Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

What do you mean its not your place to name this great Fortune 500 company?  Who's place is it?  I'd like to know.  This is an anonymous board, certainly naming them here wouldn't be throwing stones.  Besides, if it truly happened you would only be telling the truth. 

 

Why is it so important that he names the company? What difference does it make? Um, probably BP but why does that make his story true or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Mayday, you know what I mean.  I don't know the man, have no interest in finding out who he is or what he does.  He doesn't work for them, and they can't hurt him by saying who it is.  Are you going to follow

me around and cleverly respond to all my postings?  :?

 

Florida Guy,  I think its important because we need to know what companies out there are behaving this way.  If we never found out, we can't change them can we?  I never said it made his story false if he wouldn't name them.  It only helps, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida Guy,  I think its important because we need to know what companies out there are behaving this way.  If we never found out, we can't change them can we?  I never said it made his story false if he wouldn't name them.  It only helps, in my opinion.

 

...or we could just make it illegal to fire people based on immutable/irrelevant/politically vulnerable traits like sexual orientation and then we wouldn't need to identify each instance to mount letter writing campaigns/boycotts/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Are you going to follow me around and cleverly respond to all my postings?"

 

As an Admin of this forum, it's my job to check out threads - even those that don't interest me. When I come across someone making potentially inflammatory comments, you'd better believe they're in my crosshairs. If you have a problem with that, there are plenty of unmoderated forums out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, answer my question please: why can a straight non-religious couple be allowed to get married in a church when a gay religious couple cannot?  What is the logic behind that?  If you were a gay man Dan and held strong religious beliefs and wanted to get married in a church, wouldnt you want to?  Seriously, why cant a religious gay couple get married in churches?  I know what the bible says but if you ask me, its discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I never said "you gays" have it great!  Believe it or not, straight, white, middle age males get fired all the time.  Would you say they all have it great?  I never claimed to have a clue as to what it was like to be gay!  What do you mean its not your place to name this great Fortune 500 company?  Who's place is it?  I'd like to know.  This is an anonymous board, certainly naming them here wouldn't be throwing stones.  Besides, if it truly happened you would only be telling the truth.  

 

I'm sorry for your family situation.  That would be a terrible place to be, but maybe its your family that has to face reality before a perfect stranger has to.

 

If you are not willing to stand up and proclaim your situation and stand up for your rights, then why do you expect me too?

 

If I thought your intentions were even the slightest bit genuine, I would not have a problem telling you everything you wanted to know, including the company in question. But I don't think your intentions are genuine and furthermore, I think your questions are disingenuous.  Based on your comments, I think it's just a big dog and pony show for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Because church's are generally free to believe what they want to believe and choose which ceremonies to preside over.  Churches are not places of public accommodation- what they believe is central to their being.  If a church's beliefs are anti-gay, so be it.  If I were gay (and religious), I would probably find a new church.  Looking for logic in church policy...

 

DanB, I hope you don't feel too jumped on here.  But as you've heard from several of the gay posters, this is not just an abstract issue for many.  This is not just some gradual erosion of legislative/constitutional tradition, or an abstract affront to one's religious views- this is part of a set of issues that literally limits how certain citizens are able to participate in society.  I can certainly understand why people get emotional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Because church's are generally free to believe what they want to believe and choose which ceremonies to preside over.  Churches are not places of public accommodation- what they believe is central to their being.  If a church's beliefs are anti-gay, so be it.  If I were gay (and religious), I would probably find a new church.

 

I understand that, but can a church deny women or blacks, etc to come to their ceremonies?  Is this legal?  If so, then theoretically they can get away with whatever they want as long as its under their 'belief' umbrella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it's related to the topic at hand. Can churches choose to not provide ceremonies to people based on their religious tenets. Could a church refuse to marry someone, for instance, because they're African American? Or wheelchair-bound? Or, and I think this speaks more to their religious beliefs, because they're Jewish and the congregation is not? Not making an argument here - literally asking. Haven't heard any case law on this topic.

 

The reason it's pertinent is that if churches CAN choose who they marry based on their religious doctrines, then it stands to reason that laws allowing gay marriage would not infringe on the religious rights of those who are opposed to the practice. Churches could decide whether to marry gay couples or not. As is, the state is prohibiting churches from marrying gay people even if their particular religious beliefs allow this to take place. If churches would be forced to marry gay couples, regardless of their beliefs, then I can understand the hesitation and see why civil unions might be an acceptable alternative.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I thought your intentions were even the slightest bit genuine, I would not have a problem telling you everything you wanted to know, including the company in question. But I don't think your intentions are genuine and furthermore, I think your questions are disingenuous.  Based on your comments, I think it's just a big dog and pony show for you.

