagine.

Anyway, I wasn't actually in Topeka, I just drew that from a hat. The small hellhole I stayed at was about an hour's drive from Dodge City. You could find the main road real easy because it was the one that was paved. -_-

Oh, Missouri isn't among my "big square states" because I can actually half-locate it, being next to Illinois and all. Then again, I often can't find Ohio, so this says a lot more about my complete lack of geographic... anything. I get lost in my own city, seriously. It's near functional retardation. I can hear someone say something in a certain tone of voice and remember exactly what my friend said in that tone of voice five years ago, where we were standing, how she moved her hands... but I navigate according to the hills (if I'm going TOWARD them, I'm going home, if I'm going AWAY, I'm screwed).

Hahaha, I totally understand this, actually. I have lived in the same house for the overwhelming majority of my life, and half the time I STILL have to recite the stupid little mnemonic I made up when I was about 10 in order to know which way to turn out of my driveway.

Kansas was the first place I'd ever been where I saw a town take shape on the horizon. There was nothing but wheat, then there was a town, then we were in the town. I didn't even know there were spaces between towns in some places. It was mind-boggling. Like being in international waters, I imagine.

Anyway, I wasn't actually in Topeka, I just drew that from a hat. The small hellhole I stayed at was about an hour's drive from Dodge City. You could find the main road real easy because it was the one that was paved. -_-

Hee, you'd find where I grew up horrifying. My parents' house is located about 8 minutes' drive (along a narrow dirt road) outside a town with a population of about 600. On the bright side, unlike Kansas, we do have hills, so you don't get so much of the horizon effect. :p

it's amazing how a thread about gay marriage in Maine can turn into a thread about 'where is Missouri!' and 'how do I get out of my driveway?!'

This is why this site is sheer genius.

it's amazing how a thread about gay marriage in Maine can turn into a thread about 'where is Missouri!' and 'how do I get out of my driveway?!'

This is why this site is sheer genius.

It's so true. :D

Amazing thread U-turn.

NSG can be amazing.

Amazing thread U-turn.

NSG can be amazing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/PAY5353/NSG.jpg

*snip nifty img*

Nice! *applauds*

I don't understand people who classify Missouri as being part of the South, and I've never met an actual Missourian who does so. To me, the South tends to mean "the former Confederacy, which, as you might notice, is actually located in the southern part of the country, unlike Missouri, which is fairly obviously in the middle." Maybe some Ozarks folk think of themselves as Southerners, but around here, we're pretty freaking clear that we're in the Midwest.

I'm pretty sure those who live in New England probably do consider Missouri to be in the south of America.

I'm pretty sure those who live in New England probably do consider Missouri to be in the south of America.

Sooo you chaps do have a North South devide, as we do over here in the UK?

*yells* :p

I don't understand people who classify Missouri as being part of the South, and I've never met an actual Missourian who does so. To me, the South tends to mean "the former Confederacy, which, as you might notice, is actually located in the southern part of the country, unlike Missouri, which is fairly obviously in the middle." Maybe some Ozarks folk think of themselves as Southerners, but around here, we're pretty freaking clear that we're in the Midwest.
To me, the south is anything below Staten Island, NYC.

To me, the south is anything below Staten Island, NYC.

To most people, it's anything below the Mason/Dixon line.

To most people, it's anything below the Mason/Dixon line.
Yes, I'm aware of that.

To me, the south is anything below Staten Island, NYC.

Being from Jersey, I resent that.

Being from Jersey, I resent that.

I wouldn't worry about it. You know how misguided people from other states are. And if NJ had had a faster boat, we'd own Staten Island. Then again ...

I wouldn't worry about it. You know how misguided people from other states are. And if NJ had had a faster boat, we'd own Staten Island. Then again ...

You know, though, let them have it. It's bad enough we have to deal with the smell, I'd rather not actually OWN the place.

You know, though, let them have it. It's bad enough we have to deal with the smell, I'd rather not actually OWN the place.

Just so. It does make a convenient place to anchor one end of the Verrazano Bridge, though, you have to admit, but yeah, New York State can have the upkeep. :tongue:

So do we know if Maine's governor os going to sign the bill or veto it? I heard that there weren't enough votes to override a veto.

To most people, it's anything below the Mason/Dixon line.

The Manson-Nixon Line?

Being from Jersey, I resent that.

Dude, you live in New Jersey. How can any categorization make things worse? :p

Dude, you live in New Jersey. How can any categorization make things worse? :p

:(

.../wrists

Why does Jersey always get shit from other states?

:(

.../wrists

Why does Jersey always get shit from other states?

I'm pretty sure that's how landfills work.

So do we know if Maine's governor os going to sign the bill or veto it? I heard that there weren't enough votes to override a veto.

He signed it. :)

He signed it. :)
*marks another score up for America*

Being from Jersey, I resent that.
southerners are SO sensitive!

southerners are SO sensitive!

This coming from someone in the American Southwest. For shame! :D

I'm pretty sure that's how landfills work.

But it's not OUR landfill. It's New York's.

This coming from someone in the American Southwest. For shame! :D
i grew up in maine.

people were classed as from maine, new england, that part that produces annoying people and the south.

I'm pretty sure those who live in New England probably do consider Missouri to be in the south of America.
New Englanders draw the map of the USA as having New England on one coast, California on the other, and everything west of the Ohio River labeled with "Here There Be Dragons."

:(

.../wrists

Why does Jersey always get shit from other states?

New Jersey has more toxic waste Superfund sites, California has more lawyers. Why? New jersey got to pick first.

Meh. All other states are just jealous. "New Jersey: Only the Strong Survive."

"Kiss her where it smells; take her to New Jersey." -George Carlin.

:D

New Englanders draw the map of the USA as having New England on one coast, California on the other, and everything west of the Ohio River labeled with "Here There Be Dragons."
I can attest to that. Mm-hm, mm-hm. *nods*

I can attest to that. Mm-hm, mm-hm. *nods*
And I say it with love, having lived on the East Coast for the better part of a decade now.

I just still get a chuckle every time my Boston friends introduce me as someone who is "from Out West." I'm from Minneapolis.

And I say it with love, having lived on the East Coast for the better part of a decade now.

I just still get a chuckle every time my Boston friends introduce me as someone who is "from Out West." I'm from Minneapolis.
Well, hey, you should know, New Englanders think of Vermont as the "west coast." ;)

Sooo you chaps do have a North South devide, as we do over here in the UK?

Most countries have some sort of divide between people based on geographical location.

Being from Jersey, I resent that.

Shush you, you're from Jersey, we don't care what you think... :p

To most people, it's anything below the Mason/Dixon line.This.

New Englanders draw the map of the USA as having New England on one coast, California on the other, and everything west of the Ohio River labeled with "Here There Be Dragons."
No no no... there are no dragons west of the Ohio river. Everyone knows dragons can't live on a diet of just corn. Griffens, on the other hand...
New Jersey has more toxic waste Superfund sites, California has more lawyers. Why? New jersey got to pick first.

Meh. All other states are just jealous. "New Jersey: Only the Strong Survive."

My friend still doesn't get why I laugh every time she says "Pretty girls turn heads. Jersey girls break necks."

"Kiss her where it smells; take her to New Jersey." -George Carlin.

:D

"What do the have on their license plates now? The Garden State? If you're growing smokestacks, sure. I think there should be truth in advertising, and they should tell it like it is: New Jersey, the Tollbooth State. 'Cause you can't pull out of your fuckin' DRIVEway...."

I miss George.