 

PToD, you don't know me, you don't know anything about my life.  You have nothing to base that on.  I was just participating in the discussion, looking for honest answers or honest debate as to why I should change my opinion.  I enjoy a good debate, arguement, whatever you want to call it.  You post a story about how you have been discriminated against without giving any facts, and you're right; you don't owe me any answers.  You were posting in direct response to me.  I just tried to carry on the discussion.  You see, I am shocked that this could happen in a major corporation in this day and age.  If you think I am naive, so be it; but believe me, I'm not the only one.  All the laws in the world won't protect people from discrimination.  You still need to change the mindset.  I'm a good person to start with; middle age white Republican male.

 

I didn't think you guys wanted to just have a celebration of the house passage of this bill without any discussion.  That was my mistake.  I'll stop posting in this topic if you want, and you can all get back to your party.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Umbrella thread on gay issues relating to Ohio mainly, but it has jumped the shark so to speak.

 

^ True, all the laws won't protect from discrimination. We still have African Americans and women that are discriminated through wage differentials, compared to white men. We still have people fired for being of color, or for giving birth (sadly, some still do this), or for being gay, and what have you. But by instituting a law, we can step up the ante of pressure on corporations to clean up their acts and criminalize those that unfairly punish the 'minorities'.

 

This thread wasn't a "celebration" of the house passage bill. It was a post regarding equal rights for gays, and I put in () that it was a catch all thread for related topics. Given that Ohio had anti-gay policies under the Taft administration, and that it looks like it can be reversed with the present one, there will be a lot more topics and discussions regarding this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY Hillary Clinton  :bang:

 

John Nichols: Gay lawmakers line up to support Clinton

By John Nichols, The Capital Times, November 15, 2007

 

Both openly gay members of Congress have now endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

The New York senator secured the support of Tammy Baldwin, the Wisconsin congresswoman who is the only out lesbian in the House, months ago. And this week Clinton gained the enthusiastic endorsement of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, the only out gay man currently serving in the chamber.

 

Frank specifically hailed Clinton's support for gay and lesbian rights in announcing his decision to back the woman who currently leads in national polling in the Democratic race and who is the front-runner in most early caucus and primary states.

 

The Massachusetts Democrat said that he is "convinced that Hillary Clinton is the candidate best equipped to pass laws that will treat all Americans with dignity, fairness and equality no matter who they are or who they love."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it's related to the topic at hand. Can churches choose to not provide ceremonies to people based on their religious tenets. Could a church refuse to marry someone, for instance, because they're African American? Or wheelchair-bound? Or, and I think this speaks more to their religious beliefs, because they're Jewish and the congregation is not? Not making an argument here - literally asking. Haven't heard any case law on this topic.

 

The reason it's pertinent is that if churches CAN choose who they marry based on their religious doctrines, then it stands to reason that laws allowing gay marriage would not infringe on the religious rights of those who are opposed to the practice. Churches could decide whether to marry gay couples or not. As is, the state is prohibiting churches from marrying gay people even if their particular religious beliefs allow this to take place. If churches would be forced to marry gay couples, regardless of their beliefs, then I can understand the hesitation and see why civil unions might be an acceptable alternative.

 

 

There's a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage.  Even if you get married in a church (religious marriage,) you still have to apply for a marriage license (civil marriage) for it to be recognized by the state ("state" as in government in general, not specifically Ohio.)  I believe churches can do what they want as far as religious weddings go- even allow gay couples to have a religious ceremony- because without the marriage license, it doesn't legally mean anything.  If civil marriages were allowed, I still don't think churches would be forced to marry gay couples if they didn't want to, because they're private, religious organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the hold-up with the term marriage is that, in general, it is an institution of the church. The government should never have been in the business of using that term where 'civil unions' would be adequate.

 

People are against marriage for homosexual couples because of their religious indoctrination-the bible, and most other religious texts, specifically prohibit same-sex activities. There is no way around it, and there is no way you are going to convince church leaders to change their teachings.

 

A civil union is the more appropriate term/activity. It allows room for the state to provide legal methods for shared benefits and equality under law.

 

--------------------

 

As for equal protection laws....

 

There is still a debate for some people as to whether being gay/lesbian is an 'in-born trait' or a life choice. If you believe that it is an in-born trait, then there is no question that equal protection should be provided. However, if you believe that homosexuality is a choice (as in, one day you wake up and decide you are gay), then it is understandable that people would be hesitant to create a protected class for people who chose to be that way.

 

Now, personally, I think it is asinine to think that someone would just up and decide to be gay. I'm not gay, but I imagine it isn't something that is always easy to live with. This may sound bigoted, but why would someone chose to be gay and live such a difficult life?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may sound bigoted, but why would someone chose to be gay and live such a difficult life?

 

Mostly for the solid appreciation one builds for disco divas, I suppose.

 

There is no way around it, and there is no way you are going to convince church leaders to change their teachings.

 

I wouldn't want them too, honestly. I don't have an interest in having the most intimate ceremony of my life taking place in a church that doesn't welcome me. That being said, the religious beliefs of one subset of religious groups shouldn't set the tone for public policy unless there's some compelling rationale regarding the public good, above and beyond moral beliefs. In other words, the teachings of Our Lady of the Perpetual Fear of Fagg*ts shouldn't influence how gays are treated legally any more or less than the teachings of The Donna Summer Lovers Tabernacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, the teachings of Our Lady of the Perpetual Fear of Faggots shouldn't influence how gays are treated legally any more or less than the teachings of The Donna Summer Lovers Tabernacle.

 

Okay, that just made my day. Quote of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still a debate for some people as to whether being gay/lesbian is an 'in-born trait' or a life choice. If you believe that it is an in-born trait, then there is no question that equal protection should be provided. However, if you believe that homosexuality is a choice (as in, one day you wake up and decide you are gay), then it is understandable that people would be hesitant to create a protected class for people who chose to be that way.

 

What is debated is if it is a learned behavior or if is something you are born with. While the jury is still out on that one, one thing most Psychologists do agree on is that one's orientation can't be changed. So like you said, no, no one wakes up one day and says "I'll be gay today."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more commentary on the gay rights issue in Dayton, commentary from the Dayton Daily News columnist Mary McCarty:

 

Ministers' logic on gay rights topsy-turvy

 

By Mary McCarty

 

Staff Writer

 

Thursday, November 15, 2007

 

At times I felt like Alice in Wonderland on Tuesday afternoon at a press conference during which representatives of the International Ministerial Alliance denounced a proposed ordinance granting gays and lesbians equal protection against discrimination. The Rev. Wilburt Shanklin, president of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, said the city commission is "trampling on the blood of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and on the blood of the suffragettes."

 

When I asked commissioner Matt Joseph about Shanklin's comment, his first reaction was, "Wow. Oh my goodness."

 

What more can you say? The logic is so topsy-turvy it leaves you speechless: Legislation aimed at ending discrimination is somehow dishonoring the memory of our civil rights heroes.

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/oh/story/opinions/columns/2007/11/14/ddn111507mary.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Issue 1 read "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." That last part is intended to render useless the legal documents used by gays to prove things like co-habitation, joint accounts, etc. So, by voting in favor of Issue 1, you have voted into law that gay couples - no matter how committed and devoted - are not deserving of the "design, qualities, significance or effects" of marriage.

 

I was wondering how this will affect POAs? It seems that it could void them?  I think wills are OK thought.

 

Seriously....this is a big issue  for gay couples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our company then merged  and the result was that I began reporting to a new manger from the other company. One day this manager pulled me into her office and told me that my lifestyle was in direct opposition of her religious beliefs and I was terminated. I contacted a lawyer who said that in Ohio you are an at will employee and there is no legal recourse for being fired for being gay. He said that he would contact some local civil rights organizations to see if there was anything he could do, but in the end there wasn't.

 

Ah-ha, that explains this thread and and this one, too

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On edit, given what PTOD said and knowing the Dayton area, there are only two large corporations in this area that have protections:  NCR and GM.  Maybe Delphi, but they dont count as they are closing.

 

Believe it or not, Lexis-Nexis does not have such a policy, nor do any other large infotech corps, except SAIC (but they are here for defense contracting purposes, so security clearance requirements moots antidisrimination policy).

 

The problem with this proposed Dayton ordnance is that it only covers the city, which is not a big employment center anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to marriage, yes to adoption.  Now convince me otherwise.  I'm the type of guy whose mind you have to change!  I'm flexible, but I'm entitled to my beliefs. 

 

There's no need to convince idiots, this is why I'm burned out on this kind of shit. I shouldn't have to convince you why I should be able to get married any more than you should have to convince me why we shouldn't genocide mindless robotic "humans"  (in the most painless way of course) who demonstrate that they are just living by instinct by "thinking" that adhering to a belief=obligatory legislation of that belief. Believe that gays shouldn't have the right to be married, that's fine, you can debate that while it's legal. You want to marry some 18 year old drug addicted whore or what have you? I don't give a shit and the government shouldn't either, nevermind if that whore has a penis or a vagina. And don't expect a response, because I've already wasted enough time on intellectual midgets. What happened in Massachusetts after all these years? Oh that's right: nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...halfhearted applause, as this came so late.  Dayton is not a leader in acceptance of the GLBTs

 

Dayton commission passes anti-discrimination law

 

By Joanne Huist Smith

 

Staff Writer

 

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

 

DAYTON — The gay and lesbian community got long-sought protection under the city's anti-discrimination law Wednesday night.

 

"Justice delayed is justice denied. It's time to do the right thing," Mayor Rhine McLin said Wednesday.

The City Commission voted 3-1 to add sexual orientation and gender identity to a list of protected groups. Commissioner Dean Lovelace was the sole "no" vote. McLin and Commissioners Matt Joseph and Nan Whaley voted for the measure. Joey Williams requested additional dialogue and did not vote.

 

"The (City Commission) is keeping Dayton on the cutting edge," Roger McKay, president and founder of Diversity Dayton said. "This shows the city wants to be inclusive."

 

source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhine McLin get's a ration of sh!t from the various Dayton bloggers and newspaper commenters, but it turns out she has a bit more spine than one is lead to believe:

 

Mayor Rhine McLin's statement on anti-discrimination law

 

 

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

 

I have been challenged by friends on both sides to make the right decision. Clearly, the right decision for me personally would be to "abstain" or find some obscure rationale to vote "no."

 

This would be politically expedient, but would it be the right thing to do as mayor of the city of Dayton? In searching my soul, I have been renewed by the words of Coretta Scott King.

 

"I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible. Like Martin, I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others."

 

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the hold-up with the term marriage is that, in general, it is an institution of the church. The government should never have been in the business of using that term where 'civil unions' would be adequate.

 

People are against marriage for homosexual couples because of their religious indoctrination-the bible, and most other religious texts, specifically prohibit same-sex activities. There is no way around it, and there is no way you are going to convince church leaders to change their teachings.

 

A civil union is the more appropriate term/activity. It allows room for the state to provide legal methods for shared benefits and equality under law.

 

 

:roll: My religion already has laid claim to the term "Civil Union" and only bi-sexuals are allowed to use that term according to my beliefs.  It would be innappropriate for a straight or gay couple to claim that they have a civil union as it would offend my religious teachings.  IT'S MINE... my term... get away from it!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some gay couples are having trouble obtaining divorces

4/15/2008, 3:52 p.m. ET

By RAY HENRY

The Associated Press

 

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Gay couples had to struggle mightily to win the right to marry or form civil unions. Now, some are finding that breaking up is hard to do, too.

 

In Rhode Island, for example, the state's top court ruled in December that gays married in neighboring Massachusetts can't get divorced here because lawmakers have never defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman. In Missouri, a judge is deciding whether a lesbian married in Massachusetts can get an annulment.

 

"We all know people who have gone through divorces. At the end of that long and unhappy period, they have been able to breathe a sigh of relief," said Cassandra Ormiston of Rhode Island, who is splitting from her wife, Margaret Chambers. But "I do not see that on my horizon, that sigh of relief that it's over."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-102/1208281757108880.xml&storylist=national

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how you slice it the reality is that a lot of the rights that GLBT people should have will come about as a result of what happens in the business world and on an international front.  As I see it the United States can either get on board or fall behind other countries.  We're p!ssing around with choice/no choice/will the priest be required to marry gay people  -- Please, get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news. What is that, 10 down, 40 to go? And good to see Schwarzenegger being more of an advocate for gay cause (or at the very least, respecting the integrity of the court's decision).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news. What is that, 10 down, 40 to go? And good to see Schwarzenegger being more of an advocate for gay cause (or at the very least, respecting the integrity of the court's decision).

 

Bingo!  I couldn't agree more.    No dear, unfortunately only TWO states allow.  I can pay taxes, fight in the military, but I can't plan and have the god damn fabulous wedding or all weddings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 for marriage (California and Massachusetts), but 4 for civil unions (Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont) and 4 with domestic partnership and/or reciprocal benefit laws (Hawaii, Maine, Oregon and Washington ... and DC). Not the same thing, but all of these afford basically the same rights, at least to the best of my understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Ohio can repeal it's Gay Marriage Ban. Some good news out of Minnesota.

 


No link for this article.


 

Well, relatively good news. I really don't understand the logic behind preventing gays to marry. Is it really that big of a deal? If you don't like it, don't go to the wedding.

 


Edit: I was browsing current.tv when I came across this article.

 

U.S. - gay marriage opponents to fight California ruling

 

SAN FRANCISCO - Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation's most populous state.

 

http://www.current.com/e/http://current.com/items/88958176_u_s_gay_marriage_opponents_to_fight_california_ruling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike Ohio, I think the GLBT community + allies have a chance in this Califas amendment fight, and am thinking of directing some political contributions their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizens have never been equal under the law. That's the first thing I learned in "Sociology of Law". Law represents the views of those who make them until finally people rebel but they go on to introduce more laws in favor of the rich and powerful. It's like a cycle. We need more gay lawmakers and interpreters. Maybe they could spruce the stale courtrooms up a bit, to boot. We would be a more democratic nation and everyone would win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find it interesting, or even ironic, that this "issue" (which it shouldn't be, in my opinion) is showing it's head AGAIN, the last time being exactly four years ago, when George Bush the lesser was running for reelection?  This is a Republican strategy that worked to their benefit during the last election; hopefully, people are fed up enough to see through the smokescreen and vote on other issues besides which leader is "morally" and "religiously' like most of the voters in this country during this election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"hopefully, people are fed up enough to see through the smokescreen and vote on other issues besides which leader is "morally" and "religiously' like most of the voters in this country during this election."

 

I wish I had that kind of faith in humanity, but I don't. I can only imagine how the gay community will be demonized this time around :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And most of those people are homophobic. Like my friends who accuse me of being gay for having gay friends. *yawn*

 

Law doesn't like change and I'm the loudmouth who plans to do something about that.

 

I think California is at least a step forward, especially with the proposition of there being no residency requirements. My friend is in the process of adopting and of course it makes no damn sense to start a family and NOT be allowed to get married.

 

Also, if the term "marriage" contains too much religious baggage then explain why so many married straight people are non-religious? You wanna talk about degrading the spiritual and religious element of marriage; it's not uncommon to spontaneously get married in Vegas for Gods sake; many straight people have already ruined the sanctity of marriage yet many gays in relationships that couldn't be more traditional are discriminated against. Injustice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again, with politicians trying to push the public's attention away from the real issues facing the nation, and creating an issue that shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

 

Ohio's own, Ken Blackwell  :roll:, is on it as well.

 

Blackwell says gay marriage will be 2008 election issue

Posted by Sabrina Eaton May 29, 2008 14:08PM

Categories: Elections

Ken Blackwell

 

Gay marriage will become a central issue in the 2008 presidential elections along with Iraq and the economy, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell predicted this morning at a press briefing hosted by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group.

 

"I don't think you get to 270 electoral votes by being on the wrong side of this issue," said Blackwell, adding that gay marriage is particularly important to socially conservative Latino voters, as well as working-class white and black voters.

 

Blackwell said a recent court decision that legalized gay marriage in California will shift the "narrative" of the 2008 elections, from a focus on war and the economy to "redeeming the culture." Gay marriage opponents are attempting put a constitutional amendment on California's ballot in November that would overturn the ruling.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/05/blackwell_says_gay_marriage_wi.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well if you know that blackwell is involved, it should taken with a grain of salt.  However, the gay - ass backward issue and thinking - keeps Ohio as a whole behind the times and unwelcoming and turns away gays, their money and businesses.

 

If it were not for the gay issues, Ohio would not have been a red state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a load of this crap.  The problem seems to be the "watchers" inability to explain to their children what is going on.  WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE.


Lesbian kisses at game ignite Seattle debate

 

SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- Most of the time, a kiss is just a kiss in the stands at Seattle Mariners games. The crowd hardly even pays attention when fans smooch.

 

But last week, a lesbian complained that an usher at Safeco Field asked her to stop kissing her date because it was making another fan uncomfortable.

 

The incident has exploded on local TV, on talk radio and in the blogosphere and has touched off a debate over public displays of affection in generally gay-friendly Seattle.

 

http://www.ap.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HaHa... That reminds me... I was gone away from Cincinnati a few days last week, The first thing I seen when we came off the 471 exit was two girls kiss before they walked across the street holding hands. I said "welcome back to Cincinnati" The guy who was driving says "Thats why they call it the Queen city". That is not the first time I've seen pda from same sex couples here in Cincinnati. The most memorable moment couldn't be appropriately described in detail on this forum, but then again oral sex might not be appropriate in the lobby of a hotel either. Two girls  :-D, I wasn't complaining...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...